What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bible?
- Thread starter brandplucked
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
That's another KJV-only false teaching. The Hebrew/Greek is in print:
Trinitarian Bible Society
Hebrew/Greek Bible (original Biblical languages)
"This vinyl-covered hardback is a unique Trinitarian publication, bringing together in one volume the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the Authorised Version and other Reformation-era translations."
That's another KJV-only false teaching. The Hebrew/Greek is in print:
Trinitarian Bible Society
Hebrew/Greek Bible (original Biblical languages)
"This vinyl-covered hardback is a unique Trinitarian publication, bringing together in one volume the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the Authorised Version and other Reformation-era translations."
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
His most dread Soveraigne Majesty King Iames by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. demandeth thy appearance at court of Star Chamber to answer for charges of Cambridgian heresy.
only cAMBRIDGE 2ND EDITION WITHOUT APOCRYPHA 
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament version has ALL the manuscripts and variations. Including some of the later manuscripts which King James Bible used, because they did not have access to the earlier manuscripts which are in the USB version.
My Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament version also has all the known Hebrew variations.
So I guess those two scholarly sources pretty much cover "the" Hebrew and Greek texts!!
I prefer to read a variety of Bibles and compare them to the original texts. Consistently, I find the ESV to be closest to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. But not always. Anymore than KJV.
However, I love to read the Bible in any version, and also in French and Spanish. Translators have bias and they are able to inject it into the words, including KJV. But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't true, it is!
God is infallible and has inspired the text! That means the truth of the gospel can come out in any version. I was reading a Catholic Bible when God sovereignly saved me! God's Word is Jesus Christ, and the Bible is the revelation of that truth.
(PS. I am not and never have been Catholic. Just picked up the Bible and found it to be an easy version for an unsaved person to read. Oh yes, I can't stand Shakespeare - too much weird and archaic language!!)
The United Bible Societies Greek New Testament version has ALL the manuscripts and variations. Including some of the later manuscripts which King James Bible used, because they did not have access to the earlier manuscripts which are in the USB version.
My Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament version also has all the known Hebrew variations.
So I guess those two scholarly sources pretty much cover "the" Hebrew and Greek texts!!
I prefer to read a variety of Bibles and compare them to the original texts. Consistently, I find the ESV to be closest to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. But not always. Anymore than KJV.
However, I love to read the Bible in any version, and also in French and Spanish. Translators have bias and they are able to inject it into the words, including KJV. But that doesn't mean the Bible isn't true, it is!
God is infallible and has inspired the text! That means the truth of the gospel can come out in any version. I was reading a Catholic Bible when God sovereignly saved me! God's Word is Jesus Christ, and the Bible is the revelation of that truth.
(PS. I am not and never have been Catholic. Just picked up the Bible and found it to be an easy version for an unsaved person to read. Oh yes, I can't stand Shakespeare - too much weird and archaic language!!)
E
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
The KJV, NIV, NASV, and any other translation in any other language of the world that is translated by Godly men and woman are all complete, inspired and infallible words of God. The differences are so minor that I think we should rather give thanks to God that for 2000 years we have His inspired word for people around the world in many languages.
The KJV, NIV, NASV, and any other translation in any other language of the world that is translated by Godly men and woman are all complete, inspired and infallible words of God. The differences are so minor that I think we should rather give thanks to God that for 2000 years we have His inspired word for people around the world in many languages.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Praus, your list of examples are mere spelling changes. The underlying text of the King James Bible have never been changed or revised. Your examples of spelling changes are the bible agnostics last ditch effort to try to prove there is no infallible Bible. I address these points with many examples in "The Printing Error Ploy"
Printing Errors - Another King James Bible Believer
This is sharp contrast to such modern versions like the NKJVs, NIVs, NASBs, ESVs, etc. that DELIBERATELY keep changing both their English texts and even the underlying Hebrew and Greek from one edition to the next. ALL these modern versions continue to intentionally change their texts. The 1995 NASB has omitted some 7000 words that were in the 1977 NASB. The ESV 2001 has already been revised in 2007 where they changed over 300 verses from the previous ESV and now in 2010 the NIV has once again been revised and they tell us they have changed about 10% of the verses from the way they read in the 1984 NIV edition, and they change not only the English text but in some places also the underlying Greek and Hebrew.
The ESV
The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer
The NASB
ever changing NASBs - Another King James Bible Believer
The NKJV
NKJV Word Changes - Another King James Bible Believer
What about the "new" NIV 2011?
What about the NIV 2011? - Another King James Bible Believer
There are three changes to the King James Bible since 1611.
1. 1612: Typography ( from Gothic to Roman type).
2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.
3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.
Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).
Praus, your list of examples are mere spelling changes. The underlying text of the King James Bible have never been changed or revised. Your examples of spelling changes are the bible agnostics last ditch effort to try to prove there is no infallible Bible. I address these points with many examples in "The Printing Error Ploy"
Printing Errors - Another King James Bible Believer
This is sharp contrast to such modern versions like the NKJVs, NIVs, NASBs, ESVs, etc. that DELIBERATELY keep changing both their English texts and even the underlying Hebrew and Greek from one edition to the next. ALL these modern versions continue to intentionally change their texts. The 1995 NASB has omitted some 7000 words that were in the 1977 NASB. The ESV 2001 has already been revised in 2007 where they changed over 300 verses from the previous ESV and now in 2010 the NIV has once again been revised and they tell us they have changed about 10% of the verses from the way they read in the 1984 NIV edition, and they change not only the English text but in some places also the underlying Greek and Hebrew.
The ESV
The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer
The NASB
ever changing NASBs - Another King James Bible Believer
The NKJV
NKJV Word Changes - Another King James Bible Believer
What about the "new" NIV 2011?
What about the NIV 2011? - Another King James Bible Believer
There are three changes to the King James Bible since 1611.
1. 1612: Typography ( from Gothic to Roman type).
2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.
3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.
Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
My list of example is how you changed the spelling from what you wrote is AV 1611, not the spelling updates since that time. You are confusing the godliness of the KJV translators with your own deceptiveness. Please show the place in your post that specified you were writing about a 1762 or 1769 KJV, because all I can see is "AV 1611".
My list of example is how you changed the spelling from what you wrote is AV 1611, not the spelling updates since that time. You are confusing the godliness of the KJV translators with your own deceptiveness. Please show the place in your post that specified you were writing about a 1762 or 1769 KJV, because all I can see is "AV 1611".
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Starcrash. First of all, there is NO "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek. If you have it, then show it to us please.
Praus posts: "That's another KJV-only false teaching. The Hebrew/Greek is in print:
Originally Posted by brandplucked
Hi Starcrash. First of all, there is NO "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek. If you have it, then show it to us please.
Trinitarian Bible Society
Hebrew/Greek Bible (original Biblical languages)
"This vinyl-covered hardback is a unique Trinitarian publication, bringing together in one volume the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the Authorised Version and other Reformation-era translations."
Hi Praus. You, sir, are not paying attention to detail and language. What I said and still say is there there is no such thing as "THE" Hebrew and much less "THE" Greek. There are literally thousands of variants among the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. All you did was to give us ONE example of the many that are out there in print of A particular Hebrew and A particular Greek text. That is not THE Hebrew and Greek anymore than you are THE only man on the face of the earth.
Secondly, do you honestly believe that THE particular Trinitarian Bible Society's version of the TR is the infallible words of God and when any version is based on different texts, then those versions are NOT the infallible words of God? Is this your belief or are you just posting for the sake of adding you own confusion to this discussion? Please answer. Thank you.
Hi Starcrash. First of all, there is NO "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek. If you have it, then show it to us please.
Praus posts: "That's another KJV-only false teaching. The Hebrew/Greek is in print:
Hi Starcrash. First of all, there is NO "the" Hebrew and much less "the" Greek. If you have it, then show it to us please.
Trinitarian Bible Society
Hebrew/Greek Bible (original Biblical languages)
"This vinyl-covered hardback is a unique Trinitarian publication, bringing together in one volume the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the Authorised Version and other Reformation-era translations."
Hi Praus. You, sir, are not paying attention to detail and language. What I said and still say is there there is no such thing as "THE" Hebrew and much less "THE" Greek. There are literally thousands of variants among the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. All you did was to give us ONE example of the many that are out there in print of A particular Hebrew and A particular Greek text. That is not THE Hebrew and Greek anymore than you are THE only man on the face of the earth.
Secondly, do you honestly believe that THE particular Trinitarian Bible Society's version of the TR is the infallible words of God and when any version is based on different texts, then those versions are NOT the infallible words of God? Is this your belief or are you just posting for the sake of adding you own confusion to this discussion? Please answer. Thank you.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Hi, brandplucked. Looking back through my post, I am assured that I didn't claim that there was a "the" Hebrew or "the" Greek... what I said was that you contradicted yourself by claiming that there was a "the" English. There are certainly popular (dare I say "authoritative"?) versions of the Hebrew and Greek bible, but that doesn't make them the only ones worthy of note. By the same standard, one should not make this argument about any one English version. When you make the claim that one version of the English bible is superior, then you open yourself to allowing someone to argue for the superiority of a specific foreign-language version (as has been done in the past few posts... thanks Praus).
I am on the side that there is "NO complete and infallible Bible", and that's because fallibility in the bible is rather easy to find (in any version). The KJV, though, has some extra fallibilities that modern versions don't, such as the claims to the existence of dragons, satyrs, cockatrices, and unicorns. But is this going to change your position at all? You didn't even offer any evidence for the KJV being infallible, much less being "less fallible" than other versions. You argued mainly for its popularity, as if popularity was synonymous with truth.
You falsely assume that I'm arguing for "better" versions... I was merely critiquing your own argument and showing you the faulty logic inside of it.
Hi, brandplucked. Looking back through my post, I am assured that I didn't claim that there was a "the" Hebrew or "the" Greek... what I said was that you contradicted yourself by claiming that there was a "the" English. There are certainly popular (dare I say "authoritative"?) versions of the Hebrew and Greek bible, but that doesn't make them the only ones worthy of note. By the same standard, one should not make this argument about any one English version. When you make the claim that one version of the English bible is superior, then you open yourself to allowing someone to argue for the superiority of a specific foreign-language version (as has been done in the past few posts... thanks Praus).
I am on the side that there is "NO complete and infallible Bible", and that's because fallibility in the bible is rather easy to find (in any version). The KJV, though, has some extra fallibilities that modern versions don't, such as the claims to the existence of dragons, satyrs, cockatrices, and unicorns. But is this going to change your position at all? You didn't even offer any evidence for the KJV being infallible, much less being "less fallible" than other versions. You argued mainly for its popularity, as if popularity was synonymous with truth.
You falsely assume that I'm arguing for "better" versions... I was merely critiquing your own argument and showing you the faulty logic inside of it.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Hi Starcrash. Well, at least you are more honest than most bible agnostics who aren't sure and do not know for a certainty what God wrote. You admitted that you do not believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God. At least your are honest; mistaken... but honest.
Then you post: "I am on the side that there is "NO complete and infallible Bible", and that's because fallibility in the bible is rather easy to find (in any version). The KJV, though, has some extra fallibilities that modern versions don't, such as the claims to the existence of dragons, satyrs, cockatrices, and unicorns."
Well, star, these are NOT errors at all. It's just that you have not studied these topics in depth or else your own unbelief in the infallibility of the Bible has blinded you. Here are some things you may want to re-consider about "dragons, satyrs, cockatrices and unicorns."
Sat,Drag,Unicorns - Another King James Bible Believer
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38
God bless.
Hi Starcrash. Well, at least you are more honest than most bible agnostics who aren't sure and do not know for a certainty what God wrote. You admitted that you do not believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God. At least your are honest; mistaken... but honest.
Then you post: "I am on the side that there is "NO complete and infallible Bible", and that's because fallibility in the bible is rather easy to find (in any version). The KJV, though, has some extra fallibilities that modern versions don't, such as the claims to the existence of dragons, satyrs, cockatrices, and unicorns."
Well, star, these are NOT errors at all. It's just that you have not studied these topics in depth or else your own unbelief in the infallibility of the Bible has blinded you. Here are some things you may want to re-consider about "dragons, satyrs, cockatrices and unicorns."
Sat,Drag,Unicorns - Another King James Bible Believer
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38
God bless.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
That "one example" is the Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus, is it that bad?
I quote myself:
How could any English translation be perfect? Four Greek words map onto one English word: love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
The English language cannot produce a perfect translation, unless one invents words, then it's not English anymore. The very existence of that page on English-language Wikipedia is evidence.
The closest to the perfect Bible in English is, of course, the one on my hard drive, based on the c. 1900 KJV Pure Cambridge Edition. It's neither in print nor available on the internet.
It's more fun to read, of course, Exodus has names like Mosheh, ˀAharown, and Miryam, instead of Moses, Aaron and Miriam. In the NT one can see how Peter Simon has one Greek name and one Aramaic name--Petros Shimˁown, and the Apostle Paul corresponds--Paulos Shaˀuwl.
It's done very deliberately according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, according to Plato's Phaedo and Crito, etc. because it's a Bible built on Pauline Christianity, not Judaism, not Beza's Calvinism, not Luther's hatred of the Book of James.
The KJV Pure Cambridge Edition:
Mark 14:37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?
Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
Praus Bible:
Mark 14:37 And He cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Petros, Shimˁown, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?
Acts 13:9 Then Shaˀuwl, (who also [is called] Paulos,) filled with the Holy Spirit, set his eyes on him,
Which Bible better shows the deity of Jesus Christ by capitalizing the word "He" in Mark 14:37?
Which Bible doesn't waste even one moment arguing to use the Holy Ghost in some places and the Holy Spirit in others?
Which Bible shows the interplay of Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic culture in first century Christianity? By using Greek roots, it's naturally anti-Judaizing.
It's still a work in progress so in the meantime I recommend especially the following excellent study Bibles: NKJV, NASB, ESV, KJV Pure Cambridge Edition, KJV 1611. The NIV is excellent also but not literal enough to qualify as a true study Bible.
Which Bible do you think is the closest to perfect?
The KJV which denies the divinity of Christ?
John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it]. (KJV PCE)
The Jehovah's Witness bible?
John 14:14 If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it. (NWT)
The latest NIV which asserts the divinity of Christ?
John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. (NIV 2011)
Pre- and post-Vatican II Catholic Bibles also assert the divinity of Christ.
John 14:14 If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do. (DRC 1899)
John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. (NJ 1985)
Or the Praus Bible? It's based on the KJV, but it asserts the divinity of Christ and further asserts it by capitalizing "Me" and "My".
John 14:14 If ye shall ask Me any thing in My name, I will do [it].
That "one example" is the Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus, is it that bad?
I quote myself:
I prefer to be called KJV-best.
Or you could call me a TBS-cultist if you like. (Trinitarian Bible Society).
"The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."
Or you could call me a TBS-cultist if you like.
(Trinitarian Bible Society)."The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love
The English language cannot produce a perfect translation, unless one invents words, then it's not English anymore. The very existence of that page on English-language Wikipedia is evidence.
The closest to the perfect Bible in English is, of course, the one on my hard drive, based on the c. 1900 KJV Pure Cambridge Edition. It's neither in print nor available on the internet.
It's more fun to read, of course, Exodus has names like Mosheh, ˀAharown, and Miryam, instead of Moses, Aaron and Miriam. In the NT one can see how Peter Simon has one Greek name and one Aramaic name--Petros Shimˁown, and the Apostle Paul corresponds--Paulos Shaˀuwl.
It's done very deliberately according to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, according to Plato's Phaedo and Crito, etc. because it's a Bible built on Pauline Christianity, not Judaism, not Beza's Calvinism, not Luther's hatred of the Book of James.
The KJV Pure Cambridge Edition:
Mark 14:37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?
Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also [is called] Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
Praus Bible:
Mark 14:37 And He cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Petros, Shimˁown, sleepest thou? couldest not thou watch one hour?
Acts 13:9 Then Shaˀuwl, (who also [is called] Paulos,) filled with the Holy Spirit, set his eyes on him,
Which Bible better shows the deity of Jesus Christ by capitalizing the word "He" in Mark 14:37?
Which Bible doesn't waste even one moment arguing to use the Holy Ghost in some places and the Holy Spirit in others?
Which Bible shows the interplay of Greek, Hebrew & Aramaic culture in first century Christianity? By using Greek roots, it's naturally anti-Judaizing.
It's still a work in progress so in the meantime I recommend especially the following excellent study Bibles: NKJV, NASB, ESV, KJV Pure Cambridge Edition, KJV 1611. The NIV is excellent also but not literal enough to qualify as a true study Bible.
Which Bible do you think is the closest to perfect?
The KJV which denies the divinity of Christ?
John 14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do [it]. (KJV PCE)
The Jehovah's Witness bible?
John 14:14 If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it. (NWT)
The latest NIV which asserts the divinity of Christ?
John 14:14 You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. (NIV 2011)
Pre- and post-Vatican II Catholic Bibles also assert the divinity of Christ.
John 14:14 If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do. (DRC 1899)
John 14:14 If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. (NJ 1985)
Or the Praus Bible? It's based on the KJV, but it asserts the divinity of Christ and further asserts it by capitalizing "Me" and "My".
John 14:14 If ye shall ask Me any thing in My name, I will do [it].
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Jesus made it simple for us i belive ,the holyspirit teaches us what the scripture even mean to begin with without the Comforter how would you know what it means ??? i perfer kjv & reina valera i belive they are inspire but if anyone enjoy the nkjv esv niv nasv or catholic version go ahead read it .make up your mind and give the ok ,this is God word let the holyspirit lead ya to all truth .The holyspirt leads us to all truth he is the truth John 14:26
now john 5:39 clearly explains to us ,searching the scripture cannot give us eternal life , because only Christ Jesus can
King James Bible
John 5:39-40 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Enought about the kjv only or any other issues on this matter.
Let us all pick up our cross ,and Follow our Lord Jesus Christ and follow his commandment to love, to tell everyone about the good news in Christ.
God bless
Jesus made it simple for us i belive ,the holyspirit teaches us what the scripture even mean to begin with without the Comforter how would you know what it means ??? i perfer kjv & reina valera i belive they are inspire but if anyone enjoy the nkjv esv niv nasv or catholic version go ahead read it .make up your mind and give the ok ,this is God word let the holyspirit lead ya to all truth .The holyspirt leads us to all truth he is the truth John 14:26
now john 5:39 clearly explains to us ,searching the scripture cannot give us eternal life , because only Christ Jesus can
King James Bible
John 5:39-40 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
Enought about the kjv only or any other issues on this matter.
Let us all pick up our cross ,and Follow our Lord Jesus Christ and follow his commandment to love, to tell everyone about the good news in Christ.
God bless
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Praus posts: " How could any English translation be perfect? Four Greek words map onto one English word: love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love"
OK, Praus, let's see if you really know what you are talking about. Briefly tell us what these alleged 4 words are and how many of them are in the New Testament. Then BRIEFLY please explain the difference in meaning and we will then see if there is anything of value to what you have to say or if it is pure ignorance and Baloney. OK? Are you willing to give it a shot? Thanks. By the way, that last one was humorous. At least, it gave me a chuckle.
Or the Praus Bible? It's based on the KJV, but it asserts the divinity of Christ and further asserts it by capitalizing "Me" and "My".
John 14:14 If ye shall ask Me any thing in My name, I will do [it].
"The Praus Bible" huh? You should just write your own bible version and be done with it.
It seems that every body these daze thinks he’s an expert, and nobody agrees with anybody else about what “should be” in the Bible and what shouldn’t be in it or how it “should be” translated once we finally get to the point of being in agreement (which they are not) on what texts “should be” even IN the Bible to begin with.
Hey, wait....This sounds familiar. Oh, yeah, now I remember...”In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25
Praus posts: " How could any English translation be perfect? Four Greek words map onto one English word: love.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love"
OK, Praus, let's see if you really know what you are talking about. Briefly tell us what these alleged 4 words are and how many of them are in the New Testament. Then BRIEFLY please explain the difference in meaning and we will then see if there is anything of value to what you have to say or if it is pure ignorance and Baloney. OK? Are you willing to give it a shot? Thanks. By the way, that last one was humorous. At least, it gave me a chuckle.
Or the Praus Bible? It's based on the KJV, but it asserts the divinity of Christ and further asserts it by capitalizing "Me" and "My".
John 14:14 If ye shall ask Me any thing in My name, I will do [it].
"The Praus Bible" huh? You should just write your own bible version and be done with it.
It seems that every body these daze thinks he’s an expert, and nobody agrees with anybody else about what “should be” in the Bible and what shouldn’t be in it or how it “should be” translated once we finally get to the point of being in agreement (which they are not) on what texts “should be” even IN the Bible to begin with.
Hey, wait....This sounds familiar. Oh, yeah, now I remember...”In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.” Judges 21:25
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
There's four different nouns in Greek that map onto the single English word love. The NT was written in Greek therefore no English translation can be the perfect word of God. It's a consequence of the English language.
The work goes as fast as the Holy Spirit decides, not what will kinney decides.
In the meantime I made Bible recommendations a few days ago, including the KJV.
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...enies-divinity-jesus-christ-john-14-14-a.html
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
If I had a writing style like yours I'd be full of envy too.
---
Not everybody, since the inability to use the words "days" and "everybody" correctly in a sentence disqualifies someone from "expert" status.
I don't understand why one can't be KJV-only without continually cursing the work of the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
This is ludicrous. What Christian disagrees with the named NT books in Athanasius' Easter letter of A.D. 367?
NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."
We're under the covenant of the Blood of the Lamb now, there's no more Israelite judges that I know of.
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
There's four different nouns in Greek that map onto the single English word love. The NT was written in Greek therefore no English translation can be the perfect word of God. It's a consequence of the English language.
The work goes as fast as the Holy Spirit decides, not what will kinney decides.
In the meantime I made Bible recommendations a few days ago, including the KJV.
http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...enies-divinity-jesus-christ-john-14-14-a.html
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
If I had a writing style like yours I'd be full of envy too.
---
Not everybody, since the inability to use the words "days" and "everybody" correctly in a sentence disqualifies someone from "expert" status.
I don't understand why one can't be KJV-only without continually cursing the work of the Holy Spirit.
1 Cor 12:8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;
This is ludicrous. What Christian disagrees with the named NT books in Athanasius' Easter letter of A.D. 367?
NPNF2-04. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters - Christian Classics Ethereal Library
"Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are, the four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Afterwards, the Acts of the Apostles and Epistles (called Catholic), seven, viz. of James, one; of Peter, two; of John, three; after these, one of Jude. In addition, there are fourteen Epistles of Paul, written in this order. The first, to the Romans; then two to the Corinthians; after these, to the Galatians; next, to the Ephesians; then to the Philippians; then to the Colossians; after these, two to the Thessalonians, and that to the Hebrews; and again, two to Timothy; one to Titus; and lastly, that to Philemon. And besides, the Revelation of John."
We're under the covenant of the Blood of the Lamb now, there's no more Israelite judges that I know of.
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, 6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Hi Praus. I notice that you completely dodged my questions. You stated that there are 4 Greek words for "love" and that the English of the KJB fails to somehow communicate these differences. I asked you to tell us how many of these Greek words form part of the New Testament and what is the alleged difference in meaning. You completely avoided this issue. Would you care to address it?
Secondly, I have yet to see you give us a copy of tell us where it is located of what you consider to be the complete and infallible words of God. Oh, there was mention made of "the Praus Bible" of course. Is that in print yet or are you still working on it? By the way, how in the world do you get the idea that the "KJV denies the deity of Jesus Christ in John 14:14"? How does this verse deny the deity of Christ? Which Greek text are you going to go with? You keep quoting from the KJB and then you toss out John 14:14 as though it somehow denies His deity? How so? Are you going with the ever changing Critical texts or the Textus Receptus or what? Do you just pick and choose like a bible rummager as you go along or do you have an actual infallible text you go by? Thanks.
Hi Praus. I notice that you completely dodged my questions. You stated that there are 4 Greek words for "love" and that the English of the KJB fails to somehow communicate these differences. I asked you to tell us how many of these Greek words form part of the New Testament and what is the alleged difference in meaning. You completely avoided this issue. Would you care to address it?
Secondly, I have yet to see you give us a copy of tell us where it is located of what you consider to be the complete and infallible words of God. Oh, there was mention made of "the Praus Bible" of course. Is that in print yet or are you still working on it? By the way, how in the world do you get the idea that the "KJV denies the deity of Jesus Christ in John 14:14"? How does this verse deny the deity of Christ? Which Greek text are you going to go with? You keep quoting from the KJB and then you toss out John 14:14 as though it somehow denies His deity? How so? Are you going with the ever changing Critical texts or the Textus Receptus or what? Do you just pick and choose like a bible rummager as you go along or do you have an actual infallible text you go by? Thanks.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Here's a simple example, 2 Greek verbs: agapaō (G25) and phileō (G5368). Try to identify which is which from these samples:
John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Matt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
The Holy Spirit recognizes His own word! I can't understand why you refer to God as a "bible [sic] rummager".
Matt 12:31 ¶ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.
From THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. (1611)
"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
Right now, will kinney, I am busy with anti-cult ministry, not Bible translation.
Here's a simple example, 2 Greek verbs: agapaō (G25) and phileō (G5368). Try to identify which is which from these samples:
John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Matt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
The Holy Spirit recognizes His own word! I can't understand why you refer to God as a "bible [sic] rummager".
Matt 12:31 ¶ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.
From THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. (1611)
"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
Right now, will kinney, I am busy with anti-cult ministry, not Bible translation.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Hi Praus. What is the supposed difference in meaning between agape and phileo and how is it allegedly not communicated in the KJB according to your thinking? You didn't explain that. What "golden nuggets from the Greek" are we missing out on? Thanks.
Hi Praus. What is the supposed difference in meaning between agape and phileo and how is it allegedly not communicated in the KJB according to your thinking? You didn't explain that. What "golden nuggets from the Greek" are we missing out on? Thanks.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
The reason that God chose two different verbs in Greek and only one in English. The writers of the New Testament were not idiots, they we inspired by the Holy Spirit and they chose two different words in Greek because that's what God wanted.
Let's start with that: where does the King James Bible explain the difference that God intended when God chose two different Greek verbs the NT was written in Greek?
Even asking the question is understanding. KJV-only is afraid to look at the question. Do you even read your Bible?
Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. ... 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; ... 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
As always, God clarifies these issues for me when He decides he wants me to understand, not on my schedule. I'm his creation so that's how it works in His universe.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
The reason that God chose two different verbs in Greek and only one in English. The writers of the New Testament were not idiots, they we inspired by the Holy Spirit and they chose two different words in Greek because that's what God wanted.
Let's start with that: where does the King James Bible explain the difference that God intended when God chose two different Greek verbs the NT was written in Greek?
Even asking the question is understanding. KJV-only is afraid to look at the question. Do you even read your Bible?
Pr 9:10 The fear of the LORD [is] the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy [is] understanding.
1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. ... 8 For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; ... 11 But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.
As always, God clarifies these issues for me when He decides he wants me to understand, not on my schedule. I'm his creation so that's how it works in His universe.
James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Uh...Praus. You STILL haven't answered the question. You originally posted that there are 4 different Greek words for "love" and that somehow the KJB was missing something or not able to communicate the alleged differences in the meanings of these words. It seems you were claiming some special insight into things here so I asked you to tell us how many of these 4 different words are actually used in the New Testament and what is the big difference in meaning that you apparently think is not communicated in the English text of the King James Bible that we are missing out on. You have so far completely dodged giving me a clear answer to these questions. What was the point of your initial post about these 4 different Greek words? Are you just dazzling us with your superior knowledge or do you actually have a point to make that we lesser mortals can understand? Thanks.
Uh...Praus. You STILL haven't answered the question. You originally posted that there are 4 different Greek words for "love" and that somehow the KJB was missing something or not able to communicate the alleged differences in the meanings of these words. It seems you were claiming some special insight into things here so I asked you to tell us how many of these 4 different words are actually used in the New Testament and what is the big difference in meaning that you apparently think is not communicated in the English text of the King James Bible that we are missing out on. You have so far completely dodged giving me a clear answer to these questions. What was the point of your initial post about these 4 different Greek words? Are you just dazzling us with your superior knowledge or do you actually have a point to make that we lesser mortals can understand? Thanks.
Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl
Yes, we're looking at two of the four words so far in verb form: agapaō (G25) and phileō (G5368).
Those are different verbs. they not the same word.
In the KJV verses that I posted they're translated, to English, to the same word: love/loveth.
John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Matt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
The point is that two different words are not the same word.
Yes, we're looking at two of the four words so far in verb form: agapaō (G25) and phileō (G5368).
Those are different verbs. they not the same word.
In the KJV verses that I posted they're translated, to English, to the same word: love/loveth.
John 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.
Matt 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
The point is that two different words are not the same word.