Exactly, and this doesn't stop us in any other walk of life. If one wants to be a doctor, they will study and learn new terminology. Same goes for most studies, but Christians get lazy when it comes to God's holy word. Shouldn't there be something about the word of God that separates it from all other works? Should it really read like the modern dribble of the day?
New bibles since 1960
- Thread starter preston39
- 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.
Exactly, and this doesn't stop us in any other walk of life. If one wants to be a doctor, they will study and learn new terminology. Same goes for most studies, but Christians get lazy when it comes to God's holy word. Shouldn't there be something about the word of God that separates it from all other works? Should it really read like the modern dribble of the day?
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
Let me see if I can make this real simple for you.
When I meet someone un churched or under churched and I begin to witness to them. I want to lay my Bible out in front of them and let them see with their own eyes with out them being bogged down in 15th century words that we don't use anymore, and I certainly don't want to have to have a concordance there also to define words. I don't want their eyes to glaze over and them to lose interest because having to show them that those words then had different meaning than they do today.
When they have accepted the Lord and we begin the discipleship process I don't want to have to give them a reading assignment and them come back having not finished because the same reasons listed above. I don't need to Spend countless hours pouring over meanings of words and sentence structure that has little to do with their level of understanding and what they need to know, at this stage.
Lastly; I want them to have an actual translation of the Bible, not some political agenda driven translation/interpretation that they have to try and determine what the motive of the editor was.
You see Bible study for me isn't about me. It's about accurately portraying the gospel to the unchurched.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
I hope that when you witness to someone you don't use the word propitiation right out of the gate. I hope you save it for a little bit down the road when they have studied a bit.
That's 17th century, not 15th century (big difference). And people are still using the KJV all around the world and not having any problems. No one is bogged down with these simple words:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
All the arguments against the language of the KJV are essentially bogus.
16th century. The language that 50-odd (older) scholars were using in 1604-11 was 16th century English.
Thanks for your opinion.
If someone wants to be a doctor, they understand going in that they will have to learn as many new words as they already know.
Do you really want to make that argument? It's profoundly poor for something of eternal significance. Why do you think Wycliffe Bible Translators is still in operation? Because they understand the need for people to receive the gospel and Scripture in their own language. 16th century English is not anyone's language today.
This discussion is not about Bibles in German, but in English. Your point is irrelevant. Thee and thou aren't used in modern English outside of the context of Bibles or late-middle-English literature. They might as well be foreign.
By the way, concordances are for showing where a word is used in Scripture, not primarily for understanding its meaning in one location.
The material you posted is interesting, but doesn't refute my point. The meaning isn't completely different than today's meaning, but it is different enough that you cannot simply import the 20th century meaning into the KJV and understand it properly.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
And you still haven't explained why you don't want people to have actual translations rather than q politically motivated interpretive translation
A faithful witness will not lie.
Does your Bible lie in 2 Samuel 21:19? If so, it can’t be trusted.
Of course but can you answer my question. What do the new bibles use for the word PROPITIATION I would like to know!
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
King James lies in Exodus 4:24. God wasn't laying in wait to kill Moses.
It also lies in Acts 12:4. Herod was not waiting for a holiday which did not yet exist.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
Why do you care about an English version of a Latin word? If the Latin is so holy why you don't just get a Latin Vulgate?
Sure it was the Lord. Moses disobeyed Him by not circumcising the boy as God instructed.
The Lord’s resurrection was not honored in that day? Do you have proof of that? You really think he was concerned about a Jewish Passover? The Jews didn’t care what happened to Peter.
Huh just answer the question.. just want to know.
Its not latin, its english cos thats from KJV. Kjv isnt in latin.
The point is in the language that the bible was first written in, thee and thou (the singular forms of address) are actually used in those languages. Hebrew and greek. So the equivalent is thee and thous. Other languages have that too. Its just modern english is lazy, it doesnt differentiate anymore. Its like tu and vous in French.
In american they say y'all meaning you all more than one. Over here we might say youse. Even though its not technically correct grammar to say youse. But you (one person) and youse (two or more) .
Some people need a crash course in english, i have taught english as a second langauge so, its kinda interesting because English is actually quite a difficult language to master it can be so confusing.
Even for native speakers.
In american they say y'all meaning you all more than one. Over here we might say youse. Even though its not technically correct grammar to say youse. But you (one person) and youse (two or more) .
Some people need a crash course in english, i have taught english as a second langauge so, its kinda interesting because English is actually quite a difficult language to master it can be so confusing.
Even for native speakers.
You still hold to double standards.
That is being a hypocrite. Is that what kind of person you want to be?