Kjvo And Original Languages

[AVBibleBeliever]

It's not wrong for preachers to explain the Greek meaning of Greek words, preachers should study as commanded and explain the definition of particular words and the meaning of phrases , which is not correcting the bible but rather "Expounding on scripture"

 

 

 

I'll try to get back soon concerning " language" right now I'm out of time and got to go.

If I am not mistaken, and I suppose I could be, but there aren't any Greek words in the English AV Bible.

[Genevanpreacher]

Well... they are in the "To the Reader" in the original printing.

[AVBibleBeliever]

Well... they are in the "To the Reader" in the original printing.

If I am not mistaken again "to the reader"  is not inspired scripture

[TheSword]

If I am not mistaken, and I suppose I could be, but there aren't any Greek words in the English AV Bible.

 

There are several that are untranslated and were instead transliterated and adopted into English: amen, angel, apostle, baptize, blaspheme, deacon, hades, hypocrite, mammon, martyr, mystery, raca, satan. Those are the ones that I know of off the top of my head. Interesting question on this point. If we didn't look back into the original Greek definition of baptism, we might be OBligated to accepting alternate modes such as sprinkling and pouring as valid along with immersion.

[EKSmith]

sorry about the mistake AV I was tired , thanks for the correction

[EKSmith]

Many get caught up in the language' when we must realize that it is God's Words that are inspired.God did not inspire the language of Hebrew and Greek, He inspired the '' Words " of Hebrew and Greek.

God's Words was inspired in heaven before ever given to man, the orignals are in Heaven (Psalm 119:89) 

God's Words are inspired into whatever language they are translated because they are inspired, God's Words do not lose their inspiration just because they are translated from one language into another.

 

John 6;63 It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. the Words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,

      (that is the inspiration of God.)

[prophet1]

If I am not mistaken, and I suppose I could be, but there aren't any Greek words in the English AV Bible.

There are 2 that all of the modern Evangelicals choke on, and one that the RCC and her daughters Stumble over.
Nicolaitan, Presbytery, and Baptize.

Anishinaabe

[John81]

Properly used, referencing the Greek or Hebrew can be helpful. Those who use them to their own ends also do the same thing with the KJB. That's a prOBlem in their heart, not a prOBlem with the Greek, Hebrew or KJB.

 

So many of the great preachers of the past spent hours studying in the Greek and Hebrew; both before and after they had the KJB. Many of them have left behind a treasure trove of sermons and writings that we still benefit from today.

 

Just as we need to rely upon the Holy Ghost when we read/study the KJB, we need to do the same when referencing the Greek and Hebrew. The Holy Ghost won't lead us astray; He will help to open the Word to us.

 

It's when folks look to the Greek and Hebrew using their own understanding that trouble comes forth. Yet as I mentioned above, these folks do the same with the KJB as well.

[Genevanpreacher]

I must add to my previous,

 

We read Greek and Hebrew... we just use our English alphabet and dialect.

 

Kinda jokin'.

 

But do you not think God spoke in the language that they spoke, so they could talk with him and understand him?

 

If they spoke English back then, would not the English spoken then be inspired?

 

Why not now? It is, after all, what we speak now.

[ASongOfDegrees]

My bible is written in English. Even the Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic words are transliterations. I don't not need a Greek or Hebrew lexicon. The only exception might be to look up the meaning of proper names in the ancient languages. But even then I'm sure you can easily find the meaning without a lexicon.

[TheSword]

Even the Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic words are transliterations.

 

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

 

I don't not need a Greek or Hebrew lexicon. The only exception might be to look up the meaning of proper names in the ancient languages. But even then I'm sure you can easily find the meaning without a lexicon.

 

You know a lexicon is just a dictionary right? If you're going to find the meaning of any word, even a name, it's ultimately going to come from a dictionary of some sort.

[ASongOfDegrees]

I don't understand what you mean by this.

 

 

 

You know a lexicon is just a dictionary right? If you're going to find the meaning of any word, even a name, it's ultimately going to come from a dictionary of some sort.

1) Words like "baptism" and "Calvary" are transliterations, not translations. But you can still find their definition in an English dictionary.

 

2) A lexicon and a dictionary are not quite the same thing. The former usually is in reference to an ancient language like Greek or Hebrew. Also, with a dictionary you get the exact definition of a word while with a lexicon you get all the possible definitions of a word.

[TheSword]

1) Words like "baptism" and "Calvary" are transliterations, not translations. But you can still find their definition in an English dictionary.

 

The English definitions of baptism include:

1. a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.

2. any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.

3. a trying or purifying experience or initiation.

4. purification of thought and character

5. a Christian religious rite consisting of immersion in or sprinkling with water as a sign that the subject is cleansed from sin and constituted as a member of the Church

 

So which one is it? According to an English-only view, you must accept pouring and sprinkling as valid modes of baptism AND baptismal regeneration because there are a plethora of occurances in the Bible where immersion is neither specified nor required by the context. This is the exact argument that non-baptists use to support sprinkling, pouring, and infant baptism.

 

The Greek definition is: immerse or dip. Which one is more precise and accurate?

 

2) A lexicon and a dictionary are not quite the same thing. The former usually is in reference to an ancient language like Greek or Hebrew. Also, with a dictionary you get the exact definition of a word while with a lexicon you get all the possible definitions of a word.

 

Not exactly. Yes, the term lexicon usually refers to an ancient language, but not always. Both are a listing of words and their meanings of a particular language and often go from one language to another. Additionally, you don't always get one exact definition. Please see again the range of possible definitions of "baptize" above. If you need another example, please look see the ridiculously disparate and unrelated definitions of the English word "hand" (as I mentioned in a previous post). You can't intelligently argue that a "dictionary" is more accurate than a "lexicon" when they both do the same exact thing in listing the entire known semantic range for a word. Additionally, if you look up "dictionary" and "lexicon" in your English dictionary, you'll notice that they appear in each other's definitions. I'll add a caveat to that statement and say that it might depend on which English dictionary you use, which is further proof that modern English dictionaries are not any different from a lexicon in this fashion. They serve the exact same purpose.

 

If you don't want to go to the trouble or effort to study ancient languages, that's perfectly fine. Many Christians can certainly get all they want or need from English-only study and there is absolutely no prOBlem with that. However, implying that it is wrong to do so in order to gain a deeper understanding of what the Word of God is communicating is incredibly OBtuse at best.

[AVBibleBeliever]

There are several that are untranslated and were instead transliterated and adopted into English: amen, angel, apostle, baptize, blaspheme, deacon, hades, hypocrite, mammon, martyr, mystery, raca, satan. Those are the ones that I know of off the top of my head. Interesting question on this point. If we didn't look back into the original Greek definition of baptism, we might be OBligated to accepting alternate modes such as sprinkling and pouring as valid along with immersion.

As said many times there is no Koine Greek Dictionaries those you use are classical Greek word meanings and pronunciations placed on Koine Greek words.  Strongs and Zoiates are to examples of scholarly works that really are not scholarly.

 

So a good reason for transliteration is that no one knew the translation if there was one because no Koine Greek Dictionary.

[ASongOfDegrees]

The English definitions of baptism include:

1. a ceremonial immersion in water, or application of water, as an initiatory rite or sacrament of the Christian church.

2. any similar ceremony or action of initiation, dedication, etc.

3. a trying or purifying experience or initiation.

4. purification of thought and character

5. a Christian religious rite consisting of immersion in or sprinkling with water as a sign that the subject is cleansed from sin and constituted as a member of the Church

 

So which one is it? According to an English-only view, you must accept pouring and sprinkling as valid modes of baptism AND baptismal regeneration because there are a plethora of occurances in the Bible where immersion is neither specified nor required by the context. This is the exact argument that non-baptists use to support sprinkling, pouring, and infant baptism.

 

The Greek definition is: immerse or dip. Which one is more precise and accurate?

 

 

Not exactly. Yes, the term lexicon usually refers to an ancient language, but not always. Both are a listing of words and their meanings of a particular language and often go from one language to another. Additionally, you don't always get one exact definition. Please see again the range of possible definitions of "baptize" above. If you need another example, please look see the ridiculously disparate and unrelated definitions of the English word "hand" (as I mentioned in a previous post). You can't intelligently argue that a "dictionary" is more accurate than a "lexicon" when they both do the same exact thing in listing the entire known semantic range for a word. Additionally, if you look up "dictionary" and "lexicon" in your English dictionary, you'll notice that they appear in each other's definitions. I'll add a caveat to that statement and say that it might depend on which English dictionary you use, which is further proof that modern English dictionaries are not any different from a lexicon in this fashion. They serve the exact same purpose.

 

If you don't want to go to the trouble or effort to study ancient languages, that's perfectly fine. Many Christians can certainly get all they want or need from English-only study and there is absolutely no prOBlem with that. However, implying that it is wrong to do so in order to gain a deeper understanding of what the Word of God is communicating is incredibly OBtuse at best.

You can't tell from reading scripture what kind of baptism it is?

 

What is the etymology of the English word?

 

Here, I'll help you:

 

baptize (v.)

c.1300, from Old French batisier (11c.), from Latin baptizare, from Greek baptizein "to immerse, to dip in water," also used figuratively, e.g. "to be over one's head" (in debt, etc.), "to be soaked (in wine);" in Greek Christian usage, "baptize;" from baptein "to dip, steep, dye, color," from PIE root *gwabh- "to dip, sink." Christian baptism originally consisted in full immersion. Related: Baptized; baptizin

 

My bible was given to me in English. I don't need to study accent languages. I'll leave that to those who are looking to correct it.