The King James Version attacked from with in

[MountainChristian]

We can't refuse the original language because some evil people misuse the text. People misuse the King James Version but we can't stop using it. We live in an evil generation, we need to weep and sigh like Jeremiah and Ezekiel.

[Gorship]

that article is humorous at best. Even if you decided to go to Strongs for Lev 18:22, the definition of Abomination there:

"H8441

תֹּעֵבַה    תּוֹעֵבַה
tô‛êbah    tô‛êbah
to-ay-baw', to-ay-baw'
Feminine active participle of H8581; properly something disgusting (morally), that is, (as noun) an abhorrence; especially idolatry or (concretely) an idol: - abominable (custom, thing), abomination.
Total KJV occurrences: 117"

sooo either way, the article falls flat.

as for the KJB "controversy", I dont think you need the greek, I believe the KJB is preserved. Some people like to use the greek who are KJVO; I dont find it necessary for my own studies, lesson planning, teaching etc.

"What about Greek nuggets?"
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/nuggets.html

I find just using a good ol 1828 dictionary helpful, as my english fails in comparison to the KJB.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

I think Greek is helpful.

 

for instance, the KJV employs the word, "Teraphim" six times in the Old Testament.  

 

What is/are Teraphim?  I never heard the word in school growomh up.  I know seraphim was an angellike creature.  But teraphim?  No clue.

 

teraphim is always used with "and graven images" or "and the image", et.al..  So it is used in conjunction with and alongside, idols would be my guess.  But, without going to any dictionary, who knows exactly what they are?  And if you do know, how do you know?  What is the difference in someone else telling you "a teraphim is..." and you going to a dictionary to look it up?  And if one is going to look up the meaning of a word, it makes more sense to use a dictionary of the era in which the word was written.

[John81]

I have a KJB dictionary put out by Cloud. It's been years since I've really used it, but it was helpful at one time.

Myself, I don't get much out of consulting the Greek or Hebrew. I tend to get more out of comparing Scripture with Scripture and spending time in prayer if I'm trying to figure something out. Or, I can just ask here and usually receive plenty of help!

At the same time, I know some folks who do find delving into the Greek or Hebrew to be helpful.

Whatever approach suits a person best. I know my method of study for tests back in university was very different from almost everyone else, and among the "everyone else" they had a variety of methods, but what I did worked for me while trying some of their methods I found unhelpful.

[TheSword]

I've found Greek and Hebrew to be very helpful in illuminating the KJV word usage. English just isn't always great at expressing things coming from highly inflected languages like Greek and Hebrew (e.g. mood, case, tense, etc.) and so sometimes I just find it helpful to see what the underlying reasons for word usage or word order that may seem a little awkward at first in English. As a very simple and benign example...

Greek has no set word order and sentences are formed by inflecting words to show how they relate. More often than not, word order is used to show emphasis to make a point. In English, John 1:1 reads:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Pretty clear in English, no real need for a word study here. The Greek word order reads:

In beginning was the word and the word was with the God and God was the Word.

The only thing that's really different is the last phrase (the Word was God vs. God was the Word). The truth conveyed is the same but the Greek word order makes it the deity of Christ and His oneness with God so much more emphatic. It doesn't change anything. It's not earthshattering. It's just illuminating.

Another reason I like looking into original languages is the way words tend to have multiple meanings and what a possible meaning in an English word may be completely out of bounds for the Greek/Hebrew word it was translated from and vice versa. Another simple and benign example...

People like to argue over where exactly the nail was driven during crucifixion (hand vs. wrist vs. forearm). Some people read "hand" and dogmatically say it can only mean through the palm. Others go with the anatomical argument say it had to have been in the wrist or forearm because it would have ripped out of His hand. Well, the Greek word used for "hand" (see Luke 24:39 for an example) covers everything from the elbow to the fingertip, so it really doesn't matter where the nail was placed.

No truth was changed. No doctrine was challenged. All we did was clarify the intended meaning.

Another, more pertinent example. The English usage of "baptize" has taken on a variety of meanings that validates sprinkling and pouring and confines it to religious ritual. However, the Greek word can only be taken to mean full immersion, thus clarifying an important doctrinal position without having to examine and argue from every example of baptism found in the Bible to see exactly how they did it.

These examples are really simple and have no great impact and this type of word study makes up probably 80%-90% of valid word studies in the original languages. However, the rest can make big differences in the interpretation of things such as election/predestination that have enormous doctrinal impact. In every case, though, all it should do is make the intended meaning clear when the English rendering appears to leave more than one possibility on the table and people choose the one that suits them rather than the one that was intended.

[Musician4God1611]

My only concern with Greek and Hebrew (more so Greek) is, can I trust that the source from which I get my Greek definitions is correct, or has it been tampered with. Most of the time, the Bible will explain the meaning of a word (thus the purpose of a word study) and when it isn't clear, or only mentioned once, I use the Webster's 1828 dictionary which, although it is not perfect and infallible, is usually spot on.

[TheSword]

Depends on the dictionary but I'd say they're about as reliable as Webster's 1828 (which I also use regularly btw) or Oxford English Dictionary. As the Webster 1828 aptly demonstrates, any dictionary is a snapshot in time due to definitional drift; but I believe there are some that are quite accurate to Koine Greek usage in/around the 1st century.

[Musician4God1611]

Depends on the dictionary but I'd say they're about as reliable as Webster's 1828 (which I also use regularly btw) or Oxford English Dictionary. As the Webster 1828 aptly demonstrates, any dictionary is a snapshot in time due to definitional drift; but I believe there are some that are quite accurate to Koine Greek usage in/around the 1st century.

Which Greek dictionary would you recommend?

[TheSword]

 

Which Greek dictionary would you recommend?

I usually consult the BDAG (ISBN: 978-0-2260-3933-6) or ALGNT (ISBN: 978-1-4120-5654-0). Thayer's is ok, but not my favorite.

[2bLikeJesus]

Once in a while I look at meanings of the Greek and get a little confused as to the reason a particular word was used, but I don't argue the validity of the word, it just drives me to look a little deeper as to why it might have been used.

For instance. we were just going through Rev 16 last Sunday, and it speaks of the noisome, grievous sore that would be the result of the first vial of wrath. I looked at the Strongs and I find that a majority of the times its used, it is translated 'evil', or 'troublesome'. This is the only use of 'noisome'. So it got me wondering why, how a wound could be noisome.

Now, I am kind of, of the opinion that the implantable microchip could either be the mark, or a precursor to the mark. After all, if you won't be able to buy or sell, what better way to control that than to have everyone have a chip implanted in their hand or forehead with all their bank info, and accept nothing else? Well, the current microchip is powered by a lithium battery encased in glass-if it was to burst, it would cause a terrible wound, infected with lithium, radioactive, and glass. And it would probably make a 'POP!" when it did. So it IS possible to have a noisome, grievous wound with such a thing.  Doesn't have to be that, but it shows how it is quite possible and probable, at least in this scenario.

The term and definition of "noisome" has nothing to do with sound.  

noisome

 

 

[noi-suh m] 

Spell Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

adjective

1.

offensive or disgusting, as an odor.

2.

harmful or injurious to health; noxious.

[wretched]

Question: What is this verse in the Greek:

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Answer:

Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Problem is the TR wasn't written in modern Greek, it was written in ancient Greek (which changed constantly hence the saying "it is greek to me") of which there is no lexicon

So why do y'all keep bringing up this stuff.

[TheSword]

Actually, it reads:

the heaven and the earth shall be passing the yet words of me not no may be passing

The problem is the KJV wasn't written in modern English, it was written in Elizabethan English (which was changed constantly in the last 400 years) of which there is no dictionary (Webster 1828 is close, but there was a lot of change between 1611 and 1828).

I refuse to get sucked into this conversation again, so I'll just go ahead and say "Agree to disagree."

[wretched]

Actually, it reads:

the heaven and the earth shall be passing the yet words of me not no may be passing

The problem is the KJV wasn't written in modern English, it was written in Elizabethan English (which was changed constantly in the last 400 years) of which there is no dictionary (Webster 1828 is close, but there was a lot of change between 1611 and 1828).

I refuse to get sucked into this conversation again, so I'll just go ahead and say "Agree to disagree."

I don't recall any argument?

The English has not changed apart for local names of fruit or towns, etc. The thorough structure of thought has diminished but the language can certainly be understood without a dictionary, capeesh?

[TheSword]

Pass...

[Ukulelemike]

The term and definition of "noisome" has nothing to do with sound.  

noisome

 

 

[noi-suh m] 

Spell Syllables

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

adjective

1.

offensive or disgusting, as an odor.

2.

harmful or injurious to health; noxious.

And there we go-this is why sometimes we need to look something up. I made an ASSUMPTION of the meaning and was found incorrect. Strongs gives even more definitions to the word, including evil, wicked, etc. So, a great case-in-point as to why sometimes it IS good to look at meanings in the Greek, Hebrew, (if we can), or an earlier dictionary.

I stand corrected, thank you.

Actually, it reads:

the heaven and the earth shall be passing the yet words of me not no may be passing

The problem is the KJV wasn't written in modern English, it was written in Elizabethan English (which was changed constantly in the last 400 years) of which there is no dictionary (Webster 1828 is close, but there was a lot of change between 1611 and 1828).

I refuse to get sucked into this conversation again, so I'll just go ahead and say "Agree to disagree."

Actually, it wasn't written in Elizabethan English. Correctly, it was written in Jamesian English, (as it tends to be named after the ruler), but even more so, because some of the terms don't even fit the proper English of the time-it was altered somewhat, even using words in ways that were archaic even then, because they better fit the language found in the ancient writings.