The King James Version attacked from with in

[OLD fashioned preacher]

Although in this case (noisome), even in a modern dictionary it has nothing to do with noisy

From a modern dictionary:

adjective

1.

offensive or disgusting, as an odor.

2.

harmful or injurious to health; noxious.

 

 

As a young Christian, my wife thought the Bible was referring to underwater earthquakes -- "in divers places"

When I first heard the chorus to "No, Never Alone" (I was lost), I thought, "What if I don't want to be bugged all the time and WANT Him to leave me alone?"

[wretched]

Well I took the same english courses I suspect most of you did and never once thought noisome meant noisy. It was always associated with annoying. The King's English is not difficult to understand if the Spirit indwells folks, you all know this so why the pretend greek haughtiness?

[TheSword]

Maybe I'm just imperceptive and prone to think the best of people on here, but I don't see anyone with a blatant and disdainfully proud attitude...

[heartstrings]

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?

The King James is the perfect, unadulterated, preserved, "very pure" word of God for English speaking people, but Modern English has been corrupted over time. This is why a word like "conversation" today means "having a discussion" whereas in the King James it meant "manner of life". There are loads of words like that in the King James but doesn't bother me a bit to look them up. It's part of what's called "studying". 2 Timothy 2:15

[wretched]

The King James is the perfect, unadulterated, preserved, "very pure" word of God for English speaking people, but Modern English has been corrupted over time. This is why a word like "conversation" today means "having a discussion" whereas in the King James it meant "manner of life". There are loads of words like that in the King James but doesn't bother me a bit to look them up. It's part of what's called "studying". 2 Timothy 2:15

I understand but must say that the context of the verses will also indicate meanings of the words. It is all about studying carefully and slowly - understanding context, sentence structure and having the Spirit indwelling. Are you sure this is a good example because I am guessing you really did know what "conversation" meant without looking it up in a dictionary simply because I certainly did the very first time I read it and I am NO ROCKET SURGEON my good man.

[wretched]

Listen folks, judgment starts with God's people and even God's soldiers (IFBs) seem to get more and more bored with God's Word and are lured away to read and study everything but God's Word. A bad practice which is getting worse as the time gets closer unfortunately.

Nowhere does God tell us to cross reference, compare or contrast His Word with men's books (regardless of persuasion, IE, lexicons, history books, commentaries, dictionaries, etc.) and He certainly did not lead anyone into writing these supplements for His Word.

Pride, fame and filthy lucre (or even discouragement from lack of results in local NT church work) lead to that activity and nothing more. 

I know saying that rubs the cat the wrong way...so turn the cat around and lets get busy in our local NT church where it counts for Christ. 

[heartstrings]

Here are some more which are used differently today.: prevent, quick, quit, reins, road, smart, corn, halt, let, meat, meet, occupy, overcharged, singular, careful, dumb. Then there are words like "ouches" and "besom" that most people would have no idea because the word isn't used today at all. Nobody here is complaining about the King James, bro, we're just saying it takes digging and studying to learn what you need to know.

[Ukulelemike]

Listen folks, judgment starts with God's people and even God's soldiers (IFBs) seem to get more and more bored with God's Word and are lured away to read and study everything but God's Word. A bad practice which is getting worse as the time gets closer unfortunately.

Nowhere does God tell us to cross reference, compare or contrast His Word with men's books (regardless of persuasion, IE, lexicons, history books, commentaries, dictionaries, etc.) and He certainly did not lead anyone into writing these supplements for His Word.  I'm curious as to how you know this. see more below.

Pride, fame and filthy lucre (or even discouragement from lack of results in local NT church work) lead to that activity and nothing more. 

I know saying that rubs the cat the wrong way...so turn the cat around and lets get busy in our local NT church where it counts for Christ. 

While its true the Bible doesn't command that commentaries be written, neither is it commanded against. The Bile says "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." I don't see where this limits one to only the Word, in order to be able to rightly divide the word of truth.  People began to write commentaries very early on, not perhaps complete like we have with Matthew Henry or others, but it is all an aspect of teaching the word. I was once lambasted on an IFB site, which was primarily Ruckmanite, because I had the AUDACITY to study history to have a better understanding of the historical context for things in the Bible. How DARE I ADD to God's word by reading about the history of the time! It got so bad that I left. (By the way, I mention it as a Ruckmanite site, because they made it clear it was, not because I blame Ruckman, but some of his acolytes to hold him in such high esteem, rather like Jack Hyles' acolytes, who believed, in both cases, neither man could do any wrong and were held up in a most spiritually unhealthy manner.)

The danger, of course, comes in taking the writings of men, be they commentaries, margin notes, etc, as authoritative. In fact, I find some of the margin notes in the BEST of Bible to be dangerous, and I have more than once crossed them out. And, that being said, I rarely use commentaries or Greek/Hebrew/Chaldean dictionaries, etc, because I have faith in the word of God in the KJV and find way too much questionable content in many areas. But, as is mentioned above by heartstrings, there are words we just don't use anymore, as well as words which have vastly changed in meaning, and in some cases, using other writings can be a help. 

[wretched]

While its true the Bible doesn't command that commentaries be written, neither is it commanded against. The Bile says "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." I don't see where this limits one to only the Word, in order to be able to rightly divide the word of truth.  People began to write commentaries very early on, not perhaps complete like we have with Matthew Henry or others, but it is all an aspect of teaching the word. I was once lambasted on an IFB site, which was primarily Ruckmanite, because I had the AUDACITY to study history to have a better understanding of the historical context for things in the Bible. How DARE I ADD to God's word by reading about the history of the time! It got so bad that I left. (By the way, I mention it as a Ruckmanite site, because they made it clear it was, not because I blame Ruckman, but some of his acolytes to hold him in such high esteem, rather like Jack Hyles' acolytes, who believed, in both cases, neither man could do any wrong and were held up in a most spiritually unhealthy manner.)

The danger, of course, comes in taking the writings of men, be they commentaries, margin notes, etc, as authoritative. In fact, I find some of the margin notes in the BEST of Bible to be dangerous, and I have more than once crossed them out. And, that being said, I rarely use commentaries or Greek/Hebrew/Chaldean dictionaries, etc, because I have faith in the word of God in the KJV and find way too much questionable content in many areas. But, as is mentioned above by heartstrings, there are words we just don't use anymore, as well as words which have vastly changed in meaning, and in some cases, using other writings can be a help. 

Well Mike, take a look at your post and realize you just agreed with me in a disagreeable way. And I don't care who or what they are associated with, they waste God's time writing "whatever" for profit and not serving God locally as directed specifically in His Word. When I say specifically I mean ONLY locally in their local NT church. God don't need no big shots, he actually and only uses the lowly of heart to do His Work without self recognition.

[Ukulelemike]

Well Mike, take a look at your post and realize you just agreed with me in a disagreeable way. And I don't care who or what they are associated with, they waste God's time writing "whatever" for profit and not serving God locally as directed specifically in His Word. When I say specifically I mean ONLY locally in their local NT church. God don't need no big shots, he actually and only uses the lowly of heart to do His Work without self recognition.

Who is to say the people writing commentaries and helps are big shots, and not lowly of heart? Generally I think its followers of these men that make them big shots, not so much themselves, (except for the afore-mentioned preachers, who while perhaps not initially making themselves anything big, didn't dissuade their followers from it. But I don't read their commentaries, either). But I believe there have been many godly men, lowly of heart, who have written commentaries and books that have been of great help, and they don't seek to make a name for themselves. However, is it wrong to spend years on a written work, and ask for pay for it, any more than paying a pastor who does a great work in a church? This is one of the reasons I like, say, David Cloud, who had done a great amount of writing and makes much of it available for free, and some others very inexpensively. Or Kent Hovind, who makes all of his videos available free for download. The workman is worthy of his hire.

 

[wretched]

Who is to say the people writing commentaries and helps are big shots, and not lowly of heart? Generally I think its followers of these men that make them big shots, not so much themselves, (except for the afore-mentioned preachers, who while perhaps not initially making themselves anything big, didn't dissuade their followers from it. But I don't read their commentaries, either). But I believe there have been many godly men, lowly of heart, who have written commentaries and books that have been of great help, and they don't seek to make a name for themselves. However, is it wrong to spend years on a written work, and ask for pay for it, any more than paying a pastor who does a great work in a church? This is one of the reasons I like, say, David Cloud, who had done a great amount of writing and makes much of it available for free, and some others very inexpensively. Or Kent Hovind, who makes all of his videos available free for download. The workman is worthy of his hire.

 

Well if you say so then I suppose it is ok. Enjoy your books

[No Nicolaitans]

Please forgive the long post...this is sort of a personal testimony.

At the risk of offending some and even possibly bringing ridicule upon myself for questioning a long-held and heart-warming belief...

We often like to speak of how we will one day live in a mansion in heaven. We like to sing about having a mansion just over the hilltop. The generally accepted view is a modern-day view...We will live in a...well...a big-huge mansion...somewhere up in heaven...

Now, before I go any further, let me say that anything the Lord prepares for us will surely be magnificent...it may even be something akin to what we view as a "mansion" or even better. However, we apply a modern-day meaning to the word "mansion", yet a "mansion" (during the time when the King James was written) meant nothing like what we mean today when we think of a "mansion".

John 14:2
In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Please note...the "mansions" are in the Father's house...they are part of it. Years ago as a young Christian, this one thing was probably the catalyst that caused me to start studying more and digging deeper; it made me wonder what these "mansions" could be. My thought at the time was..."I thought we would have our own mansion, and all of the mansions would be scattered throughout heaven, but this says the mansions are in the Father's house. Either all of heaven is the Father's house, or the Father's house is a distinct part of heaven. Then it must be a HUGE house if his one house is big enough to contain enough mansions for everyone who is saved!"

Now, could God do that? Sure he could! He can do anything!

So I was happy with that for a while...but it kept nagging me.

I had heard of people looking things up in the Greek, and someone had given me a Greek Lexicon that I had never used...so I looked it up. It said the meaning of "mansion" was "an abode, a residence" (or something like that).

When I saw that, I sort of panicked. It caused me to question several things. If the King James says "mansion", but the Greek says "abode"...something must be wrong! After all, a mansion is a mansion! Why did the King James say mansion when the Greek says the word means an abode? Is the King James wrong? Is the Greek wrong? Are there errors in God's word? But there can't be errors in God's word!

Let me tell you...the Devil really used that against me for a while.

I fought with those "wonderings" for quite a while...too afraid to let anyone know what I was dealing with. I finally asked my pastor about the mansions...what they could be? His reply was something like..."It says mansion doesn't it? We'll live in a mansion brother!" His meaning was that we would live in a mansion (as we think of mansions today).

That was no help...

Why did I have to go look in the Greek?!?!? Boy, I was fine believing God could have mansions stacked on top of each other inside his house...why did I have to go look at that Greek? It really messed me up...causing doubts about God's word...

...but it kept nagging me.

Mansion, abode. Mansion, abode. Why did I have to go looking in that (yes, I said it) STUPID Greek?

Then one day it dawned on me. The King James was translated in the 1600s.    I wonder what "mansion" meant in the 1600s?

It took me a bit of time to find any type of dictionary from the 1600s, but I found 2 of them. The first one was A Table Alphabeticall by Robert Cawdrey (from 1604). From what I read, this was the first "real" attempt by anyone to make an English dictionary. It didn't have many words in it, but to my surprise...it did have the word "mansion" listed! Here's what "mansion" meant in 1604...

mansion, an abiding place

So, in the 1600s, a "mansion" was an abiding place?!?!?

So I looked in the second dictionary that I had found. It's called Glossographia Anglican Nova. (I think it was done in the 1650s). Here's what "mansion" meant in the 1650s...

mansion, an abiding

BAM! Finally! Here I was...trying to apply a modern-day meaning to a word from the 1600s! It took a long time for me as a young Christian to figure it out. I went through a lot of personal times of worry because of it...like I said, the Devil really used it against me...making me wonder if there were errors in God's word.

King James: mansion

Greek: an abode, a residence

1600s mansion: an abiding place

The King James is right in using the word mansion. The Greek is in agreement with "an abode". They agree together. Now, I can see that the context of the verse itself shows (me) that these "mansions" aren't what we would view as "mansions" today, but back then...I didn't know any better.

The Lord Jesus Christ has gone to prepare an abode for us...and though it won't be a "mansion" over the hilltop, our abode will be part of the Father's house, and I think that will be far more glorious than any piddly mansion we see today.

[heartstrings]

Well then.....just build me a Cabin in the Corner of Gloryland.... lol 

 

Seriously, I would love to look through those two dictionaries. This is from one I use a lot....

1325-75; Middle English < Latin mānsiōn- (stem of mānsiō) an abiding, abode. See manse, -ion  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mansion

Edited September 25, 2015 by heartstrings

[No Nicolaitans]

Well then.....just build me a Cabin in the Corner of Gloryland.... lol 

 

Seriously, I would love to look through those two dictionaries. This is from one I use a lot....

1325-75; Middle English < Latin mānsiōn- (stem of mānsiō) an abiding, abode. See manse, -ion  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mansion

Here's a link to the one from 1604 - http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/cawdrey/cawdrey0.html#m

Here's the link to the one from the 1650s - https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=8jYP-B1Q9a0C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PT9

If you notice a date discrepancy, the second one is a reprint done in 1707 of the one from the 1650s...

 

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Here's a link to the one from 1604 - http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/ret/cawdrey/cawdrey0.html#m

Here's the link to the one from the 1650s - https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=8jYP-B1Q9a0C&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PT9

If you notice a date discrepancy, the second one is a reprint done in 1707 of the one from the 1650s...

 

The Glossagraphia is available for download from archive.org.  Just google it and it will take you to a link.  Can be downloaded in many formats.