Jump to content
Online Baptist

Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I’ve been doing some studying into the archaic features of the KJV.

i found that the difference between -eth and -est is that one is second person and another is third person. So it would seem that this would add detail to the Bible and therefore accuracy.

However, practically speaking it seems to me that this doesn’t really add information because of English Syntax, it would seem that the subject of the sentence will always supple that information and therefore these endings are unnecessary. Does anyone know of any places in the English bible where having these Archaic endings give the reader more clarity? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This argument is a "Straw Man" and meant to deflect answering a genuine opinion from someone else that views the subject differently.  I've studied the qualifications and credits of the original

The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes H

Actually, I find that much of a modern English use is dumbed down and oversimplified. We don’t use nearly the breadth of language available to us in classic English.  I have no desire to use a Bible w

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes He has caused/allowed in English since 1611.

Show me another perfect, inerrant bible in the English.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
6 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes He has caused/allowed in English since 1611.

If we start a new topic about this, would you be willing to actively discuss it with us? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Show me another perfect, inerrant bible in the English.

  The KJV is far-from-inerrant. A glaring goof in it is "Easter" in Acts 12:4. (Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts".) And a poor rendering that's caused a lotta controversy is "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13.  The NKJV is much-more error-free than the KJV is, as is the NASV.

17 hours ago, Matt Souza said:

If we start a new topic about this, would you be willing to actively discuss it with us? 

  If you choose to start a new topic on this, please let me know its title & which sub-forum it'll be in. I shall be more-than-happy to prove the KJVO myth false.

Edited by robycop3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you are suggesting that there was no pagan feast around that time that the translators later referred to as "Easter", then you are seriously mistaken.

4 hours ago, robycop3 said:

The NKJV is much-more error-free than the KJV is, as is the NASV.

Do you believe that there is a perfectly preserved Word of God today, or is there only "best we can do so far"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  OK, And, I'll answer the questions asked of me in this topic in the new one.

  As for Mr. Kurecki's OP in this topic,  I don't know of any of the KJV's archaisms that give more clarity to any of its verses today. We must remember the KJV was made for the British of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period 400 years ago. That's why it's important to have MODERN bible translations, in OUR English style.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Well, actually,  I'm not a translator, but there's a VAST difference in the knowledge of 400 years ago & the knowledge of now, in the time where God said knowledge would greatly increase. And that knowledge necessarily includes that of God's word.

 

  And I came here to share knowledge with other Baptists, but I know for certain that the KJVO myth is not true. It has absolutely NO Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself, which, alone, makes it false.

 

  As for archaisms in the KJV, there are quite a few now, same as Wycliffe's 1384 translation contained archaisms to the British of the 17th century, let alone US.  God keeps His word in current vernacular in many languages, causing new translations to be made according to the changes HE causes/allows in the languages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  Well, actually,  I'm not a translator, but there's a VAST difference in the knowledge of 400 years ago & the knowledge of now, in the time where God said knowledge would greatly increase. And that knowledge necessarily includes that of God's word.

You are right - there is not a person alive today who could rival the linguistic skills of many on the KJV translation panel.

There is indeed a VAST difference.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DaveW said:

You are right - there is not a person alive today who could rival the linguistic skills of many on the KJV translation panel.

There is indeed a VAST difference.....

  I would like to discuss this with you  in another topic, if you wish,  so as not to derail this one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I would rather discuss these questions anywhere you like - like maybe where I previously asked them.....

"So in your estimation, do we have a perfect Bible available to us today, or do we just have "the best we can do so far"?

Do you use only one of those Bibles you have listed as "better than KJV" (and which one if yes), or do you pick and choose according what suits you best today?"

As far as knowledge, how about you keep to relevant knowledge and stop trying to introduce irrelevant muck.

We also know a lot more about automotive repair than they did then......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have dealt with Roby on another board several times. I have already refuted him on Easter (Though I personally disagree that Easter in Acts 12 is a Pagan holiday, my position is the word Easter was a synonym for Passover when the KJV was translated)

Roby will continue to spout his same old talking points over and over and over again even after being refuted and so I refuse to engage him on this topic. 

My suggestion is that he should be banned because he is not willing to have an honest discussion on the KJV but has his own agenda that he wants to push. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  Mr. Kurecki,  you only "refuted" my Easter  info in your own mind. And of course you'd liketa ban me because you know I can present questions you cannot answer correctly  without  crushing your own doctrine.

15 hours ago, DaveW said:

I would rather discuss these questions anywhere you like - like maybe where I previously asked them.....[/quote]

Very well, Sir.

15 hours ago, DaveW said:

"So in your estimation, do we have a perfect Bible available to us today, or do we just have "the best we can do so far"?

 We have several Bible translations that are as perfect as their translators & editors could make them.

Do you use only one of those Bibles you have listed as "better than 

KJV" (and which one if yes), or do you pick and choose according what suits you best today?"

I use the one I believe is best for a particular occasion. And it DOES include the KJV, if my audience requests it.

As far as knowledge, how about you keep to relevant knowledge and stop trying to introduce irrelevant muck.

 "Irrelevant muck" is in the eye of the beholder, same as is beauty.

We also know a lot more about automotive repair than they did then......

Not to mention war.

15 hours ago, DaveW said:

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

We have several Bible translations that are as perfect as their translators & editors could make them.

So the answer to that question is "No, we don't have a perfect translation today".

7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

I use the one I believe is best for a particular occasion. And it DOES include the KJV, if my audience requests it.

And you use the version YOU BELIEVE is best.........

Since you don't believe we have a perfect Bible available to us how DO YOU determine what is actually God's Word and what is "not right yet"?

 

Edited by DaveW
Added the ? at the end...
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DaveW said:

So the answer to that question is "No, we don't have a perfect translation today".

 Given the fact that most ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine greek words/phrases have multiple English phrases, one person's "perfect' might be another's "full of goofs."

And you use the version YOU BELIEVE is best.........

Since you don't believe we have a perfect Bible available to us how DO YOU determine what is actually God's Word and what is "not right yet"?

  God caused various versions to be perfect for their intended readerships and/or uses..

BTW, do YOU have a perfect BV? If you think you do, what's your proof?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

God caused various versions to be perfect for their intended readerships and/or uses..

How then do you decide which one is perfect for a particular use?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 3/9/2019 at 7:12 AM, robycop3 said:

Thanx

SIr, it's hard for me (personally) to take you seriously about your view of the importance of the translation of God's word...when you use text-message spelling such as this.

As to whether a translation is perfect to one person...or full of goofs (as you stated) to another person...I fear your concentration is on the wrong "person" to whom it's ultimately most important.

I've heard this "KJVO myth" used long before you said it here. So...though I'm not a moderator, I'm going to step out on a limb and ask you...

What proof do you have of this claim? Can you give us something like...your top three proofs? If so, please don't copy and paste from other sources. I want to know what you have learned and for it to be written in your own words (without using text-message spelling) which can show me that you're right about this. No need to go in-depth if you don't want to....just bullet-points and a sentence or two explaining why each point is valid. However, feel free to use more sentences if needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

SIr, it's hard for me (personally) to take you seriously about your view of the importance of the translation of God's word...when you use text-message spelling such as this.

  Sir, first of all, while not trying to be smart-aleck or condescending when I say it, I'LL USE TEXTESE OR ANY OTHER NON-SCATOLOGICAL SLANG WHENEVER I JOLLY WELL PLEASE! If it offends someone, TUFF! I don't care! I don't tell anyone else how to type or spell, and I'm not gonna accept criticism for my own spelling or slang.

     That being said...

2 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

As to whether a translation is perfect to one person...or full of goofs (as you stated) to another person...I fear your concentration is on the wrong "person" to whom it's ultimately most important.

  God causes all valid transletions made by Christians to come out as HE pleases. I believe He targets certain groups of people with certain translations. (Speaking only about English translations.) For instance, I believe He aimed the NKJV at those who favor the Textus Receptus and/or the Byzantine mss.

I've heard this "KJVO myth" used long before you said it here. So...though I'm not a moderator, I'm going to step out on a limb and ask you...

What proof do you have of this claim? Can you give us something like...your top three proofs? If so, please don't copy and paste from other sources. I want to know what you have learned and for it to be written in your own words (without using text-message spelling) which can show me that you're right about this. No need to go in-depth if you don't want to....just bullet-points and a sentence or two explaining why each point is valid. However, feel free to use more sentences if needed.

  Glad to answer!

   First, among the several definitions of "myth", the one that fits here is, "a widely-held, but false, belief or idea". Without going into a long explanation here, there's a fact that makes KJVO false and a myth, without figuring in the other factors: ITS TOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in the KJV itself.  No doctrine of faith/worship not found in Scripture, either directly, or by clear implication, is true. Thus, there's simply NO AUTHORITY FROM GOD for KJVO!

  If one PREFERS the KJV, fine, no prob. But when one tells another that the KJV (or any other one Bible translation) is the ONLY valid Bible translation out there, then one is LYING.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, DaveW said:

How then do you decide which one is perfect for a particular use?

Experience, common sense, & audience request.

  Several years ago, a Korean doctor neighbor who was still learning English, was newly-saved, & asked me to borrow a Bible til his Korean-language edition arrived. Without thinking, I handed him a KJV. Next day, he came over, quite-disturbed over "suffer little children". I explained to him what it meant & then gave him a NASV to use.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Hey, RobyCop, I'm not sure why the nesting in your last two responses came out that way. I tried fixing it but can't.  Could you try deleting and redoing them? The way the nesting is coming out makes it look like your responses belong to those you are quoting - which I think is something neither of you would want. 😉

P.S. NoNic was not being offended, he was giving you valuable feedback about how some people view textspeak. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
20 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

 there's a fact that makes KJVO false and a myth,without figuring in the other factors: ITSTOTAL LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT

there's simply NO AUTHORITY FROM GOD for KJVO!

Okay.

26 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

God causes all valid transletions made by Christians to come out as HE pleases.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

27 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I believe He targets certain groups of people with certain translations. (Speaking only about English translations.)

Where is the scriptural support for that?

28 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

For instance, I believe He aimed the NKJV at those who favor the Textus Receptus and/or the Byzantine mss.

Where is the scriptural support for that?

34 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

Well...It answered it, but all that I gathered from it was that you gave unconvincing answers as to what you believe. 

46 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

I'LL USE TEXTESE OR ANY OTHER NON-SCATOLOGICAL SLANG WHENEVER I JOLLY WELL PLEASE! If it offends someone, TUFF! 

O Ok. I c. Talk 2 u l8rz.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, robycop3 said:

Experience, common sense, & audience request.

  Several years ago, a Korean doctor neighbor who was still learning English, was newly-saved, & asked me to borrow a Bible til his Korean-language edition arrived. Without thinking, I handed him a KJV. Next day, he came over, quite-disturbed over "suffer little children". I explained to him what it meant & then gave him a NASV to use.

Two things:

First of all, you explained to him the meaning and his knowledge grew.

Secondly, and far more importantly, you are constantly saying that you decide what is God's Word based on your understanding, your "experience, common sense, and audience request".

If you are deciding what is God's Word, then you are placing yourself in authority over God. It is UP TO YOU which rendering is correct in any given setting.

This matter of authority is why any man should choose a single version and stick to it - they accept it as God's Word ONCE and then accept it in everything it says.

God's Word is then AND ONLY THEN truly the authority in your life.

If I choose which version I think is best in each different situation, then I DECIDE what God's Word looks like.

Who then gave you the right and ability to decide when the Bible is right and when it is wrong?

Which version you choose is actually irrelevant to this aspect, but the choice of a SINGLE VERSION to be your authority is of utmost importance. 

You see this all the time in books that use multiple versions - they don't like a particular rendering, not for any doctrinal reason, but because it suits their own argument better. They decide what God's Word means based on their own ideas, their own experience, their own "common sense".

If they used a single version, they would simply not be able to support all their arguments, for their "preferred version" doesn't support ALL their ideas.

Multiple versions makes it very easy to use the Bible to support what YOU want to say - a single version restricts you to what the text says.

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 minutes ago, Matt Souza said:

I never put much weight into those who is against the KJV only when their only explanation is experience, common sense, & audience request. I'll put my faith and trust in God and His Word, not what man says. 

As to the original topic: While I believe the KJV is perfectly preserved for English speaking people, I do not have a problem with Archaic words being updated. Modern version failed because they have changed meaning of verses by re translating the verse.

Agreed. I would love a modern english equivilent of the KJV. Sadly most attempts have done beyond that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Strangely enough, our friend gave a KJV to a someone who came up with a word that he didn't understand, and to alleviate the problem our friend here FIRST OF ALL explained the meaning of that word to the gentleman. The result was that the gentleman grew in his knowledge of God by the explanation, and ALSO grew in his knowledge of English. Our friend here presents this as a negative, but how is a gaining in knowledge a bad thing?

Also, our friend has unknowingly followed a Bible principle. That of explaining the meaning of a word that is unfamiliar - NOT OF CHANING THAT WORD, but explaining it.

1Sa 9:6-11
(6)  And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.
(7)  Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?
(8)  And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.
(9)  (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
(10)  Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.
(11)  And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?
 

Interesting here that the writer of this passage inserts vs 9 as explanation to the readers, for in his current time the Man of God was called a prophet, but then in vs 11 which is a retelling of the actual account, the word used is not prophet, even though that would have been the common word in the writer's time, but the word "seer" is used because that is what Saul spoke on that day.

So what we have here is a direction by example of the writer of the book of 1 Samuel (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit remember) not to CHANGE the archaic word used to the modern term so the audience understood, but to EXPLAIN the archaic word for the audience.

I had just this example the other day - talking of the Seraphim of Isaiah 6 and the word "twain" is used in reference to the pairs of wings. I knew that there were some in our audience who might not understand that word, so I stopped momentarily and explained "the word "twain" simply means "two", and I could see the light of understanding shine in a few eyes to whom this was new knowledge. From then on when I read that verse as I did a few times, I didn't change it to "two" - they all understood it with no problem, and they now had a greater knowledge of the English language than they did when they came in, and when they read that word in other places of the Bible or indeed in other settings, they have understanding.

 

And by the way, what happens when you get to a word that is still in modern use but not common? - it is not an archaic word, but it still needs to be explained, and even moreso if there is no modern alternative.

When I was learning to be a photogrammetrist, (sorry for those don't know it is a specialised area of geomatics), they didn't find common English terms for things such as Parallax, but they taught me what Parallax meant. I had no idea what "Sterovision" was but instead of finding another word that I understood, they explained what it meant. They didn't find a common term for a graphic pantograph mechanism, they explained it to me. They didn't find a common word for a stereotriangulated solution, they explained what it was.

Personally I have found that when people come across a difficult or archaic word, often the first they will do is find a dictionary - especially nowadays on line. If they still don't understand, then will ask at church, and hopefully get a reasonable and sufficient answer.

I have some people here who are seriously deficient of education, but they ask questions, they seek understanding, they learn and they grow - and the learn how to understand the Bible.

 

Note: for those who understand neither the old word "photogrammetrist" nor the modern equivalent "Geomaticist", I will EXPLAIN IT for your understanding: It is the science of compiling map data from aerial photography, airborne laser scanning data, or other survey tied spatial data - I draw maps from photos taken from planes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Nehemiah 8:7-8 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah,Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. 8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

We don’t need to change the Bible, just need to use good study materials and explain hard words and passages.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DaveW said:

Two things:

First of all, you explained to him the meaning and his knowledge grew.

Wouldn't have been necessary had I given him a version in contemporary English, which he was still learning.

Secondly, and far more importantly, you are constantly saying that you decide what is God's Word based on your understanding, your "experience, common sense, and audience request".

Not REALLY. God decided that a long time ago. I decide on which version(s) will best accomplish what I'm trying to do in a given situation.

If you are deciding what is God's Word, then you are placing yourself in authority over God. It is UP TO YOU which rendering is correct in any given setting.

What's up to me is choosing how I can best convey the info I'm trying to present. GOD has already provided the info itself.

This matter of authority is why any man should choose a single version and stick to it - they accept it as God's Word ONCE and then accept it in everything it says.

God's Word is then AND ONLY THEN truly the authority in your life.

Not ACTUALLY. God Himself is not limited to one translation, and neither am I. I believe in using as much as possible of what God has provided for our use.

If I choose which version I think is best in each different situation, then I DECIDE what God's Word looks like.

Not ACTUALLY. You decide which translation will be the most-understandable to your audience.

Who then gave you the right and ability to decide when the Bible is right and when it is wrong?

Those who made each translation, as well as what little intelligence God gave me. I didn't use it when I gave my Korean friend a copy of the KJV, forgetting he didn't know the now-archaic English of 400 years ago.

Which version you choose is actually irrelevant to this aspect, but the choice of a SINGLE VERSION to be your authority is of utmost importance.

Not at all. The same God who caused Wycliffe's translation to be made, caused the KJV to be made, & caused the NASV to be made. He caused each to be made for English speakers' use.

You see this all the time in books that use multiple versions - they don't like a particular rendering, not for any doctrinal reason, but because it suits their own argument better. They decide what God's Word means based on their own ideas, their own experience, their own "common sense".

 You must remember that every valid Bible translation is a product of God's perfect word being handled by imperfect men. each translator, or team of translators, has decided on what God's word in Koine Greek means in Evglish, to the best of their ability. Some have/had more ability than others.

If they used a single version, they would simply not be able to support all their arguments, for their "preferred version" doesn't support ALL their ideas.

Multiple versions makes it very easy to use the Bible to support what YOU want to say - a single version restricts you to what the text says.

 Well, actually, using only one version limits one to the beliefs and ideas of the translator(s) of that one version. The AV men themselves wrote, in their preface, "To The Reader" :

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.]

  I hope you readm that entire preface, as it'll prove to you that the AV makers themselves were not limited to only one translation, nor did they believe they were making the final, forever-authoritative English Bible translation. That preface is readily available on line. Unfortunately, almost all current KJV editions omit that preface.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Salyan said:

Hey, RobyCop, I'm not sure why the nesting in your last two responses came out that way. I tried fixing it but can't.  Could you try deleting and redoing them? The way the nesting is coming out makes it look like your responses belong to those you are quoting - which I think is something neither of you would want. 😉

P.S. NoNic was not being offended, he was giving you valuable feedback about how some people view textspeak. 

  I'll see what I can do. I tried to re-do them, but my attempts came out worse than ever.  But I believe I see where I messed up. I trued using the same quoting format that VBulletin uses.

As for my previous messages, I APOLOGIZE for accidentally misusing the quote/nesting system in this domain. It was not my intent to wrongly credit anyone for the various quotes.

And, BTW, my apologies for calling you "Sir" as I couldn't deduce your gender from your handle.. And also, I am a man.

Edited by robycop3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

YOU decide which of the DIFFERENT - sometimes vastly different - renderings is correct according to WHAT YOU THINK is right...… You become the authority as it is based upon your decisions.

Just because you refuse to see that you are placing yourself in authority over God's Word does not make it less so.

I had the situation once when I was talking to a friend that I pointed out to him that he should choose one Bible for his family so that he could say to his children that they had one single authority.

He understood it when I said to him that if he picked and chose a different version for each situation, what he was doing was showing his children that if he didn't like what one bible said, he could choose another THAT SUITED HIM. That shows his children that the standard was not solid but changed according to circumstance.

Multiple versions means that YOU BECOME THE JUDGE OVER THE WORD of God.

YOU choose the one that SUITS YOU in any given situation.

YOU change the Word of God (by choosing what suits you) according to WHAT YOU WANT.

One single version that you make yourself accountable to means that YOU CHANGE to SUIT THE WORD OF GOD.

Which one of those is right? Should I change the Word of God, or should I let the Word of God change me?

 

And remember, at this point I am only arguing for a solid and firm foundation instead of a moveable and changing one, NOT what that foundation should be.

That is another matter.

10 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  I'll see what I can do.

And, BTW, my apologies for calling you "Sir" as I couldn't deduce your gender from your handle.. And also, I am a man.

Oh yeah - if you were an advanced member in a practical rather than a technical sense you have known that.

The quoting thing is always a little bit hard - I think everyone realises it was not out of intent to deceive in some way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...