Thoughts about an update to the KJV?

[BibleBeliever5]

1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sure, I can let it go. 

Thanks.   

[SureWord]

8 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Please think more carefully about the words used in 1 Cor. 2:14-15.  I think you are missing the nuances of "natural man" and "he that is spiritual" in light of the whole verses.  I don't think we need to argue.  We actually have lots of common ground.  I have already expressed my belief that the natural man in 1 Cor. 2:14 means certain non-believers, the natural ones, as it says.  I wish you the best, and let's not argue out of our love in Christ.     

 

 

You are reading something into the passage that's not there. There's the natural man and the spiritual. The unregenernated and regenerated. The saved and the lost. The Christian and the non-Christian. There is nothing in between. A Christian may be carnal in behavior but he in still a spiritual man with the mind in Christ in him. It's just a matter of yielding to that mind.

The bible was not intended for the natural, i.e. lost man.

 

[SureWord]

On 2/1/2021 at 2:43 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "SureWord,"

That is a valuable point to consider why the original translators chose the word "besom" in that context, rather than the word "broom."  Whatever their reasoning may have been (if we are able to discern it) is worthy of consideration whether the word "besom" is more significant for the context than the word "broom."

I always give the KJV the benefit of that doubt and consider that the translators had a valid reason to choose the words they chose.

[1Timothy115]

On 1/30/2021 at 10:23 AM, BibleBeliever5 said:

You may feel comfortable with the antiquated language of the KJV, but that does mean it isn't archaic for the general population.  The definition of archaic fits exactly what you describe:  "no longer in ordinary use though retained by individuals" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself, just your explanation.  That's a problem.

I agree, it's mostly spelling changes.  It was not a general update of the grammar and vocabulary.  The grammar and vocabulary of the 1769 is still basically the same as the 1611.  So let's be clear-eyed about this.  We are still using a version basically 400 years old.  It is obviously and factually antiquated.

You won't be quoting the NLT to the "non-believer that you meet on the street" either. Or, for that matter any other version unless you just happen to have your large print New Living Translation with you as you approach Walmart. So, that argument doesn't fit either.

No, you still won't admit that the 1769 has MANY changes to words. The "v" for "u" was one of 1000s. I think you were caught off guard when you discounted significant changes from 1611 to 1769 only to find there are thousands. We have the best Bible available to english speaking people and it has been for almost 300 years. Your argument isn't holding water or, for that matter attaining your goal of agreement for a another new version. Why don't you just stop "as one that beateth the air:" [1 Cor. 9:26]  and move to a different topic; "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." [1 Timothy 2:16] "Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." [Galatians 5:26]. There is "discord among brethren" [Proverbs 6:19] being sown. 

[1Timothy115]

On 1/30/2021 at 1:16 PM, BibleBeliever5 said:

Here is one verse that was written for and to the non-believer.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That is archaic English and would sound very strange for a non-believer not familiar with KJV English.  Do we need to give non-believers that kind of hurdle to understand God's word?

No, you actually have to remain with them and disciple them submitting yourself to the Holy Spirit to be used in aiding the unbelieving to understand God's truth and the Gospel of Christ. It's not a microwave oven process...its not a drive up window give me a small fry and a burger. These are souls of men.

 

On 1/30/2021 at 1:16 PM, BibleBeliever5 said:

Here is one verse that was written for and to the non-believer.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That is archaic English and would sound very strange for a non-believer not familiar with KJV English.  Do we need to give non-believers that kind of hurdle to understand God's word?

Which one of these words can't you understand? I'll help you with them.

[1Timothy115]

On 1/30/2021 at 1:39 PM, HappyChristian said:

Well, I guess the medical world doesn't realize that. Imagine that...an archaic word being used in modern times. Unprecedented. lol

In modern scientific endeavors, NEVER!  That settles it, I won't be getting the Chinese virus vaccine. 

[BibleBeliever5]

9 hours ago, SureWord said:

The bible was not intended for the natural, i.e. lost man.

Not true.

[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

4 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Not true.

[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Here is wherein I can have agreement with you -- The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as presented in the Holy Scriptures, IS for the unbeliever.  (Note: This does NOT mean that I believe the entirety of the teaching in God's Holy Word is for the unbeliever, as per my previous discussion with you.)

[WellWithMySoul]

My response to the OP: without question or doubt, no...to any "update".  

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Is. 55:11).

A thoughtful quote is: "Teachers may put good things into our heads, but it is God that can put them into our hearts, that can work in us both to will and to do."

[Pastorj]

1 hour ago, WellWithMySoul said:

My response to the OP: without question or doubt, no...to any "update".  

"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart" (Heb. 4:12).

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it" (Is. 55:11).

A thoughtful quote is: "Teachers may put good things into our heads, but it is God that can put them into our hearts, that can work in us both to will and to do."

Would you use the KJV if you were a missionary to a place that doesn't speak English or would you use an equivalent version in the language of the country you are going to?

[WellWithMySoul]

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

Edited February 3, 2021 by WellWithMySoul
addition

[BibleBeliever5]

3 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Here is wherein I can have agreement with you -- The Gospel of Jesus Christ, as presented in the Holy Scriptures, IS for the unbeliever.

Amen!

[Pastorj]

1 hour ago, WellWithMySoul said:

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

Thanks. Unfortunately, that would not be the proper way to translate to the other language. You would want someone who is a linguist to translate from the original Greek/Hebrew to get the most accurate translation. A lot is lost when you translate from one language to another and it is always best to go back to the original language.

[WellWithMySoul]

Yes.  That is exactly why I responded to the OP only.  I probably shouldn't have replied to the question of what I would do as far as translating to a  foreign language...I have no knowledge overall on the process.  Please forgive me for responding inaccurately.  I'm just a lil ole lady, striving to love the Lord with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

2 minutes ago, WellWithMySoul said:

Yes.  That is exactly why I responded to the OP only.  I probably shouldn't have replied to the question of what I would do as far as translating to a  foreign language...I have no knowledge overall on the process.  Please forgive me for responding inaccurately.  I'm just a lil ole lady, striving to love the Lord with all of my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known.  IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done.  However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available (again as per God's providence).