busdrvrlinda54

Indeed, Brother Wayne,
The program that you are using above does claim that the Hebrew word can mean "clothing, ornaments."  Yet it provides one, and only one, example for the possible meaning of "clothing."  That example is Deuteronomy 22:5 itself, which is the VERY instance under dispute.  Furthermore, that program translates that phrase of the verse as follows, "a man's clothing."  However, the King James translation does NOT so translate that phrase of the verse.  Rather, the King James translation translates that phrase as, "that which pertaineth unto a man."  On the other hand, the modern translation DO translate it differently.  The NIV gives, "A woman must not wear men's clothing."  The ESV gives, "A woman shall not wear a man's garment."  The NASV gives, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing."  The New Living Translation gives, "A woman must not put on men's clothing."  The Good News Translation gives, "Women are not to wear men's clothing."  The Message gives, "A woman must not wear a man's clothing."  You will notice that all of these modern translations translate the Hebrew word either with the English word "garment" or with the English word "clothing."  So, now I wonder if the King James translators had a reason why they did NOT translate the Hebrew word with the English word "garment" (just as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word) or with the English word "clothing."  I wonder if we trust the King James translators more than the modern translations.  If we do trust the King James translators more, then I wonder if we should seek to discern the reason for their translation choice, and for the fact that they did not choose the word "garment" even as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word.
As for myself, having done the word study of the Hebrew word throughout the entire Old Testament, actually looking up ALL 325 occurrences, I stand with trust upon the phrase which the King James translators employed in the King James translation.  Furthermore, I believe that this full word study has granted understanding as to the reason why they chose the translational phrasing that they did.
As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in the King James translation of Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," is used 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As such, it is translated as the following within the King James translation:
 1.  166 times - "vessel(s)"
 2.  39 times - "instrument(s)"
 3.  21 times - "weapon(s)"
 4.  21 times - "jewel(s)" (as in, jewelry)
 5.  18 times - "armourbearer" (when added with the Hebrew word for "bearing, bearer," providing the "armour" side of the meaning)
 6.  14 times - "stuff" 
 7.  11 times - "thing(s)"
 8.  10 times - "armour"
 9.  7 times - "furniture"
10.  3 times - "carriage"
11.  2 times - "bag"
12  13 times - miscellaneous phrasing (such as, "that which pertaineth unto")
It should be noted that the words for "clothe," "clothing," "garment," etc. are not on this list even a single time.  The fact is that the Hebrew word does NOT mean "that which is made of clothe, clothing."  On the other hand, Deuteronomy 22:5 clearly indicates that it is referencing something that a man might wear.  So then, what do we find on this list of 325 occurrences that is something which a man might wear?  We find two options, being "jewels" (jewelry) or "armour."  As such, we may understand that in the immediate context of the time wherein the Lord God gave this instruction through Moses unto the children of Israel, He was indicating that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's jewelry (wouldn't that be interesting to preach in a Fundamental Baptist church), or that it was an abomination for a woman to wear a man's armor.  I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.  (Please note that this conclusion is based upon an ACTUAL word study throughout the Old Testament.)  If this is correct, then this would mean that a women was NOT breaking this command if she put on a man's shirt, cloak, coat, belt, hat, etc., but only if she put on a man's ARMOR.  On the other hand, a man would be breaking his side of this command if he put on any number of clothing pieces that would be recognized as women's (feminine) clothing.
So then, with such an understanding for the MEANING of this instruction, what is the point and PRINCIPLE of this instruction whereby we may make APPLICATION of this instruction unto our present day?  (Note:  I believe that understanding the meaning of an instruction is necessary BEFORE we can discern the principle, and that understanding the principle of an instruction is necessary BEFORE we can discern correct applications.)
(Another side note:  As I have mentioned, the Hebrew word that is translated in Deuteronomy 22:5 with the phrase, "that which pertaineth unto," occurs 325 times throughout the Old Testament.  As I have also mentioned in a previous posting, I REQUIRED my oldest son to look up ALL 325 occurrences BEFORE I would discuss this matter with him.  I wonder how many here felt any need to do the due diligence of that complete word study.  If my experience with the Fundamentalist movement is a gauge (having grown up therein from baby-hood, and being committed by conviction to the foundational principles thereof), I would guess that there were only a few.,  If I may bare one of my heart's ongoing burdens at this point - This lack of diligence in Bible study is one of the things that grieves and burdens my heart deeply about the Fundamentalist movement.)

WellWithMySoul,
Thank you for your observation and thoughts. 
You are correct. The KJV is just fine, accurate, simple, loyal to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and adequate to use in translating into foreign languages. 
Alan 

This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.

Since an answer does not seem forthcoming, allow me to provide the grammatical facts concerning the meaning and significance of the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye."
 
Concerning PERSONAL PRONOUNS in English
1st person personal pronouns are those referring to one's self.
2nd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken to directly.
3rd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken about indirectly.
Personal pronouns contain both singular and plural forms for the sake of accuracy, EXCEPT in the case of the 2nd person personal pronouns for present-day English:
                                                           Singular                                                                       Plural
1st person --               I (nominative case), me (objective case)               we (nominative case), us (objective case)
2nd person --            you (nominative case), you (objective case)         you (nominative case), you (objective case)
3rd person --              he, she (nominative), him, her (objective)        they (nominative case), them (objective case)
(Note: For present-day English usage, the pronoun "you" serves both for the singular and plural, as well as both for the nominative and objective cases in both the singular and plural.  As such, some element of confusion is possible; and since both the Hebrew and Greek possess distinct forms for the singular and plural 2nd person personal pronouns, some aspect of accuracy would be lost.)
However, personal pronouns contain both singular and plural forms for the sake of accuracy WITHOUT exception if we use the more "archaic" English forms:
                                                             Singular                                                                       Plural
1st person --               I (nominative case), me (objective case)               we (nominative case), us (objective case)
2nd person --            thou (nominative case), thee (objective case)         ye (nominative case), you (objective case)
3rd person --              he, she (nominative), him, her (objective)        they (nominative case), them (objective case)
(Note: When using the more "archaic" English personal pronoun forms, the pronouns "thou," "thee," "ye," and "you" each serve in a distinct manner to accurately distinguish the singular and plural, as well as to distinguish the nominative and objective cases in both the singular and plural.  As such, these more "archaic" English personal pronouns in the King James translation retain the precise accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek from which they are translated.) 

And there it is -- Avoid the question of ACCURACY in order to push your agenda of updating.  You have again revealed your priorities.  
By the way, concerning the matter of accuracy and the "archaic" pronouns, with God indeed all things are possible; and God has already provided an answer -- Bible teachers who teach others the importance and meaning of those pronouns for the sake of accuracy.  (Note: I myself did not know the grammatical significance of ANY pronouns, except that someone first taught me English grammar, so the need to be taught  is NOT an argument against this provision.)  This is the manner by which God made it possible for me to learn their importance and meaning.  This is the manner by which God has made it possible for me to teach others concerning their importance and meaning.
You, on the other hand, do not seem to care, but only seem to want to avoid the subject of their accuracy.  (Note: At this point I remain very uncertain that you even know the grammatical significance/meaning of those pronouns.)

Brother "BibleBeliever,"
Do you understand the grammatical significance of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"?  If so, what do you understand that grammatical significance to be?
In your opening question for this thread discussion, you ask about "a simple, ACCURATE KJV update."  Understanding the grammatical significance for the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye," I would contend that they are included in the King James translation for precise accuracy.  Furthermore, I would contend that arguing for them to be removed is demonstrating an interest in "simplicity" AT THE EXPENSE of accuracy.  No King James translation supporter that I know would EVER support that, nor would they EVER use such a product.

I believe it was a plague...that's it. I don't mean to sound like a smarty-pants...I simply believe it was a plague.
All of the 10 plagues sent on Egypt don't fall under the disease/pestilence categories (unless I misunderstand the meaning of pestilence), and unless I misunderstand the final plague, it brought death without disease.
 

Hmmmm. Brother Young, I am compelled to disagree with your understanding of Numbers 31:16-24 and with your understanding of Joshua 22:16-19.
Concerning Numbers 31:16-24:
1.  In verse 16 Moses did indicate that the women of Midian, "through the counsel of Balaam," had caused the children of Israel "to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor."
2.  In verse 16 Moses did indicate that this trespass against LORD resulted in "a plague among the congregation of the LORD."  (By the way, neither Numbers 25 nor Numbers 31 say anything about a plague being anywhere other than "among the congregation" of Israel.)
3.  In verses 17-18 Moses did instruct the soldiers to kill all of the male children and all of the non-virgin females of Midian.  (Note: They had ALREADY killed all of the adult males of Midian when they conquered them.)  On the other hand, he instructed them to keep alive all of the virgin females of Midian.  Yet Moses said not a single word about this being in order to deal with some plague/disease that might have existed among the Midianites.  (Indeed, IF this was in order to deal with some plague of STD, why were the MALE children killed, while keeping alive the FEMALE virgins?)
4.   In verse 19 Moses did instruct the soldiers and their spoils (including the female virgins of Midian) to remain "without the camp seven days," but he did not say a single word about this being to protect the congregation of Israel from some plague.
5.  In verse 19 Moses did instruct the soldiers to "purify" all of their captive Midianites and any soldier that had killed someone or that had touched a dead body.  Yet this did NOT require a purifying of those who might only have touched a LIVING Midianite.  (Note: IF a plague of STD was the problem, then touching ANY Midianite, living or dead, should have been a problem for possibly passing that plague along.)
6.  In verse 20 Moses did instruct the soldiers to "purify" all of their raiment, all that was made of animal skins, all that was made with goats' hair, and all that was made with wood; but he did not say a single word about this being to deal with any plague contagion.
7.  In verses 21-24 Eleazar instructed the soldiers concerning the burning of that which would burn and the cleansing by water of all else, including their clothing on the seventh day; but he did not say a single word about this being to deal with any plague contagion.
8.  In fact, there is NOT a single word about plague anywhere throughout verses 17-24.  The ONLY mention of plague in this entire context is in verse 16; and that mention grammatically places that plague in the PAST TENSE ("And there WAS a plague among the congregation of the LORD").  Furthermore, that mention of plague in verse 16 ONLY speaks about a plague that was past tense "AMONG THE CONGREGATION" of Israel (not among the Midianite peoples or nation).
9.  Thus any insertion of plague among the Midianites is CONJECTURE, and any insertion of dealing with plague through the cleansings of verses 17-24 is CONJECTURE.  It is going BEYOND the revelation of Scripture.
Concerning Joshua 22:16-19:
1.  In Joshua 22:1-9 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh have completed their obligation to help the other tribes of Israel to conquer the land of Canaan, and are thus permitted to return unto their designated land on the east side of Jordan as promised by the Lord through Moses in Numbers 32:16-33.  There is NO indication throughout Joshua 22:1-9 that there is anything wrong, defiled, unclean, or plagued about this land.  In fact, in verse 4 that land is described as the land of their possession, which Moses the servant of the LORD had given them on the other side Jordan; and in verse 9 that land is described as "the land of their possession, whereof they were possessed, according to the word of the LORD by the hand of Moses."  Furthermore, there is NO indication throughout Joshua 22:1-9 that after they returned unto this land of their possession, they would be required to engage in ANY manner of purifying for the land.  (Note: IF this land was defiled, unclean, or plagued, then their women and children had spent the entirety of the time that they had been helping the other tribes of Israel in such a plague infested land, as per Numbers 32:16-27.)
2.  In Joshua 22:10 the problem is raised in that the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh built an alter by Jordan, "a great altar to see to."  In fact, throughout verses 11-16 the ALTAR is the problem -- "And the children of Israel heard say, Behold, the children of Reuben and the children of Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh have built an altar over against the land of Canaan, in the borders of Jordan, at the passage of the children of Israel.  And when the children of Israel heard of it, the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up to war against them.  And the children of Israel sent unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, into the land of Gilead, Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, and with him ten princes, of each chief house a prince throughout all the tribes of Israel; and each one was an head of the house of their fathers among the thousands of Israel.  And they came unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, and to the half tribe of Manasseh, unto the land of Gilead, and they spake with them, saying, Thus saith the whole congregation of the LORD, What trespass is this that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from following the LORD, in that ye have builded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against the LORD?"  Indeed, the rest of Israel initially viewed the building of this ALTAR as a trespass committed against the God of Israel, as a turning away from the Lord, and as a rebellion against the LORD.
3.  In Joshua 22:17-18 the rest of the children of Israel challenge the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh with the following question -- "Is the iniquity of Peor too little for us, from which we are not cleansed until this day, although there was a plague in the congregation of the LORD, but that ye must turn away this day from following the LORD?"  With this question they do NOT ask whether they were not cleansed from the plague of Peor.  Rather, they ask whether they were not cleansed from the INIQUITY of Peor.  Furthermore, with this question they reference the plague as being PAST TENSE; and they ONLY reference the plague as being "in the congregation of the LORD," NOT as being in any body of land.  Finally, with this question they indicate their concern, NOT that some plague might continue to infest, but that the INIQUITY of turning away "from following the LORD" might continue.
4.  In the closing portion of Joshua 22:18 and in verse 20, the rest of the children of Israel express their concern that a trespass by the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh might cause the Lord God to "be wroth with the WHOLE congregation of Israel," even as in the case of Achan.
5.  In Joshua 22:19 the rest of the children of Israel offer the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh that IF they had found their land to be unclean, they could always move to the western side of Jordan with the rest of the children of Israel.  
6.  In Joshua 22:20-29 the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh explain their decision to build the alter, NOT AT ALL as a rebellion against the Lord, NOT AT ALL as an altar for sacrifices, and NOT AT ALL as a replacement for the alter of the Lord in tabernacle, but ONLY as a memorial of witness between them and the rest of the children of Israel that ALL were a part of the same people and the same covenant.
7.  In Joshua 22:30-34 the rest of the children of Israel express approval for this altar as a memorial of witness, and thus return unto the land of Canaan with NO FURTHER CONCERNS.  Indeed, the chapter ends positively with NO concern about any unclean, plague infested land, and with NO purifying activity of any kind.  (Note: IF, as you say, the land was still infested with plague, then I would expect something to have been done about that, or at least some concern about it.)  Remember, in Joshua 22:19 the rest of the children of Israel had offered that IF the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh had found their land to be unclean, they could always move to the western side of Jordan with the rest of the children of Israel.  Since this chapter concludes positively with NO move by them from their land, it would appear that they were NOT AT ALL concerned that the land was at all unclean.

Your answer may not require a separate thread, but the discussion this is likely to create will. ? And I didn’t want us to get distracted from giving the OP answers to her genuine questions as to the nature of God.
It is very likely there were STDs in the ancient world. However,  you cannot say with any authority they are what is being referred to here. There is simply no biblical evidence for it. 
In reference to the woman of Moab being “diseased”, you contradicted that yourself. If God sent a special disease to punish Israel’s immorality, then the Moabites were not diseased when they arrived. At any rate,  God punished Israel for sinning and disobeying him – period.  There’s no reason to add anything else to the story. 
It was very common for victors of the time to kill the men and boys, and keep the single girls and children alive.  No male children means no one to grow up and avenge their fathers. You have an interesting theory, but I really don’t see the need to read a special anti-STD campaign into this.  Could it have been a factor? Sure. But you can’t count it as ‘fact’.

This is very  close to accusing Salyan of being one of these liberals, which she absolutely is not. Furthermore, since there is no direct Biblical reference to STD's in the passages you present, it is not Salyan reading into the passages but you!
I am  not a mod, but I would suggest you write with a little more care and a little more  consideration to other members. 

I was wondering what the veiws are as far as salvation after the rapture goes.    I guess I was a bit to influenced by the "left behind" movies.  Will people have to work for their salvation after the rapture?   All of my family members are lost , so this troubles me.    I realize this question may seem silly for someone who has been saved for 14 yrs.  I thought I knew the answer to this but have been hearing different things in past few years.   Thank you. 

...and it astounds me how anyone can believe that different "bible" versions, which say different things, and teach different doctrines could believe that such differences are okay.

Yep, folks are "entitled" to their opinions...but when we bring God into it, our entitlement goes out the window. We are to follow scripture as our guide, not our opinions (which are far too often based on emotion or experience rather than scripture). IF our opinions are grounded in scripture, then great. So, robycop, while I am not denigrating your opinion (which you stated earlier is based on your experience as a cop), please do share actual scripture which gives credence to your opinion. If the Bible actually teaches that we are to only have the children which we can afford, we should all know that.  (I do want to add here, though, that I do believe God will tell each family when "enough is enough" - and that is based on the scriptural principle that God leads the husband to lead his family [well, if said husband is saved and following scripture] in the way God would have them go...of course, then it is very unlikely that children will run afoul of the law [note that I said very unlikely, not impossible...each child makes his/her own choices]. Faux Christianity breeds law breakers. True Christianity does not.)
 
BTW, roby, I just noticed that you are located in southern Ohio. My hubs and my son are both Buckeyes, but from the Cols area. Randy's parents are from the southern part, though. His family that still lives there live in the Pedro area. 

You're entitled to your opinion, but  I'm also entitled to mine. And I'm never gonna change my opinion that God tells us when enough is enough of anything, including kids.

I shall not mention the forbidden subject again here, secure in the knowledge that the points I made can't be proven wrong. If anyone wishes to try, I am frequently on the "Baptist Board" & will answer your questions there.
 
  Now, may we get back to the Assyrians, please?

Oh, brother...

Thanks for your thoughts bro. Alan. I agree that he is promoting his own agenda, just as others before him have promoted their own pet agendas. But as far as destroying OLB, it's not going to happen. All the others with their own agendas have come and gone without affecting any change in this forum's purpose or even succeeding in changing the minds of those here who know what they believe and why they believe it. Inevitably they are all seen for what they really are; trouble makers.
He has already got one moderator warning, it's just a matter of time before he does himself in. Speaking of things such as warnings, I see that he has 14 minus points on his reputation; I may be wrong but I do think that this is a record. I can't remember even seeing one minus point for anyone else on this board.
Please notice that I say these things publicly and to avoid being accused of talking behind a brother's back. I don't think he is beyond hope, God is in the business of changing people, therefore while there is life there is hope. I cannot help but think that not having one person agree with his agenda and so many in opposition to it that it may have a positive affect on him at some point.
 Mr 7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 

Jim,
I appreciate your thoughts, admonition, and encouragement.
Alan
Roby said, ""Everybody happy now?"
Sarcasm does not indicate to other people your sincerity nor does it diffuse a situation already inflamed by previous missteps.
 

Once again with this kind of thing people have a habit of making categorical statements where no such statement can be made.
By all means speculate about the nature of the mark etc and what form it might take, but to state categorically that (in this instance) the mark is some form of computer chip, is going beyond what the Bible says.
This is Sooooooooooooo common when it comes to prophecy, but soooo dangerous.
Of course there is the aspect that the writer is describing as best he can something that is totally foreign to him, but for us to then make statements with certainty is just dangerous - maybe what he is describing is something that is totally foreign to us also.
But we know for certain that people will willingly and knowing take the mark, so it is not today's credit cards as some have put it, and if the cards are replaced by a chip that is implanted (as it seems certain will happen widescale because it is already being tested small scale) then we have to keep in mind that it is a knowing submission to the mark, as a recognised submission to the anti-Christ.
If then the chip implanted is done so without any sort of reference to allegiance to the Anti-Christ, then IT IS NOT THE MARK...….

Now thats I'a thinks bouts it, I's wondr'n, is that frase in the Sinasticus or that fanshy-smanshy Vinasticus manuscriptus? Kausin' it hain't ina my good ole' King James versy...
 

Again I say, "Shame on you."
The only thing that you have proven is that you believe certain things and that you assert that you have an audience who wants those certain things...the latter; of which, remains unproven...however, such a claim is believable considering the days in which we live...and that sir, is nothing to boast of.
Shame on you.

Now wait a minute...
You reject the SDA's version and others because they're from false religions...BUT...you accept the Sinaiticus & Vaticanus even though they were discovered in the possession of false religions. Interesting...
You sir, are the epitome of doing what's right in your own eyes. Your whole and continuous argument has consisted of absolutely nothing more than what you believe and what your supposed "audience" wants.
Shame on you.

Dave, if you keep asking him to prove his claims, you might shatter his faith in his all-powerful mantra.

PROVE IT, PROVE IT, PROVE IT ,PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You keep making this claim and thus far you have shown one that has been disproved, and one that actually supports the accuracy of the KJV.
I DEMAND - YES DEMAND -that you stop making this false claim UNTIL you have backed it up with solid evidence.
 

Those objects weren't the Holy Word of God. God never promised to preserve cars or washing machines. The KJV is in "our" English, just because some words aren't used much anymore doesn't mean we don't/can't understand them. I learned Shakespeare in school. My ESL learners read unedited versions of Shakespeare in their English classes, he is not gospel so why do we not just learn only the versions edited into modern English?