Jump to content
Online Baptist

John Young

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    650
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Everything posted by John Young

  1. You could always do what the kings did and write your own updated copy.... That way it can be in your very own version of the English language. Deuteronomy 17:18-20 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19 and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he t
  2. What would be your alternative solution to update these while retaining their accuracy?
  3. It must be because it also still uses the word besom.....
  4. A good translation from english speaking breathern can come from the KJV into a any native language but a refined accurate and precise translation most likely will have to come from the work of the native breathern themselves. Unless the native Christian equips themselves for the task, they will not have a perfect translation in their own language.
  5. I appreciate your comments and I think they show the right spirit in which most faithful King James Bible users approach the scriptures.
  6. And that's the issue with updating based on archaism. Words and grammar fall in and out of common use. The fact that the King James has been the common bible for over 400 years and has been attributed to being one of the major influence in stabilizing English, means that even if a section of the population feels that portions are out of date, that is only their subjective opinion. Because of its common status and continued influance and role in English psych, everything contained in it, other than spelling changed from 1611, is not archaic. Rather, as part of popular english christian li
  7. It not endless debate. Rather it points to the disconnect with our translation philosophies, as to the primary purpose for the scripters we use.
  8. Okay then....Do you believe they can understand the Spiritual aspects of scripture without the Spirit of Christ?
  9. Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope. John 1:6-7 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. The Book of John was written to explain the Spiritual aspects of the gospel to the believer and in the first chapter it explains a witness from God was needed for the lost to comprehend. Before one can believe the scriptures they must first repent unto God and the B
  10. So do you want to update the bible for unbelievers to be able to understand it on their own? I don't think such a thing is truly possible. They need a Spirit filled preacher to speak the Words of Life. I would rather have a written bible that equips the believer, so that the believer can do what they were commissioned to do. John 7:38-39 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not
  11. Its a basic bible concept. God committed the oracles* first to the church in the wilderness and then to us, his NT church with the commission to preach and teach it. The believer has the Spirit of Christ within them which convicts the lost through preaching. The lost cannot believe without the Chrisitian preaching it to them. *4. Among christians, oracles, in the plural, denotes the communications, revelations or messages delivered by God to prophets. In this sense it is rarely used in the singular; but we say, the oracles of God, divine oracles, meaning the Scriptures. ~Webster's 1828
  12. God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own. 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually disc
  13. The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.
  14. I just ordered this digital notebook to help with writing my notes to text. So far from my research (at $200) it seems to be the best compromise to the ReMarkable 2 ($500+). Anything over $200 I would just go with the Lenovo Duet (At $250 with keyboard and cover included and pens for a small extra cost, it is the best value/quality alternative to the Surface Pro $600+). I'll try to do a review of the "ORIGIN" after I get it for those interested. I got my wife the Lenovo Duet and she loves it. It has replaced her laptop and it is practically a do it all device. It doesn't have a lot of bui
  15. That's fine. I' haven't attacked you. I simply shared my concerns with your terminology and my views on the subject matter. You and anyone else can share your "Thoughts about an update to the KJV" in this thread if you want as well. In my opinion "archaisms" is a fundamentally is flawed concept. Much less one that should be a primary consideration in updating scripture. As an example, the material of Mark Ward in particular shows the extent to which this concept takes over in one's mind to turn much of the words one is not familiar with into "archaisms". So no, I personally to not
  16. It really depends on who you talk to. Its a very subject specific concept.
  17. The best ways to solve an issue is often the simplest. Practically all modern versions were made to solve the problem of "archaism" yet many still want to make another and another. I'm beginning to think our problem is not a lack of updates but rather that too many people refuse to give up the KJV for updates, so they keep offering us more. They ask: "How much change will you accept to move from the archaic version?" Here is my answer: Until the conversation stops being about the "archaism" in scripture and returns to the "purity" of God's word, I won't even consider your new up
  18. Not all edifying conversations are agreeable in nature and at times will reveal an area of disagreement between those engaged in it but its still an edifying conversation because the intent is still, as Webster's 1828 says, "To instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally, and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness." I don't have any malicious intent in dealing with this matter here but am simply trying to help and show the reason for the greater conflict among translators. The only way we (modernist, Biblicists, and those who try to mix the two syste
  19. My contention is not about word choice but on the philosophy that determines what words are chosen and why. Take "besom" for instance, which is a TYPE of broom. The considerations for changing even this word will be different based on translation philosophy. The Biblicist asks: "What will best convey the meaning into English?" Modernist asks: "What will my reader understand with minimal effort?" On the surface or in the rushed opinion, one might think they can be held in harmony or that the ease of the reader should be the upmost concern but that is not the case. Which philoso
  20. Take it as you will. Just trying to help save you a lot of time and effort. They were in the context of trying to encourage you to ensure you focus on things of God when translating and that you do not change anything based on modernist methods of looking at men and whims of culture. Not as proof text for not translating or updating. If you keep trying to nitpick small points of argument then you will miss the main point entirely. I do not have a problem with bible translation or using the best synonym for a word but rather, the philosophy and mindset of translation you use is key
  21. The problem with modernist philosophy is not just using corrupt texts but also the lack of care toward word accuracy which historically brought about those corruptions in the first place. They always go hand in hand. Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. (ie. Easter and Passover are the same Greek word equivalents but carry separate English meanings, drawn from historical and biblical context in order to convey more than the original Greek word itself ever could. Additionally things like Author vs starter,
  22. Exodus 22:9 For all manner of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, which another challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; and whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.
  23. When you use "archaic" in reference any word in the KJV it shows you've already drunk the modernist cool aid and believe in their errant reasoning. I don't say that to be harsh but rather to ask that you reconsider that concept in reference to the words of the KJV. Every trade, and even sub cultures, has words that are more common among that trade than the general populace. The translators used a unique English format so that it could be cross cultural with minimal effort. The problem with modernist logic is that now they must make a separate "simple" U.S. update, a separate "simple" U.K. upda
  24. The first step is assessment. To waste time trying without proper discernment causes failure. Luke 14:28-32 KJV For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first, and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it ? [29] Lest haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, all that behold it begin to mock him, [30] Saying, This man began to build, and was not able to finish. [31] Or what king, going to make war against another king, sitteth not down first, and consulteth whether he be able with ten thousand to meet him that comet
  25. Most of the things brought up are not "conclusive evidence" in the strictest terms but they are indicators (circumstantial evidence) that shows the need for further investigation. The only way to verify if fraud actually did occur, one way or the other, would be to audit the signatures of the mail in ballots and of the Dominion system. Short of that (ie. recounting ballots regardless of source) conclusive proof of fraud one way or the other would be impossible. Currently the question is not wither or not we have evidence to prove fraud but rather is there enough circumstantial evidence
×
×
  • Create New...