Where the King James needs updating ...

[Timothy]

Yes, concupiscence is a word that I would look up.

But, I could also read the verses surrounding that word and get a general idea.

yes... and it looks like one of your friends is trying to help you too..... congratulations.... you might make a king james onlyist out of him yet...... and neither one of you will understand the concept of the word ...or even recognize the ways you have been an example of it yourselves..... 

you said in a previous thread you have never really studied the Bible that much....  not even the king james which you insist is double inspired.... . personally... i think it would be a good idea for you to do that .... and study it intently... .. especially if want to argue Bible doctrine with people.... and it would be best to do that studying first....  or you can keep running laps without even knowing why you are running and serving as fodder and the butt of jokes for both sides......  ...it;s up to you......

Speechless.

 

[rsc2a]

Yes, concupiscence is a word that I would look up.

But, I could also read the verses surrounding that word and get a general idea.

[size=12pt]yes... and it looks like one of your friends is trying to help you too..... congratulations.... you might make a king james onlyist out of him yet...

:-X

 

[christundivided]

Yes, concupiscence is a word that I would look up.

But, I could also read the verses surrounding that word and get a general idea.

You know what's ironic Timothy. If you look up the Greek source in the KJV for "concupiscence".... you'll find the translators didn't translate the source as "concupiscence" but three times in the entire NT.....

The other 35 TIMES..... they translated it into a much simpler word to understand.

 

[prophet]

Yes, concupiscence is a word that I would look up.

But, I could also read the verses surrounding that word and get a general idea.

You know what's ironic Timothy. If you look up the Greek source in the KJV for "concupiscence".... you'll find the translators didn't translate the source as "concupiscence" but three times in the entire NT.....

The other 35 TIMES..... they translated it into a much simpler word to understand.

And what 'Greek source' would that be, seeing that know one knows exactly which mss each passage was translated from...of the thousands they had,and in at least 13 languages?

Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[Ransom]

And what 'Greek source' would that be, seeing that know one knows exactly which mss each passage was translated from...

If "know one" [sic] knows, then F. H. A. Scrivener pulled off a literal miracle when he "reverse-engineered" their textual choices into his edition of the TR.

of the thousands they had,and in at least 13 languages?

Thousands?  In fact, they had zero manuscripts.  The KJV translators worked from various editions of Erasmus' text, various editions of Beza's, and most significantly Stephanus' third edition of 1550. Printed texts are not manuscripts.

 

[prophet]

And what 'Greek source' would that be, seeing that know one knows exactly which mss each passage was translated from...

If "know one" [sic] knows, then F. H. A. Scrivener pulled off a literal miracle when he "reverse-engineered" their textual choices into his edition of the TR.

of the thousands they had,and in at least 13 languages?

Thousands?  In fact, they had zero manuscripts.  The KJV translators worked from various editions of Erasmus' text, various editions of Beza's, and most significantly Stephanus' third edition of 1550. Printed texts are not manuscripts.

Or else Scrivener's work is useless, or worse.  No Syrian texts?  No Ethiopian?  No Egyptian? Hmmm...for a minute I thought you had done your homework.

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

Or else Scrivener's work is useless, or worse.

Have you raised this concern with the Trinitarian Bible Society, which continues to print Scrivener's TR to this day?

No Syrian texts?  No Ethiopian?  No Egyptian? Hmmm...for a minute I thought you had done your homework.

Sure, the translators consulted Bibles of other languages. What of it? You still posted an epic howler about their use of Greek texts.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Speaking of manuscripts, here is a link where you can view original manuscripts in high res color.

http://www.csntm.org/

It is more meaningful if you can read Greek.

Not so much for those that don't.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Well here is a link to machine printed text Bibles and one handwritten manuscript Bible.
These are true original sources.
Not very hard to read.

http://www.bibles-online.net/

enjoy

 

[christundivided]

Yes, concupiscence is a word that I would look up.

But, I could also read the verses surrounding that word and get a general idea.

You know what's ironic Timothy. If you look up the Greek source in the KJV for "concupiscence".... you'll find the translators didn't translate the source as "concupiscence" but three times in the entire NT.....

The other 35 TIMES..... they translated it into a much simpler word to understand.

And what 'Greek source' would that be, seeing that know one knows exactly which mss each passage was translated from...of the thousands they had,and in at least 13 languages?

Sent from my HTCEVODesign4G using Tapatalk 2

The verses I referenced in translation didn't come from 13 different languages.

You can reference exactly what the translators used today. It's not a mystery. It's very clear.

Why is it your guys tell everyone you know exactly why the KJV is the only perfect translation..... and then when you're faced with evidence to the contrary you fall back on "no one really knows"?

Do you see the hypocrisy in your methods??

 

[prophet]

Or else Scrivener's work is useless, or worse.

Have you raised this concern with the Trinitarian Bible Society, which continues to print Scrivener's TR to this day?

No Syrian texts?  No Ethiopian?  No Egyptian? Hmmm...for a minute I thought you had done your homework.

Sure, the translators consulted Bibles of other languages. What of it? You still posted an epic howler about their use of Greek texts.

You may believe me, or not, but I do not subscribe to Scrivener's Textus Deceptus, nor to the ensuing editions of the AV that follow his error. 
Nothing changes the facts...the complete list of which mss (and texts) contributed to which readings in the AV 1611(2nd printing, we all know that the first had typos) is not available.  Notes, mss, and texts were lost in a fire, before Scrv attempted to reverse engineer(I like that wording) the 'tr'.  So no one can claim that they have specific knowledge of which Greek, or even which language a particular passages' parent was.
Just a fact. But one that lends zero credibility to any subsequent Greek exegesis of AV passages.

Anishinabe

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

First, the original KJV (and early modifications) are written in Modern English.  I know that sounds wrong (it sure seems far from being "modern"), but that's the correct term. 

I'm surprised nobody stated the obvious reason why it needs updating.  If a pastor has to explain a passage because the people don't understand the Modern English, then what that pastor is doing is ad-hoc translating the passage into contemporary English. 

The only difference between that process and most modern translations is that modern translations don't always use the same non-English sources as the KJV.  However, many modern translations provide you with footnotes to show you what the KJV's sources (like the TR) said. 

As for misleading passages, I can name at least one:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

KJVOs have a choice here.  They can either say this is misleading because the word translated "evil" really means "calamity".  Or they can say God really creates evil, just as it says.  If there's a third option, I can't think of it.

You are correct, we have been speaking modern English since around 1550. or so (depends on which source as to when we changed from Middle English to Modern English)

The problem is not with the use of the word "evil" in Isaiah 45;7, it is with our simplified understanding of the English language.

Of course this is shown in for instance Websters 1828, but you would expect a KJV proponent like myself to use that dictionary.

e·vil  [ee-vuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.


This definition is from Dictionary.com. That is not the first place a theologian is going to go, but it clearly shows the word has two different usages. You could use your Strongs, but no need, the English is clear.

In other words, no need for an update there.

 

[christundivided]

First, the original KJV (and early modifications) are written in Modern English.  I know that sounds wrong (it sure seems far from being "modern"), but that's the correct term. 

I'm surprised nobody stated the obvious reason why it needs updating.  If a pastor has to explain a passage because the people don't understand the Modern English, then what that pastor is doing is ad-hoc translating the passage into contemporary English. 

The only difference between that process and most modern translations is that modern translations don't always use the same non-English sources as the KJV.  However, many modern translations provide you with footnotes to show you what the KJV's sources (like the TR) said. 

As for misleading passages, I can name at least one:

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

KJVOs have a choice here.  They can either say this is misleading because the word translated "evil" really means "calamity".  Or they can say God really creates evil, just as it says.  If there's a third option, I can't think of it.

You are correct, we have been speaking modern English since around 1550. or so (depends on which source as to when we changed from Middle English to Modern English)

The problem is not with the use of the word "evil" in Isaiah 45;7, it is with our simplified understanding of the English language.

Of course this is shown in for instance Websters 1828, but you would expect a KJV proponent like myself to use that dictionary.

e·vil  [ee-vuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2.
harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3.
characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4.
due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5.
marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.


This definition is from Dictionary.com. That is not the first place a theologian is going to go, but it clearly shows the word has two different usages. You could use your Strongs, but no need, the English is clear.

In other words, no need for an update there.

1828 is over 200 years removed from 1611.

You really should use a old Oxford dictionary from the time period. Not an American dictionary 200 years removed.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]1828 is over 200 years removed from 1611.

You really should use a old Oxford dictionary from the time period. Not an American dictionary 200 years removed.[/quote]

Plus the fact that you would have to go to a 200 year old dictionary for a word common in today's speech because the meaning has changed since the translation just highlights why modern translations are a good idea.

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

[quote author=christundivided]1828 is over 200 years removed from 1611.

You really should use a old Oxford dictionary from the time period. Not an American dictionary 200 years removed.

Plus the fact that you would have to go to a 200 year old dictionary for a word common in today's speech because the meaning has changed since the translation just highlights why modern translations are a good idea.
[/quote]

You missed it. The word hasn't changed as shown by a modern dictionary. The Rogue tomato claimed it had changed, but it hasn't.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

[quote author=christundivided]1828 is over 200 years removed from 1611.

You really should use a old Oxford dictionary from the time period. Not an American dictionary 200 years removed.

Plus the fact that you would have to go to a 200 year old dictionary for a word common in today's speech because the meaning has changed since the translation just highlights why modern translations are a good idea.

You missed it. The word hasn't changed as shown by a modern dictionary. The Rogue tomato claimed it had changed, but it hasn't.
[/quote]

Okay, then let's go by the #1 definition, which is how most if not all people will understand it.  There's a reason why it's listed first, after all. 

e·vil  [ee-vuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.  morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

God creates moral evil, evil deeds, wickedness, and evil lives. 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

[quote author=christundivided]1828 is over 200 years removed from 1611.

You really should use a old Oxford dictionary from the time period. Not an American dictionary 200 years removed.

Plus the fact that you would have to go to a 200 year old dictionary for a word common in today's speech because the meaning has changed since the translation just highlights why modern translations are a good idea.

You missed it. The word hasn't changed as shown by a modern dictionary. The Rogue tomato claimed it had changed, but it hasn't.

Okay, then let's go by the #1 definition, which is how most if not all people will understand it.  There's a reason why it's listed first, after all. 

e·vil  [ee-vuhl]  Show IPA
adjective
1.  morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

God creates moral evil, evil deeds, wickedness, and evil lives.
[/quote]

But that is an overly simplistic way of looking at it. There are many words in English which have more than one meaning. What you are doing is the same thing politicians do, they assume we are all too stupid too think for ourselves, so they will think for us. I do not believe people are so foolish that they do not understand by sight the multiple meaning of the word evil.

 

[Timothy]

The Rogue tomato claimed it had changed, but it hasn't.

Don't ever trust a Rogue Tomato.

 

[Izdaari]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

 

[subllibrm]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

Dat 4 shur UR zactly rite