James Strong, KJV, Redefinitions of words?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I have contacted James Strong over a word that didn't seem correct a few years ago, although I can't remember what that was today. I looked through my Strong's, but didn't find where I might have made a reference to it. Anyway, he was quick to acknowledge the mistake saying that I had found a "bonda fide mistake".

Newer editions, or those online have their errors corrected. Although it's still possible, I imagine, to find errors. I know the one I specified has been corrected.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Newer editions, or those online have their errors corrected. Although it's still possible, I imagine, to find errors. I know the one I specified has been corrected.

I was surprised at how quickly James Swanson responded to my inquiry. I think it was that very day or the next.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Because we understand the ancient languages. Where people go wrong like our resident antagonist Sean Wiffle Ball Bat Snidely, is that they think this is just about word meanings. Yet, Textual Criticism is far more than that.

This does not really have anything to do with Textual Criticism at all. You are mixing up your disciplines.

Plus, far more important than some arcane laundry lists that showed up in an Egyptian garbage dump is the simple question of fluency and proficiency in the languages. The learned men of the AV were totally fluent, reading, speaking, even public debates in Greek, knowledgeable from personal experience of the NT Bible Greek, the OT, the early church writers and the Classics. The top American Greek scholars can barely hold a bumbling conversation, and have too many media and social and personal diversions to even spend much time reading the early church writers.

How impressed are you when an Oriental who studied in Japan and never really has spoken English tries to correct your English?

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

If ancient languages could only be understood by men living in the 1600s

Straw man claim. Surely there are some people proficient in modern and Biblical Greek. However, the period from c. 1550-1650 looks to have had the most fluent Greek scholarship. It was not too bad in England into the 1800s, but it had deteriorated. Today it is piddle lexicon Greek that rules the roost, and is totally unreliable. You can mark the Granville Sharp silliness of c. 1800 as an evidence that New Testament Greek scholarship had gone downhill and had become a tool of NT polemics rather than solid language understanding.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Yet, textual criticism isn't rocket science like Bart Ehrman would have you all believe. Nor is it Rube Goldberg armed with a Bible program he can't navigate. It is understanding how the language was used at that time. Whether it is first century A.D. Greek, 17th century English, or 21st century English.

Same error. You are mixing up textual criticism with vocabulary and word meanings used in translational decisions. They barely intersect.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Hence the reason "honest" KJV Onlyists use the 1828 Webster's dictionary.

As a resource, not an authority. Sometimes the 1828 Webster has a radical difference from the 1831 Webster, and other Webster editions. Like when the 1828 mangled the adultery-fornication word definitions (according to a friend who looked them up) yet it was correct in 1831.

And I virtually never use the 1828 Webster. Why should I? I happen to know the English language reasonably well from years of experience. And does that make me dishonest? Why?

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Yeah, that's pretty much how it works. Look up the Regius Professorships of Great Britain, particularly for Hebrew and Greek. At Cambridge, these professorships date to 1540. At Oxford, Hebrew to 1546, Greek to 1541.

The whole intended purpose of university is to pass down to the next generation of students the education and discoveries of the one(s) that preceded it.

However, the students entering the university in 1611 likely were more fluent in the Greek and Latin languages than the graduates today. The quality and quantity of study and usage and iron sharpeneth daily experience went way, way down.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Look at that. Lexicographers can trace the word "reverend" back over 800 years, to see how it developed and evolved over time. If this can be done with English, how much more so with Greek? Hebrew?

True. And the result will often be the etymological fallacy. Psuedo-scholars deciding the meaning of a word by some distant etymological sourcing, rather than its actual usage.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

People do not know the word temperance ??
Then you should help share and teach.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

when a group of scholars sits down to translate the Bible into English, they have to recognize what words in English no longer carry the same meaning or have a different force of meaning, then they did, say fifty or one hundred years ago. ... Take the word "temperance", as one of the fruits of the Spirit (and in other passages). Your average English speaker doesn't use that word and likely doesn't know what it means, so, it gets replaced with the word phrase "self-control".

Acts 24:25
And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come,
Felix trembled, and answered,
Go thy way for this time;
when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Galatians 5:23
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

2 Peter 1:6
And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience;
and to patience godliness;

Thanks for a great example of a redefinition to a word with a very different sense and meaning. Temperance is an aspect of Godly and goodly and holy behavior, as contrasted to sinful living. Self-control is our effort, bumbling, and is more from the psychobabble realm than Christian understanding.

Even the Webster 1828 could help you here:

1. Moderation; particularly, habitual moderation in regard to the indulgence of the natural appetites and passions; restrained or moderate indulgence; as, temperance in eating and drinking , temperance in the indulgence of joy or mirth. Temperance in eating and drinking is opposed to gluttony and drunkenness, and in other indulgences, to excess.

2. Patience; calmness; sedateness; moderation of passion..
He calmed his wrath with goodly temperance. [Unusual] Spenser

“Sir Thomas Elyott, writing in 1534, speaks of the now familiar words, frugality, temperance, sobriety,and magnanimity, as being then not in general use in England.’’

A Dictionary of the English Language - Vol 2 (1832)
Noah Webster
https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet..../n719/mode/2up

Thanks, Votive, for giving Sean and the forum such an excellent example of modern word redefinition, which mangles the spiritual Christian holiness sense of the word.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This does not really have anything to do with Textual Criticism at all. You are mixing up your disciplines.

Plus, far more important than some arcane laundry lists that showed up in an Egyptian garbage dump is the simple question of fluency and proficiency in the languages. The learned men of the AV were totally fluent, reading, speaking, even public debates in Greek, knowledgeable from personal experience of the NT Bible Greek, the OT, the early church writers and the Classics. The top American Greek scholars can barely hold a bumbling conversation, and have too many media and social and personal diversions to even spend much time reading the early church writers.

How impressed are you when an Oriental who studied in Japan and never really has spoken English tries to correct your English?

Straw man claim. Surely there are some people proficient in modern and Biblical Greek. However, the period from c. 1550-1650 looks to have had the most fluent Greek scholarship. It was not too bad in England into the 1800s, but it had deteriorated. Today it is piddle lexicon Greek that rules the roost, and is totally unreliable. You can mark the Granville Sharp silliness of c. 1800 as an evidence that New Testament Greek scholarship had gone downhill and had become a tool of NT polemics rather than solid language understanding.

Same error. You are mixing up textual criticism with vocabulary and word meanings used in translational decisions. They barely intersect.

As a resource, not an authority. Sometimes the 1828 Webster has a radical difference from the 1831 Webster, and other Webster editions. Like when the 1828 mangled the adultery-fornication word definitions (according to a friend who looked them up) yet it was correct in 1831.

And I virtually never use the 1828 Webster. Why should I? I happen to know the English language reasonably well from years of experience. And does that make me dishonest? Why?

Steven

Sorry Steve, but this hullabaloo started in another thread. Or resident mental patient also said that the reading of ancient symbols were impossible. Hence the reason I brought it up.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The guy died in 1894, so I need to know what calling plan you have cause it sounds better than what I'm getting from Verizon!

That was funny.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sorry Steve, but this hullabaloo started in another thread. Or resident mental patient also said that the reading of ancient symbols were impossible. Hence the reason I brought it up.

And I was correcting some errors in your post, especially your confusing textual criticism with changing definitions for translations. And sharing value-added to other posts.

The thread has its own dynamic. No need to be sorry.

And I reported your post, and will likely do so anytime you write with such vitriol. You may be right or wrong about what Sean said about ancient symbols, but you did not even quote that on this thread, so for me it is irrelevant.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

And I was correcting some errors in your post, especially your confusing textual criticism with changing definitions for translations. And sharing value-added to other posts.

The thread has its own dynamic. No need to be sorry.

And I reported your post, and will likely do so anytime you write with such vitriol. You may be right or wrong about what Sean said about ancient symbols, but you did not even quote that on this thread, so for me it is irrelevant.

Steven

Again, I’m sorry for any misunderstanding.

But no apologies for ANYTHING I posted about Sean.

Thank you for being in the conversation of this thread.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

This is about an individuals belief that Greek scholars today can't understand first century Greek like the KJV translators.

That is definitely true, as they were fluent, proficient, and spoke and read Greek literature of all types daily. They carried on conversation, had debates in Greek and simply were way, way above today's crew of lexicon scholars.