James Strong, KJV, Redefinitions of words?

[Sean]

Yes, the modernists don't know the ancient meanings.
If they did, they would change them anyway.

[Sean]

They must compare their finished product with the KJV, not Strong's silly book of new ideas or the NIV, etc.

[TGBTG]

Sean,
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? lol

You're saying instead of learning the original language, a Chinese translator must first learn ENGLISH before translating the bible to their native tongue.

This is both funny and sad.

[Sean]

No, I am saying they must compare the finished product to the best product.

Chinese are good at fake products, so use a different group to make a point...LOL

[Sean]

A Russian guy decides to create a translation.

He get's his Greek decoder book out and makes it.

How does he know he is good to go?

He gets a translator group the are bilingual and compares his translation with the KJV before marketing it.

[Sean]

Multiversionists would refer the Russian to Virginia Mollencott for her approval, instead of the KJV.....LOL

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by Sean

No, I am saying they must compare the finished product to the best product.

Chinese are good at fake products, so use a different group to make a point...LOL

You don't have to stereotype other christians to make an argument. Learn to be classy.

Anyway, the point was not about Chinese people but rather mandating translations of the bible into other languages (Chinese, Spanish, Italian, etc) be compared to an english translation instead of the available manuscripts.

If you can't see the ridiculousness of your position, well, all I can say is good luck to you.

[Sean]

Your no- mans land of Greek scholars(that dont even speak fluent Greek) is what I consider ridiculous.

It insists on anybody's brother making up his own Bible translation with no accountability to anyone or anything.

The translation factories you multiversionists are defending, if left unopposed, will someday wipe out Christianity, and send it into the abyss of endless redefinitions and newer meanings.


The KJV is the Infallible, God inspired, stand alone Bible for Christendom, and it will always be the official word of God to the English speaking world.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Simply because:

It is basically the etymological fallacy.

The Latin definition itself may be over-simplified, as is the tendency for shorthand definitions, but that is irrelevant anyway as your attempt involves the etymological fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Taking one definition from a source language usage hundreds of years ago and trying to proscribe today's English from that dictionary extraction is really a nice textbook case of the fallacy.

To givv an example.

The Christian Temperance Society
At its founding in 1874, the stated purpose of the WCTU was to create a "sober and pure world" by abstinence, purity, and evangelical Christianity.

Nobody remotely considers calling it the Christian Self-Control Society.

Two different words, two different meanings. And any version that loses temperance and changes it to self-control is corrupted, and is likely corrupted in 1,000 other spots as well.

Steven

Steven,

You have taken a definition given in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary and applied it to the 1611 use of the same word in the KJV, and you're claiming I'm employing an etymological fallacy? You are using a definition that is 200 years too late!

The definition I have given relating back to the Middle English and Latin is much more in line with the idea brought forth in the KJV, that is, of self-control. In fact, the era known as Middle English didn't come to a conclusion until about 100 years before the KJV was printed, showing a continuation of thought and meaning from when the word was first used up until it was Anglicized from the Latin. For proof, look at the various English translations of the Textus Receptus that predate the KJV.

You can check them here:

http://textusreceptusbibles.com/

Wycliffe's from 1382 uses "temperaunce", thus showing the word entered into the Middle English language effectively unchanged from the Latin original.

Not only that, but if you're going to use the 1828 Webster's Dictionary definition of temperance, you have to contend with the burgeoning "temperance movement" of the early 19th century as an influence upon Webster's definition.

See: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1054.html

Further, if you didn't already realize or know, Webster himself became a "redefinitionist" and rewrote the KJV in 1833, and called it the Common Version, replacing what he considered to be archaic words and phrases that were out of vogue or no longer considered grammatically correct in his day.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/webster.html

So, is going to him for a reference really the best option?

And finally:

The Greek word for "temperance" as found in Galatians 5:28 and 2 Peter 1:6 is

ἐγκράτεια

Or, transliterated, it's egkrateia.

Now, note the Greek word for "incontinent" as found in 2 Timothy 3:3:

ακρατεις or akrateis. Anyone can see that the two words are joined at the hip. In fact, they both share the same root, that is, κράτος or kratos.*

And what does "incontinent" mean? It means "lack of moderation or self-restraint or control", from the Latin incontinentem, meaning intemperate.

And where does "intemperate" come from? From the Latin temperantia, the very root of the word "temperance" that I showed several pages ago.

What's all this mean? It means we are dealing with closely related synonyms of each other, each effectively meaning about the same thing. Your 1828 definition of temperance does not preclude the idea of "self-control" at all. The very use of the word "incontinent" in 2 Timothy 3:3 for a Greek word of the same root and range proves this.

*This word kratos is where we get words like pantokrator, translated as "Almighty" in Revelation 4:8. It's the root of words like theocracy and autocracy. One important word is αὐτοκράτωρ which means "ruler of self", that is, someone who rules or controls themselves (as opposed to an external rule or control exerted by others).

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I've placed some material here (and consider this a starting point.).

the character of the age in which they lived
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...ich-they-lived

Separately, there is also a rich vein of material about the skills of the AV learned men, including a discussion of the Greek debates, and their language skills. I could pull some of that together, if it would help

In addition, I have a separate set of references about how the modern seminarian scholars, and this includes translators and writers of grammar books, often cannot even speak Greek in any sort of conversational, comprehensible fashion.

I've also noticed how lexicon scholars can always make lexical excuses when dealing with solecisms in the modern corruption text, which grate the ear of a fluent speaker. A fine study on that is how Eugenius Bulgaris wrote about the harsh and false Greek in the section in 1 John 5, when you remove the heavenly witnesses and have only the gender discordance of the earthly witnesses. Another example is the beautiful "God was manifest in the flesh", which is lost in the corruption versions. There, the lexicon scholar excuses for the missing antecedent are legion.

Steven

Two dudes from 1836? Please tell me you're joking...