James Strong, KJV, Redefinitions of words?

[Evang.Benincasa]

How would my brothers and sisters in our churches in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, DR, and Panama use the AV as a plumbline if they don't speak or read English?

[Esaias]

G2863
κομάω,
Ion. κολυμβ-έω, (κόμη)
I
1. let the hair grow long, Ἄβαντες ὄπιθεν κομόωντες Il. 2.542; κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί 3.43, al.; κ. τὴν κεφαλήν Hdt. 4.168; τὰ ὀπίσω κ. τῆς κεφαλῆς ib. 180; τὰ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ τῶν κεφαλέων κ. ib. 191; τὸ γένειον τῇ κεφαλῇ ὁμοίως κ. X. Smp. 4.28; ξανθοτάτοις βοτρύχοισι κ. Pherecr. 189; ἄρσεσιν οὐκ ἐπέοικε κ. Ps.-Phoc. 212; Λακεδαιμόνιοι.. οὐ γὰρ κομῶντες πρὸ τούτου ἀπὸ τούτου κομᾶν Hdt. 1.82, cf. Arist. Rh. 1367a29, Philostr. VA 3.15; ἐλακωνομάνουν ἅπαντες.., ἐκόμων Ar. Av. 1282; μὴ φθονεῖθ' ἡμῖν (sc. τοῖς ἱππεῦσι) κομῶσι Id. Eq. 580; κομῶν καὶ αὐχμηρός Arist. Rh. 1413a9, cf. D.H. 6.26; ἔνορκον ἂν ποιησαίμην μὴ πρότερον κομήσειν (in token of a vow) πρίν.. Pl. Phd. 89c; ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστι· γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν 1Co_11:14-15.
2. plume oneself, give oneself airs, τοιοῦτος ἀνὴρ ὢν ποιητὴς οὐ κομῶ Ar. Nu. 545, cf. Pl. 170; οὗτος ἐπὶ τυραννίδι ἐκόμησε aimed at the monarchy, Hdt. 5.71; ἐπὶ τῷ κομᾷς; on what do you plume yourself ? Ar. V. 1317; μηδὲν ταύτῃ γε κομήσῃς Id. Pl. 572; κ. ἐπὶ κάλλει Plu. Caes. 45, cf. Luc. Nigr. 1; ἐπ' Ἠρίννῃ κ., of her lover, AP 11.322 (Antiphan.): c.dat., Opp. C. 3.192.
II of horses, χρυσέῃσιν ἐθείρῃσιν κομόωντε Il. 8.42, 13.24.
III of the hair itself, to be long, Opp. C. 3.28. metaph., of trees, plants, etc., [ οὖθαρ ἀρούρης] μέλλεν ἄφαρ ταναοῖσι κομήσειν ἀσταχύεσσιν soon were the fields to wave with long ears, h.Cer. 454; μᾶζαι βώλοις κομῶσαι Cratin. 165; ἁ δὲ καλὰ νάρκισσος ἐπ' ἀρκεύθοισι κομάσαι Theoc. 1.133, cf. 4.57; αἴγειρος φύλλοισι κομόωσα A.R. 3.928; ὄρος κεκομημένον ὕλῃ Call. Dian. 41; ἡ γῆ φυτοῖς κομῶσα Arist. Mu. 397a24, cf. Ael. Fr. 75; κομῶντα λήϊα Procop.Gaz. 23. ἀστέρες κομόωντες, = κομῆται, Arat. 1092.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

G2863
κομάω,
Ion. κολυμβ-έω, (κόμη)
I
1. let the hair grow long, Ἄβαντες ὄπιθεν κομόωντες Il. 2.542; κάρη κομόωντες Ἀχαιοί 3.43, al.; κ. τὴν κεφαλήν Hdt. 4.168; τὰ ὀπίσω κ. τῆς κεφαλῆς ib. 180; τὰ ἐπὶ δεξιὰ τῶν κεφαλέων κ. ib. 191; τὸ γένειον τῇ κεφαλῇ ὁμοίως κ. X. Smp. 4.28; ξανθοτάτοις βοτρύχοισι κ. Pherecr. 189; ἄρσεσιν οὐκ ἐπέοικε κ. Ps.-Phoc. 212; Λακεδαιμόνιοι.. οὐ γὰρ κομῶντες πρὸ τούτου ἀπὸ τούτου κομᾶν Hdt. 1.82, cf. Arist. Rh. 1367a29, Philostr. VA 3.15; ἐλακωνομάνουν ἅπαντες.., ἐκόμων Ar. Av. 1282; μὴ φθονεῖθ' ἡμῖν (sc. τοῖς ἱππεῦσι) κομῶσι Id. Eq. 580; κομῶν καὶ αὐχμηρός Arist. Rh. 1413a9, cf. D.H. 6.26; ἔνορκον ἂν ποιησαίμην μὴ πρότερον κομήσειν (in token of a vow) πρίν.. Pl. Phd. 89c; ἀνὴρ μὲν ἐὰν κομᾷ, ἀτιμία αὐτῷ ἐστι· γυνὴ δὲ ἐὰν κομᾷ, δόξα αὐτῇ ἐστιν 1Co_11:14-15.
2. plume oneself, give oneself airs, τοιοῦτος ἀνὴρ ὢν ποιητὴς οὐ κομῶ Ar. Nu. 545, cf. Pl. 170; οὗτος ἐπὶ τυραννίδι ἐκόμησε aimed at the monarchy, Hdt. 5.71; ἐπὶ τῷ κομᾷς; on what do you plume yourself ? Ar. V. 1317; μηδὲν ταύτῃ γε κομήσῃς Id. Pl. 572; κ. ἐπὶ κάλλει Plu. Caes. 45, cf. Luc. Nigr. 1; ἐπ' Ἠρίννῃ κ., of her lover, AP 11.322 (Antiphan.): c.dat., Opp. C. 3.192.
II of horses, χρυσέῃσιν ἐθείρῃσιν κομόωντε Il. 8.42, 13.24.
III of the hair itself, to be long, Opp. C. 3.28. metaph., of trees, plants, etc., [ οὖθαρ ἀρούρης] μέλλεν ἄφαρ ταναοῖσι κομήσειν ἀσταχύεσσιν soon were the fields to wave with long ears, h.Cer. 454; μᾶζαι βώλοις κομῶσαι Cratin. 165; ἁ δὲ καλὰ νάρκισσος ἐπ' ἀρκεύθοισι κομάσαι Theoc. 1.133, cf. 4.57; αἴγειρος φύλλοισι κομόωσα A.R. 3.928; ὄρος κεκομημένον ὕλῃ Call. Dian. 41; ἡ γῆ φυτοῖς κομῶσα Arist. Mu. 397a24, cf. Ael. Fr. 75; κομῶντα λήϊα Procop.Gaz. 23. ἀστέρες κομόωντες, = κομῆται, Arat. 1092.

Yes, indeed, the Spanish Bible as did Jerome found the best definition for the Greek.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

How would my brothers and sisters in our churches in Mexico, Colombia, Honduras, DR, and Panama use the AV as a plumbline if they don't speak or read English?

No, we are speaking of the translators using it as a plumbline.


If they do a good job, then the brethren down there are good to go.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

So, with the 1900 Spanish how does that match up with the Gomez?

They are both Reformation Bible editions with similar underlying texts. Both are 1,000 times superior to any corruption version.

Manny Rodriquez has an interesting review. He is in favor of the Gomez edition, however his write-up is informative even if that is not your Spanish Bible of choice. There have been some criticisms of the Humberto Gomez work that some feel are important.

My Position on the Spanish Bible Issue
Manny Rodriquez
http://www.4thesaviour.com/8.html

It would be nice to have the 1909 and the RVG handy, and then ask some Christian friends whose English Bible is the AV, and are totally fluent in Spanish, what is their sense of the two Bibles. Clearly the RVG is better textually, however I take no position translationally.

=============

Sean answered your plumb line question.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

They are both Reformation Bible editions with similar underlying texts. Both are 1,000 times superior to any corruption version.

Manny Rodriquez has an interesting review. He is in favor of the Gomez edition, however his write-up is informative even if that is not your Spanish Bible of choice. There have been some criticisms of the Humberto Gomez work that some feel are important.

My Position on the Spanish Bible Issue
Manny Rodriquez
http://www.4thesaviour.com/8.html

It would be nice to have the 1909 and the RVG handy, and then ask some Christian friends whose English Bible is the AV, and are totally fluent in Spanish, what is their sense of the two Bibles. Clearly the RVG is better textually, however I take no position translationally.

=============

Sean answered your plumb line question.

Steven

Steven, what do you mean when you say clearly the Gomez is better textually?
Better than what? 1909 RV, better than 1964 RV?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Also, when you talk about a plumbline you are talking about the TR original Greek manuscripts, and Hebrew manuscripts? Please explain, since you brought up the plum line idea.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

They are both Reformation Bible editions with similar underlying texts. Both are 1,000 times superior to any corruption version.

Manny Rodriquez has an interesting review. He is in favor of the Gomez edition, however his write-up is informative even if that is not your Spanish Bible of choice. There have been some criticisms of the Humberto Gomez work that some feel are important.

My Position on the Spanish Bible Issue
Manny Rodriquez
http://www.4thesaviour.com/8.html

It would be nice to have the 1909 and the RVG handy, and then ask some Christian friends whose English Bible is the AV, and are totally fluent in Spanish, what is their sense of the two Bibles. Clearly the RVG is better textually, however I take no position translationally.

=============

Sean answered your plumb line question.

Steven

Is that article saying the RVG was done by correcting the RV to bring it in line with the English AV? Or was it corrected to bring it in line with the Hebrew and Greek?

Wouldn't the plumb line be the underlying text(s), rather than another translation of those texts?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Steven, what do you mean when you say clearly the Gomez is better textually?
Better than what? 1909 RV, better than 1964 RV?

Better than either. Textually, the AV-1611 is superb, the plumb line. Earlier, the Geneva 1576 Tomson is quite excellent (the 1560 Geneva is significantly weaker, missing important verses and phrases.) So when you see 100 or 200 departures, you have an inferior TR text, although you can still have a TR text. The 1909 is closer to a pure TR text than the 1960. All this is indepedent of the translation issues (which is where the RVG has been criticized at spots.)

I was actually surprised that the RV 1960 only had about 200 departures. I thought it had deep concessions to the Westcott-Hort recension, maybe some of the 200 are major, maybe the count is higher. I base that on a book that criticizes the RV-1960, with an elephant in the title, The Elephant in the Living Room. I'll likely go back and check.

All of this is the NT. The plumb line is the AV, which drew mostly from the 1598 Beza and 1551 Stephanus excellence, but on some occasions drew from other editions, like an Erasmus or Complutensian. The AV is an independent TR edition, as nicely expressed by Edward Freer Hills.

The AV is the Received Text of the Received Texts .

When you talk about the best underlying TR text, basically the superb translation of the AV is irrelevant. You are simply talking about a TR edition, e.g. does it have "her purification" or the error "their purification" in Luke 2:22. This can be right, or wrong, in a Greek, English or Finnish TR text. The issue is textual, not translational.

The RV-Gomez was also brought translationally closer to the AV. This has proponents and opponents, since it can leave the historical Spanish Bible expression, and has to be done with great caution and care on idiomatic phrases. So, I'll leave that up to my Spanish friends.

Steven

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Sean

The KJV is almost debunked.

Keep up your good work fella's.

Sean, let's get down to the brass tacks. Instead of going in circles about who's right and who's wrong, and who's quotation of such and such a scholar ought to hold more weight, and come face to face with reality.

Perhaps the KJV is flawless, it is a translation given by divine fiat, and God created it and caused it to exist, and it is perfect in everyway. I know that's what you believe. It's what many people believe.

If this is really the case, how awesome! I would love for it to be the case. It would make a lot of things much easier.

But stop for a moment, and ask "What if it's not flawless? What if there are errors of translation? What if the TR and the Masoretic texts are occasionally problematic, and were corrupted, even if in only one place, or only one time? What then?"

For you, and I think Steven, although I haven't seen him express it so much into words, this would mean there is no pure Bible in existence. This would mean God did not preserve His Word, He allowed human hands to screw it up, and if it's wrong in one place, it may as well be wrong everywhere else, because to have one flaw causes doubts on the whole.

Okay, so, then what? Let's just say that at some point in your near future, you become convinced that the KJV is not what you believed it was. You become convinced that there are errors in it. Let's just say that for the sake of discussion.

What happens to Sean?

Do you fall apart? Do you enter into a crisis of faith that might never end?

Do you begin to doubt God? Do you doubt He's even real? Do you doubt your experiences? Receiving the Holy Spirit and speaking in other tongues?

How far will you fall if the one Bible translation you have held aloft as perfect in every conceivable way becomes, in your mind, marred with errors?

I daresay, Sean, it seems to me that you will fall to pieces and perhaps never get back up.

This is the danger of KJV Onlyism. I know you and Steven and perhaps others here will disagree with me here, but the hardline KJVO position causes one of two things to happen:

1.) It causes the adherent to lose their Christian faith if ever they find reason to find fault with the KJV

or

2.) It causes the KJVO adherent to turn their mind off, to become unwilling to hear anything remotely close to a critique of the KJV, even if it means falling headfirst into complete delusion and deception and confirmation bias regarding the alleged perfection of the KJV.

You have set yourself up to fail, either way.

That 1828 dictionary you claim you use to help you with old words in the KJV? It was created by a man who rewrote the KJV and became what you call a redefinitionist not better than James Strong. In fact, Webster's 1828 dictionary carries more entries for Bible words than any preceding dictionary in the English language, up until that time. Not just any old Bible words, but specifically KJV Bible words. And guess what? He redefined them however he saw fit. It comes with the territory. When you're the creator of the dictionary, you get to make it say whatever you want.

So, all this time you've been a KJVO proponent, referring to Webster's 1828, going off about modernists and redefinitionists, and etc., you've been relying upon the very thing you condemn to help you understand your KJV!

The irony is unparalleled!

And, to not be a hypocrite, if you're going to reject and denounce James Strong, and other 19th century scholars (Robertson, perhaps, or Lightfoot, for example), you have to do the same with Webster and his dictionary, because he did the exact same thing as Strong and company.

The floor is painted, and you're standing in the corner, and you didn't even know it.

That's why I went off about the KJVO down in the Debate Room, and called it what I did (even though it came off more like a personal attack when I was trying to attack the position only). You're walking a tightrope made out of dental floss and there's no net to catch you if ever you find out the KJV ain't all that.

Forget temperance and self-control, whether or not the NIV committee hired a lesbian to be a part of their process, forget Strong's Concordance, and all these other secondary issues, and deal with the above. Because if ever, and I give you that "if", but if ever you find fault with your KJV, you're about sunk.

The only hope you will have at that point is to realize God is not a book, He is an author, and yes, He's real, and yes, He filled you with His Spirit and washed away your sins, and has spoken to you and you know Him personally, and none of that is at all in doubt, even if you have doubts about the KJV.

If God had not once given us a single written document, He would still be real. If no Bible at all existed, it wouldn't stop Jesus from having died for your sins and mine. Consider Abraham, who didn't have a Bible, but became the father or many nations, and the ancestor of all those who follow Jesus. No book, no written word, nothing. And yet, he existed. He was real. He heard God's voice, followed God's plan, and now his descendants are like the number of stars in the sky and the sands of the sea. You can have the same faith in God, even if the KJV has a few blemishes in it. And it does, even if you don't or won't or can't right now, see it.