James Strong, KJV, Redefinitions of words?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

This is an odd observation but an observation nonetheless I would say the majority if not all who claim to be Christians on this forum were converted by KJV preaching?

I was not. The day God saved me, whatever the preacher preached is a total blank. I have no idea what he said, what texts he used, what Bible he preached from. I was converted because I had an encounter with Christ, Who met with me personally at an altar of repentance.

And the reason that came about is because I was loved into the faith by close friends who were daily interceding and praying for me. The day my atheism ended didn't have anything to do with the Bible being used. It's because I heard my best friend from childhood speak with other tongues and hearing him caused me to realize God was real, in an instant. I didn't convert right then. That came a few years later.

But I would not say my salvation came about because of KJV preaching.

This doesn't make me anti-KJV. I've read through it 20 plus times, at least. Some parts I've read 30-40 times over. Just about every Bible study I've ever taught and just about all but one that I can recall, of those whom I won to the Lord, I had my KJV right there with me.

I think it is a "good" translation. Not best. Certainly not flawless or God-breathed, as it were. So, I agree with Bro. Benincasa, that this isn't a KJV slam-a-thon. Just honest attempts by all to deal with the KJV and the Strong's Concordance and other related issues.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If I am not mistaken there are numerous Bible translations made into other languages using the same text-family the AV is based on, such as the Reina-Valera, the Luther Bible, etc.

I don't know if modern translations into other languages are using different texts, though, or going for an over emphasis on "dynamic equivalence", etc.

NIV and NLT claim "dynamic equivalence". ESV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV claim "formal equivalence". I think the HCSB does, too.

Then there are things like the Message and the Living Bible, which are modern Targums, if you will.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Doesn't criar also mean to nurture or to grow something? (I see a connection to una criada, as well, here)

Here you go:

http://dle.rae.es/?id=BFyuWxK

This is the Royal Academy of the Spanish Language, the institute that preserves the Spanish language and governs its use for the over 700 million speakers in the world.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is the RV in the imperative? Or nominative? I mean, does it say "do not conform to the flesh" etc, or does it say "those who do not conform to the flesh" etc? My Castillian is rusty.

1960 RV reads:

Ahora, pues, ninguna condenación hay para los que están en Cristo Jesús, los que no andan conforme a la carne, sino conforme al Espíritu.

My literal translation:

Now, then, none condemnation there is for those who are in Christ Jesus, those who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

1909 reads:

AHORA pues, ninguna condenación hay para los que están en Cristo Jesús, los que no andan conforme á la carne, mas conforme al espíritu.

Or, to translate literally:

Now then, none condemnation there is for those who are in Christ Jesus, those who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

RVG reads:

Ahora, pues, ninguna condenación hay para los que están en Cristo Jesús, los que no andan conforme a la carne, sino conforme al Espíritu (italics theirs).

Translating literally to:

Now, then, none condemnation there is for those who are in Christ Jesus, those who walk not according to the flesh, but rather according to the Spirit.

The 1602 reads

Ahnque aora, ninguna condenación ay para los que están en Crifto Iefus; que no andan conforme à la carne, mas conforme al Efpiritu (italics theirs).

(There is a footnote after the "no", but I can't make it out. See here:https://archive.org/stream/ReinaVale.../n105/mode/2up)

Literal Translation:

Although now, none condemnation there is for those who are en Christ Jesus; who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.

They all pretty much read the same, with only slight variations that have no bearing on meaning. If one were to go a little less literal, especially in terms of syntactic arrangement, one could easily render the phrase "no andan conforme" as "do not walk according to" instead of "walk not according to". Again, the difference is slight. Most English readers are entrenched with using the auxillary "do" in such instances, whereas Spanish has no need--indeed it doesn't exist, for such additional terms to make the phrase flow more naturally. This is merely a convention of English that goes back centuries. A good study of it is found here:

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Magnifice.../dp/1592404944

Also: https://www.economist.com/blogs/john...uxiliary-verbs

and

http://wordmanship.blogspot.com/2014...ngless-do.html

Both, are summaries of McWhorter's position in Our Magnificent Bastard Tongue (from the amazon.com link).

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Sean

If you piece together your favorite verses in a book, then you will have an infallible Bible to preach from.

That's pretty much what the KJV folks did.

They borrowed from Tyndale, and then from the Bishops and etc., and copied them word for word sometimes, then compared these to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and added or subtracted, that is, changed, the readings they borrowed and pulled from earlier English translations, as they felt was needed, in order to "make a good [English translation] better, or out of many good ones, one principall..."

wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke: ) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke.

See: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...troduction.php

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I would hazard a guess that the 17th century Spanish text would be superior if for no other reason than I suspect Spanish has degraded just as English has in these last 100 years or so...

Spanish has unofficially degraded in the USA due to the rise and prominence of "spanglish", or bending Spanish and English into a confusing mixture which produces nothing Spanish or English.

However, officially, the Royal Academy closely guards the rules and conventions of the language, and has been doing so for over 300 years.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The educated translator likely already is quite competent in English, since it is used all over the world for science, literature, culture, as well as Biblical studies.

My brother goes to math conferences all over the world, Hungary, Israel, China and much more, and the common language is English. Greek and Aramaic and Hebrew are localized languages, and Latin lacks a populace.

Steven

Most non-Western hemisphere translations are created by English speaking missionaries who have a translator for the native or indigenous tongue, (unless they've learned it themselves) who can also speak passing fair English, and between them, they get a translation going. Exceptions exist, of course, such as www.wycliffe.org.

[Sean]

This doesn't make me anti-KJV. I've read through it 20 plus times, at least. Some parts I've read 30-40 times over. Just about every Bible study I've ever taught and just about all but one that I can recall, of those whom I won to the Lord, I had my KJV right there with me.

This is the first positive thing about the KJV I have seen in years posted by multiversionists(that I can remember).

It is pretty positive but not real positive.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Sean

This is the first positive thing about the KJV I have seen in years posted by multiversionists(that I can remember).

It is pretty positive but not real positive.

If someone was literally anti-KJV, they'd do more than just read from or recommend other English translations. They would also do more than attempt to point out some areas where they think the KJV has issues.

They'd be pulling a Ruckman and calling the KJV of the Devil, and creating angelfire websites or wordpress blogs devoted to getting people to throw their KJV's in the garbage or have an old fashion book-burning. Or write a book denouncing "old age Bible translations", or some such thing.

I don't see that here or anywhere, not like I do with KJV Only adherents.

[Sean]

Aaron, we stand for something, but multiversionists stand for nothing.(questions upon questions)

Try to see it through that point of view.