Bible Versions Questions and discussion about the Bible version issue.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-05-2008, 07:54 PM
gruvEdude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question Inquiring minds need to know

The following link refers to Dr. Sam Gipp's The Answer Book QUESTION 4: Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't we need a modern translation to eliminate them?

http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/archaic.html

In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice for handling archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11. "Now there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour.

2 And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.

3 And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said to Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses.

4 And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of the Benjamites, but they found them not.

5 And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us.

6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that we should go.

7 Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?

8 And the servant answered Saul aga^n, and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the man of God, to tell us our way.

9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)

10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come let us go. So they went unto the city where the man of God was.

11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"

Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9, we are not only confronted with an archaic word, but with the Bible practice for handling it.

We find Saul and one of his father's servants searching for the asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5). They decide to go to see Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding the asses (verses 6-8).

In verse 11 we are going to run into an a¨chaic word. But, before we do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative (verse 9) to tell us about it. Notice that verse 9 states that "he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer." Thus we see that, between the time that this event took place and the time that the incident was divinely recorded the word "Seer" had passed from common use to be replaced with "Prophet." "Seer" was now archaic.

BUT, look carefully at verse 11 where the archaic word appeared.

"And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"

Please note that the verse retains the outdated word "seer." It does not say, "Is the prophet here?"

Thus we see that God Himself through the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word but did not change the holy text!

Who was doing the asking, God or humans? Since it was asked "Is the seer here?" it is accurate to quote the archaic word. It was not asked "Is the prophet here?"

Where is God ever untimely with words or otherwise?
The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software
  #2  
Old 02-05-2008, 08:00 PM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

So what is this supposed to mean? Are we to insert definitions in the text of our Bibles? That would still be tampering with the text, so wouldn't help anyone or maintain the integrity of our KJV. Though there is nothing wrong with a note in the margin giving definitions, or a glossary at the back.
  #3  
Old 02-06-2008, 05:04 AM
gruvEdude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

First, it was wondered if it was humans or God that used archaic words in Gipp's example. Then, it was asked
Quote:
Where is God ever untimely with words or otherwise?
No answer is seen in this reply. Is there an answer to
Quote:
Where is God ever untimely with words or otherwise?
  #4  
Old 02-06-2008, 10:09 AM
Bible thumper
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry View Post
So what is this supposed to mean? Are we to insert definitions in the text of our Bibles? That would still be tampering with the text, so wouldn't help anyone or maintain the integrity of our KJV. Though there is nothing wrong with a note in the margin giving definitions, or a glossary at the back.
I believe the point is if you read the bible carefully it will define itself.
The born again Christian has the Holy Spirit guiding him or her through the word, showing things that others can't get without Gods Spirit. There is no other book like that.
  #5  
Old 02-06-2008, 12:01 PM
ok.book.guy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry View Post
So what is this supposed to mean? Are we to insert definitions in the text of our Bibles? That would still be tampering with the text, so wouldn't help anyone or maintain the integrity of our KJV. Though there is nothing wrong with a note in the margin giving definitions, or a glossary at the back.
Bro Gipp's point is we're supposed to keep the archaic words in our bible. When we find one. We find out what it means (which is another way of finding out how its used elsewhere in the bible) and then we understand the archaic word.

Bro Gipp doesn't even speak to the issue of updating our margins or backs of our bibles. His whole point is the archaic words are to remain in our bible text.

I do use a pencil to make note of definitions of archaic words. I also use Websters 1928 for definitions. I do not pretend to know greek grammar (like so many who play the greek game) and so I have no use whatsoever for the definitions in Strongs. Remember, the greek TR doesn't trump our KJV/AV. I know alot more english grammar than anything else. I know no greek/hebrew grammar. So I don't play the greek game with Strong's.

You know in my experience, when one plays the greek game, its because he still labors under the delusion that the Greek TR trumps the KJV. When I finally emraced that, I never used Strong's Gk/Hb definitions again.
  #6  
Old 02-06-2008, 12:17 PM
jerry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There is nothing wrong with Strong's Concordance - what he does is give the meanings of the words that underly our English Bible. If there was no way to accurately determine what they mean, we wouldn't HAVE a KJV. The problem is when someone misuses a Strong's or some other lexicon to correct the KJV. I have never done that and I have been using my Strong's for 14 years.

No, I do not think the TR is better or should correct the KJV - however, I do not think the TR is useless. It it was not preserved then again we wouldn't have the KJV. It was studying out the history of the preserved texts that led me to become King James Bible only. The TR does not usurp my KJV, nor is it contrary to it.

I might be wrong, but the impression I got from Gipp's article when I first read it was that we should put the definitions of the word in the text. He is not very clear. I agree that we should study out the Bible and see how a word is used. But if that was enough to give us an exact meaning, then none of you should be using Webster's either... Webster's and Strong's give a basic definition and range of meaning - context determines exactly what definition fits - and usage throughout the Bible also does that. I also believe the KJV translators were right in choosing what English word or phrase was best suited for each word or phrase in Greek, based on the context of the passage - so I would never seek to undermine that or find some other definition or translation/rendering.
  #7  
Old 02-07-2008, 10:23 PM
ok.book.guy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Very sound reasoning brother Jerry! If it were not for the TR we wouldn't have the KJV/AV. Quite true. "But now that we have it" is my perspective. Now that we have it, I cannot be helped by appealing to Strong's greek lexicon because I do not know greek grammar nor the koine idiom. To really bring this point home, try doing a word study in the spanish valera bible, using a lexicon in spanish etc. . . I know spanish but
I can't do anything but hurt myself from that exercise. Try it and see what I mean. Then ask yourself TWO questions while your doing it. #1 Why? Why am i deferring to God's preserved word in a different language? You may just as well do word studies in the French Olivetan as to do them in the Greek TR. While its true that the TR was instrumental in the rise of these other versions (Spanish, French, English) it is not true that the Greek trumps any of them.
#2 Why is it one so so often hears English speakers making appeals to the Greek TR but almost never one hears appeals to the French or Spanish? Why is that? WHY? The answer is, there is this stubborn nagging MINDSET that we can't seem to shake off that the Greek really does get one closer to God's real word. That somehow we're still sort of artificially isolated from His real word unless we "get into the Greek". As if it trumps the English.

I began using Strong's lexicon very seriously in 1972. I had heard a preacher quote from the "original Greek" and was smitten with the idea of being able to do that myself! Note: This was basically never heard of before (at least in these parts). It was a "revelation" that the bible was really a product of the Greek and that if one was really dedicated, he would pay the price and "get into the Greek".

I honestly hear you brother Jerry when you say you use it to help you understand the english bible. I do not want to put words into your mouth. Honestly.

I recall being so impressed with the example of Ulrich Zwingli, who when he obtained his first copy of the Erasmus Greek text, he said "Nothing shall stand between me and learning Greek". That's wonderful. But that was then.
My point is: THIS is now. We have God's actual word in english in our hands, and we make more profitable appeals when we appeal to the early english dictionaries than when we appeal to the dictionaries of another language.


But my perspective on this issue is that an app
  #8  
Old 02-13-2008, 09:17 PM
gruvEdude
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It turns out, that I was in error for giving Gipp's example.

Can anyone please explain
Quote:
Where is God ever untimely with words or otherwise?
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

The King James Bible Page SwordSearcher Bible Software

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright vBulletin Solutions Inc.

Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.

Software for Believing Bible Study

 
Contact Us AV1611.Com