A Good Conversation

[Deborah_]

There are probably no more than about two dozen such archaic words in the King James Bible. And that is why every Christian should invest in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (KJB).

https://www.amazon.com/Strongs-Exhaustive-Concordance-Bible-Strong/dp/1598566938

As to the word "conversation" it means manner of life.

The problem is, how does the average person know which words have archaic meanings and which ones are unchanged? The modern meaning of 'conversation' makes (almost) sense in the context. To make sure that everything is being understood correctly, you'd have to look up every single word you read, which would be an awful chore. Quicker, easier and more effective to read the KJV alongside a modern translation, I would have thought.

Some time ago, on another forum, one KJV user was waxing lyrical on "reins" (as mentioned in one of the psalms), assuming that it was about the kind of reins that are used to guide a horse. He hadn't realised that the word actually meant "kidneys"... And if an experienced KJV user can make such a mistake, then it's possible for anyone to get hold of the wrong end of the stick.

 

[farouk]

The problem is, how does the average person know which words have archaic meanings and which ones are unchanged? The modern meaning of 'conversation' makes (almost) sense in the context. To make sure that everything is being understood correctly, you'd have to look up every single word you read, which would be an awful chore. Quicker, easier and more effective to read the KJV alongside a modern translation, I would have thought.

Some time ago, on another forum, one KJV user was waxing lyrical on "reins" (as mentioned in one of the psalms), assuming that it was about the kind of reins that are used to guide a horse. He hadn't realised that the word actually meant "kidneys"... And if an experienced KJV user can make such a mistake, then it's possible for anyone to get hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Some modern versions lose out in other ways.

 

[marks]

What they "said" in Hebrew, seldom literally translates to English (or probably many other languages) the "meaning" of the depth of the intent of their speaking. Give me something like TPT everytime. It more closely matches what a Hebrew person would tell you the original words conveyed.

Imagine someone trying to translate one of us saying, "It is raining cats and dogs!"

That's a great example! It might be chalked up to Apokolypitic Genre.

It's all about what the original speaker meant, and how confident we are that what we're reading is a good representation, right?

And nothing like mentioning the Passion translation to start a controversy! This is where the admonition applies, I think, when we have knowledge different than the other guy's. It's like, we can impress with our knowledge, or we can show from a good life that we have it.

On the one hand, it's a loose translation in a number of places, not really translating at all, and debatable whether it should read that way or not. On the other hand (I haven't read it so I don't know how it reads) if it expresses God to someone, the Holy Spirit can use it just the same.

We could talk about the translator, the NAR connections in some of the passages, all that, or, Is it producing in me the right kind of life? Something others can see?

Much Love!

 

[marks]

The problem is, how does the average person know which words have archaic meanings and which ones are unchanged? The modern meaning of 'conversation' makes (almost) sense in the context. To make sure that everything is being understood correctly, you'd have to look up every single word you read, which would be an awful chore. Quicker, easier and more effective to read the KJV alongside a modern translation, I would have thought.

Some time ago, on another forum, one KJV user was waxing lyrical on "reins" (as mentioned in one of the psalms), assuming that it was about the kind of reins that are used to guide a horse. He hadn't realised that the word actually meant "kidneys"... And if an experienced KJV user can make such a mistake, then it's possible for anyone to get hold of the wrong end of the stick.

Hi Deborah,

I think reading alongside other translations is great, for that reason, and also just so see how the others put things! I like putting the King James, NASB, and NLT together.

Much love!

 

[Enoch111]

To make sure that everything is being understood correctly, you'd have to look up every single word you read, which would be an awful chore.

As I already mentioned there are probably about two dozen archaic words which need to be checked, such as "prevent" meaning "precede". And anyone who is seriously studying the Bible should be checking out the actual words in the Hebrew or Greek. For example the Hebrew shabuim שָׁבֻעִ֨ים (sha·vu·'im) literally means a period of seven or a heptad.* It can mean a week of seven days or a week of seven years, depending on the context. So when one reads Daniel 9:24, one needs to see what was actually said by Daniel.

Strong's Concordance
shabua: a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week
Original Word: שְׁבוּעַ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: shabua
Phonetic Spelling: (shaw-boo'-ah)
Definition: a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week

 

[Pearl]

As I already mentioned there are probably about two dozen archaic words which need to be checked, such as "prevent" meaning "precede". And anyone who is seriously studying the Bible should be checking out the actual words in the Hebrew or Greek. For example the Hebrew shabuim שָׁבֻעִ֨ים (sha·vu·'im) literally means a period of seven or a heptad.* It can mean a week of seven days or a week of seven years, depending on the context. So when one reads Daniel 9:24, one needs to see what was actually said by Daniel.

Strong's Concordance
shabua: a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week
Original Word: שְׁבוּעַ
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: shabua
Phonetic Spelling: (shaw-boo'-ah)
Definition: a period of seven (days, years), heptad, week

I don't understand Hebrew.

 

[Enoch111]

I don't understand Hebrew.

That's why you need Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which has both Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. The beauty of this concordance is that every occurrence of every word in the KJV is listed in order (Genesis to Revelation) and the dictionaries will help you to understand what was actually in the original languages. This should be one's primary study tool, but if you go to Bible Hub (Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages), you can quickly look up both the Strong's meanings as well as the more detailed lexicons (Brown-Driver-Briggs for Hebrew and Thayer's for Greek).

 

[Pearl]

That's why you need Strong's Exhaustive Concordance which has both Hebrew and Greek dictionaries. The beauty of this concordance is that every occurrence of every word in the KJV is listed in order (Genesis to Revelation) and the dictionaries will help you to understand what was actually in the original languages. This should be one's primary study tool, but if you go to Bible Hub (Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages), you can quickly look up both the Strong's meanings as well as the more detailed lexicons (Brown-Driver-Briggs for Hebrew and Thayer's for Greek).

I'm not clever enough to study using a foreign language. I know it may sound 'naff' but I rely on the Holy Spirit to give me the understanding that I need. But be sure of this I am not a second class Christian because I can't read Hebrew.

Sorry if that came across as too touchy but I have been put down over and over by 'clever' scholars on sites like this. We all have our strengths.

 

[Enoch111]

IMO I think it does misrepresent the text. 'Begotten' means more than just unique...

Well since they joined "one and only" and "unique" it would be a paraphrase of "monogenes" (only begotten or uniquely begotten).

Christians should understand that the Holy Spirit deliberately calls Jesus "the only begotten Son of God" since this is a "begetting" unlike any other -- it is an eternal Father-Son relationship within the Godhead which excludes any mother. Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, as well as the eternal Word of God.

 

[marks]

I know it may sound 'naff'

It sounds completely 'naff'! Or it doesn't sound 'naff' at all. I really don't know.

 

[Taken]

You know, I posted this, and went along reading some more threads, as I am wont to do.

Do you realize just how many derisive posts are routinely added to this forum? How many times people are laughed at, "LOL . . . can you believe they (what that person thinks)", or whatever form it takes. How many insults, put downs, little tit-for-tat battles as a member seeks advantage in their words over another.

I used to enjoy Letterman's Top Ten, often ridiculous and hilarious.

And the Number 1 Reason for Ridiculing Another's Post is . . . . drum roll . . . psham . . . "I'm more spiritual than you!"

Much love!

Sure. And while there is a few who will bluntly say, You are Wrong, and they are the School master of educating and learning....Well, I have never solicited anyone on this form to be my Teacher.

However there is also a broad range of people, who like to MAKE CLAIMS for others, speak FOR them....things the other has Never declared is their belief. I have addressed those issues with people who do that to me; to no avail. And to make it Worse, after Speaking for another, they then BASH what they claim the other has said. LOL.
To me it is like you need to insert a Q-tip and directions on how to quote other people. And yes, I do LOL, because it becomes so ridiculous.

It often appears as if people do not know how to express themselves, but yet think themselves qualified to speak for others.

Not to imply it is always Funny, using LOL, because often it is at absurness.

God laughed at men in derision.

LOL ~ Sometimes it is at the ridiculousness, sometimes scoffing, sometimes in amusement, sometimes at the unbelievable, sometimes at the keen cleverness....
The Context reveals.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

I nearly got killed on one Christian forum for saying I preferred the NIV.

LOL...
Probably not amusing to you at the time, but does sound funny.

Personally I Perfer the KJV. And often like to cross reference it with other Versions.

I am not too favorable of Modern Versions...or particularly most any things that ascribes to "INTERNATIONALISM".

God Bless,
Taken

 

[Enoch111]

But be sure of this I am not a second class Christian because I can't read Hebrew.

Well that is a given. We do not need to be Hebrew or Greek scholars at all.

But sometimes Hebrew words need to be carefully checked out. For example Sheol should never have been translated as "the grave", since it is Sheol/Hades in the heart of the earth (the lower parts of the earth) and is presently occupied by the unsaved dead. Christ was in Sheol/Hades for three days and three nights, while His body was in the tomb.

 

[brakelite]

Well since they joined "one and only" and "unique" it would be a paraphrase of "monogenes" (only begotten or uniquely begotten).

Christians should understand that the Holy Spirit deliberately calls Jesus "the only begotten Son of God" since this is a "begetting" unlike any other -- it is an eternal Father-Son relationship within the Godhead which excludes any mother. Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, as well as the eternal Word of God.

Actually, in John 3:16 it is Jesus Himself calling Himself only begotten. It is interesting that John used this particular combination. While mono is obvious...one only, or unique...the ginomai part has been translated over 50 times as done and over 50 times as come, become, made and fulfilled. Strong‘s describes it as a word that is translated in the KJV as be assembled, be (come), be (brought to pass), arise, continue etc.
John wrote his gospel to specifically refute early heresies, and to prove Jesus is the literal Son of God. Also, that Sonship was in context pre-incarnation...not in reference to Jesus' birth in Bethlehem. So John's use of that particular word is in direct pertinence to his purpose in writing...the real pre-invcarnate Sonship of Jesus. The instances John uses the word are..
―And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten (Gr. monogenes) of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:14
―No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten (Gr. monogenes) Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. John 1:18
―For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten (Gr. monogenes) Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
―He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten (Gr. monogenes) Son of God. John 3:18
―In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten (Gr. monogenes) Son into the world, that we might live through him. 1 John 4:9
This was a parent-child relationship. This was obviously the divinely inspired thought that led John to use this word. The latter is very important to realise. This has nothing to do with the incarnation. We are talking here in terms of Christ‘s pre-existence. It would be reasonable to think that John recorded Jesus as saying of Himself (John 3:16) that He was the only one who is "come to pass" or who has been "brought to pass” of God. I would also suggest that based on that reasoning, and along with Jesus later declaration that He "came forth from the Father" and that the life He has was derived from the Father (the same life He has to share with us...eternal life) is why I struggle with the trinitarian concept of 'eternally begotten'. There can be no literal "brought to pass" if Jesus was around for as long as the Father. I believe at some point in eternity, Jesus was "brought forth" . How that came to be and the process through which that took place we of course aren't informed...but the specific use of 'monogenes' throughout John's writings lends itself to that idea which cannot easily be sustained in relation to eternal past existence. But hey, this is just me ruminating and as I have said several times previously, when it comes to the nature of how the Godhead is comprised together and the members' relation to one another, I treat with caution with no declaration of absolutes or formulas.

 

[brakelite]

Well that is a given. We do not need to be Hebrew or Greek scholars at all.

But sometimes Hebrew words need to be carefully checked out. For example Sheol should never have been translated as "the grave", since it is Sheol/Hades in the heart of the earth (the lower parts of the earth) and is presently occupied by the unsaved dead. Christ was in Sheol/Hades for three days and three nights, while His body was in the tomb.

Disagree.

 

[charity]

There are probably no more than about two dozen such archaic words in the King James Bible. And that is why every Christian should invest in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (KJB).

https://www.amazon.com/Strongs-Exhaustive-Concordance-Bible-Strong/dp/1598566938

As to the word "conversation" it means manner of life.

Hello Enoch111,

Even then, would you not agree, that it is the usage to which the Holy Spirit has put the words under consideration that must have the final word. For concordant definitions are also fallible. Only by comparing Scripture with Scripture can a true understanding of any word used in Scripture be truly understood.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

 

[Enoch111]

Hello Enoch111,

Even then, would you not agree, that it is the usage to which the Holy Spirit has put the words under consideration that must have the final word. For concordant definitions are also fallible. Only by comparing Scripture with Scripture can a true understanding of any word used in Scripture be truly understood.

In Christ Jesus
Chris

You are absolutely correct, although I was dealing with another aspect. The ultimate Interpreter and Teacher of Scripture is God the Holy Spirit, who even chose to occasionally rephrase His own words when they were quoted from the Tanakh in the New Testament.

 

[marks]

You are absolutely correct, although I was dealing with another aspect. The ultimate Interpreter and Teacher of Scripture is God the Holy Spirit, who even chose to occasionally rephrase His own words when they were quoted from the Tanakh in the New Testament.

Weren't they quoting from the Setuagint, and that's why the differences from the Masoretic?

Much love!

 

[Enoch111]

Weren't they quoting from the Setuagint, and that's why the differences from the Masoretic?

Palestinian Jews -- particularly the Lord Jesus Christ -- would never have used the corrupted Greek translation of the Tanakh (which has over 50 books including the apocryphal books). When Christ referred to "the Scriptures" He limited them to Torah (the Law), Neviim (the Prophets), and Ketuvim (the Psalms or Writings). A total of 24 books in the Hebrew Bible.

However, there would certainly be similarities in the translations in many cases. But the Septuagint also made some drastic changes to the Scriptures. See The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah by Alfred Edersheim.