You wrote, "I think I understand. I'm just showing you the proper way to understand the Bible, not the English writing. If I could understand the way the KJV is written then many others can to. I'm here to help, that's all. The Bible interpret itself, many don't understand that and the changing of words can affect that understanding. This in itself was a fulfillment of prophecy..."
I hope that I'm not being too critical here but this must be said: it is apparent to me that many people who claim to clearly understand the early 17th Century English of the King James Bible aren't entirely fluent with 21st Century English. You wrote, "The Bible interpret itself, many don't understand that and the changing of words can affect that understanding." My English teachers would have "red-lined" that sentence! Perhaps you meant "The Bible interprets itself. Many don't understand that the changing of words can affect that understanding." This may seem like "nit-picking" but if a person can't write grammatically-correct English, how can s/he possibly understand the Englyshe of the King James Bible?
Also, you referred to the "changing of words" which to me is the tired, old argument that somehow or other the KJV words are perfect, a quality that modern translations lack. There is no basis for that statement! Even the KJV translators wrote that their work wasn't perfect. They wrote that they based their work in part on existing translations and expected their work to be modified over time.
IMHO it really requires a scholar to properly interpret the English of 400+ years ago, an ability that few have. Many things have changed in the English language over the years, so it is easy to misinterpret the meaning of the archaic language.
As my recently added "signature" says: Eisegesis is the process of interpreting text in such a way as to introduce one's own presuppositions, agendas or biases. It is commonly referred to as reading into the text. It is often done to "prove" a pre-held point of concern, and to provide confirmation bias corresponding with the pre-held interpretation and any agendas supported by it. It is very, very easy to do this by self-interpreting Scripture in what is now virtually a foreign language.
As I have said in other posts 1) there are now many more examples of writing in the Biblical languages than there ever were, especially compared to the limited number of texts available 400 years ago and 2) the art/science of translation has vastly improved over the centuries. Therefore, the Bible translations that we have today are the best that have ever been, both in their accuracy of language and in their comprehension of meaning.
The King James Bible sounds and reads beautifully, unlike the common languages in which the Bible books were written. The source documents were written in simple languages: ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. They were meant to be heard and read by common people. Jesus was a common man -- a carpenter -- not a member of the elite. He didn't speak or write in florid prose but in the language of the common people. All one has to do, for example, is to imagine large crowds of common people sitting on a hillside listening to Him, and not clearly understanding what He was saying because it wasn't in their normal language.
The King James is NOT The Bible, it is a TRANSLATION, just as there were earlier translations than the KJV and, of course, many later translations. Perhaps people like to feel "religious" because it is written in archaic Englyshe, or that it was THE English Bible for many years, but neither of those have any value when learning/understanding God's clear message to humanity.
Now of course this has nothing to do with the OP. Mea culpa!
I have ran to a dead end on this topic. Even though this is not the topic at hand. I'm headed back to the topic at hand, Faith without works is Dead in the KJV, peace in Jesus mighty name.
Upvote
0