Is the KJV inaccurate/should it be treated as legitimate?

[AVBunyan]

1. Because the English of the KJV is the same as William Shakespeare, antiquated and out-of-date. If the people of the UK moved on don't you think we ALL should?

2. Do the math and you'll see the more English words we have, the better the chances to find a fully compatible word for the Greek word used in the NT.

3. There are about 6000 words in the Greek NT.

4. Ya that's not accurate AT ALL. Besides who says the RC Bibles can't be accurate?

5. At least they went to modern English instead of sticking with Latin.

6. I've researched into how the most current modern English translations have been produced and based on a comparison of how the KJV was produced, it is highly doubtful that the KJV comes anywhere near the quality of the twenty some odd current modern translations available to any Christian today.

1. Where did you get the idea that things are evolving? Are you an evolutionist here. Why would I want to take English slang over the devine English of the AV? I'd rather raise my standard back to what it was than lower it.

2. Not if those "more words" are the wrong words or words that pick at the deity of my Saviour.

3. I don't care if there are a million words if they are corrupt words. God's words are pure.

4. They can be accurate in places - there is enough right words and verses to lure in the unsuspecting.

5. Corrupt, modern wprods whose "Origens" were from Egypt.

6. I guess it just depends on what your final authority is and what you are comparing these modern versions to. Has your conscience become seared with a hot iron?

Question folks....
What is your absolute, final authority?

If you say God then how do you know what God says?
If you say "the Bible" then which one - for there is the AV and then 150+ modern conflicting versions along with 5,000+ conflicting manuscripts.

So what is your final authority by which you judge all things?

I'd love to see your answers. Or...do you even have a final authority.

God bless

 

[stan1953]

"non-biased"?

Just ask anyone who agrees with me and they'll agree with me.

OK now THAT was funny!

 

[jlmagee]

Question folks....
What is your absolute, final authority?

If you say God then how do you know what God says?
If you say "the Bible" then which one - for there is the AV and then 150+ modern conflicting versions along with 5,000+ conflicting manuscripts.

So what is your final authority by which you judge all things?

I'd love to see your answers. Or...do you even have a final authority.

God bless

First of all, the "5000+ conflicting manuscripts" argument is the same shock and awe Bart Ehrman uses to discredit the New Testament as well. Better than I have addressed it. The manuscripts are not totally contradictory with each other in all points. The agreements within the family far outweigh the contradictions in a spot one has with the majority texts while another has an inconsistency in another place or two.

Second, my absolute final authority is God. In his introduction to his second epistle, Peter lists two kinds of knowledge, head knowledge and discernment. How can we practice discernment?

1. Bible study. 3-5 translations (including KJV).

2. Ancient writings. What the ECF wrote may not be scriptural, but they are next generation students of John, Timothy, and others. I consider what they say to be important.

3. Commentary from throughout the ages. Learned men from throughout the church age have shaped the doctrines we debate today.

4. Bible and church history. I take into consideration the opposition the church, or particular authors were facing to learn what may have shaped their viewpoint.

5. Prayer.

By seeking many sources, I find that I am not leaning on my own understanding, but learning from God's ministers from all ages and practicing discernment.

 

[Dale]

What did Origen believe?

Origen's Gnostic Belief System

By Dr. Ken Matto Gnosticism was and is a belief that all matter is evil and that freedom comes through knowledge. The word Gnostic comes from the Greek word “gnosis” which means “knowledge.” The Gnostics of the first and second century had approximately eight basic beliefs as listed in "The Gnostics, the New Versions, and the Deity of Christ" by Jay Green.
1) They claimed to have a higher knowledge than that of Christianity.
2) They believed they were Spirit while others were soul and body.
3) They believed that matter was evil.
4) Their views produced sensuality and asceticism.
5) They rejected the Old Testament and God.
6) They allegorized the Scriptures to create a bridge between Gnosticism and Christianity.
7) They saw Christ as an inferior god to ones they created such as Demiurge or The Artificer.
8) They believed that Christ’s body was an illusion. Even before the death of the Apostle John, a Gnostic named Cerinthus was already denying the deity of Christ.

Origen (185-254 AD) was a heretic and Gnostic and along with Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 AD) helped to corrupt the manuscripts giving us the false versions of today. Here are 14 of Adamantius Origen's beliefs. When he taught, he wore the pagan robes of the pagan philosopher plus he castrated himself based on his Gnostic views of the evil of the flesh.
1) He believed the Holy Spirit was a feminine force.
2) He believed in Soul Sleep
3) He was a very strong proponent of Baptismal regeneration
4) He believed that Jesus was only a created being and Gnosticism taught that Jesus became Christ at his baptism but that he was never God. He was a just a good man with very high morals.
5) He believed in the doctrine of Purgatory
6) He believed in transubstantiation
7) He believed in the transmigration of the soul and reincarnation of the soul.
8) He doubted the temptations of Jesus in Scripture and claimed they could have never happened.
9) The Scriptures were not literal. He was the father of allegory.
10) Genesis 1-3 was a myth, not historical or literal, as there was no actual person named "Adam."
11) Based upon Matthew 19, a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.
12) He taught eternal life was not a gift, instead one must grab hold of it and retain it.
13) Christ enters no man until they mentally grasp the understanding of the consummation of the ages. (It was Frederick Dennison Maurice in the 19th century who defined eternal life as coming to a knowledge of God. This is the essence of Gnosticism.)
14) He taught there would be no physical resurrection of the believers.

Two quotes from the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia on Origin.



“He was buried with honour as a confessor of the Faith.”



“Origen's name was so highly esteemed that when there was a question of putting an end to a schism or rooting out a heresy, appeal was made to it.”



During his lifetime, after a squabble around 231 AD, Origin was banished.
“St. Jerome declares expressly that he was not condemned on a point of doctrine. ”



Origen's written works are volumnous, and influential. After his death there were two periods where there were disputes over Originism. In the end, nothing came of these disputes. Origin did have enemies, during his life and after his death, but it is not clear that we should believe everything his enemies said about him.



The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia does not connect Origin with Gnosticism in any form.






*



*

 

[jlmagee]

You mean the Dauay reads like some of the AV in the OT. Just because you can find some verses and fundamentals in the Catholic and newer versions that match the AV doesn't make them bibles. One can find a diamond in a septic tank but that doesn't make the septic tank a jewelry store.

Um, the DR was completed before the KJV.

The history of the textus receptus is interesting in itself. Erasmus, largely if not completely alone, using Greek manuscripts that he had, plus using the 10th century Vulgate (have to check again but maybe off a century or two) as a guide and filling in missing pieces completed a NT translation to Greek which became the Textus Recptus, the source for the KJV NT. Look it up. Wiki is always a place to start then go on from there.

I defend the KJV as a solid translation to use in study in conjunction with other translations. I also feel that it is important to be familiar with because of the theological terms that are still utilized by scholars. However, even the original translators did not feel that they were inspired.

 

[jlmagee]

What did Origen believe?

Origen's Gnostic Belief System

By Dr. Ken Matto Gnosticism was and is a belief that all matter is evil and that freedom comes through knowledge. The word Gnostic comes from the Greek word “gnosis” which means “knowledge.” The Gnostics of the first and second century had approximately eight basic beliefs as listed in "The Gnostics, the New Versions, and the Deity of Christ" by Jay Green.
1) They claimed to have a higher knowledge than that of Christianity.
2) They believed they were Spirit while others were soul and body.
3) They believed that matter was evil.
4) Their views produced sensuality and asceticism.
5) They rejected the Old Testament and God.
6) They allegorized the Scriptures to create a bridge between Gnosticism and Christianity.
7) They saw Christ as an inferior god to ones they created such as Demiurge or The Artificer.
8) They believed that Christ’s body was an illusion. Even before the death of the Apostle John, a Gnostic named Cerinthus was already denying the deity of Christ.

Origen (185-254 AD) was a heretic and Gnostic and along with Clement of Alexandria (d. 215 AD) helped to corrupt the manuscripts giving us the false versions of today. Here are 14 of Adamantius Origen's beliefs. When he taught, he wore the pagan robes of the pagan philosopher plus he castrated himself based on his Gnostic views of the evil of the flesh.
1) He believed the Holy Spirit was a feminine force.
2) He believed in Soul Sleep
3) He was a very strong proponent of Baptismal regeneration
4) He believed that Jesus was only a created being and Gnosticism taught that Jesus became Christ at his baptism but that he was never God. He was a just a good man with very high morals.
5) He believed in the doctrine of Purgatory
6) He believed in transubstantiation
7) He believed in the transmigration of the soul and reincarnation of the soul.
8) He doubted the temptations of Jesus in Scripture and claimed they could have never happened.
9) The Scriptures were not literal. He was the father of allegory.
10) Genesis 1-3 was a myth, not historical or literal, as there was no actual person named "Adam."
11) Based upon Matthew 19, a true man of God should be castrated, which he did to himself.
12) He taught eternal life was not a gift, instead one must grab hold of it and retain it.
13) Christ enters no man until they mentally grasp the understanding of the consummation of the ages. (It was Frederick Dennison Maurice in the 19th century who defined eternal life as coming to a knowledge of God. This is the essence of Gnosticism.)
14) He taught there would be no physical resurrection of the believers.

2) Most of the people who I have discussed soul sleep with have been KJV only.

3) Protestant groups who teach the necessity of baptism quote the KJV.

9-10) Jewish scholars taught allegory before Christianity began.

 

[Keachian]

1. Where did you get the idea that things are evolving? Are you an evolutionist here. Why would I want to take English slang over the devine English of the AV? I'd rather raise my standard back to what it was than lower it.

The concept of linguistic evolution is vastly different to

2. Not if those "more words" are the wrong words or words that pick at the deity of my Saviour.

From my perspective, trinity doctrine and indeed the deity of Christ is far more apparent in a modern translation in fact it's more apparent in any translation which follows the Granville Sharp rule, Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White

3. I don't care if there are a million words if they are corrupt words. God's words are pure.

You haven't provided any evidence that they are corrupt apart from "I say so, so there"

4. They can be accurate in places - there is enough right words and verses to lure in the unsuspecting.

Again you haven't substantiated a claim like this

5. Corrupt, modern wprods whose "Origens" were from Egypt.

Yep, going after Origen, even though Athanasius, one of the strongest defenders against arianism, was from Alexandria as well, not to mention the fact that in this thread, I think it is being argued quite successfully that Origen was most definitely Christian and his work on the Hexapla was to try and understand the scriptures better.

6. I guess it just depends on what your final authority is and what you are comparing these modern versions to. Has your conscience become seared with a hot iron?

Yes I guess that that is it.

Question folks....
What is your absolute, final authority?

If you say God then how do you know what God says?
If you say "the Bible" then which one - for there is the AV and then 150+ modern conflicting versions along with 5,000+ conflicting manuscripts.

So what is your final authority by which you judge all things?

I'd love to see your answers. Or...do you even have a final authority.

God bless

Final Authority is scripture in regards to doctrine and faith, I pray and hope that the Holy Spirit will guide me to a full understanding of Yahweh through an understanding of the whole of Scripture and the overarching message thereof.

 

[Dale]

1 Corinthians 13

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.


1 Corinthians Chapter 13, KJV


Another Version:


If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Corinthians 13, NIV




Does anyone believe that “Charity” is a better translation than “Love” for modern readers?




*


*

 

[Keachian]

Well if we use the same word in Jesus' reinstatement of Peter it would go
Peter do you charity me,
Lord you know I love you
Peter do you charity me?

Utterly ridiculous

 

[AVBunyan]

Does anyone believe that “Charity” is a better translation than “Love” for modern readers?

Try a Webster's 1828 dictionary (based on the AV) to see how precise the AV is:

1. Charity - In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men.
3. Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services to relieve them in distress.

Love - 1. An affection of the mind excited by beauty and worth of any kind, or by the qualities of an object which communicate pleasure, sensual or intellectual.

Note the bold - charity is the outworking of love or love in action. There is a difference. Charity is right in I Cor. 13 - love is the affection part where charity is the action part. Can't beat a King James Bible for preciseness.

Folks the AV translators were not dumb - they knew the English language as well as the Greek/Hebrew - rest assured they studied and were led by God to chose the right word.

The AV is always right.

 

[ebia]

Try a Webster's 1828 dictionary (based on the AV) to see how precise the AV is:

1. Charity - In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men.
3. Liberality to the poor, consisting in almsgiving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services to relieve them in distress.

Love - 1. An affection of the mind excited by beauty and worth of any kind, or by the qualities of an object which communicate pleasure, sensual or intellectual.

Note the bold - charity is the outworking of love or love in action. There is a difference. Charity is right in I Cor. 13 - love is the affection part where charity is the action part. Can't beat a King James Bible for preciseness.

Folks the AV translators were not dumb - they knew the English language as well as the Greek/Hebrew - rest assured they studied and were led by God to chose the right word.

1. Why would you look in a 19th century American dictionary for 17th century British English?
1a. It begs the question, how much is Webster describing the KJV use of the term. Ie would a definition written in 1610 look like that?
2. We don't speak 19th century English, let alone 17th century English.
3. A lot of the time the KJV aims to make the bible high literature in the language of the court, when the Greek is nearly always the down to earth rough and ready language of ordinary people.

The AV is always right.

That seems to be your presumption, not your conclusion.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. But according to those sources (which are not obscure or mainly come from the modern invention of the internet) an inspired AV does contradict the empirical external evidence.

2. Why or how would Origen even be considered a "Church Father" if he denied the deity of Christ?.

1. contradict the empirical external evidence? In what way? According to II Tim. 3:15, 16 in order for a version to be called scripture it had to be inspired and if it is not inspired then it is not scripture. In vers. 15 Timothy had a copy of the scriptures and according to vs. 16 they were inspired and....what he had was probably not the origianls so then...something other than the originals can be called scripture and ALL scripture is given by inspiration. I believe the AV to be part of the all based upon the witness of history. I do not believe the modern versions are scripture.

2. Rome is very loose on who it calls one oftheir own. If it aids their cause they "bend" a bit.

Origen was undoubtedly a brilliant man but so then was Thomas Jefferson and Abbert Einstein and both of then died unregenerate.

 

[AVBunyan]

Um, the DR was completed before the KJV.

Um, when it was completed means absolutely nothing. The DR was based upon Origen's fifth column of his hexaphala from the 3rd century. It ws rejected by true Christianity as soon as it showed up on the streets. It became the basis for the Roman Catholic line of texts and fianlly the DR in the 1500's.

Later these dead, nonused by God manuscripts were resurrected and snuck into the revision committee of 1881 by the liberal and lost Westtcott/Hort tag team. Then the RV 1881 became the basis for the ASV 1901 and then the flood gates were opened and it became the the basis for all your modern versons we have flooding the market today.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. You haven't provided any evidence that they are corrupt apart from "I say so, so there" Again you haven't substantiated a claim like this.

2. I think it is being argued quite successfully that Origen was most definitely Christian and his work on the Hexapla was to try and understand the scriptures better.

3. Final Authority is scripture in regards to doctrine and faith,

1. I could provide you with many links where men have done exhaustive research comparing verse after verse of the AV as it is compared to other versions for one to see but you would just reject the works by saying it was just their opinion, they are biased, etc.

2. His own writings condemn him - just do the research.

3. "Scripture"? Please fine tune - which scripture - the orignals? You don't have those so do you have a final authority that you can hold in one hand? Which version?

My final authority is the AV I hold in my hands - see how easy that was.
Again - what is your final authority?

 

[stan1953]

1. Where did you get the idea that things are evolving? Are you an evolutionist here. Why would I want to take English slang over the devine English of the AV? I'd rather raise my standard back to what it was than lower it.

2. Not if those "more words" are the wrong words or words that pick at the deity of my Saviour.

3. I don't care if there are a million words if they are corrupt words. God's words are pure.

4. They can be accurate in places - there is enough right words and verses to lure in the unsuspecting.

5. Corrupt, modern wprods whose "Origens" were from Egypt.

6. I guess it just depends on what your final authority is and what you are comparing these modern versions to. Has your conscience become seared with a hot iron?

Question folks....
What is your absolute, final authority?

If you say God then how do you know what God says?
If you say "the Bible" then which one - for there is the AV and then 150+ modern conflicting versions along with 5,000+ conflicting manuscripts.

So what is your final authority by which you judge all things?

I'd love to see your answers. Or...do you even have a final authority.

God bless

OK and with those responses I bid you Adieu. You basically have NO idea of language translations skills or even of God's promise to protect and maintain His Word. I can't discuss anything with a closed mind.

 

[Dale]

On Origen, consider these quotes from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.



“In this environment, Gnosticism flourished, and Origen was the first truly philosophical thinker to turn his hand not only to a refutation of Gnosticism, but to offer an alternative Christian system that was more rigorous and philosophically respectable than the mythological speculations of the various Gnostic sects.”



“Since there were no non-Gnostic Christian theological systems in his day, it was up to Origen to formulate one."



<< Since God the Father is, for Origen, &#8220;personal and active,&#8221; it follows that there existed with Him, always, an entity upon which to exercise His intellectual activity. This entity is Christ the Son, the Logos, or Wisdom (Sophia), of God, the first emanation of the Father, corresponding to Numenius&#8217; &#8220;second god,&#8221; as we have seen above (section 2). The third and last principle of the divine triad is the Holy Spirit, who &#8220;proceeds from the Son and is related to Him as the Son is related to the Father.&#8221; >>



<< This fall was not, it must be understood, the result of any inherent imperfection in the creatures of God, rather, it was the result of a misuse of the greatest gift of God to His creation: freedom. The only rational creature who escaped the fall and remained with God is the &#8220;soul of Christ.&#8221; >>



<< Origen did not embrace the dualism of Gnosticism, nor that of the more primitive expressions of the Christian faith still extant in his day. >>



Author Information

Edward Moore
St. Elias School of Orthodox Theology



Link to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:



Origen of Alexandria[bless and do not curse][Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]



*



*

 

[Dale]

On a lighter note, here's a story about King James, the one who commissioned the King James Bible.

King James went to the dedication of a new cathedral. Someone politely asked the King, "What do you think of the new cathedral?"

King James replied, "It was awful."

This means, of course, that it was awe-inspiring.


Today, Christianity is obviously having trouble getting its message across. Confusion between "awful," "awesome" and "awe-inspiring" is exactly what we do not need.


*

*

 

[jlmagee]

1 Corinthians 13

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.


1 Corinthians Chapter 13, KJV


Another Version:


If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

1 Corinthians 13, NIV




Does anyone believe that “Charity” is a better translation than “Love” for modern readers?




*


*

I understand that meanings change. As someone who grew up on the KJV, I still understand that using "charity", I know that it is agape. Using "love" throughout, loses the immediate connotation of unconditional love that can only originate from the omnibenevolent God to the casual reader. Even the KJV did not use "charity" for agape all the time. I am not advocating "charity" per se as the attempt to demonstrate a connotative difference with the generic "love". In all truth, the modern use of "love" in practical usage is diluted from its past connotation as well.

All major modern translations still translate the beattitudes as "blessed". Some of the lesser versions use "happy". While that is perfectly acceptable, IMHO, it takes away a divine connotation in a major way. Connotation is often as important as definition.

That was more my point. In the KJV in some, and only some, places the translators attempted to demonstrate a difference and, by extention, depth, importance and urgency to the casual reader.

 

[jlmagee]

Well if we use the same word in Jesus' reinstatement of Peter it would go
Peter do you charity me,
Lord you know I love you
Peter do you charity me?

Utterly ridiculous

Progmonk,

Cute. Charity is always a noun, of course. Care would be the verb with the closest etymology, I believe. Care has lost the connotation that it used to have as well. I explained my position on "charity" in the preceding post.

Your short parody does speak to my point, however. By using a different (coherent) word that was accepted to mean unconditional love that can only extend from God, would demonstrate Peter's instability at that time. By using "love", the casual reader never notices the gap between Jesus' question and Peter's response. (Also, Jesus probably did not use the Greek word.)

Connotation is important. Hopefully, my clarification on a minor point that I liked about the KJV will bump my position from "utterly ridiculous" to sort of silly.

 

[ebia]

I understand that meanings change. As someone who grew up on the KJV, I still understand that using "charity", I know that it is agape. Using "love" throughout, loses the immediate connotation of unconditional love that can only originate from the omnibenevolent God to the casual reader. Even the KJV did not use "charity" for agape all the time. I am not advocating "charity" per se as the attempt to demonstrate a connotative difference with the generic "love". In all truth, the modern use of "love" in practical usage is diluted from its past connotation as well.

All major modern translations still translate the beattitudes as "blessed". Some of the lesser versions use "happy". While that is perfectly acceptable, IMHO, it takes away a divine connotation in a major way. Connotation is often as important as definition.

That, of course, begs the question of whether the connotation of "blessed" actually fit what Jesus was originally on about or just the informal theology that has built up over the centuries on that passage. There are some very good arguments that "happy", while not perfect, is much closer to what was originally intended.