KJV Only?

[DeaconDean]

Even one of the sources you referenced translates it as give diligence. This is a closer parallel to the other uses of the same word, even in the KJV. As to why some of the others use the similar term "study", it is likely due to the influence of earlier English Bibles, as they too wanted to keep as close a parallel to what folks were familiar with while still improving.

You wanna hear something funny?

I said:

"spoudason seauton dokimon parasthsai tw qew, ergathn anepaison, orqotomounta ton logon thV alhqeiaV." -2 Tim. 2:15 (GNT)

"spoudason":

spoudazw,v \{spoo-dad'-zo}
[SIZE=-1]1) to hasten, make haste 2) to exert one's self, endeavour, give diligence[/SIZE]
​

Source

According to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

This special admonition is part of the general theme of exhortation: "axiwV pepipathsai thV klhsewV hV eklhqhte" 4:1. Cf. also the admonition in 2 Tim. 2:15: "spoudason seauton dokimon parasthsai" moral concern to be approved. Hb. 4:11 anticipates the concluding admonitions of the epistle, summoning the readers to strive zealously for the rest which God has prepared...Any attempt to construe "spoudh" as "study" or "teaching" is to be resisted. (1) There is too little support for this in the Greek (and especially contemporary) usage.
​

TDNT, Gerhard Kittle, Editor, Geoffrey W. Bromily, Translator, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, Mi. Copyright 1971, Volume VII, p. 565-66, n.17

The KJV is wrong. It does not say "Study to show thyself approved" it says "be zealous to show yourself approved".

And what was the response to me quoting from a recognized, competent authority?

Textual critics have not only butchered the words of God; they have so infiltrated bible colleges, that even the textbooks used by them have been compromised.

The same people that govern the text of the Catholic Bible, govern the text of modern versions.

I am really supprised that this thread keeps going.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

And, I also showed:

Bottom line Jack...

No lexicon of any kind says "spoudason" means "study.

σπουδάζω , S.OC1143, Ar.Pax471 (lyr.), etc.: Att.fut.
A.“-άσομαι” Pl. Euthphr.3e, D.21.213, later “-άσω” Plb.3.5.8, D.S.1.58, etc.: aor. “ἐσπούδασα” E.HF507, Pl.Phd.114e: pf. “ἐσπούδακα” Ar.V.694, Pl.Phdr. 236b, etc.:—Med., fut. v. supr.:—Pass., fut. “σπουδασθήσομαι” Ael. NA4.13: aor. “ἐσπουδάσθην” Str.17.3.15, Plu.Per.24: pf. “ἐσπούδασμαι” Pl.Ly.219e (v. infr.):
I. intr.,

I. to be busy, eager to do a thing, c. inf., S.OC1143, E.Hec.817, Pl.Euthd.293a, etc.; σπούδασον ἐλθεῖν . . ταχέως make haste . . , 2 Ep.Ti.4.9; ὅτ᾽ ἐσπούδαζες ἄρχειν wast eager to rule, E.IA337 (troch.): c. part., “ἐσπ. διδάσκων” X.Oec.9.1: freq. ς. περί τινος or τι, Id.Mem.1.3.8, Pl.R.330c, etc.; “ὑπέρ τινος” D.59.77; “εἰς τὰ σά” Id.21.195; “πρός τι” Id.22.76; “ἐπί τισι” X.Mem.1.3.11, cf. D.21.2: c. dat., “ς. γάμῳ” Aristaenet.2.3; ς. ὅπως . . endeavour that . . , D.43.12, SIG312.10 (Samos, iv B.C.): abs., ἐσπουδακυῖα in haste, hurriedly, Ar.Th.572; ἐσπουδακώς eagerly, Men.562.

b. c. acc. et inf., “σπουδάσαντες τοῦτ᾽ αὐτοῖς παραγενέσθαι” Pl.Alc.2.141d, cf. 2 Ep.Pet.1.15, BGU1080.14 (iii A.D.), etc.
2. of persons, ς. πρός τινα pay him serious attention, Pl.Grg.510c, etc.; “εἴς τινα” AP9.422 (Apollonid.); ς. περί τινα to be anxious for his success, Isoc.1.10, X.Cyr.5.4.13, etc. (distd. fr. πρός τινα by Luc.Sol.10); “περί τινος” X.Lac.4.1; “ὑπὲρ τῶν οἰκετῶν” Aeschin.1.17; “ὑπέρ τινος” D.21.213, etc.; ς. τινί be a partisan or backer of, Plu.Art.21, Arr.Epict.1.11.27, PGiss.71.6 (ii A.D.); “ἀπό τινος” Philostr.VS2.27.6.
3. to be serious or earnest, Ar.Ra.813; opp. σκώπτειν καὶ κωμῳδεῖν, Id.Pl.557; freq. in Pl., σπουδάζει ταῦτα ἢ παίζει; Grg.481b, etc.; ἐσπούδακας, ὅτι ἐπελαβόμην ἐρεσχηλῶν σε; did you take it seriously, that I . .? Phdr. 236b; “σπουδάζοντα τοῖς πράγμασι τοῖς ὀνόμασι παίζειν” D.H.Lys.14; ἐσπουδάκατον they have worked hard, Ar.V.694; μάλα ἐσπουδακότι τῷ προσώπῳ with a very grave face, X.Smp.2.17.
4. study, Philostr. VS1.7.2; lecture, teach, ib.1.21.5.

II. trans.,

1. c. acc. rei, do anything hastily or earnestly, be earnest about, “τὸ αὑτοῦ” E.HF 507; “τὰς περὶ τὸ μανθάνειν ἡδονάς” Pl.Phd.114e, etc.; opp. παρέργοις χρῆσθαι, Id.Euthd.273d, cf. Ti.21c; “τὰ ἑαυτοῦ ἡδέα” X.Smp.8.17; “ς. τοῦτο, ὅπως . . ” Id.Eq.11.10:—Pass., σπουδάζεταί τι is zealously pursued, πᾶν ὅ τι ς. E.Supp.761; “ς. ἀγών” X.Lac.10.3; χρήματα μετὰ πολλῆς δαπάνης ς. Pl.R.485e; ἡ κωμῳδία διὰ τὸ μὴ σπουδάζεσθαι . . ἔλαθεν because it was not taken up seriously, Arist.Po.1449b1; οὐ πάνυ σπουδάζεται ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν is not much valued, Luc.Cont.11: esp. freq. in pf. part., “πᾶσα ἡ τοιαύτη σπουδὴ οὐκ ἐπὶ τούτοις ἐστὶν ἐσπουδασμένη” Pl.Ly.219e; προοίμια θαυμαστῶς ἐσπουδασμένα elaborately worked up, Id.Lg.722e, cf. 659e; so τὰ μάλιστα ἐσπ. σῖτα καὶ ποτά the choicest, X.Cyr.4.2.38; τὰ ἐσπ., of writing tablets, the best quality, Thphr.HP 3.9.7 (also κλίνας καὶ δίφρους καὶ τὰ ἄλλα τὰ σπουδαζόμενα ib.5.3.2); εἰ ταῦτ᾽ ἐσπουδασμένα ἐν γράμμασιν ἐτέθη if those pains were seriously bestowed on letters, Pl.Ep.344c; “αἱ ἐσπουδασμέναι παιδιαί” Arist.Rh. 1371a3, cf. Pol.1336a34.

2. Pass., of persons, to be treated with respect, opp. καταφρονεῖσθαι, Id.Rh.1380a26; to be courted, Str.17.3.15, Plu.Them.5, D.L.5.75; of women, Plu.Cim.4, Art.26.
b. in LXX, trouble, disturb any one, Jb.22.10, 23.16.



​

Henry George Liddell. Robert Scott. A Greek-English Lexicon. revised and augmented throughout by. Sir Henry Stuart Jones. with the assistance of. Roderick McKenzie. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 1940.

Source

A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament:

Give diligence (spoudason). First aorist active imperative of spoudazw, old word, as in 1 Thessalonians 2:17 ; Galatians 2:10 .
​

Source

You can cry foul, complain, whine all you want, but I am right. And so are my sources.

The KJV translators dropped the ball here.

But, what the hey, I'm obviously wrong.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[tall73]

You wanna hear something funny?

I said:



And what was the response to me quoting from a recognized, competent authority?

Yes, the textbook thing is a diversion when other instances of the same word in the KJV, two of them in the same book in fact, to the same person, render it being diligent.

This is one of those instances where if one did not know the archaic usage of study actually meant to be diligent they might read the KJV as just particularly studying in the modern sense, rather than being more broadly diligent.

The two are still not unrelated of course, but the modern use is more specific than the older.


And since it would still make sense from the modern the person would not necessarily know to look up the older meaning to see what impact it would have on the text.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yes, the textbook thing is a diversion when other instances of the same word in the KJV, two of them in the same book in fact, to the same person, render it being diligent.

This is one of those instances where if one did not know the archaic usage of study actually meant to be diligent they might read the KJV as just particularly studying in the modern sense, rather than being more broadly diligent.

The two are still not unrelated of course, but the modern use is more specific than the older.


And since it would still make sense from the modern the person would not necessarily know to look up the older meaning to see what impact it would have on the text.

Oh but we don't have to research the Greek word anymore. The KJV took care of that for us.

Or so I've been told.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[tall73]

Oh but we don't have to research the Greek word anymore. The KJV took care of that for us.

Or so I've been told.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Lol, well, where could you look it up but in your corrupted Roman textbook?

 

[tall73]

One thing I did want to talk about though is the Eastern Orthodox church's use of a majority greek text for some time. This lends some weight to me that the majority text has some things going for it.

I obviously have not reviewed all the various extant ancient lectionaries either, but my understanding is they are often categorized as following the byzantine text. If this is the text in general use from ancient times by the Greek speaking church at least, it seems to give endorsement.

An eclectic text that we cannot find in actual use doesn't seem helpful to me.

Now that is not to say we don't see some church father quotes, etc. that have Alexandrian readings.

 

[kiwimac]

Lol, well, where could you look it up but in your corrupted Roman textbook?

What corrupted Roman textbook would that be?

 

[tall73]

What corrupted Roman textbook would that be?

I was playing off of Dean's sarcasm.

Dean presented evidence that the KJV has what, to the modern reader, would be a less than accurate translation of the Greek term. The KJV says "study", when a better modern equivalent would be, "be diligent"or "be eager", or "be earnest", etc. The term study today is more specific than it was in KJV times, where it had more the meaning of being diligent.

Jack Koons attempted to counter this with the allegation that textbooks were corrupt. Assumedly he was saying this because Dean had posted a quote from a source that defined the greek term. Of course, Jack Koon's argument did not sufficiently address Dean's challenge. It was a diversion, as I indicated before, rather than an answer.

In fact, one of the versions Jack presented in his own response showed a better translation than the KJV. And in three other places, two of which are in the same book, the KJV renders the word more appropriately as well. So not only did he not address the question of the rendering of the word in a way that would correct Dean, but it is also clear that the Roman Catholic conspiracy would have to extend back to the translators of the KJV themselves since they rendered it "diligent" elsewhere.

Long story short, I was agreeing with Dean that his point was not refuted.

Now if there truly is a conspiracy regarding a Roman Catholic take over of scholarly institutions Jack Koons can present that. Yet he would still need to address the specific challenge on the translation, rather than introducing the red herring of scholarly hijacking.

 

[DeaconDean]

What corrupted Roman textbook would that be?

The reference was to my quote from the "Theological Dictioinary of the New Testament".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I find this "old English terms", and "outdated language" argument to be modern scholarship's grasp at a straw to have a reason to give us yet another "English Bible". The language of the KJV is different, but it is very specific in it's usage of words; something that is necessary for sound doctrine, and is not nearly the cumbersome language modern scholarship describes it as being.

In both secondary and undergraduate levels of education, Shakespeare is still studied and much understood. The amazing thing of this, is that Shakespeare is more difficult to read, than is the KJV. Students are told to 'study' Shakespeare because of it is excellent literature; yet when the Bible says "study" to show thyself approved unto God, we thing that is an unreasonable command.



As per your assertion that I am avoiding your question: I argue not that God has the the power to do as He wishes; even in giving us His Word perfectly in the KJV for English speaking peoples, or having it translated perfectly into any other language He chooses; after all He is God, and He both speaks and understands all languages perfectly! There is however no need to give the Bible in English again, just study what we have been given.

Jack

The KJV is much more difficult to understand than most of its readers realize. Indeed, most readers of the KJV simply pass over the really difficult parts. Beginning on the first page of the New Testament, a reader does not need to read very far to come upon an extremely difficult English construction.

Matt. 4:2. And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred.

I have purposely quoted from the 1611 edition because that is where the problem in reading this verse starts—and it only gets worse in more recent printings of the KJV. The problem is determining the meaning of the last two words in this verse—“an hungred.” It is commonly assumed by readers of the KJV that the words simply mean that Jesus was hungry having fasted for forty days and nights—but that is NOT what the words mean!

This particular English construction was already severely archaic in 1611 when the KJV was first printed, and it was such a rare construction that printers of the KJV were at a loss—not only as to its meaning, but as to how to represent the meaning in print. Consequently, when we carefully examine a number of printings of the KJV, we find the following:

Matt. 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Matt. 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here four different renderings of the last two words in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

an hungered
an hungred
a hungered
ahungered

Each of these four renderings has its advocates, and they not only represent four different spellings—but some very different meanings and interpretations. For example, is the form “an” rather than “a” a consequence of the following letter ‘h’ being an aspirated consonant, or is it an entirely different word than “a” that nearly completely fell out of use more than 100 years BEFORE 1611? This and other questions are still being debated by scholars of early English. The bottom line is, “What English concept were the translators of the KJV attempting to express by using such a rare and archaic construction?”

The identical Greek construction is found in Matt. 21:18, Mark 11:12, and Luke 4:2 but the KJV gives us the following translations:

Matt. 21:18. Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered.

Mark 11:12. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:

Luke 4:2. Being forty days tempted of the devil. And in those days he did eat nothing: and when they were ended, he afterward hungered.

It is clear that unlike our best translations today, the KJV did not benefit from an editorial committee to standardize the translation of words and phrases that had identical meaning in the original. However, that does not answer the questions, “What English concept were the translators of the KJV attempting to express by using such a rare and archaic construction?” “Why did they use the construction only once?” “Were they attempting to express the Greek verbal construction using an English verbal adjective in Matt. 4:2, but then abandoned the idea?” “What is the correct English form of the construction?” “Which printings of the KJV have it right—and which ones do not?” Furthermore, please bear in mind that we are still at Matt. 4:2 with the rest of the New Testament and its problems in the KJV yet to be discussed. And of course, there are also the many hundreds of problems in the Old Testament in our King James translation of the Bible.

Two very important questions need to be asked here, “Is God incapable of giving English speaking people a much more accurate and readable translation than the KJV? If He is incapable of doing even that, is He any kind of a god at all?

 

[Jack Koons]

PrinctonGuy, would you please do us (at least me), the honor of telling us just what is meant by these words?

Jack

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrinctonGuy, would you please do us (at least me), the honor of telling us just what is meant by these words?

Jack

The construction is so extremely rare and archaic that we do not have enough data to answer that question with certainty, and scholars of early English differ substantially in their opinion. Almost for certain, however, Cambridge and Oxford copies of the KJV give us an incorrect spelling, but the American Bible Society gives us one of two correct spellings—based upon Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (their flagship dictionary). Oxford dictionaries give us additional variant spellings, but not the one found in Cambridge and Oxford editions of the KJV, and disagree with the meanings given in Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. Based upon these dictionaries and other sources, including a lengthy academic paper on the construction, I believe that Oxford dictionaries are likely more accurate regarding this particular construction, and that it is a past participle rather than an adjective like most readers of the KJV assume it to be. In the Greek New Testament, it is a verb in the indicative mood.

 

[Jack Koons]

It is commonly assumed by readers of the KJV that the words simply mean that Jesus was hungry having fasted for forty days and nights—but that is NOT what the words mean!

PrincetonGuy, I was referring to these words. What I am asking you, is since you have stated that the meaning of this portion of scripture is NOT that Jesus was hungry after having fasted for forty days and nights - what I am asking; is what IS the meaning of this portion of scripture?

Jack

 

[SwordoftheLord]

The problem is determining the meaning of the last two words in this verse—“an hungred.” It is commonly assumed by readers of the KJV that the words simply mean that Jesus was hungry having fasted for forty days and nights—but that is NOT what the words mean!

WHAT! the ESV says:

Matthew 4:2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

NASB says:

Matthew 4:2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He [a]then became hungry.

and the NIV says:

Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

Looks like after reading the ESV, NASB, and NIV that readers would think after fasting for forty days and forty nights Jesus was hungry also..Sorry but you are making so sense with your "assumption" based off nothing...

 

[Jack Koons]

WHAT! the ESV says:

Matthew 4:2 And after fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

NASB says:

Matthew 4:2 And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He [a]then became hungry.

and the NIV says:

Matthew 4:2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry.

Looks like after reading the ESV, NASB, and NIV that readers would think after fasting for forty days and forty nights Jesus was hungry also..Sorry but you are making so sense with your "assumption" based off nothing...

I for one would love to hear what he believes that portion of scripture is saying. I personally have fasted for 40 days, and I will be the first person to tell you ... I was then hungry!!! Say it however you will, but not eating for 40 days definitely causes one to be hungry. Maybe that is why Satan said, "And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. (Matthew 4:3 ... The very next verse.) Why would Satan try to temp Jesus with food? Just food for thought.

Jack

 

[tall73]

It is clear that unlike our best translations today, the KJV did not benefit from an editorial committee to standardize the translation of words and phrases that had identical meaning in the original.

I tend to think most folks would get the meaning that Jesus was hungry. However, the above quote I agree with. It is not overly consistent.

 

[tall73]

There are some passages in the KJV that are very poorly written for readers today. I'll give an example or two below.

• In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, The rings, and nose jewels, The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. Isaiah 3:18-23

A teenager reading this would think they stopped by an auto parts store with mufflers and round tires. And they might be surprised they were surfing the web on tablets back then.

Pardon me while I adjust my crisping pin!

• O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged. 2 Corinthians 6:11-13

That one is a bit of a puzzler.

 

[DeaconDean]

Orthography may the answer to "an hungered".

I am not saying that is the answer, but could explain it.

How often today do you see "n" shortened for "and"?

"Rock 'n Roll", "Fish 'n Chips", "Guns 'n Roses", "pork 'n beans", "mac 'n cheese", "smash 'n grab", just to name a few.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[tall73]

Greetings spiritwarrior,


3) I have been told on many occasions in this forum, that only the 'unlearned' hold to the KJV Only position. This accusation is nearly always accompanied by a statement that insinuates that the KJV was, (and is), based upon an insufficient number of Greek MSS. I have already answered these straw man arguments in previous posts, and or threads.

I understand you did so in the Fundamentalist section, however, this is the Baptist section. Not everyone who is a Baptist frequents the fundamentalist section, and perhaps some would not even qualify to post there.

A forum is a place for discussion. People in this discussion should not have to go to your other forum to read large amounts of material that you posted there. If you want to ignore this discussion you of course can. However, if you want to participate then put information here for interaction.


It is the nature of forum discussions. If you join the conversation in a given thread you may have to repeat things.

 

[Jack Koons]

Orthography may the answer to "an hungered".

I am not saying that is the answer, but could explain it.

How often today do you see "n" shortened for "and"?

"Rock 'n Roll", "Fish 'n Chips", "Guns 'n Roses", "pork 'n beans", "mac 'n cheese", "smash 'n grab", just to name a few.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I have no problem with what you're saying. This however does not reconcile the statement in question made by PrinctonGuy:

It is commonly assumed by readers of the KJV that the words simply mean that Jesus was hungry having fasted for forty days and nights—but that is NOT what the words mean!

This is what needs to be answered ... By PrinctonGuy.

Please understand I am not asking for the etymology of πεινάω or πένης.

Rather, an affirmative statement was made by PrinctonGuy that needs to be answered by him.

It is commonly assumed by readers of the KJV that the words simply mean that Jesus was hungry having fasted for forty days and nights—but that is NOT what the words mean!

The above statement must be addressed.

Jack