KJV Only?

[DeaconDean]

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



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.




The above statement must be addressed.

Jack

To be exact, it was more of a "general" response to:

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.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

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

Jack

I have already posted,

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]

I have already posted,

You are evading the question which you have yet to answer.

You stated:

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 not matter of etymology of the Greek or English words in and of themselves. This is a matter of what is meant by the entirety of the portion of scripture. Please allow me to explain.

πεινάω means "to famish", while the root πένης means "starving". I'm pretty sure we can all get "hungry" or "hungred" (as in the KJV) from these words. However, you clearly state that "this is NOT what the words mean". Since you do not believe these words mean that Jesus was hungry after fasting for 40 days and nights, please tell us what these words DO mean.

Jack

 

[tall73]

Alright, let me see if I can clarify. Most readers of the KJV assume that the verse means Jesus was hungry. It appears that the Greek also means Jesus was hungry.

Is what you were trying to say that if they actually read the phrase in English it is not really that clear that it is saying Jesus was hungry?

Either way, most folks get the point, even if they do not get it by carefully breaking down one of the various ways it is phrased in the printed KJV renditions.

 

[tall73]

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!

Alright, let me see if I can clarify. Most readers of the KJV assume that the verse means Jesus was hungry. It appears that the Greek also means Jesus was hungry.

Is what you were trying to say that if they actually read the phrase in English it is not really that clear that it is saying Jesus was hungry?

Either way, most folks get the point, even if they do not get it by carefully breaking down one of the various ways it is phrased in the printed KJV renditions.

 

[tall73]

Jack, while you wait for Princeton to clarify, do you favor the TR or the MR/Byzantine as far as the underlying text?

 

[DeaconDean]

I have already posted,

Friend:



Right over the head.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Friend:



Right over the head.

HAHAHA!! True and to the Point (no pun intended)

 

[yesyoushould]

The KJV is a dated version of the Bible, translated from younger MSS and from Latin. It was OK in 1611 but now.... No!

It is good.

 

[yesyoushould]

At the end of the day what I see:

KJV(granting that it is more inspired/accurate/ect): requires a working knowledge of old English which is readily available but time consuming

NKJV and the like: No special study needed but dubious accuracy and lack of cultural clues

Original Language: Requires a working knowledge of the original language which is readily available but time consuming. However this process will absolutely reveal the contemporary cultural clues, rhetorical cues, and are the translations from which the rest spawn.

For my time and investment I would rather develop a working knowledge of the language that was actually spoken, it seems like a relatively small sacrifice to hear what the God who saved me actually said.

In Peace,
cardoctor

Ain't buying it. Common sense is enough to understand the KJV.

 

[yesyoushould]

What I have seen for years:

The KJV was a good translation when evaluated by the translation standards of the early 1600’s, but when evaluated by today’s translation standards, it falls short of being accurate enough for Bible study.

Ain't buying it. KJV is of God.

Wide there.

 

[yesyoushould]

So for the KJV only folks, what would you think of the following options:


a. such efforts as the UKJV which replaces archaic terms with newer ones but tries to keep as much as possible of the KJV ?

b. A new translation, by a trusted committee, of the majority text (of whichever flavor you favor).

Anything except KJV, hate truth. How bout that?

KJV ain't bad.

 

[DeaconDean]

KJV is of God.

Please provide scriptural support for this statement.

Where in the scriptures does it say that the KJV is the word of God.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

You are evading the question which you have yet to answer.

You stated:

“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 not matter of etymology of the Greek or English words in and of themselves. This is a matter of what is meant by the entirety of the portion of scripture. Please allow me to explain.

πεινάω means "to famish", while the root πένης means "starving". I'm pretty sure we can all get "hungry" or "hungred" (as in the KJV) from these words. However, you clearly state that "this is NOT what the words mean". Since you do not believe these words mean that Jesus was hungry after fasting for 40 days and nights, please tell us what these words DO mean.

I have NOT evaded the question. I directly answered it by stating that prominent scholars of early English disagree as to the meaning—but they do agree that it does NOT simply mean “hungry.” Indeed, the construction cannot possibly simply mean hungry because the construction is a past participle and ‘hungry’ is an adjective! Furthermore, the Greek being translated is of little help because the translation in the KJV is an editorialization of the Greek rather than a strictly literal translation. Moreover, the spelling in most printings of the KJV, including the two 1611 editions and all recent printings in Cambridge and Oxford editions, is seriously incorrect, further obscuring the meaning. This spelling error has been known by scholars for over a century, but the KJV is considered by very many readers to be too sacred to make even necessary corrections to it. The American Bible Society is the only publisher of the KJV that I know of that has corrected the wrong spelling used by Cambridge and Oxford, but many other publishers have unsuccessfully attempted to giving us copies of the KJV saying that Jesus was “an hungered” and others that say that Jesus was “a hungered.”

 

[PrincetonGuy]

As a matter of 'definition', when I use the term "Bible", I am referring to what is commonly known as the 'Christian' Bible.

What is the ‘Christian Bible’? I own hundreds of Bibles, but I do not own one known as the ‘Christian’ Bible.

When we compare the Bibles used by various Christian groups, we find the following writings that are not found in the Protestant Canon but which are found in the Bibles of other Christian groups:

Books and Additions to Esther and Daniel that are in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Slavonic Bibles

Tobit
Judith
The Additions to the Book of Esther found in the Greek Version
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach
Baruch
The Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch ch. 6)
The Additions to the Greek Book of Daniel
The Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Jews
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

Books in the Greek and Slavonic Bibles; Not in the Roman Catholic Canon

1 Esdras (2 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 3 Esdras in Appendix to the Vulgate)
The Prayer of Manasseh
Psalm 151
3 Maccabees

A composite book in the Slavonic Bible and in the Latin Vulgate Appendix

2 Esdras (3 Esdras in the Slavonic Bible, 4 Esdras in the Vulgate Appendix; “Esdras” is the Greek form of “Era”)

(Note: In the Latin Vulgate, Ezra- Nehemiah are 1 and 2 Esdras.)

A book in an Appendix to the Greek Bible

4 Maccabees (This book is included in two important Bibles from the fourth and fifth century.)

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Generally speaking, the history of the Bible is quite simple. What history shows is that there were two opposing texts of the Bible since soon after the time of the Apostles: the first being represented by Jerome's Vulgate, used by the Church of Rome, (which text type mainly aligns with the Greek Alexandrian text type); the second being represented by the Old Itala, used throughout the Byzantine Empire by such people as the Waldenses. The text of the Old Itala mainly being in agreement with the Greek Byzantine text type.

The history of the Bible is extremely complicated. What history shows is that from very early times parts of the Old Testament were translated into numerous different languages, most importantly into Greek and Latin.

The Greek Old Testament was translated very early into the Vetus Itala [the Old Latin version], Coptic (several different dialects, most of which were Middle Egyptian [or Bashmuric]), Ethiopic, Amharic, Gothic, Georgian [or Grusian], Syriac, several different Slavonic languages including Old Slavonic, Russian, Ruthenian, Polish, Czech [or Bohemian], Slovak, Serbian [or Illyrian], Croation, Bosnian, and Dalmatian, Arabic, and Armenian.

The Hebrew Old Testament was translated very early into Chaldonic, Syriac [the Peshitto version), Arabic, Persian, and the Latin Vulgate. The Latin Vulgate was translated into English and other languages.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

Please provide scriptural support for this statement.

Where in the scriptures does it say that the KJV is the word of God.

God Bless

Till all are one.

if we use that question then we must also use it to ask to show scriptural proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB, TNIV is the word of God... Or how about show scriptural proof that the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that we use to translate into the KJV,NIV, ESV etc... is the word of God?

 

[yesyoushould]

Please provide scriptural support for this statement.

Where in the scriptures does it say that the KJV is the word of God.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Isn't me trusting in God enough for you?

 

[yesyoushould]

if we use that question then we must also use it to ask to show scriptural proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB, TNIV is the word of God... Or how about show scriptural proof that the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts that we use to translate into the KJV,NIV, ESV etc... is the word of God?

By believing in God we are able to discern the truth. The word is pure. Any version that is from God is pure.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

By believing in God we are able to discern the truth. The word is pure. Any version that is from God is pure.

Nice Cop Out...typical of those who like to dodge those types of questions.... How do you personally know which version(s) are / is from God? How do you discern which ones are true and which ones are not?