[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Why not a really tiny little update ?

Essentially, that is the question Connie asked on the Westcott-Hort flim-flam thread.

http://av1611.com/forums/showpost.ph...0&postcount=64
When was the Westcott-Hort flimflam first recognized?

Originally Posted by Connie

Such changes if correctly done are not changes in God's word at all, merely the provision of a new container for God's word... some of the old English terms have lost their value as containers for God's Word and should be replaced by terms that people recognize today. The old terms were perfect containers in their day, correctly chosen new terms would be the same for our day.

And the question deserves a helpful response. And Connie gave a true part of the answer -- such an attempt will surely fail. Connie gave a bunch of very solid reasons, and here are three that she gave.

Originally Posted by Connie

I can only argue this on practical grounds at this point... impossible to get together the right men for the job who would all agree on which changes are necessary ... any new edition would be lost in the confusion of all the versions .... people can be taught the meaning of any old words that confuse them

And Joseph C. Philpot pointed out similarly even before the Revision flim-flam disaster.

http://members.aol.com/libcfl2/keep.htm
The Desirability of Keeping the Authorized Version - by J. C. Philpot
(Written in 1857 when the Revised Version was contemplated)

Even the more moderate attempts, as we saw recently with the KJ/21 - Millenium © versions, here and there they goofed real bad even though they told us they would be real careful .

Yet there is an other element. Again and again there appears to a wisdom, and even a providential design component, in every word in the King James Bible. Including in the verses that some would want to brand as archaic or obsolete or whatever is the update flair du jour.

One of my favorite examples is stablish, surely high up on most or all such lists, so the word could be merged into establish under the itchy fingers of a new update. Yet in fact stablish clearly has a meaning and purpose distinct from establish, one that fits precisely in the verses where it is used in the King James Bible translation, even when the Hebrew word is identical. (A type of example where Peter Ruckman is right that the English can shed more light on the Bible, and 'improve' through translation, bypassing limitations of the underlying languages. The distinction may be unexpressible or difficult to express in Biblical Hebrew yet God has let it come through in the English Holy Bible, the AV.) Will the 'updaters' understand that they are lessening God's word .. I doubt it, the KJ/21 folks failed miserably, and after all, The Updaters are there to update !

Let's take another, studying by example. One that is surely on most every list. "I trow not" which we discussed on this forum, rarely used today. Yet in fact "I trow not" has a special, concise and precise meaning.

Let's envision "The Updaters" around the table ?

Suggestions ?
---
I think not - hmm.. a personal preference, not conviction
I know not - nope.. only an intellectual knowledge
I affirm not - sounds like legalese
I believe not - lacking conviction, ambiguous as the term is also used as faith term
certainly not, surely not, suppose not, consider not
my measured view not
----
nothing is working ! - thats almost 10 tries - any other ideas ?

Are any of these superior ?
I trow not !

In fact they are all inferior.
Back to "The Updaters" show, in process.

A man with some wisdom speaks ..

"How about .. 'I trow not' "

A corrector speaks .. I said no, no, no, no, no, no.. that will never do. Don't we have to choose .. something.. aren't we here to update ? How can the King James Bible word be the most perfect ? Are we just here uselessly and aimlessly? Let's correct..something.

Then repeat this scenario 100-fold.

Ok .. you might say :

"Yes I understand on those examples .. but how about my update here.. isn't that different ?".

The answer, my friend, is in God's providential hand.
Wait upon the Lord, seek his face, and he will show you on that verse as well.

FYI, an aside: technically "I trow not" is precision writing,

"a deflective verb, only in the first person singular of the present indicative"
The Grammar of English Grammars by Gould Brown (1858)

Precision English in 1611, in 1854 (when many called it obsolete) and today.

We discussed this a bit on this thread.

http://av1611.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260
Luke 17:9 "I trow not"

When the word 'trow' was 'obsolete' in the 19th century (and archaic words have a powerful place in literature and poetry and skilled, precise writing, including the Bible which has all of those elements and more) the translator of Augustine knew where "I trow not" was the best expression, needing a similar type of concise force and conviction.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf...v.v.xviii.html
Augustin: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists

For if "those only may baptize who are set over the Church, and established by the law of the gospel and ordination as appointed by the Lord," were they in any wise of this kind who seized on estates by treacherous frauds, and increased their gains by compound interest? I trow not, since those are established by ordination as appointed of the Lord, of whom the apostle, in giving them a standard, says, "Not greedy, not given to filthy lucre."

Returning to the scripture.

Luke 17:7-10
But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle,
will say unto him by and by,
when he is come from the field,
Go and sit down to meat?
And will not rather say unto him,
Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me,
till I have eaten and drunken;
and afterward thou shalt eat and drink?
Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him?
I trow not.
So likewise ye,
when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say,
We are unprofitable servants:
we have done that which was our duty to do.

Here is a commentary that understands the sense and force of the expression.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ezENAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231
The Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the Heavens, as Seen in the .
by Francis B. Harris -

"I trow not," Represents, Jesus' disapprobation of Israel Ridden Priesthood. Job 20:5; Mark 12:15; Mark 12:15; II Tim. 3:13.

"I trow not," how searching, and significant. No, the tendency is downward — Earthly Cursed. We try to step one step up, and slip two steps down. So we cry "Lord how long?" The answer comes, "till Iniquity is full." Eze. 21 :25 ; 35 :5.

Ultimately much will come down to the infamous Vaticanus note among bumbling correctors.

"Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!"

And with the King James Bible text, the more you study and appreciate the beautiful and majestic word of God, the more you sense that every single word has the providential element, representing its divine appointment.

Shalom,
Steven

Thank you for addressing my concern, Steven. I didn't see this thread until now and will have to think more about it later. But I would say that I gave those practical reasons as insufficient reasons, since the undertaking would have to be spiritual and not practical. It's not merely an intellectual enterprise. If we don't now have the men -- or the time -- to do it right, that does not mean it is in itself the wrong thing to do. I believe that men led by the Holy Spirit would probably retain many of the old terms for the reason you give, that they are more exact than any contemporary terms we might substitute. But I can't help but picture the average reader coming across "I trow not" and simply reading "I think not" anyway. The Bible isn't only for exacting readers such as yourself, it's for the most unlearned as well, and the more unfamiliar the words are to such readers, the more they are kept at arm's length from the word of God and how can that be a good thing? If Westcott and Hort had not mutilated the Bible with their thousands of insupportable alterations, it would be easier to think about all this. But I'll have to get back to this later, and again, thanks for your attention to it.

[Brother Tim]

Connie, your answer is within your own statement.

But I can't help but picture the average reader coming across "I trow not" and simply reading "I think not" anyway.

Nothing then is lost to the average reader's understanding when the KJB is read and the internal modification is made in the mind of the reader. If, however, the verse itself is altered to say "I think knot" rather than "I trow not", THEN the more precise meaning IS lost to the advanced reader of the "updated" text. Better it is to have the reader research the difficult reading (thus indicating a true desire to know God's Word) than to remove its precision for the benefit of the average reader, and have the deeper meaning lost for everyone.

That's of course a very good point, Brother Tim, but I still can't help feeling there's something wrong with having some of God's word in what is really a foreign language to most people -- not just a matter of a person's having a weak vocabulary in his own language, but actually encountering a foreign language. It wasn't foreign when it was first done -- it was their language, it is not ours. (Yes, I know it wasn't the vernacular, but surely it wasn't out and out foreign). I admit it's few words that are to be described this way, but it still seems wrong. I will think about it more.

[Brother Tim]

Connie, though your heart is very pure here, you ultimately play right into the hands of the "correctors". Which list of words is to be the standard? Who makes the decision as to which words are too "foreign" to be understood by the common reader.

Far simpler is a glossary of terms, either printed and promoted (see Cloud or Waite) or even a forum thread such as this where the listing can be created and maintained (and as expected vigorously debated ).

It is currently difficult enough to find some company willing to print the PCE in an inexpensive format, as well as high quality printings such as are available from the big printers. EVEN IF you could bring together your "dream team" of spiritually prepared scholars (yeah, right! "dream" is the perfect adjective), no company big enough would publish it in quantities sufficient to make any reasonable effect. After all, it would be in direct competition to their own money makers!

A serious and compassionate suggestion:
Start your list.
Post the words here.
Do the research on meaning (not all that hard to do).
See how the brethren (and sistren) respond.

Trow has already been taken care of, so that's a good start.

[George]

Aloha Brother Tim,

Right On Brother!

The Bible should not be "dumbed-down" - just because the "unlearned" are either too lazy or disinterested in searching out the Truth (its not that they are incapable - its because they are unwilling).

Brother Steven Avery has it right: How can you "improve" on something that is Inspired, Perfect, Holy, and without error? It can't be done! (But for all of the numerous translators since 1881: "it's nice work - if you can get it").

True Scriptural discernment and understanding is not dependent on someone's "intellect" or the amount of "schooling" or "education" a person has. Instead true and sound Biblical discernment and understanding is dependent upon a person's heart condition and the Holy Spirit's willingness to instruct them in God's word.

1 Corinthians 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.
2 For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.
3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:
5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world , nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, BECAUSE THEY ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

I'm OK I think with a glossary, but I'm still on the principle of the thing.

I'd like to start my own list. I hope to get to it soon.

I'm not trying to convince anybody myself, I just really do not get this position you are all taking here. It makes no sense to me. It seems a superstitious and letter-bound and completely unspiritual position. I'm still keeping an open mind but nobody has convinced me yet.

But about who should do the updating. This is certainly not something any company that sells Bibles should do at all, nor individuals or even individual ministries like Waite's and Cloud's. It is the responsibility of the church at large -- or in our day, all the Spirit-led Bible-believing churches. It was the church that authorized the King James and chose the translators, wasn't it? There are practical problems with that sort of undertaking in our day, just as there are the practical problems you mention with getting a publisher, but again the practical problems are not the main thing to be concerned about. I need to convince myself one way or the other about the RIGHTNESS of it whether it is possible in actuality or not.

There's no point in saying more, though, until I get a few more things thought through or get a list begun.

[Brother Tim]

Connie asked,

It was the church that authorized the King James and chose the translators, wasn't it?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!

The "Church" (the body of born-again believers on earth) did not choose the translators. The "authorization", which might be better described as "authentication", by the "Church" took place AFTER the work was done, over centuries of time. This would obviously not work into your plan.

You said,

I'm not trying to convince anybody myself,

Dear Sister, I think that in reality your mind is trying to talk your spirit out of trusting simple truth. You keep grasping at straws because it seems that the facts can't be so plain. The work has been done. The translation is perfect. The faith must be settled. I pray that you can receive this.

[Renee]

Connie,
Why not a really tiny update on:
James 2:3 And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:

The word "gay" has been degraded, excuse me, upgraded to where we can now no longer use it correctly.

Aloha,
Renee

deleted.