James Strong, KJV, Redefinitions of words?

[Aquila]

If the King James Bible was good 'nough fer Paul and Silas, it's good 'nough fer me.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

Nice reference.

Over time I plan to add some additional references, including topics like:

the language skill level of the people ENTERING the universities in those years

the language skills of the 50 learned men who worked on the AV-1611

the public debates held in Greek

the focus on real language skills, rather than arcane geek-o-crat emphasis that will satisfy publish or perish

the inability of so many of our modern scholars to actually speak Greek

how even simple language immersion (which at least can create fluency) barely exists in Biblical Greek studies

how Biblical Greek got derailed by nonsense like the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools

examples of the silliness that passes for Biblical Greek scholarship today

the example of Eugenius Bulgaris and the heavenly witnesses, how a truly fluent Greek scholar expert relates to the interface of language and text.

how lexicon scholars can always make lexical excuses
(because they do not speak the languages)

===============

Now, I really do not think that anything will change the view of the dyed-in-the-wool modern seminarian, but at least an attempt can be made to show the superb excellence of the Reformation Bible studies.

Steven

[Scott Pitta]

I am not argumentative, I am curious.

[Evang.Benincasa]

So missionaries are supposed to teach people in other countries how to speak 17th century English? With 17th century English definitions?

[Steve Epley]

Personal testimony warning. I have a Friend who interpreted Hebrew and Arabic for the CIA he is a reader for an orthodox synagogue. I questioned him about the real difference between the Torah he reads from and our KJV he said it was very minimum. He said the problem is our ever changing English not the Hebrew into English. Also his counterpart in the CIA said the same about the Greek. Much ado about nothing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Personal testimony warning. I have a Friend who interpreted Hebrew and Arabic for the CIA he is a reader for an orthodox synagogue. I questioned him about the real difference between the Torah he reads from and our KJV he said it was very minimum He said the problem is our ever changing English not the Hebrew into English. Also his counterpart in the CIA said the same about the Greek. Much ado about nothing.

Elder, what was the explanations they gave you for the minimal differences?

First the Greek, and then the Hebrew/Aramaic.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If the King James Bible was good 'nough fer Paul and Silas, it's good 'nough fer me.

If the NIV was good enough for Virginia Mollencott, it's good enough for you also.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Personal testimony warning. I have a Friend who interpreted Hebrew and Arabic for the CIA he is a reader for an orthodox synagogue. I questioned him about the real difference between the Torah he reads from and our KJV he said it was very minimum. He said the problem is our ever changing English not the Hebrew into English. Also his counterpart in the CIA said the same about the Greek. Much ado about nothing.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Simply because:

It is basically the etymological fallacy.

The Latin definition itself may be over-simplified, as is the tendency for shorthand definitions, but that is irrelevant anyway as your attempt involves the etymological fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy

Taking one definition from a source language usage hundreds of years ago and trying to proscribe today's English from that dictionary extraction is really a nice textbook case of the fallacy.

To givv an example.

The Christian Temperance Society
At its founding in 1874, the stated purpose of the WCTU was to create a "sober and pure world" by abstinence, purity, and evangelical Christianity.

Nobody remotely considers calling it the Christian Self-Control Society.

Two different words, two different meanings. And any version that loses temperance and changes it to self-control is corrupted, and is likely corrupted in 1,000 other spots as well.

Steven

Excellent point.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Over time I plan to add some additional references, including topics like:

the language skill level of the people ENTERING the universities in those years

the language skills of the 50 learned men who worked on the AV-1611

the public debates held in Greek

the focus on real language skills, rather than arcane geek-o-crat emphasis that will satisfy publish or perish

the inability of so many of our modern scholars to actually speak Greek

how even simple language immersion (which at least can create fluency) barely exists in Biblical Greek studies

how Biblical Greek got derailed by nonsense like the Granville Sharp Rule for Fools

examples of the silliness that passes for Biblical Greek scholarship today

the example of Eugenius Bulgaris and the heavenly witnesses, how a truly fluent Greek scholar expert relates to the interface of language and text.

how lexicon scholars can always make lexical excuses
(because they do not speak the languages)

===============

Now, I really do not think that anything will change the view of the dyed-in-the-wool modern seminarian, but at least an attempt can be made to show the superb excellence of the Reformation Bible studies.

Steven

I would love to see you publish these subjects.

Please do, by all means.

The KJV is under assault from all sides, and great men will DEFEND IT FROM THESE ASSAULTS.