[CS-FSLUG] Fwd: [Linux4christians] Re: NIV Bible for Linux (off list topic)

[David Aikema]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eddy <hpp3 at bluebottle.com>
Date: Aug 14, 2006 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Linux4christians] Re: NIV Bible for Linux (off list topic)
To: David Aikema <david at aikema.net>


>On 8/14/06, Eddy <hpp3 at bluebottle.com> wrote:
>> P.S. doc, you have mentioned that the KJV actually teaches falsely
because the English of 1611 actually means the opposite of modern
english. Could you please let me know where this is? I'm not flaming,
I am simply curious. My wife uses the KJV, I use the NKJV
comparatively with Young's Literal Translation (which I get a kick out
of...) and if I'm being taught falsely, I would really like to know...
>
>One example here is the word let.  In previous times it meant to
>hinder, but now it means to allow (eg. Romans 1:13).  Consider also
>James 2:3 and the way the word gay is generally translated today.
>
>I seem to recall from prior study of Shakespeare that at his time a
>double negative was equivalent to an emphatic no, whereas now a double
>negative is interpreted as being positive instead.  I'm not sure if
>there are any examples of this in the KJV, but it's another example of
>changing rules of grammar and word meaning.
>
>Dave

I see. I did not know the thing with "let", (though it doesn't appear
to change doctrine) and I am old enough to remember the old meaning of
"gay". Though even if I weren't, I don't see how one could find the
modern meaning applicable in the context, although it may cause undue
amusement to the under-10 set (the same sunday school cretins who
catch wind of the old word for "donkey"...).

-Eddy