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

[Lincoln Fessenden]

David Aikema wrote:
> On 8/14/06, Lincoln Fessenden <l4c at thelinuxlink.net> wrote:
>> > Linc: I think that there are more to objections against the KJV than
>> > your earlier comment that these were comments about the language were
>> > "excuses."  The language has not remained static, and in some cases
>> > this would cause words (such as those in my examples) to be
>> > interpreted differently now than they might have been back then.
>>
>> References.
> 
> Hmn... whoops.  I somehow seem to have crossed mailing list boundaries
> in this conversation.  The references would be those that I posted
> earlier on L4C as some examples.  To quote myself:
> 
> 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

No, I saw this.  I wanted the references where you got your 
understanding of the word "let".  I can find no place in the KJV that 
would match your old definition.  Let means allow each time I can come 
across it there, just as it does now.  Further, the word "gay"(proper) 
still means to be happy today as well.  The other connotation is only slang.
I also (once again) realize that the english language has not remained 
static, however, neither has the KJV.  It has gone through many 
revisions to modernize it.  Please do not confuse the KJV with the AKJV, 
which is a horse of a different color.  The AKJV was "authorized" in, I 
believe, 1611.  I always wanted an AKJV, but never purchased one, 
however I have read through it several times.  The language there is 
*WAY* different, almost a cockney(sp) and strange enough to be almost 
unreadable in places (a lot of places), but extremely interesting none 
the less.  The regular KJV(series) is pretty much a ever updating series 
of revisions built upon that with modernized english.  Unfortunately the 
Textus Recepticus, which the AKJV was based on has been lost (unless I 
am mistaken, but I think not) and all other geneologies of the Bible 
have had to rely on a vastly different set of base texts - the Sinactic 
being one of them.
There is a *LOT* of really fascinating info on this subject available by 
the way.  I highly recommend everyone taking a look to see what you come 
up with.

-- 
-Linc Fessenden

In the Beginning there was nothing, which exploded - Yeah right...