>>>The apostle warns us to beware of the concision.  Just how little
>>>effect of God on our life still qualifies me for salvation.
>>
>>
I wrote:
>>"Concision" ???
>>Please explain.

Brett explained that it was a quote from Phil 3:1-3

>>
>(Phil 3:1-3)  Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the
>same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is
>safe. 2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the
>concision. 3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the
>spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the
>flesh.

But in a modern translation:
(Phil 3:1-3 NRSV)  Finally, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the
Lord. To write the same things to you is not troublesome to me, and
for you it is a safeguard. 2 Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil
workers, beware of those who mutilate the flesh! 3 For it is we who
are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in
Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh--

Part of the reason that I encourage the use of modern translations is
that words like "concision" are not really part of the language today.
Paul was warning against the 'circumcision party' in these verses - ie
those who believed that a slavish obedience to the letter of the law
was the means to salvation.. The use of archaic language hardly makes
things any clearer.

Later in the same post, Brett wrote:
>>>They probably felt chuffed that they were healthy but really they
>>>qualified for (Rev 3:17-20).   Because thou sayest, I am rich, and
>>

I wrote:
>>sayest...?

Brett:
>Cheap... the comment that is.
>>
Me:
>>Perhaps you might like to invest in a reliable modern translation of
>>the Bible. Your views would sound more convincing to 20th century
>>people if you could express them in 20th century English.
>>
Brett:
>Strange... If I did so you would be the first to pull rank by quoting
>archaic Greek, the meaning of which is less clear to us than 16th
>century English.  Ironic eh.
>

Surely it is the meaning of the Greek that matters. The KJV is an
interim stage in our understanding of the scriptures, and I assume
that you are aware that our knowledge of the scriptures and  the
original texts has vastly improved since then.

>But if you wish to divert to a critique of the Bible translation.....

This is indeed a diversion from what we were talking about in the
other thread, which is why I have started a new one.

There are basically three reasons for consigning the King James
Version to the dustheap (or maybe the museums) and discouraging it's
use in modern theological debate.

1. It is based on the best available texts of the original languages
available in the 16th century. Now, 400 years later, we have more, and
better texts, and we can identify many inaccuracies and errors in the
KJV ( and other old translations).

2. The language of Jacobean English is different to the language of
today. Brett provided a perfect example - nobody I know uses the word
"concision" in normal speech. The KJV is full of words which have
changed in meaning or fallen into disuse since 1611. It is easy, but
unproductive, to confuse and mislead people by quoting the scriptures
in the archaic language of the KJV. We see this all the time on the
newsgroup - it is always and only those who claim that their own
interpretations of the scriptures are infallible who use the KJV, and
they do it simply because the KJV always requires explanation for
modern people, and in the explanation it is always possible to insert
your own theological bias.

3. Many who have gone before us in the faith, from John Wycliffe
onwards, gave their lives for the principle that the scriptures should
be made available to the people in the common language of the day. In
the time of the reformation in England, the scriptures were available
in the Churches and Universities in latin, and most educated people
could read them, but this was not enough. It had to be freely
available, and it had to be in language which the ordinary people
could understand. It is for this reason that Bible translators have
continued their work in the past 400 years, and will have to continue
it throughout human history.

The arguments for continuing to use the KJV sound exactly the same as
the 16th century arguments for retaining latin - one even sometimes
hears patronising comments about those who 'cannot understand' - as if
it were their problem.

Most people on this newsgroup who have come here using the KJV have
begun using the NKJV. The NKJV is still a fairly second rate
translation so far as I am concerned, but at least it is in modern
language.

As usual when we 'do' this topic, can I point out that there is no
better way of understanding the scriptures than to learn Hebrew and/or
Greek. The next best thing is to consult and compare two or three
different modern translations. Matters of faith are far too important
to be discussed in obscure and archaic language, especially when there
are so many alternatives available.

Nigel B. Mitchell

 (Nigel B. Mitchell) writes:

>In <>,  (Callum Gibson)
>wrote:

>>Nigel, you haven't taken the bait?

>Hi, Callum.

>I don't usually do reposts, but FWIW:

>There are basically three reasons for consigning the King James
>Version to the dustheal (or maybe the museums) and discouraging it's
>use in modern theological debate.

>1. It is based on the best available texts of the original languages
>available in the 16th century. Now, 400 years later, we have more, and
>better texts, and we can identify many inaccuracies and errors in the
>KJV ( and other old translations).

Almost correct.
The Greek text used for the New Testament didn't make use of some of the
best available manuscripts, simply because they differed from the
"Received Text" - not to mention the fraudulent inclusion of the "three
heavenly witnesses" in I John 5:7, which are omitted, without comment,
by almost all modern translations.

>2. The language of Jacobean English is different to the language of
>today. In a recent post, Brett provided a perfect example - nobody I
>know uses the word "concision" in normal speech. The KJV is full of
>words which have changed in meaning or fallen into disuse since 1611.
>It is easy, but unproductive, to confuse and mislead people by quoting
>the scriptures in the archaic language of the KJV. We see this all the
>time on the newsgroup - it is always and only those who claim that
>their own interpretations of the scriptures are infallible who use the
>KJV, and they do it simply because the KJV always requires explanation
>for modern people, and in the explanation it is always possible to
>insert your own theological bias.

My biggest problem with 16th century English is the words which have
changed their meaning so much that they now mean just the opposite of
what they meant in 1611.
Let me give you a string of words.

"Suffer the little children ..."  "Suffer" has nothing to do with
"suffering", but has the meaning "let"

Somewhere in his letters Paul writes that he intended to visit some
people, "but was let hitherto"  "let" here really means "prevent", and
has this meaning today only in certain legal contexts.

One of the Psalms uses the words "I prevented the rising of the dawn"
The reaction of almost anybody today would be "Huh!  Just who is this
nut who thinks he stopped the sun rising?"  "prevented" is a rendering
of the Latin "prevenio", meaning "went before", so the psalmist is
simply saying he got up before dawn.

And speaking of latin, large numbers of words in the KJ New Testament
come from the latin Vulgate, not the Greek.  The translators in their
Preface "The Translators to the Reader", which, unfortunately, is rarely
printed these days, said that they specifically used the "old
eccliastical words" which had been hallowed by long use within the
Catholic Church, in preference to Tyndale's more English phrases.

How impoverished would our worship be if we couldn't use "Calvary", for
example?

[rest of Nogel's valuable posting deleted]

>Nigel B. Mitchell
>

Ken Smith