Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Charity (Was: Erasmus)

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... Right after the New Revised English Bible. ... It is absolutely obsolete. ... based on second rate, inferior and much tampered with texts. ... and they did
    Message 1 of 14 , Jul 2, 1997
      At 01:58 PM 7/2/97 -0500, you wrote:

      >The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the
      >greatest ever works of English literature.

      Right after the New Revised English Bible.

      >
      >It's also obsolete.

      It is absolutely obsolete.

      > Even if one ignores its defective text,

      based on second rate, inferior and much tampered with texts.

      > even
      >if one ignores all the things the translators did not know,

      and they did not know a lot- because they depended more heavily on the work
      of their predecessors than they did on original translations of their own.

      > it
      >is *not in the language modern people speak.*
      >

      nor even close. The reason folk are attached to the KJV is because they
      DONT want to know what the Bible says- so they read an outmoded translation
      simply to feel good about themselves without any regard for the meaning of
      the text.

      >Rant-and-rave mode off.
      >

      Why?

      >Bob Waltz
      >waltzmn@...


      JIm

      +++++++++++++++++++++++
      Jim West, ThD
      Adjunct Professor of Bible, Quartz Hill School of Theology
      Managing Editor, "The Journal of Biblical Studies" at
      http://web.infoave.net/~jwest/index.htm

      jwest@...
    • Robert B. Waltz
      On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, Mr. Helge Evensen wrote: [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ] ... [ ... ] ... The
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 3, 1997
        On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <helevens@...> wrote:

        [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ]

        >Robert B. Waltz wrote:

        [ ... ]

        >> 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today,
        >> and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love.
        >> So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??
        >
        >This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the
        >fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context*
        >of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is
        >a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English
        >use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language.
        >My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the
        >blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today.
        >It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning
        >of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement).

        The primary meaning is surely what people understand it to mean. And they
        understand it to mean "charity."

        I do not argue that this is "good" -- in fact, I object to the way
        certain people use certain words. Very obvious example: "Gay."
        In my vocabulary, "gay" is a word meaning "chearful," and is applied
        primarily to ladies -- at least in traditional music. But it has
        now been -- er -- perverted to mean "homosexual." And for all that
        I wish it otherwise, when I hear the word "gay," I must usually
        interpret it as meaning "homosexual," not "cheerful."

        >I even used one of the standard Dictionaries to prove my point.
        >I doubt that the Birmingham University (on whose International Language
        >Database the Collins Dictionary is based) did not get this right.

        But if two dictionaries disagree, should we not investigate further?
        And we are finding that the English speakers on the list understand
        the word as "almsgiving."

        >(Or maybe they are trying to "deceive" students concerning the meaning of
        >this word?)
        >
        >In order for charity to have the meaning of "love" today, it does not
        >necessarily mean that it is to be spoken in everyday language. There are
        >*other uses* of words than just everyday language. This should be plain
        >enough.

        Not really. My interpretation of the above statement is that we are to
        speak some sort of code because that's what your dictionary says.

        [... ]
        >
        >Another thing to consider is that as long as this word occurs in a very
        >influential Bible translation, it *is* a currently used word in modern
        >English. Christians are using it in connection with teaching, witnessing,
        >counseling, etc. Is this not part of modern English?

        Really? Anybody want to tell me what a "blain" is (Ex. 9:9)? :-)

        >To state otherwise is to say that "theological language" is *not* part
        >of modern English. It *is* a known word today. It may not be used in the
        >meaning "love" on "the street", but does that mean that this use is not
        >part of modern English??

        In my experience, it is not. And my English (unlike my Greek) is
        quite good.

        [ ... ]

        >> The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition,
        >> and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity"
        >> cannot be equated in ordinary conversation.
        >
        >(What is "ordinary conversation"? Is it "non-religious" conversation?)

        "Ordinary conversation" is anything people say without trying to sound
        affected.

        [ ... ]

        >That is all this dictionary has to say about this word.
        >Note that while it indicates that the word is "Biblical", it does not
        >separate between that and the modern usage, but rather lumps it all
        >together.

        But -- trust me -- most people *don't* speak "Biblical English" in
        ordinary life, and can't be expected to understand it. Certainly they
        aren't taught it. In fact, any attempt to teach it in American
        public schools would be unconstitutional.

        >But since you referred to a "standard" dictionary, let me refer to
        >another one which is *certainly* a standard: The Oxford Advanced
        >Learner`s Dictionary, New Edition (fourth edition), Oxford 1989.
        >On the title page it is called a dictionary "of *Current* English"
        >(emphasis added).
        >This one better be right, for it is responsible for thousands of
        >students` understanding of English language and usage all over the world.

        The ultimate authority, perhaps, is the Oxford English Dictionary.
        Anybody out there have an OED to check?

        >When I open this dictionary I expect to find definitions according to
        >*current* English. And what do I find when I open it at the word
        >charity? Yes, you guessed it again, here it is:
        >"_n_ 1 [U] loving kindness towards others. 2 [U] tolerance in judging
        >others; kindness; leniency: _judge people with charity_. 3 [U] (a)
        >(generosity in) giving money, food, help, etc to the needy......etc."
        >
        >It cannot be rightly held as a fact that "love" is not one of the
        >meanings of charity. Whether you choose a dictionary which lists this
        >meaning first or one that lists it last. The meaning is *there*.
        >
        >> And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be
        >> translated into colloquial English, not theological English!
        >
        >It does not automatically follow that, just because the NT was written
        >in colloquial Greek, a translation must be in colloquial in the receptor
        >language. That must depend on the ability of that particular language
        >to contain the meanings of the words of the Bible.

        Modern English is fully as capable of translating Greek as the language
        of the KJV -- which happens to be early Modern English. It merely
        translates it differently.

        [ ... ]

        >> >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
        >> >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy.
        >>
        >> This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP-
        >> are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered
        >> consistently.
        >
        >Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer
        >to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in
        >existense.

        But you are arguing for rendering it inconsistently, because the
        KJV rendders it inconsistently. Please, either be consistent or
        tell us that you don't care about logic. :-)

        >> To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we
        >> can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name
        >> may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random.
        >
        >There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use
        >of a group of ordinary words.

        I see none.

        It should not be necessary for me to
        >comment further on that. (It seems that the word "equivalent" here is a
        >little too strong.....)
        >
        >> >The KJV translators had great
        >> >sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit
        >> >the particular context.
        >>
        >> This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997.
        >
        >Yeah, it is still *true* today, but the language has changed.

        That's *my* point.

        [ ... ]

        >> It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even
        >> if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it
        >> is *not in the language modern people speak.*
        >
        >I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily
        >be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book
        >which is different from a newspaper?

        Are you Protestant? I assume so. I imagine you are Lutheran. Is not
        the Priesthood of All Believers an important component of Lutheranism?
        Surely this means people must be able to understand their Bible.
        But people *do not* understand the KJV.

        I agree that is regretable; I wish more people could understand
        Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as the KJV. But it is true. We
        cannot hold back time. We can only bring our translations up to date.

        -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

        Robert B. Waltz
        waltzmn@...

        Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
        Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
        (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
      • Mr. Helge Evensen
        ... Finally, I have crossed the line and have become guilty of committing sacrilege against the Holy English Language! ... I guess I could have found more than
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 4, 1997
          Robert B. Waltz wrote:
          >
          > Some things I can let pass. When Helge Evensen makes false and
          > self-contradictory statements about the Textus Receptus, I can
          > ignore it. When he makes ridiculous statements about the textual
          > theories of Erasmus, I can stand aside. But when he insults that
          > once-noble monument which is the English Language, I cannot leave
          > the matter alone.

          Finally, I have crossed the line and have become guilty of committing
          sacrilege against the Holy English Language!

          >
          > >Please understand that I am not arguing just to be disagreeable. But the
          > >above statement is simply not true. The word "charity" certainly has the
          > >meaning "love" today.
          >
          > True in theory. False in practice. I challenge you to find *any* native
          > speaker of English (at least in America) to whom the primary meaning
          > of charity is affection rather than almsgiving.

          I guess I could have found more than one if I just sought hard enough
          for it. However, I am not willing to use the time it would take. I am at
          a great disadvantage at this point, since I am not a native speaker of
          English. But your statement above is, in fact, missing the point.
          Please consider again the statement of Mike to which I responded:

          > 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today,
          > and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love.
          > So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??

          This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the
          fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context*
          of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is
          a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English
          use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language.
          My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the
          blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today.
          It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning
          of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement).
          I even used one of the standard Dictionaries to prove my point.
          I doubt that the Birmingham University (on whose International Language
          Database the Collins Dictionary is based) did not get this right.
          (Or maybe they are trying to "deceive" students concerning the meaning of
          this word?)

          In order for charity to have the meaning of "love" today, it does not
          necessarily mean that it is to be spoken in everyday language. There are
          *other uses* of words than just everyday language. This should be plain
          enough.

          On the title page of the Collins Dictionary, we read: "HELPING LEARNERS
          WITH _REAL_ ENGLISH". So the meaning of charity which I referred to is
          actually REAL ENGLISH. There is more. In the Introduction, we read: "This
          dictionary is for people who want to *use* modern English. It offers
          *accurate* and detailed information on the way *modern* English is *used*
          in *all kinds* of communication. It is a useful guide to *writing* and
          **speaking** English as well as an aid to reading and *understanding*".
          "For the first time, a dictionary has been compiled by the *thorough*
          examination of a *representative* group of English texts, *spoken* and
          *written*, running to many millions of words. This means that in addition
          to all the tools of the conventional dictionary makers - wide reading and
          *experience* of English, other dictionaries and of course eyes and ears -
          this dictionary is based on *hard*, measurable *evidence*. No major uses
          are missed, and the number of times a use occurs has a *strong* influence
          on the *way* the *entries* are *organized*".
          "The dictionary team has had daily access to about 20 million words,....
          The words came from books, magazines, newspapers, pamphlets, leaflets,
          conversations, radio and television broadcasts.....
          The aim was to provide a *fair representation* of *contemporary*
          English" (Introduction, p. xv, emphasis added).

          Well, if words mean anything, and if the Birmingham University does not
          lie, I have good reason for trusting the definitions in this dictionary.
          At least, I think it is fair to conclude that if they list "love" as the
          *primary* meaning of charity, this meaning can be regarded as one of the
          *valid* meanings of charity in modern English. If not, Birmingham must
          have really missed it here and probably in numerous other places.
          According to the quoted words, this must be a pretty good dictionary. At
          least, I am not competent to try to correct it.

          On the front flap, it reads: "An editorial team has worked for seven
          years using extensive computer facilities to study and analyse the
          patterns of use in millions of words of text".
          On the back cover, we find: "It is based on a detailed analysis of how
          *today`s* English is really *used*" and "90,000 examples taken from the
          COBUILD database show just how words and phrases are *really* used".
          (Emphasis added).

          The thing that called forth my response to Mike was not that he
          asserted that "love" is not the *primary* meaning of charity, but that
          it did not have that meaning *at all* today!
          Note also that I did not say that charity *primarily* means "love" in all
          situations at all times. I was depending on the order of the listing of
          the Dictionary.

          Since you yourself referred to a dictionary in your post, it seems that
          you think that a dictionary definition carries at least *some* weight.
          My dictionary disagrees with yours, so what? That fact alone should be
          enough to admit that "love" *is* a valid meaning of the word charity. It
          certainly is wrong to conclude blatant that it does not at all have that
          meaning in modern language. If that was the case, I doubt that any
          dictionary at all would have given it this definition.

          Another thing to consider is that as long as this word occurs in a very
          influential Bible translation, it *is* a currently used word in modern
          English. Christians are using it in connection with teaching, witnessing,
          counseling, etc. Is this not part of modern English?
          To state otherwise is to say that "theological language" is *not* part
          of modern English. It *is* a known word today. It may not be used in the
          meaning "love" on "the street", but does that mean that this use is not
          part of modern English??
          Is not christians who use this word today among native English speakers?

          > >I do not have to go further than the standard modern Dictionaries to find
          > >that out. For example, the Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary
          >
          > *This* is a standard English dictionary? Not where I live....

          That does not make it a non-standard.
          But it certainly is a standard dictionary at numerous schools and
          colleges. And since it is based on extensive research and hard evidence,
          there is no reason to doubt its reliability. Students are using it, and
          are being formed by it, linguistically.

          > >(1987) has this definition of the word "charity":
          > >"1 Charity is 1.1 a kind and sympathetic attitude which you show towards
          > >other people by being tolerant, helpful, or generous to them. EG _She
          > >found the charity in her heart to forgive them for this wrong_.
          > >1.2 money or gifts which are given to people because they are poor. EG
          > >_He is far too proud to accept charity_".
          >
          > The American Heritage Dictionary (which *is* a standard dictionary) offers
          > this as its first definition:
          >
          > 1. The provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving.
          >
          > The meaning "love" is the *second* subentity under the *sixth* definition,
          > and is marked *specific to theology.* In other words, "love" and "charity"
          > cannot be equated in ordinary conversation.

          (What is "ordinary conversation"? Is it "non-religious" conversation?)

          As I said earlier, "good godly men differ". And dictionaries differ.
          We should not forget that there may be a difference between English
          and American English, and that the KJV is written in *English*. Thus, we
          may discover that there are slight differences in the definitions
          between dictionaries intended for use in America and those intended for
          use in England. But even though your American dictionary did not list
          "love" as a primary meaning of charity, I have one that does. I am
          talking about the Webster`s Dictionary of the American Language. That
          one may be regarded as a standard dictionary, I suppose. (Maybe not by
          all).
          On the front cover we find the following announcement:
          over 50,000 entries
          derivations
          **modern definitions**
          parts of speech
          syllabized
          clear type
          indexed

          (emphasis added)

          One of the things I expect to find when I open this dictionary, is
          *modern definitions* of the English words. I now open it to the word
          charity; and guess what I find? Yes, you guessed it, here it is:
          "n. (Bib.) love and goodwill to men; liberality to the poor; leniency
          in judging others; any act of kindness; alms; a charitable cause or
          institution".

          That is all this dictionary has to say about this word.
          Note that while it indicates that the word is "Biblical", it does not
          separate between that and the modern usage, but rather lumps it all
          together.

          But since you referred to a "standard" dictionary, let me refer to
          another one which is *certainly* a standard: The Oxford Advanced
          Learner`s Dictionary, New Edition (fourth edition), Oxford 1989.
          On the title page it is called a dictionary "of *Current* English"
          (emphasis added).
          This one better be right, for it is responsible for thousands of
          students` understanding of English language and usage all over the world.

          When I open this dictionary I expect to find definitions according to
          *current* English. And what do I find when I open it at the word
          charity? Yes, you guessed it again, here it is:
          "_n_ 1 [U] loving kindness towards others. 2 [U] tolerance in judging
          others; kindness; leniency: _judge people with charity_. 3 [U] (a)
          (generosity in) giving money, food, help, etc to the needy......etc."

          It cannot be rightly held as a fact that "love" is not one of the
          meanings of charity. Whether you choose a dictionary which lists this
          meaning first or one that lists it last. The meaning is *there*.

          > And remember, the NT is written in colloquial Greek. It should be
          > translated into colloquial English, not theological English!

          It does not automatically follow that, just because the NT was written
          in colloquial Greek, a translation must be in colloquial in the receptor
          language. That must depend on the ability of that particular language
          to contain the meanings of the words of the Bible. And what *is*
          "theological English", by the way? 100 years from now, the words of
          colloquial English may be regarded as "theological language". The best
          words to use in a translation are those which best transfer to the
          reader the meaning and riches of the original language words.
          And English readers may be greatly rewarded by consulting the English
          dictionaries, and gain an understanding of the *real* meaning of words!

          It is wonderful that we have dictionaries to help us if we do not have
          an understanding of the real meanings of the words we are faced with.

          >
          > >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
          > >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy.
          >
          > This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP-
          > are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered
          > consistently.

          Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer
          to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in
          existense.

          > To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we
          > can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name
          > may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random.

          There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use
          of a group of ordinary words. It should not be necessary for me to
          comment further on that. (It seems that the word "equivalent" here is a
          little too strong.....)

          > >The KJV translators had great
          > >sensitivity when it came to choosing English equivalents that would suit
          > >the particular context.
          >
          > This is true -- for 1611. It is simply *not true* for 1997.

          Yeah, it is still *true* today, but the language has changed.
          One of the reasons that the word charity is still in use today and still
          contains the meaning it had in 1611, is precisely the circumstance that
          the 1611 version has had greater influence on the English language than
          any other book.

          > The KJV is the greatest translation ever made. It is one of the
          > greatest ever works of English literature.

          Amen and Amen!!!!

          >
          > It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even
          > if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it
          > is *not in the language modern people speak.*

          I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily
          be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book
          which is different from a newspaper?

          >
          > Rant-and-rave mode off.

          I doubt that, after this post....; you may feel free to turn it *on*
          again now....


          --
          - Mr. Helge Evensen
        • Mr. Helge Evensen
          Mr. Waltz, Thanks for your response. It is obvious that my former message did not help you understand what I am talking about, so I will just briefly end my
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 4, 1997
            Mr. Waltz,

            Thanks for your response.

            It is obvious that my former message did not help you understand what I
            am talking about, so I will just briefly end my contribution to this
            debate with the present post. And, admittedly, my limited experience
            as to the practical use of the English language, naturally hinders me
            from going further with this.


            Robert B. Waltz wrote:
            >
            > On Fri, 04 Jul 1997, "Mr. Helge Evensen" <helevens@...> wrote:
            >
            > [ BTW -- I think we can keep the tone a little calmer this time. ]

            Fine with me.

            > >Robert B. Waltz wrote:
            >
            > [ ... ]
            >
            > >> 'Charity' may have meant 'love' in 1611, but we are not in 1611 today,
            > >> and TODAY it means almsgiving NOT love.
            > >> So WHY introduce this problem in todays versions??
            > >
            > >This is what I responded to, not something else. I was speaking of the
            > >fact that the meaning of charity is still "love" today. And the *context*
            > >of the discussion was the occurences of this word in the KJV, which is
            > >a version of the *Bible*, not whether or not native speakers of English
            > >use this word in the meaning "love" in everyday language.
            > >My point was that the meaning is still intact today. I responded to the
            > >blatant assertion that this meaning is *not* present in the word today.
            > >It would have been better to say that "love" is not the *primary* meaning
            > >of the word today (even though this would have been an overstatement).
            >
            > The primary meaning is surely what people understand it to mean. And they
            > understand it to mean "charity."

            What does, for instance, the word "grace" mean in contemporary English
            language outside "religious talk"? And the word "holy"?
            If they are not used in the Biblical meaning, is that a reason for
            avoiding the use of them in modern English translations? If so, not many
            translators have thought it necessary, for very few translations
            substitute these words.

            [.....]

            > >> >To say that a Greek word must always be rendered into one English
            > >> >word in all instances is clearly a fallacy.
            > >>
            > >> This is true. But it is not the point. The complex of words AGAP-
            > >> are so important in the New Testament that they *must* be rendered
            > >> consistently.
            > >
            > >Many would disagree with you on that point. Personally, I would prefer
            > >to render it consistently. But that is not the only valid view in
            > >existense.
            >
            > But you are arguing for rendering it inconsistently, because the
            > KJV rendders it inconsistently. Please, either be consistent or
            > tell us that you don't care about logic. :-)

            This is a misunderstanding. I did not *argue* for rendering it
            inconsistently. I stated what was my *personal* preference
            with regard to the rendering of AGAPE, and that this view is
            not the only *valid* one. That is, *other* choices may be *valid*.
            But despite my own view, it is a fact that one Greek word does not always
            have to be rendered by the same English word. And that *may* be the case
            with the word AGAPE. I did *not* state anything conclusive, or that
            AGAPE *must necessarily* be rendered consistently.
            Actually, I have not stated that the KJV *always* has the word AGAPE
            rendered correctly.

            My argument is that it is wrong to say that the word "charity" does *not
            at all* have the meaning "love" today. That was my concern in my response
            to Mike. My personal preference may be the one or the other, but evidence
            is evidence, and that is what I have presented with regard to the word
            "charity". And I have not depended on my own opinions, I have cited
            evidence. If I had *not* found evidence for my statements regarding the
            word "charity", I would not have bothered this list with my opinions.
            Because of my limited experience with regard to the English language, it
            would be impossible for me to argue at all about the uses of that
            language in everyday talk, if I had not found evidence in dictionaries.
            If these dictionaries are not representative of the current use of
            English, that is really not my responsibility. Besides, I never did say
            that "charity" was used by all in the meaning "love". My only contention
            is that "charity" still contains the meaning "love", as it is found in
            the dictionaries which I have consulted.

            > >> To argue otherwise is equivalent to saying that we
            > >> can indiscriminately call Jesus "Jesus" or "Joshua." Either name
            > >> may be correct -- but they cannot be used at random.
            > >
            > >There is a clear difference between the use of a proper name and the use
            > >of a group of ordinary words.
            >
            > I see none.

            I may add that I have not argued that one is to use the words "love" and
            "charity" *at random*. The rendering of words must be done carefully,
            not "at random" (unless you used the expression in the sense of
            "irregular").

            > >> It's also obsolete. Even if one ignores its defective text, even
            > >> if one ignores all the things the translators did not know, it
            > >> is *not in the language modern people speak.*
            > >
            > >I answer this with two questions:*Should* a Bible translation necessarily
            > >be in the language modern people *speak*? Is not the Bible a Holy book
            > >which is different from a newspaper?
            >
            > Are you Protestant? I assume so. I imagine you are Lutheran. Is not
            > the Priesthood of All Believers an important component of Lutheranism?
            > Surely this means people must be able to understand their Bible.
            > But people *do not* understand the KJV.

            Yes, I am Protestant. However, I am also "Charis(auto)matic" (that is,
            one who believes in the "auotomatic" giving of "Grace" to *anyone* who
            accepts Jesus Christ as his/her Saviour and believes His Holy Word!)


            [...]
            >
            > I wish more people could understand
            > Chaucer and Shakespeare as well as the KJV.

            I agree.

            [...]

            > We can only bring our translations up to date.

            I clearly disagree with you there, but we cannot continue this debate
            forever, so enough for now.

            Thanks so far. God bless.


            --
            - Mr. Helge Evensen
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.