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
> 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
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
> >> 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.
> 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