-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
17th century Word Changes
- Thread starter Phillip
- Start date
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Philip is right - lets return to the purpose of the thread please.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
I think a couple of the "difficult" words are stretching it a bit.
"Strait" is a narrow body of water - but it also does mean narrow.
"Mean" does mean "hard, tight", i.e. Especially in English outside the US. Usually in the sense of being "tight" with money.
"Careful" is often used as an example, but I find "careful" to be the perfect word in that sense - careful as in "full of care" makes much more sense that anxious.
I understand the importance of the thread - but a lot of the words are still good English and should not be thrown out with the truly archaic words.
"Strait" is a narrow body of water - but it also does mean narrow.
"Mean" does mean "hard, tight", i.e. Especially in English outside the US. Usually in the sense of being "tight" with money.
"Careful" is often used as an example, but I find "careful" to be the perfect word in that sense - careful as in "full of care" makes much more sense that anxious.
I understand the importance of the thread - but a lot of the words are still good English and should not be thrown out with the truly archaic words.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
I am an IFB!
The KJV is slowly becoming obsolete Terry because IMO the English is archaic in vocabulary, grammar and syntax.
My post was on track Terry. I was showing words and passages in the KJV that had become obsolete.
You widened the KJV "parbar" context but were still unable to tell us what it “parbar” is except to say that it somehow became clear after you expanded the context.
I disagree, it did nothing of the kind.
The NIV makes it clear.
1 Chron. 26:13-18
Lots were cast for each gate, according to their families, young and old alike.
[14] The lot for the East Gate fell to Shelemiah. Then lots were cast for his son Zechariah, a wise counselor, and the lot for the North Gate fell to him. [15] The lot for the South Gate fell to Obed-Edom, and the lot for the storehouse fell to his sons. [16] The lots for the West Gate and the Shalleketh Gate on the upper road fell to Shuppim and Hosah.
Guard was alongside of guard: [17] There were six Levites a day on the east, four a day on the north, four a day on the south and two at a time at the storehouse. [18] As for the court to the west, there were four at the road and two at the court itself.
NIV
I do agree with you in this respect.
Use whatever version you are led to use, I will do the same.
HankD
Terry_Herrington
New Member
You can stay with the NIV; I will continue to use the KJV.
Terry_Herrington said:
BTW, both the NKJV and the NAS both refer to Parbar in this verse, so in this instance they are just as obscure as is the KJV.
The criticism had nothing to do with the Parbarians, but the crippled English that their name happened to stand in the middle of.
When you read it in context, it is easy to understand what is being said.
Um. No.
BTW, both the NKJV and the NAS both refer to Parbar in this verse, so in this instance they are just as obscure as is the KJV.
The criticism had nothing to do with the Parbarians, but the crippled English that their name happened to stand in the middle of.
When you read it in context, it is easy to understand what is being said.
Um. No.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
It makes no difference who these people were, the context shows that God was assigning the land to the Israelites during this time; there exact boundaries have nothing to do with us today.
Just because we do not know what Parbar means or who these people were today does not mean that we will not discover this information sometime in the future.
Ransom, it amazes me the lengths you will go to to discredit the KJV at every possible turn. Again let me say that I personally don't care what translation you use, I will stay with the KJV.
I don't think they should necessarily be changed either, but it does become important for the reader to understand the definition of the words that the translators had in mind when they chose that word. This would be true of any translation, but the need for this sort of care in interpretation is more pronounced in the KJV (or any old translation) because word usage tends to change over time.
How about this? Deuteronomy 28:27:
The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
I know what itching is, I think, and I can take a guess on "the scab". Botch and emerods? I'm clueless. I can find "botch" in my dictionary: they are inflammatory sores. "Emerod" is not in my dictionary, though. The NKJV has "tumours" instead of emerods.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
I don't think they should necessarily be changed either, but it does become important for the reader to understand the definition of the words that the translators had in mind when they chose that word. This would be true of any translation, but the need for this sort of care in interpretation is more pronounced in the KJV (or any old translation) because word usage tends to change over time.
How about this? Deuteronomy 28:27:
The LORD will smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.
I know what itching is, I think, and I can take a guess on "the scab". Botch and emerods? I'm clueless. I can find "botch" in my dictionary: they are inflammatory sores. "Emerod" is not in my dictionary, though. The NKJV has "tumours" instead of emerods. </font>[/QUOTE]I have found that a copy of Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary is invaluable in finding out the meanings of these words. These dictionaries are readily available at minimal cost.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
While I think that too much is made of the words changes, I also think it unusual to say the least that 21st century Christians have to buy a 19th century dictionary to understand a 17th century translation.
Terry: "I have found that a copy of Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary is invaluable in finding out the meanings of these words. These dictionaries are readily available at minimal cost."
I checked, and Webster 1828 gives no clue regarding the meaning of "Parbar," since it does not appear therein.
I checked, and Webster 1828 gives no clue regarding the meaning of "Parbar," since it does not appear therein.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
This word is a mystery, even in the modern versions such as the NKJV and the NASB. I was talking about words such as "emerods."Originally posted by Ziggy:
Terry: "I have found that a copy of Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary is invaluable in finding out the meanings of these words. These dictionaries are readily available at minimal cost."
I checked, and Webster 1828 gives no clue regarding the meaning of "Parbar," since it does not appear therein.
Terry: "I was talking about words such as "emerods."
Since I had never used a KJV, I was surprised the first time I heard this term (way back in the 60s), since I had no idea what it meant.
Thankfully, I was carrying my RSV, and didn't need a 19th-century dictionary to know that the underlying Hebrew word meant "tumors" (which is the *correct* translation of the Hebrew [see e.g., BDB Hebrew lexicon, p. 779]). This in contrast to the rendering of the KJV translators which apparently referred to something for which one needs Preparation H.
Since I had never used a KJV, I was surprised the first time I heard this term (way back in the 60s), since I had no idea what it meant.
Thankfully, I was carrying my RSV, and didn't need a 19th-century dictionary to know that the underlying Hebrew word meant "tumors" (which is the *correct* translation of the Hebrew [see e.g., BDB Hebrew lexicon, p. 779]). This in contrast to the rendering of the KJV translators which apparently referred to something for which one needs Preparation H.
Someone once mentioned that studying the KJV in a class took twice as long in order to determine what much of it means.
This limits the amount of Bible study that can be accomplished within a fixed time period.
Terry,
Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to have people buy a 19th century dictionary in order to understand their Bible?
Why not buy a Latin Dictionary and read the Vulgate?
By your standards of longevity, the Vulgate would far surpass the KJV.
This limits the amount of Bible study that can be accomplished within a fixed time period.
Terry,
Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to have people buy a 19th century dictionary in order to understand their Bible?
Why not buy a Latin Dictionary and read the Vulgate?
By your standards of longevity, the Vulgate would far surpass the KJV.
Terry_Herrington
New Member
Phillip, if you like the RSV or any other MV go right ahead and use it. I will stick with the KJV!
BTW, my wife works at a Christian bookstore, and they do not even sell the RSV, it is a dead translation. But, they do sell plenty of KJV's, Praise God!
BTW, my wife works at a Christian bookstore, and they do not even sell the RSV, it is a dead translation. But, they do sell plenty of KJV's, Praise God!
I did not say I used the RSV. It would not be my idea of a good MV.
Yes, the KJV is still a big seller, it was only replaced by the NIV in the past few years. No doubt about that. But if you take all of the mainstream MV's, add them up and compare them to KJV sales, you will find that KJV is in the minority. I am not saying it is not a good translation, but it is NOT easy to read and this post AGAIN is getting off track.
This thread is to find archaic words in the KJV, not to explain how to find an old dictionary to understand them, or anything else. It is simply to make a list.
The word Nephew in the KJV means what? How would a modern reader know that Nephew is not Nephew?
Things like this can be a stumbling block simply because the average Joe does not even think about certain words in the KJV meaning something different today. The average Joe is researching words like GINS, etc... in order to find out the meaning while never even thinking about words like newphew, corn, target, admire, etc...The 1828 WD does not help you if you don't suspect anything out of the norm.
The KJV once was the standard but unless it is updated it will oneday be like the Wycliff Bible being viewed as a very important part of Christian history.
Things like this can be a stumbling block simply because the average Joe does not even think about certain words in the KJV meaning something different today. The average Joe is researching words like GINS, etc... in order to find out the meaning while never even thinking about words like newphew, corn, target, admire, etc...The 1828 WD does not help you if you don't suspect anything out of the norm.
The KJV once was the standard but unless it is updated it will oneday be like the Wycliff Bible being viewed as a very important part of Christian history.