17th century Word Changes

[Ransom]

Terry_Herrington said:

Ransom, it amazes me the lengths you will go to to discredit the KJV at every possible turn.

Once again, KJV-only dishonesty rears its ugly head.

I am not trying to discredit the KJV, only false ideas about the KJV.

As for the "lengths" I am going to, you don't have to go very far to realize that even in a very wide context, "eastward were six Levites, northward four a day, southward four a day, and toward Asuppim two and two" completely fails to suggest that it is talking about sentries at four gates to the temple, or that a "causeway" is a storehouse, or that a "porter" isn't a kindly old man in a pillbox hat who carries your suitcases.

The fact is, no matter how much bending over backwards the KJV-onlyists have to do to whitewash the facts, the KJV-only emperor has no clothes.

 

[GeneMBridges]

^^and is unashamed ...

Sorry, couldn't pass that one up, Ransom, it was just too easy.

 

[James_Newman]

We need to know who is defining the words for us that we have decided need to be updated. Are we supposed to be lights in the world? Or stars?

Philippians 2 (KJV)
15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;

Philippians 2 (NIV)
15so that you may become blameless and pure, children of God without fault in a crooked and depraved generation, in which you shine like stars in the universe

Philippians 2 (HCSB)
15 so that you may be blameless[1] and pure,[2] children of God who are faultless[3] in a crooked[4] and perverted[5] generation,[6] among whom you shine like stars in the world.

Alister Crowley said "Every man and every woman is a star".

Jude 1
10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

 

[gb93433]

Someone forgot to mention unicorns too.

 

[russell55]

Here's another one. Acts 17:3:

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

Alleging is one of those words that's become less strong with the passage of time, so that now it means to assert something without evidence or proof. At the time it was used however, it meant to prove something with evidence.

And we can see from the context that Paul did something more than just "allege" that Christ had to suffer and rise again: he proved to them by reasoning from scriptures that that was so.

The NASB has "giving evidence" and the NKJV "demonstrating".

 

[michelle]

--------------------------------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------


I think it is more of a stumblingblock, and danger to OMITT, ADD TO or ALTER the words of the Lord (which God has warned NOT TO DO), rather than have an ACCURATE and perfect translation of the words of God with a few archaic words, that can easily be understood by context, rightly dividing the word of truth, and with dictionaries or expounding upon by Pastors. The KJB is very readable and understood, and is still for the majority of it, is in and understood in our modern English of today. In fact, the KJB is more understandable than most books written out there today, and those even of modern version's today. It is simple, accurate, and in a form that is VERY EASY to memorize, UNLIKE THE MV'S.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

[russell55]

Can we please not take the bait and turn this thread into just another KJVO debate thread?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Don't do it folks - stick to the topic .

 

[russell55]

Another one. Isaiah 8:21:

And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry: and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse their king and their God, and look upward.

Fret might be used a bit differently now as well. We usually use it to mean "worry", and here it means "really, really, angry".

 

[Phillip]

Another good one Russell55. Like C4K said, let's keep on track here. It is difficult to make a complete list when diversions keep appearing. All I have asked for is a list of as many words as possible used by the KJV translators that do not mean the same today in commonly used English. That's all.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

We must be careful - some of the words being addressed here are not totally archaic in British English.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by C4K:
We must be careful - some of the words being addressed here are not totally archaic in British English.

This may be true; however, we who speak American English must take into consideration that we do not use the words that way. The real question here is accurate readability.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Actually - the thread was started on the topic "17th Century English" and my point is that British English is in many ways still close to 17th cnetury English.

 

[TC]

True, it is American English that has departed so much. Which is why I like the NKJV. It is written in good American English like I speak today.

 

[russell55]

We must be careful - some of the words being addressed here are not totally archaic in British English.

Careful as in "cautious", or careful as in "full of anxiety"?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Anyway, I think your point is a good one, and I don't really mean to suggest that the words I add to the list ought to necessarily be changed--just that they might need explanation. I think that's why this thread is a useful one--it's not necessarily tearing down a certain version of the Bible, but helping to make it clearer.

 

[David J]

Actually this thread should help those who are KJV preferred to better understand the KJV

I used the KJV for many years without knowing nephew was not nephew.

I know that some wording in the KJV is dated. Does anyone have a good list of examples?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by C4K:
Actually - the thread was started on the topic "17th Century English" and my point is that British English is in many ways still close to 17th cnetury English.

I wasn't arguing with what you meant. It is interesting information that British English is in many ways still close. My only point was that most of us are American English speakers and therefore the words ARE archaic to us.

What is interesting, though, is that because British English maintains many of the older words, a dictionary may still have an alternate definitions. If the British didn't use the word with the old definition, do you think the dictionary would drop the alternate old definition?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by russell55:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />We must be careful - some of the words being addressed here are not totally archaic in British English.

Careful as in "cautious", or careful as in "full of anxiety"?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

</font>[/QUOTE]Very cute

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by C4K:
Actually - the thread was started on the topic "17th Century English" and my point is that British English is in many ways still close to 17th cnetury English.

I wasn't arguing with what you meant. It is interesting information that British English is in many ways still close. My only point was that most of us are American English speakers and therefore the words ARE archaic to us.

What is interesting, though, is that because British English maintains many of the older words, a dictionary may still have an alternate definitions. If the British didn't use the word with the old definition, do you think the dictionary would drop the alternate old definition? </font>[/QUOTE]I am not arguing the general need to explain the KJV words. Many are even archaic in British English.

I think only the best of dictionaries still list the alternate Britsh meanings.

It is just some input into what is an excellent thread if we can keep it on track.

I have a book called The King James Bible Word Book published by Nelson which I find to be an excellent tool.

 

[HankD]

I have a book called The King James Bible Word Book published by Nelson which I find to be an excellent tool.

Sooner or later we will need a library of books to interpret the KJV.

It is not only the vocabulary but the grammar and syntax of 17th century vs. 21 century English that has changed:

KJV John 20:21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace [be] unto you: as [my] Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

NKJV John 20:21 So Jesus said to them again, "Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you."

Sometimes the olde English syntax makes the meaning of the passage unclear. In this passage the KJV gives the impression to the modern English reader that Jesus wants the disciples to drink all the wine.

KJV Matthew 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

NKJV Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

The same dynamics are happening to the KJV English versus contemporary English that happened to the Latin vulgate as the language in Italy changed from Latin into Italian.

HankD