KJV is well loved and used

My wife's the tennis player in my family, so you can draw your own conclusions.

 

Maybe not immediately. But change occurred, and it entered common usage.

Some new words appear, some old words disappear, and some meanings change. Echoes of Babel, I reckon.

 

Went back and touched up the Tyndale lingo. Some of that I added didn't sound like him!

Actually, I was going to translate Tyndale's statement into modern English so we could all understand it, but I ran into two problems.
1. I found I was not qualified to translate it into modern English (my modern is so 70s).
2. I found no modern group of which I could imply they do not know how to read well; ploughboys are kind of archaic, and boys possibly derogatory. I didn't want to get sued for offending anyone (too many snowflakes).

 

I let this one pass earlier. I'm sure there are some who don't know what "let" means in 2 Thess. 2:7. But in my personal experience I've not run across any of them. (Or those who don't know that prevent can mean go before, or that quick means living or alive.)

Perhaps we could start with Picture Bibles and English lessons. If they can't read the easiest reading Bibles, what will you do about it?

[Edited to add: the above statement is not just for argument. We have a serious reading problem in the US, and I'm not sure modern vernacular Bibles are helping much in this regard. And there is both "can't read" and also "don't read" problems. Audio Bibles might help with some of this, though those who don't want to read probably don't want to listen either.]

 

Use hinder.

 

There is no equivalence between the number of KJV's antiquated renderings vs. the antiquated readings in the newer versions. The KJV has an overwhelming number of incomprehensible readings.

Have you thought of the possibility that the NIV reading might be more accurate here?

 

You meant Reader's Edition --commonly known as the NIrV. You need to become familiar with this translation. It will help you improve your English.

 

WOW! What a perversion of what I had said. Your interpretation of the words of others is truly a twisting of the original.

The above is an example of the strawmen you constantly erect.

Why can't you deal honestly with any given subject?

 

I notice that of the 50-something versions and sub-versions (sub as in "below", revisions of versions) at Bible Gateway, only one -- but not modern -- uses hinder (and in brackets, at that). I was surprised "hinder" wasn't used more, but perhaps the connotation is weaker.

The preferred newer words seem to be restrain and hold back.

 

Is it the same when readers think that they know the meaning of some words used in the KJV with different meanings and thus do not look them up but they would likely look up an uncommon or difficult word in another English translation?

Is it the same when readers cannot find the word used in the KJV in a typical one-volume English dictionary or cannot find the meaning of how the word is used in the KJV in that dictionary but readers can find the word in the other English translation in the dictionary?

 

At one time, there were two different words spelled "bravery" that came into English with different meanings. If I recall correctly, one word came into English from Latin and the other word came into English from French. The two words may have been spelled in different ways during the time when English did not have set spelling rules, but both came to be spelled the same. Only one of the words may be in present use, but the other word with the different meaning was used in the KJV.

 

But how often is "let" used for 'hinder' in modern speech outside of tennis? About as often as "love" is used for 'zero' outside of tennis.

I believe we all know the KJV contains many words still in common use whose meanings have drastically changed over the years, and many English users today don't know those old meanings.

 

Not to mention a modern rock band playing their sistrums...

 

Antiquated does not always means incomprehensible nor does incomprehensible always mean antiquated. My point is, the newer versions have their share of difficult words as well. To say that the KJV should be put out to pasture because it is hard to understand is a very hypocritical position, in my humble opinion.

Would that really matter? If I can't understand the more accurate rendering, what's the point?

 

Objection! Calls for speculation! There's no way I could possibly know this. From my experience as a teacher, if someone does not know what a word means, they ask.

For example, one of our college freshman ladies asked me just yesterday, "What is the difference when people say that God is Holy and that He is a 'thrice Holy' God?" It was a very good question for which I was able to give her a very quick explanation and the matter was settled.

A good teacher will, in any given subject, automatically explain difficult or seldom used words. A preacher would have to do that regardless of what version he uses in the pulpit. This is not an exclusively KJV concern.

I don't think too many people today are limited to a single dictionary. We have junior high kids in our Christian school who bring their smart phones to school with them. So, no, I don't think it is the same.