"Church English"...

[robycop3]

While recently talking face-to-face with a believer of the KJVO myth, he told me the KJV was written in "Church English" & no newer verion was. I explained to him that, years beore the internet came along, I had sent letters to several English professors asking about that very thing, & all who answered assured me THERE'S NO SUCH THING as "Church English". The KJV was written in mostly the same English as was used every day by the British of the time, as were the versions that preceded it.

Wycliffe's version was in the everyday English of the 1380s, as was Tyndale's of the 1530s & so on.

I don't know who invented the "Church English" theory, but it's FALSE.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The KJV was put into antiquated English. Folks in 1611 didn't speak that way. It used language that was about 75 years old. It was not put into the language of the people of the time. The revisers tried to fancy-it-up. The word 'you' had replaced the old-fashioned 'thou' in ordinary conversation. The same thing applied to the older word 'ye.' The th endings had phased out and replaced with the s. So it was no longer 'hath' but 'has.' The word 'thereof' was not in common usage, but 'its' was.
I compare the KJV to the ESV. Just as the language of the KJV was not the language of early 17th century English --neither is the English of the ESV used by 21st century native English speakers. The ESV came out in the 21st century, but used a form of English that uses an uncommon style. Perhaps no one spoke as the ESV words its translation.

 

[robycop3]

But just as we understand Civil War English, the british of 1611m understood the KJV's English.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

But just as we understand Civil War English, the british of 1611m understood the KJV's English.

You had said that the KJV used everyday English, and I countered that sentiment with facts.

And to the point of "Church English" the KJV, ESV, NKJ etc. use biblish. And I object to that.

 

[robycop3]

You had said that the KJV used everyday English, and I countered that sentiment with facts.

And to the point of "Church English" the KJV, ESV, NKJ etc. use biblish. And I object to that.

I don't think there's any such thing. It's simply the way the best translations, in the translators' opinions, come out.

 

[Michael Hollner]

'THERE'S NO SUCH THING as "Chur

While recently talking face-to-face with a believer of the KJVO myth, he told me the KJV was written in "Church English" & no newer verion was. I explained to him that, years beore the internet came along, I had sent letters to several English professors asking about that very thing, & all who answered assured me THERE'S NO SUCH THING as "Church English". The KJV was written in mostly the same English as was used every day by the British of the time, as were the versions that preceded it.

Wycliffe's version was in the everyday English of the 1380s, as was Tyndale's of the 1530s & so on.

I don't know who invented the "Church English" theory, but it's FALSE.

'HERE'S NO SUCH THING as "Church English"'

Once again, we agree. The KJV English is very unique and its share verbal effusiveness and its profound emotional expressions make it a Bible like no other. Its effervescence, energetic, and poetic language sounds off as a well-orchestrated symphony.

The King James Bible: The Monarch of all Books! (kjvdebate.com)

Blessings......

 

[robycop3]

'THERE'S NO SUCH THING as "Chur


'HERE'S NO SUCH THING as "Church English"'

Once again, we agree. The KJV English is very unique and its share verbal effusiveness and its profound emotional expressions make it a Bible like no other. Its effervescence, energetic, and poetic language sounds off as a well-orchestrated symphony.

The King James Bible: The Monarch of all Books! (kjvdebate.com)

Blessings......

Thing is, it's not the most-accurate English bible translation. To me, ACCURACY matters more than anything.

 

[37818]

To me, ACCURACY matters more than anything.

John 6:47 ". . . in Me . . . ." Or omitted.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The KJV was put into antiquated English. Folks in 1611 didn't speak that way. It used language that was about 75 years old. It was not put into the language of the people of the time. The revisers tried to fancy-it-up. The word 'you' had replaced the old-fashioned 'thou' in ordinary conversation. The same thing applied to the older word 'ye.' The th endings had phased out and replaced with the s. So it was no longer 'hath' but 'has.' The word 'thereof' was not in common usage, but 'its' was.
I compare the KJV to the ESV. Just as the language of the KJV was not the language of early 17th century English --neither is the English of the ESV used by 21st century native English speakers. The ESV came out in the 21st century, but used a form of English that uses an uncommon style. Perhaps no one spoke as the ESV words its translation.

Most of the above is true, but there was a reason why the translators of the KJV persisted with 'thou' and 'ye' etc. It distinguished between singular and plural, which is actually very helpful when it comes to verses like Luke 22:31 and John 3:7. The KJV was written at a time when literacy rates were lower than they are today and therefore it was made to be read aloud, more than today's versions are, so footnotes were not particularly helpful.

 

[Conan]

Most of the above is true, but there was a reason why the translators of the KJV persisted with 'thou' and 'ye' etc. It distinguished between singular and plural, which is actually very helpful when it comes to verses like Luke 22:31 and John 3:7. The KJV was written at a time when literacy rates were lower than they are today and therefore it was made to be read aloud, more than today's versions are, so footnotes were not particularly helpful.

Perhaps you should read what the KJV translators said in their preface.

Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each

The Translators to the Reader

. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded

 

[robycop3]

Most of the above is true, but there was a reason why the translators of the KJV persisted with 'thou' and 'ye' etc. It distinguished between singular and plural, which is actually very helpful when it comes to verses like Luke 22:31 and John 3:7. The KJV was written at a time when literacy rates were lower than they are today and therefore it was made to be read aloud, more than today's versions are, so footnotes were not particularly helpful.

The AV 1611 is full of footnotes. They should've been included, along with the preface, in later KJV editions.

 

[Logos1560]

The King James Bible: The Monarch of all Books! (kjvdebate.com)
.

Instead of engaging in any serious discussion, you provide a link to your unreliable book that advocates human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision are. It retains much of their 1500's English although it added some Latin-based words borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The KJV is not unique. It is a Bible translation in the same sense as other English Bibles are.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Here is something that KJVO advocates must come to grips with. It's the King James Version. It is among other versions. It is not The one-of-a-kind, definitive, that settles it, translation that was lowered from the heavens. There was no voice from Heaven saying "This is my beloved. There is no other written translation that can hope to compare with it. I have spoken."

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV English is very unique

Are you sure? Can you provide sound documented evidence for your claim?

How is KJV English unique when most of it was borrowed or kept from 1500's English Bible translations?

Other English Bible translations had the same 1500's English.

 

[Yeshua1]

Here is something that KJVO advocates must come to grips with. It's the King James Version. It is among other versions. It is not The one-of-a-kind, definitive, that settles it, translation that was lowered from the heavens. There was no voice from Heaven saying "This is my beloved. There is no other written translation that can hope to compare with it. I have spoken."

The supreme irony to me is that the 1611 Kjv team would have seen seen their finished product as being KJVO!

 

[Yeshua1]

Instead of engaging in any serious discussion, you provide a link to your unreliable book that advocates human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision are. It retains much of their 1500's English although it added some Latin-based words borrowed from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament. The KJV is not unique. It is a Bible translation in the same sense as other English Bibles are.

The Kjv itself was just a revision of earlier prior English translation, so were not all of those also to be seen as legit bible versions?

 

[Yeshua1]

The AV 1611 is full of footnotes. They should've been included, along with the preface, in later KJV editions.

They also had marginal variants and the Apocrapha!

 

[Yeshua1]

You had said that the KJV used everyday English, and I countered that sentiment with facts.

And to the point of "Church English" the KJV, ESV, NKJ etc. use biblish. And I object to that.

They use more formal and theological terms, that is true!

 

[RipponRedeaux]

They use more formal and theological terms, that is true!

No, that's not what I meant by 'biblish.' I've made a number of threads regarding the ESV. It uses a lot of biblish. Ungainly, awkward grammar is used a great deal of the time. A non-biblish translation uses a more natural sounding form of English.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, that's not what I meant by 'biblish.' I've made a number of threads regarding the ESV. It uses a lot of biblish. Ungainly, awkward grammar is used a great deal of the time. A non-biblish translation uses a more natural sounding form of English.

The esv is a good balance between being too formal, and too much "normal english"