Difficult Words

[KJVBibleThumper]

Much as been said on here about the archaic words In the King James, and it is true that there are a number of words in the KJV that have passed out of modern usage. Normally, it is easy to tell from the context what is meant, but for some words there is no re-course but to run to Webster’s 1828 for a definition. This is not a bad thing, the Bible does command us in 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”, looking at this verse, we not only see that to make ourselves “approved” of God, we must study, and that if we do not study, will find ourselves “ashamed” before God, but that there is a right way to divide the “word of truth”, which we know is God’s Word. And if there is a right way to divide the Word of God, then by extension, there must be a wrong way.

Paul, in the second of his epistles to the church at Corinth, chapter two and verse 17, warns that there were, even back then, those who sought to “corrupt the word of God”. We also find a condemnation in Jeremiah, chapter 23 and verse 36, of those who had “perverted the words of the living God”, messing with the Word of God is serious business in God’s eyes. With that warning in mind, let us continue.
So, the question that I am going to address in this article is the following, “do the archaic words in the King James, merit a new translation?”, this is one of the main reason that the modern version state is their reason for existence, the need for a Bible in language that the common man can understand. They are of the opinion that the King James is too difficult to understand and that their new version reads much easier.
The version we are going to examine in light of this is the NIV, there are of course many different versions that could be looked at, but I picked the NIV because:
1.It is one of the most popular versions today.
2.It is popularly held to be a conservative version
3.There is a wealth of evidence about it’s translating, translators, etc
4.I am writing this article so I get to pick.

The only thing I am going to look at here is the archaic and hard to understand words in the King James versus those in the NIV. I am not going to in this article deal with anything else, please confine your responses to the topic.
I am using part of a useful chart from av1611.org that shows the words in the NIV on one side, with the KJV word on the other side, and the reference in between. I also checked as many of these out with my NIV as I could to make sure of their veracity.

NIV KJV
Colonnade I Ki 7:6 Porch
Dissipation I Pet 4:4 Riot
Filigree Ex 28:20 Enclosings
Floodgates Gen 7:11 Windows
Gadfly Jer 46:20 Destruction
Goiim Gen 14:1 Nations
Hades Rev 20:14 Hell
Incited 1 Chr 21:1 Provoked
Jowls Deut 18:3 Cheeks
Magi Matt 2:1 Wise men
Marauders Job 12:6 Robbers
Mina Lk 19:16 Pound
Naïve Rom 16:18 Simple
Negev Gen 12:9 South
Nephilim Gen 6:4 Giants
Offal Ex 29:14 Dung
Piled Lk 23:9 Questioned
Pinions Deut 32:11 Wings
Porphyry Est 1:6 Red

Thumper EDIT: BB keeps messing up my formatting, my apologies.

This is a partial sample of the many words where the NIV actually reads more difficult then the King James does. According to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test, out of 26 catagories, the King James was graded easier in 23. According to that test, the King James reads at a grade level of 5.8, while the NIV reads at a grade level of 8.4.
Please keep in mind that I will only be responding to responses that address the whole issue, I have seen too many topics get de-railed by rabbit trails and I would prefer to avoid that here. If you want me to respond, then post a logical, well reasoned post that addresses every issue I just raised. And keep in mind, as I have said before, that we are all brethren here, if you want to post that according to your convictions, I am in doctrinal error, or that I am twisting Scripture, feel free to do so, but keep the spirit christian. I will periodically log in to check and see responses. And since I am leaving for Washington Thursday and from thence, to college on Saturday, I will only be able to respond today and tomorrow. So if I do not respond after Tuesday, that is why.
In Christ,
Thumper

 

[Rippon]

You need to study brevity.

 

[Salamander]

You need to study brevity.

Scorched your hide though didn't he?:thumbsup:

 

[Jerome]

for some words there is no re-course but to run to Webster’s 1828 for a definition.

No way I'm trusting that KJV-alterer Noah Webster:

"...in the present state of refinement, the utterance of many words and passages of our version is not to be endured;"
"...To retain such offensive language, in the popular version, is, in my view, injudicious, if not unjustifiable;
"...It was my wish to make some further alterations..."

 

[Rippon]

No way I'm trusting that KJV-alterer Noah Webster:

Good one.I have asked KJVO folks before if Noah Webster's very mild update would be considered as God's Word.But no response of any merit was forthcoming.

Benjamin Blayney's Standard Edition of 1769 meets with their approval -- so why shouldn't Noah Webster's?

If they consider Webster tampering with the Word of God why does Blayney get a pass?

If N.W. was a bad guy in their eyes why should his 1828 dictionary be so welcomed?

 

[Keith M]

In 2 Timothy 2:15 the Greek word spoudazo is translated as "study" in the KJVs. However, the word "study" as used in this verse in 17th century English didn't mean what we think of today.

Spoudazo, according to Strong's, is defined as...

1. to hasten, make haste 2. to exert one's self, endeavor, give diligence
- Strong's 4704

Spoudazo appears 11 times in Scripture. KJV translators rendered it as "be diligent" twice, as "be forward" once, as "do diligence" twice, as "endeavor" three times, as "give diligence" once, as "labour" once and as "study" once.

This is another example of a word which has a meaning different today than it had in 1611. For today's reader, the NKJV does a better job of rendering the verse...

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NKJV

The NASB also is more understandable for today's readers...

Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NASB

...the ESV...

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 ESV

...and even the NIV.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NIV

Don't feel bad, BT. Many people are confused by the KJV rendering of spoudazo.
______________________________________

Strong's information, NKJV, NASB, ESV and NIV quotes obtained from http://www.studylight.org

 

[Martin Luther]

Much as been said on here about the archaic words In the King James, and it is true that there are a number of words in the KJV that have passed out of modern usage. Normally, it is easy to tell from the context what is meant, but for some words there is no re-course but to run to Webster’s 1828 for a definition. This is not a bad thing, the Bible does command us in 2 Timothy 2:15 “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”, looking at this verse, we not only see that to make ourselves “approved” of God, we must study, and that if we do not study, will find ourselves “ashamed” before God, but that there is a right way to divide the “word of truth”, which we know is God’s Word. And if there is a right way to divide the Word of God, then by extension, there must be a wrong way.

Paul, in the second of his epistles to the church at Corinth, chapter two and verse 17, warns that there were, even back then, those who sought to “corrupt the word of God”. We also find a condemnation in Jeremiah, chapter 23 and verse 36, of those who had “perverted the words of the living God”, messing with the Word of God is serious business in God’s eyes. With that warning in mind, let us continue.
So, the question that I am going to address in this article is the following, “do the archaic words in the King James, merit a new translation?”, this is one of the main reason that the modern version state is their reason for existence, the need for a Bible in language that the common man can understand. They are of the opinion that the King James is too difficult to understand and that their new version reads much easier.
The version we are going to examine in light of this is the NIV, there are of course many different versions that could be looked at, but I picked the NIV because:
1.It is one of the most popular versions today.
2.It is popularly held to be a conservative version
3.There is a wealth of evidence about it’s translating, translators, etc
4.I am writing this article so I get to pick.

The only thing I am going to look at here is the archaic and hard to understand words in the King James versus those in the NIV. I am not going to in this article deal with anything else, please confine your responses to the topic.
I am using part of a useful chart from av1611.org that shows the words in the NIV on one side, with the KJV word on the other side, and the reference in between. I also checked as many of these out with my NIV as I could to make sure of their veracity.

NIV KJV
Colonnade I Ki 7:6 Porch
Dissipation I Pet 4:4 Riot
Filigree Ex 28:20 Enclosings
Floodgates Gen 7:11 Windows
Gadfly Jer 46:20 Destruction
Goiim Gen 14:1 Nations
Hades Rev 20:14 Hell
Incited 1 Chr 21:1 Provoked
Jowls Deut 18:3 Cheeks
Magi Matt 2:1 Wise men
Marauders Job 12:6 Robbers
Mina Lk 19:16 Pound
Naïve Rom 16:18 Simple
Negev Gen 12:9 South
Nephilim Gen 6:4 Giants
Offal Ex 29:14 Dung
Piled Lk 23:9 Questioned
Pinions Deut 32:11 Wings
Porphyry Est 1:6 Red

Thumper EDIT: BB keeps messing up my formatting, my apologies.

This is a partial sample of the many words where the NIV actually reads more difficult then the King James does. According to the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level test, out of 26 catagories, the King James was graded easier in 23. According to that test, the King James reads at a grade level of 5.8, while the NIV reads at a grade level of 8.4.
Please keep in mind that I will only be responding to responses that address the whole issue, I have seen too many topics get de-railed by rabbit trails and I would prefer to avoid that here. If you want me to respond, then post a logical, well reasoned post that addresses every issue I just raised. And keep in mind, as I have said before, that we are all brethren here, if you want to post that according to your convictions, I am in doctrinal error, or that I am twisting Scripture, feel free to do so, but keep the spirit christian. I will periodically log in to check and see responses. And since I am leaving for Washington Thursday and from thence, to college on Saturday, I will only be able to respond today and tomorrow. So if I do not respond after Tuesday, that is why.
In Christ,
Thumper

God never said scripture would be perfectly preserved. He said the Holy Spirit would guide you into truth. The perfect Word of God is the Messiah. You are wasting your time trying to prove the KJV perfect. Young’s literal translation is as good as they get.

 

[Martin Luther]

"If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. Therefore, Young used the present tense in many places in which other translations use the past tense, particularly in narratives." Young

The KJV is full of verb tense alterations.

 

[annsni]

In 2 Timothy 2:15 the Greek word spoudazo is translated as "study" in the KJVs. However, the word "study" as used in this verse in 17th century English didn't mean what we think of today.

Spoudazo, according to Strong's, is defined as...



Spoudazo appears 11 times in Scripture. KJV translators rendered it as "be diligent" twice, as "be forward" once, as "do diligence" twice, as "endeavor" three times, as "give diligence" once, as "labour" once and as "study" once.

This is another example of a word which has a meaning different today than it had in 1611. For today's reader, the NKJV does a better job of rendering the verse...



The NASB also is more understandable for today's readers...



...the ESV...



...and even the NIV.



Don't feel bad, BT. Many people are confused by the KJV rendering of spoudazo.
______________________________________

Strong's information, NKJV, NASB, ESV and NIV quotes obtained from http://www.studylight.org

I was just going to suggest our OP study the KJV word "study". Thanks for posting first! That's what I get for going out to much horse poop!!

 

[Keith M]

I was just going to suggest our OP study the KJV word "study". Thanks for posting first! That's what I get for going out to much horse poop!!

I normally wouldn't have been home this early in the day, but I took a half day of vacation, Ann.

:wavey:

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

In 2 Timothy 2:15 the Greek word spoudazo is translated as "study" in the KJVs. However, the word "study" as used in this verse in 17th century English didn't mean what we think of today.

Spoudazo, according to Strong's, is defined as...



Spoudazo appears 11 times in Scripture. KJV translators rendered it as "be diligent" twice, as "be forward" once, as "do diligence" twice, as "endeavor" three times, as "give diligence" once, as "labour" once and as "study" once.

This is another example of a word which has a meaning different today than it had in 1611. For today's reader, the NKJV does a better job of rendering the verse...



The NASB also is more understandable for today's readers...



...the ESV...



...and even the NIV.



Don't feel bad, BT. Many people are confused by the KJV rendering of spoudazo.
______________________________________

Strong's information, NKJV, NASB, ESV and NIV quotes obtained from http://www.studylight.org

I am going to answer this post, it is a good example of a well reasoned, logical post. Sadly, it has very little to do with what I posted and completely misses every major point I made, but it still deserves an answer.

Delving into the Greek is a dangerous business, especially since the old proverb "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" can frequently be demonstrated.

For the benefit of those who may not have a Strongs sitting readily at hand, let me give exactly what it says before I make any comments.

4704. spoudazo, spoo-dad'-zo; from 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:-do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.

I fail to see how difficult this is to understand.

Now lets examine each of the renderings from the versions that you gave:

NKJV: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NKJV
Lets see what Webster has to say about the word "diligent"

Steady in application to business; constant in effort or exertion to accomplish what is undertaken; assiduous; attentive; industrious; not idle or negligent; applied to persons.

Not bad, but clearly inferior to the message carried in the word "study"

Literally, a setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject; hence, application of mind of books, to arts or science, or to any subject, for the purpose of learning what is not before known.

We study the Bible to learn new things, to excercise our minds, and to grow spiritually.

ESV:
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

This is not even in Strongs, and carries an even weaker message still. "Do your best"? It is true God wants us to do our best for Him, but there is a world of difference studying and doing our best. The ESV has neatly removed from the Bible the command to study the Bible.

I am in college, and I have these things called "tests", anyone know what I mean?
I can just "do my best" on them, or I can study the material, strive to learn what I do not know and then do my best on the test. Likewise, we should study our Bibles, strive to learn from our Bibles, and seek to not be ashamed before God for our ignorence of His Word.

I might also point out, that given the fact that the King James translators are easily more qualified on the basis of their scholarly training then any modern day Bible corrector, and if the choice comes up between taking what they believed should be the correct word, and what a modern day translator says. I will take them every time.

In Christ,
Thumper

 

[Martin Luther]

The KJV is not God's perfect word. Only a man filled with the Spirit can discern the truth regardless of which bible he uses, the NIV is packed with truth.

 

[4His_glory]

I am going to answer this post, it is a good example of a well reasoned, logical post. Sadly, it has very little to do with what I posted and completely misses every major point I made, but it still deserves an answer.

Delving into the Greek is a dangerous business, especially since the old proverb "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" can frequently be demonstrated.

For the benefit of those who may not have a Strongs sitting readily at hand, let me give exactly what it says before I make any comments.

4704. spoudazo, spoo-dad'-zo; from 4710; to use speed, i.e. to make effort, be prompt or earnest:-do (give) diligence, be diligent (forward), endeavour, labour, study.

I fail to see how difficult this is to understand.

Now lets examine each of the renderings from the versions that you gave:

NKJV: Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 NKJV
Lets see what Webster has to say about the word "diligent"

Steady in application to business; constant in effort or exertion to accomplish what is undertaken; assiduous; attentive; industrious; not idle or negligent; applied to persons.

Not bad, but clearly inferior to the message carried in the word "study"

Literally, a setting of the mind or thoughts upon a subject; hence, application of mind of books, to arts or science, or to any subject, for the purpose of learning what is not before known.

We study the Bible to learn new things, to excercise our minds, and to grow spiritually.

ESV:
Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15

This is not even in Strongs, and carries an even weaker message still. "Do your best"? It is true God wants us to do our best for Him, but there is a world of difference studying and doing our best. The ESV has neatly removed from the Bible the command to study the Bible.

I am in college, and I have these things called "tests", anyone know what I mean?
I can just "do my best" on them, or I can study the material, strive to learn what I do not know and then do my best on the test. Likewise, we should study our Bibles, strive to learn from our Bibles, and seek to not be ashamed before God for our ignorence of His Word.

I might also point out, that given the fact that the King James translators are easily more qualified on the basis of their scholarly training then any modern day Bible corrector, and if the choice comes up between taking what they believed should be the correct word, and what a modern day translator says. I will take them every time.

In Christ,
Thumper

Since we are already off topic on this, I want to address this as well. This has been brought up before here. Study today does not necessarily mean what "study" did to the KJV translators. To purse with diligence is an accurate translation in the MVs, especially considering the context.

So let me ask you this. When my Reina Valera (spanish), which was originally translated before the KJV says "Procura con diligencia presentarte a Dios aprobado, (procure with diligence, presenting yourself approved to God) is it wrong?

Now be careful here. This is a translation that was done before the KJV and stems from the same textual family. It reads the same way many modern english versions do in this verse. So is it wrong?

 

[Baptist4life]

You know, the whole point of the OP was to show that the claim that the KJV uses archaic words and MV's don't is false. The rest of you completely ignored that point and went "rabbit trailing". None of you responded to the OP's point that the NIV also uses archaic words. As I said once before ..............this forum has a severe bias.

 

[Japheth10]

As I said once before ..............this forum has a severe bias.

It does:against the KJVO myth!

 

[stilllearning]

Hi KJVBibleThumper

Great post.
--------------------------------------------------
Also a very informative response to Keith M, about his problem with 1Timothy 2:15


I wonder why Satan, would not want us to “study” the Bible?

 

[4His_glory]

Hi KJVBibleThumper

Great post.
--------------------------------------------------
Also a very informative response to Keith M, about his problem with 1Timothy 2:15


I wonder why Satan, would not want us to “study” the Bible?

Ahh.. but the MVs read the same way as the Reina Valera, which was translated from the same textual family as the KJV but done before it. So is the most popular spanish translation of all time incorrect?

No, in fact the MVs got the translation right for our day. Just as the Reina Valera did in Spanish.

 

[Samuel Owen]

As I said once before ..............this forum has a severe bias.

I also must agree with this. Let anyone even mention the KJV, let alone comment on trusting this version. And immediately just as in a Chicken fight he gets flogged, without further question. :tonofbricks:

 

[Baptist4life]

I also must agree with this. Let anyone even mention the KJV, let alone comment on trusting this version. And immediately just as in a Chicken fight he gets flogged, without further question. :tonofbricks:

Exactly, the man came in here, posted in a very NICE manner, and got ridiculed and laughed at! And he only asked for CIVIL conversation and debate. Do the administrators not see this? You're driving people away with the ATTITUDE.

 

[KJVBibleThumper]

I appreciate the defense raised over the issue, but let me say that so far, it has been polite, and I have no problem with the way people have responded. True, the original point I made seems to have pretty much been ignored, but I am still seeing some very good points made, in a civil manner, just as I requested. As they do not address the issue I raised in my OP, I do not intend to respond to that many of them, but the ones that raise the best questions, and show a good spirit, plus are well reasoned, I intend to answer.

Is there a bias against KJVO people on this board? Only in the sense that the majority of the posters on here are not KJVO, yes, many things get posted that show that the amount of nothing that some people know is astonishing, but I am really not seeing that here. And both sides have that problem, although IMHO, there are a lot more of them on the MV side, then the KJVO side. But that is my opinion, and I am certainly not going to complain over the way things are going on in this thread.

In Christ and for His Glory,
Thumper

Thumper EDIT: Besides, even though any KJVO poster on here will get pretty much swamped by the amount of responses by MV proponents to any thread he makes, I like to think of it as a guarantee that posts will be read.