Baptist4life said:
I'm saying that some of the words of the NIV are more ARCHAIC than some of the words in the KJV, yet I NEVER hear anyone criticize the NIV for archaic words!
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
"Uh- Excuse me! Language Cop, here! I would please like to note a few things things here, if I may. Again, with apologies to the great Amercian sage, 'Yogi' Berra, this appears as if '
It's Deja-Moo(1) all over again.'.
1.) Please check these 'lists' you are '"slashin' and stickin'" - 'er I mean "cutting and pasting"' up, for the supposed benefit of the rest of us, before you post them, if you don't mind. The list purports to show the NIV renderings on the left, and supposedly, the KJV renderings on the right. However, this is misleading in at least one instance, among a few I checked thus far, namely I Peter 4:4, in which case, the renderings are reversed, with the supposed "easier" reading on the right. A bit misleading, I would say, at best.
(FTR, of the ~ 40-odd words, I would have to check a dictionary, if the context of the verse did not already clearly show what was meant, in fewer than half-a-dozen of the cases, off the top of my head. Words are 'the beat' of Language Cop, after all.)
2.) Of course, there is noting like having a chance to push an agenda, specifically the supposed superiority (read KJVO, here) of a personal preference, is there? :thumbs:
(My 'smilie' here should either be
or one of a [Tear!] in the place of the one I just posted, actually.)
3.) This listing can also be a bit misleading , as well, for in more than one instance, a word is cited that is part of a compound phrase or perhaps an attempt to translate an idiom. In such cases, this also may be misleading. (But, what's a little inaccuracy among friends, I guess.)
4.) How is it one gets to arbitrarily 'pick and choose' a particular printing or edition of the KJV, from which to cite, anyway?? Here are a few of the words (or phrases), as they would have appeared in the 1612 edition of the KJV, with the Roman font (I cannot, in any manner, reproduce any Gothic font, from a 1611 Edition.), that are about as close as I can reproduce them , from the 1611 KJV, as found on 'studylight' - 'exce
fse of riot' - I Pet. 4:4; 'inclo
fings' - Ex. 28:20; and Deut. 18:3 with 'cheekes', where the verse is speaking of the slaughtered parts of an animal.
FTR, as one who has done this, and been around farm animals most of my life, I can assure you that one does not refer to 'cheeks' but 'jowls', as in 'jowl bacon', in the case of pork, or 'beef jowls' or 'mutton jowls' (in the case of a slaughtered sheep), just as the NIV renders the words here.
I was reared on a farm, and have been a full-time farmer for more than 30 years, after the illness and death of my own father, have slaughtered or helped in the slaughter of at least a dozen animals, been around many more as they were slaughtered and processed, including goats, sheep, hogs, and beef, and
the next time I hear someone refer to the facial parts of one of these animals as 'cheeks',
will be the first time in the more than 45 years, I can fairly clearly remember.
Incidentally, I
have heard some of the contents of the abdominal cavity referred to as the 'maw' (KJV), 'stomach' (NKJV) or 'entrails' (or colloquially as 'innards') which is closely akin to the 'inner parts' (NIV), but the usual designation of the whole is that of '
guts', as one will '
gut' the animal, and does not 'de-maw' or 'de-stomach' the animal, regardless of how UN-'politically correct' or distasteful the word 'gut' may appear.
4.) You really 'might oughter' (
sic) consider
plying, to some degree anyway, through a copy of the NIV, especially Luke 23 (along with checking out a dictionary - any reputable dictionary - doesn't particularly have to be one of the 1828 variety), before you
ply forth what you are attempting to
pile on the table, here. I can assure you there is a definite difference in the meanings of the two words, and the use of the correct word, might serve to give one more of a semblance of credibility." :thumbsup:
Signed, Language Cop
(1) -"
Deja-Moo" - The distinct feeling you've heard this bull before.
"Hmmm! Does ol' L.C. seem a mite testy today, or is it just me?? You can't always tell about Language Cop."
'Signed,'
Ed
