Great Book On King James Only by Mark Ward

[agedman]

Wow, it's worse than I thought. Johnny can't read. Would you advocate school vouchers?

Actually, I have for decades.

However, such must be on a level field.

For example, if a system of education uses vouchers there must be an acceptance of any and all who have a voucher. If a voucher can be refused by one system, then all should have the right of refusal.

Vouchers are the best way to put the authority for education back into parental units.

If Johnny can’t read, they should be able to place Johnny in a place he will thrive.

However, if Johnny is obstinate, then the educational institution should have authority to hand the voucher to the parents and in effect tell them to find a better “fit” for their “fit thrower.”

 

[Reformed1689]

Perhaps looking at the posts that actually present fact based tools that you can try out.

Your point is valuable. Not to be taken casually.

Few KJV bibles are actually 1611 in spelling.

Perhaps one could find it here? John 1 - TYN Bible - Bible Study Tools

If it were only about spelling you would have a valid point, but it isn't.

Quit beating around the bush and say what you mean. The NKJV abolished the Elizabethan forms and it is not difficult to read. I myself don't have any trouble reading the Elizabethan "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." I don't think that the greatest generation ever complained widely about the KJV. No one is requiring anyone to use it & there is nothing wrong with Tyndale. You have said that it is not modern and I guess that you think it is more than 10th grade but you say apples and oranges when asked what grade it is, right? But it can't be too high if I understand it, with which you have to agree since you have said that my points are stupid.

Reading is one thing, understanding is another. And the NKJV is not the KJV. And of course it isn't hard to understand Genesis 1:1, but that is ONE verse out of thousands.

I guarantee there are words in the KJV you don't understand properly without looking them up.

 

[rlvaughn]

I guarantee there are words in the KJV you don't understand properly without looking them up.

I think you can make that guarantee for practically any Bible on the market, even the NIrV "3rd grade" reader.

 

[Reformed1689]

I think you can make that guarantee for practically any Bible on the market, even the NIrV "3rd grade" reader.

Fair enough, but at least those Bibles use the same language we do today.

 

[Conan]

Changes in the English Language

Changes in the English Language
A Comparison of Old, Middle, and Modern English

 

[church mouse guy]

Changes in the English Language

Changes in the English Language
A Comparison of Old, Middle, and Modern English

See your chart has the KJV as early modern....

 

[Conan]

Correct. William Tyndales Versions, Coverdales, Mathews, Great, Geneva, Bishops and KJV are all Early Modern English. Some call it Archaic Modern English. Early Modern English vs Modern English.

 

[robycop3]

Yeah, well I hope that you had a Merry Christmas, too! Chances are that you have been an Old Earther in previous reincarnations in Hindu India, also, for the last 4.5 billion years.

I did.

And yes, I'm an old-earther, based upon reality & practical evidence, including SCRIPTURE. Remember, Scripture sez God's spirit moved over THE FACE OF THE WATERS. So, the planet was already here.

 

[robycop3]

Correct. William Tyndales Versions, Coverdales, Mathews, Great, Geneva, Bishops and KJV are all Early Modern English. Some call it Archaic Modern English. Early Modern English vs Modern English.

No matter what one calls it, it's still outdated & obsolete.

 

[Conan]

Changes in the English Language
For the differences between the Early Modern English of the King James Version and the form of English spoken today, the following books will be found helpful:

• Luther Weigle, Bible Words That Have Changed in Meaning. New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1955.
• Melvin E. Elliott, The Language of the King James Bible: A Glossary Explaining its Words and Expressions. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1967.
• Ronald Bridges and Luther Weigle, The Bible Word Book: Concerning Obsolete or Archaic Words in the King James Version of the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1960. Reprinted as The King James Bible Word Book: A Contemporary Dictionary of Curious and Archaic Words Found in the King James Version of the Bible. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994. This is a helpful scholarly book, though unfortunately Weigle often seems more interested in recommending the Revised Standard Version's renderings than in explaining the language of the KJV. In 1999 the book was revised by Martin H. Manser and issued as I Never Knew that Was in the Bible! (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999). This revision adds a good deal of irrelevent trivia about the renderings of more recent versions, which only distracts further from the usefulness of the book. (The new title, and the childish cartoons which have been added, are sadly indicative of recent downgrade trends in Christian publishing.)
• William Aldis Wright, The Bible Word-Book. London, 1866. Revised and enlarged in a 2nd edition published by the MacMillan Company, 1884.
• Henry Cotton, A Short Explanation of Obsolete Words in our Version of the
• Bible (Oxford, 1832).
• Lewis Davies, Bible English. London: George Bell & Sons, 1875.
• James Gurnhill, English retraced, or, Remarks, critical and philological founded on a comparison of the Breeches Bible with the English of the present day. Cambridge: H. Wallis, 1862.
• James Hastings, ed., A Dictionary of the Bible, Dealing with its Language, Literature, and Contents, including the Biblical Theology, edited by James Hastings, with the assistance of John Selbie, A.B. Davidson, S.R. Driver, H.B. Swete. 5 volumes. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1898-1906. Reprinted by Hendrickson Publishers in 1988. This Bible dictionary contains many articles explaining in great detail the vocabulary and idioms of the King James Version. For example, the entry "OF" in volume 3 fills two whole pages with examples and explanations of the archaic usages of this preposition in the KJV.

 

[church mouse guy]

Correct. William Tyndales Versions, Coverdales, Mathews, Great, Geneva, Bishops and KJV are all Early Modern English. Some call it Archaic Modern English. Early Modern English vs Modern English.

But we had an authority tell us that it was stupid to say that Elizabethan English is modern....

And I have been working on translating Genesis 1:1 from Elizabethan English to modern English for here....

 

[Conan]

But we had an authority tell us that it was stupid to say that Elizabethan English is modern....

Early Modern English is older than Current Modern English. There are differences. It seems as though some make to much of the differences, and some not enough.

And I have been working on translating Genesis 1:1 from Elizabethan English to modern English for here....

7Marvel not that I said unto thee(you), Ye(you*) must be born again. 8The wind bloweth(blows) where it listeth(wants), and thou(you) hearest(hear) the sound thereof(of it), but canst(can) not tell whence(from where) it cometh(comes), and whither(where) it goeth(goes): so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art(are) thou(you) a master(teacher) of Israel, and knowest(know) not these things?

(you*) plural.

 

[rlvaughn]

Early Modern English is older than Current Modern English. There are differences. It seems as though some make too much of the differences, and some not enough.

I'd say that sums it up pretty well.

 

[church mouse guy]

There are economic & political interests & social class interests involved as well as conflicting theological interests.

 

[robycop3]

Still, simple truth is, the KJV's English is outdated & largely obsolete, no matter who calls that language style what.

 

[Yeshua1]

What do you mean by anti-KJV?

I oppose the KJV because I know at least 80% of the U.S. is not able to read it with understanding.

So, if you think I'm not respectful for not giving my money or time to hand out KJV as oppose to a readable Bible version, I disagree.

You are not saying that the Kjv is a bad translation, but that would be hard for many to fully read with understanding. correct?

 

[alexander284]

Early Modern English is older than Current Modern English. There are differences. It seems as though some make to much of the differences, and some not enough.


7Marvel not that I said unto thee(you), Ye(you*) must be born again. 8The wind bloweth(blows) where it listeth(wants), and thou(you) hearest(hear) the sound thereof(of it), but canst(can) not tell whence(from where) it cometh(comes), and whither(where) it goeth(goes): so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10Jesus answered and said unto him, Art(are) thou(you) a master(teacher) of Israel, and knowest(know) not these things?

(you*) plural.

Great post! Thank you so much!

 

[Conan]

You are very welcome Alexander. Thank you!