King James Bible Companion

[BobinKy]

Thanks to a post DiamondLady made in another thread, I decided to order a couple of copies of The King James Bible Companion by David W. Daniels. The King James Bible Companion is available from Chick Publications and is a small 22-page pamphlet defining over 600 archaic words found in the King James Bible. There are three columns of information for each entry: word, definition, Biblical reference. This dictionary is useful for both looking up KJB words and identifying KJB contributions to the English language. Many of the words are not archaic in the sense that we continue to hear them in conversation and formal documents. The book is sized 4 1/2 inches by 5 3/8 inches, and the type is very readable. Whatever your views on the King James Bible, this is one pamphlet you will find yourself using over and over as you encounter some of these words at church, in the community, and in your own household.

...Bob

A few entries from The King James Companion

Abjects - People thrown out; outcasts - Psa 35:15
Apothecary - One who makes perfumes - Ex 30:25
Bethink - Come to one's senses, consider - 1 Ki 8:47
Brimstone - Sulfur - Gen 19:24
Cast angle - To fish with a hook - Isa 19:8

Churl - A rude, harsh person - Isa 32:5,7
Daub - To cover or plaster - Ex 2:3; Ezek 13:10
Dragon - Huge lizard; dianosaur - Dt 32:33
Dragon - The Devil, Satan - Rev 12:9
Earnest (n.) - Down payment - 2 Cor 1:22

Euroclydon - Furious, north-easterly wind - Acts 27:14
Even, eveningtide - Evening time - Gen 19:1
Firebrand - Burning wood; a torch - Jdg 15:4
Flowers (her) - Menstrual flow; a woman's period - Lev 15:24
Gaddest about - Go back and forth, to and fro - Jer 2:36

Grisled - Spotted, Speckled - Gen 31:10
Haughty - Proud; arrogant; lifted up - 2 Sam 22:28
Heady - Headstrong; reckless; hasty - 2 Tim 3:4
Immutable - Unchangeable (an attribute of God) - Heb 6:18
Incontinent - Without self control; unbridled - 2 Tim 3:3

Jangling - Noisy argument; quarreling - 1 Tim 1:6
Kin, kindred - Family - Lev 18:6
Laver - Wash basin - Ex 20:18
Lot (to cast) - Pebbles thrown to make decisions - Lev 16:8
Maranatha - "Our Lord cometh" - 1 Cor 16:22

Mess - Portion of food - Gen 43:34
Neesings - Sneezing - Job 41:18
Noisome - Destructive; hurtful; noxious - Psa 91:3
Not a whit - Not the least bit - 2 Cor 11:5
Odd number - What is left over; over and above - Num 3:48

Ouches - Settings for gems; sockets - Ex 28:11
Peculiar - Particular; special; one's own - Ex 19:5
Prating - Babbling; chattering - Prov 10:8,10
Psaltery - Stringed instrument, as a harp or guitar - 1 Sam 10:5
Quick - Alive; living - Lev 3:10

Quit you like men - Behave/act as a man should - 1 Cor 16:13
Rebuke - Reprimand; strongly warn; restrain - Gen 31:42
Rereward - Towards the rear; rear guard - Isa 52:12
Ruddy - Reddish (hair or complexion) - 1 Sam 16:12

Sanctify - Make holy; set apart for God's use - Gen 2:3
Standard - Flag; banner - Num 1:52
Taches - Hooks; fasteners - Ex 26:6
Translate - Transfer; remove to another place - 2 Sam 3:10
Unseemly - Inappropriate - Rom 1:27

Untoward - Perverse; not easily taught or guided - Acts 2:40
Verily - Truly - Gen 42: 21
Victuals - Food for humans - Gen 14:11
Vocation - What God calls, gifts a person to do - Eph 4:1
Wanton - Without restraint; reckless - Isa 3:16

Wherewithal - How? with what? - Ps 119:9; Matt 6:31
​

 

[Fred's Wife]

I have the King James Bible Companion module on my SwordSearcher Bible software...I love it! I also have 2 of the booklets in my bible case with my bible I carry to church.

 

[annsni]

I like a Bible that is sufficient in itself. Why should we need a man-made book apart from the Bible to be able to understand it?

 

[Fred's Wife]

I like a Bible that is sufficient in itself. Why should we need a man-made book apart from the Bible to be able to understand it?

Do you ever use a dictionary? What about a commentary?

The King James Bible Companion is basically a dictionary of archaic words...and every Bible version (not just the King James Version) uses some archaic words. It's just a handy little booklet to have. The cost for this little booklet is between .10 cents and a quarter.

 

[BobinKy]

I like a Bible that is sufficient in itself. Why should we need a man-made book apart from the Bible to be able to understand it?

Actually, unless you use a text-only Bible without notes, cross-references, and chapter and verse designations--you are using a Bible that is partially man-made.

And as Fred'sWife so aptly suggested--when you read your Bible don't you use a man-made dictionary? When you read your Bible don't you depend upon woman-made word memories in your own head? Do you have any books, pamphlets, or CDs in your own home besides text Bibles?

Annsni, your comment appears to be nothing more than another spoken prejudice against the King James Bible.

...Bob

 

[annsni]

Actually, unless you use a text-only Bible without notes, cross-references, and chapter and verse designations--you are using a Bible that is partially man-made.

And as Fred'sWife so aptly suggested--when you read your Bible don't you use a man-made dictionary? When you read your Bible don't you depend upon woman-made word memories in your own head? Do you have any books, pamphlets, or CDs in your own home besides text Bibles?

Annsni, your comment appears to be nothing more than another spoken prejudice against the King James Bible.

...Bob

No, no prejudice against the King James Version. However, I DO read my Bible without notes. I like the cross references and I do have study Bibles but I don't like to read them too much because I find them distracting from reading the Word. So I read the Word and understand it without the need for external explanations. Honestly, I've never had to use a dictionary for my Bible reading because I read a Bible in my own language.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The is a great tool. I don't have one, but I keep a copy of 'The King James Bible Handbook' close to hand and use it regularly.

However, I do not understand why it is so important to use words that passed out of regular use hundreds of years ago. Just being old does not make them right or better.

 

[BobinKy]

I do not understand why it is so important to use words that passed out of regular use hundreds of years ago. Just being old does not make them right or better.

Sometime, when you have access to the complete multi-volume Oxford English Dictionary, take a few words and read the historical senses of those words over the centuries (from 900 a.d. forward). If you do this, you may acquire the various word meanings that these words have had over the centuries. Some of the senses or meanings will not be obvious in contemporary definitions of those words. But language carries forward the past senses, even if we are unaware of them.

Sometimes all we have of the historic senses of words and phrases are nothing more than a twinkling--a twinkling much in same way as the twinkling we see when we observe 6,000 or so observable stars in the night sky with our naked eye (no binoculars or telescope). However, when we put our eye in the eyepiece of specific optical instruments the twinkling (caused by the current atmosphere of the earth) reduces as the image enlarges and our knowledge and understanding of the star improves as we improve our observation of the star. Also we see more stars.

Historical senses of words and phrases do not die, they are covered up as the layers of an onion covers up the middle of the onion. There is much wisdom--theologically and in other realms--that is now covered up by the layers of civilization. The historical senses have contributed to what we think, how we think, and such, but we are not aware of the historical senses because they are not obvious to us in our contemporary use of language.

Thus, the English language of the King James Bible (and the Elizabethan period) reaches back further than most other cognitive avenues. If we go back further to the English language prior to period we have gone back too far, to a time when the language had not developed.

Can we say things today better and quicker than we can if we say these things in the language of the King James Better. Possibly. Can we communicate these things with the language of the King James Bible as well when we communicate to the youth and "diversified" groups on our planet today? Not initially. And this is the problem you missionaries and pastors struggle with--communicating with today's unchurched and Christians needing only milk. And when you use the King James Bible in your services and in discipleship and evangelism, you are tying to find avenues of communication that work.

All of saying is this--Be aware that the modern translations, particularly the less literate ones, discard much that is imbedded in the language of the King James Bible. Much that cannot be seen by some and should not be lost. Kinda like throwing out the baby with bath water, but not exactly.

That is enough said. It is late and I need to go to bed. I am not even going to go back and edit (clean up) what I have written. And I probably will not enter this thread again as I have tried to say what God has put on my heart to say. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit, as is always the case.

...Bob

...Bob

 

[robycop3]

'Tis a lot simpler to read God's word in OUR English. After all, GOD has provided us with our language, and His word translated into it, same as He provided the British of the 1600s with THEIR language, and His word in that language form.

 

[robycop3]

Bob, many word origins and different meanings over the centuries are no longer relevant. For example, a common scatological term for feces comes from the same roots as "science, conscience". and another common scatological term for sexual intercourse was once a proper word in Middle English that meant "pierce". It was once part of the common name for the kestrel bird, which can fly against the wind. It was called the "windpiercer" with the other word used for "piercer".

However, etymology IS an interesting study. But let us not forget that the KJV's English was pretty-well the common everyday language of the British of 400 years ago, and not a special "Biblical English".

 

[David Lamb]

Can you explain how it can be right to produce a book that gives modern English equivalents for wordsand phrases which have gone out of use or changed their meaning since 1611, yet apparently wrong, according to some, to have a translation of the bible that uses those modern English equivalents directly?

 

[DiamondLady]

Honestly, I've never had to use a dictionary for my Bible reading because I read a Bible in my own language.

Okay, how about these verses, written in your own modern language?

And da earth wuz widdout form, an' void; an' darkness wuz upon da face o' da deep. And da Spirit o' Big Daddy groved upon da face o' da waters.

So Big Daddy created peeps in his own image, in da image o' Big Daddy created he him; [foul language removed] created he dem.

Or this:
Yo, Big Daddy upstairs,
You be chillin
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it, I be doin' it
In this ere hood and yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack, Blood
So's I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don' be pushin' me into no jive
And keep dem crips away
'Cause you always be da man,
Straight up


Still think you might not need a dictionary or some other translation device for this modern everyday used language?????

 

[Rippon]

Okay, how about these verses, written in your own modern language?

I dare say that your examples of "modern language" are not representative of the way most of us on the BB speak or write. So your point has gone down in flames.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Okay, how about these verses, written in your own modern language?

And da earth wuz widdout form, an' void; an' darkness wuz upon da face o' da deep. And da Spirit o' Big Daddy groved upon da face o' da waters.

So Big Daddy created peeps in his own image, in da image o' Big Daddy created he him; nig an' beotch created he dem.

Or this:
Yo, Big Daddy upstairs,
You be chillin
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it, I be doin' it
In this ere hood and yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack, Blood
So's I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don' be pushin' me into no jive
And keep dem crips away
'Cause you always be da man,
Straight up


Still think you might not need a dictionary or some other translation device for this modern everyday used language?????

Reductio ad adsurdum is one of the least powerful errors in debate.

 

[David Lamb]

Okay, how about these verses, written in your own modern language?

And da earth wuz widdout form, an' void; an' darkness wuz upon da face o' da deep. And da Spirit o' Big Daddy groved upon da face o' da waters.

So Big Daddy created peeps in his own image, in da image o' Big Daddy created he him; nig an' beotch created he dem.

Or this:
Yo, Big Daddy upstairs,
You be chillin
So be yo hood
You be sayin' it, I be doin' it
In this ere hood and yo's
Gimme some eats
And cut me some slack, Blood
So's I be doin' it to dem dat diss me
Don' be pushin' me into no jive
And keep dem crips away
'Cause you always be da man,
Straight up


Still think you might not need a dictionary or some other translation device for this modern everyday used language?????

That was in reply to Ann (annsni). You tell her that "And da earth wuz widdout form, an' void; an' darkness wuz upon da face o' da deep"...etc. are written in her own modern language.

Now, Ann has written over 11½ thousand messages on the Baptist Board. I haven't read them all, but could you give an example (just one will do) where she has used language anything remotely like "So's I be doin' it to dem dat diss me. Don' be pushin' me into no jive."

Here are three examples taken at random from Ann's posts, to show you what I mean:

Thanks!! I'll take a look at this later. Hubby decided the family is going to be all on deck to work on taking down the wallpaper in the kitchen so I have about 2 minutes more on the computer. LOL

I'm so sorry you're struggling. Pastoring can be such a tremendous blessing and such a struggle as well. I'll be praying for you brother.

But are we to stay silent in the face of false teaching? The Corinthian church had that problem. I'd also say something if I was at a supposedly Christian homeschool conference and there was someone else as a speaker who taught what is opposed to the Word of God. No one is saying that homeschoolers are naive but just instead stating the facts: that this man is teaching what is contrary to the Word of God.
​

I found by googling that the examples you quoted are not in standard modern English, but in something called "Ebonics". To say that because Ann would have to look up several of the ebonics words, modern versions are in the same situation as older versions with archaic words, is a false arguement. It would be just the same as me arguing that modern versions are false because many people would need a Cockney Rhyming Slang dictionary to make head or tail of this:

One evening, Jesus said to his chinas, “Let’s go to the other side of this ‘ere lake.”
So they left all the people, and the disciples got into the nanny and set orf. There were quite a few other nannies there too.
​

And then, would you Adam and Eve it, a huge wind started to blow up, and the waves got so bloomin’ big that they began to spill into the nanny.
​

 

[DiamondLady]

I dare say that your examples of "modern language" are not representative of the way most of us on the BB speak or write. So your point has gone down in flames.

Perhaps, in your white middle class suburbs, but I assure you if you go into any inner city neighborhood (i.e. Englewood in Chicago, Compton in Los Angeles, or even the east side of the town where I currently live) this language is EXACTLY what you will hear.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Perhaps, in your white middle class suburbs, but I assure you if you go into any inner city neighborhood (i.e. Englewood in Chicago, Compton in Los Angeles, or even the east side of the town where I currently live) this language is EXACTLY what you will hear.

The point is that no one here would use an Ebonics 'Bible' so would have no need for a word book. I would guess that those who used such a book would not need a dictionary either.

 

[DiamondLady]

That was in reply to Ann (annsni). You tell her that "And da earth wuz widdout form, an' void; an' darkness wuz upon da face o' da deep"...etc. are written in her own modern language.

Those are written in a commonly used, modern language...YES. Perhaps not used by Ann herself but my point was, there are many modern languages where a dictionary would greatly come in handy for translation. Saying that someone prefers to use a Bible written in their modern language can be erroneous because every modern language isn't everyone else's modern language. Yes, the example I gave is the language of the modern black community, or if you will, Ebonics. Go into any black neighborhood in any town in America and that is what you will hear.

Look, I understand, and even accept, there are those here on this MB who are not fans of, or readers of the KJV. That is your cup of tea. But I truly dislike that when someone who DOES prefer the KJV posts something which is helpful, meaningful or even related to the KJV, those folks are rapid to jump and do everything they can to make them look wrong, stupid...you fill in your favorite thought here, Yes, on the other side I realize there are those who think the only correct Bible is the KJV. And they're equally adamant in their arguments. However, THIS wasn't one of those discussions. I don't know why I let you people suck me in. Maybe I need to go find a nice, quiet Message Board where people actually have good things to say and share what God is doing for them instead of arguing all the time about idiotic, insipid things that in the end mean nothing at all for the Kingdom of God.

 

[DiamondLady]

The point is that no one here would use an Ebonics 'Bible' so would have no need for a word book. I would guess that those who used such a book would not need a dictionary either.

I guess you never leave your nice, safe, middle class side of town and venture over to witness or invite any of them to your church. If you did you might find an Ebonics Bible would come in handy. Funny how people forget the Great Commission included the other side of the tracks in their own hometown.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I guess you never leave your nice, safe, middle class side of town and venture over to witness or invite any of them to your church. If you did you might find an Ebonics Bible would come in handy. Funny how people forget the Great Commission included the other side of the tracks in their own hometown.

Part of my ministry is in one of the most notoriously rough parts of Dublin. I understand their 'language.' I would not however use the street language of that area to present the truth of the Gospel to them. When I witness to them I don't use their 'language' and I would not post it here. I was asked one time, when dealing with the existence of God - 'So if thats true then God really f_________ things up!' Should I have responded in his language?

I take it you recommend the Ebonics 'Bible' to speakers of that 'language' in your outreach even though it uses the words I had to delete? Would you even say those words out loud it your outreach to those who live on the 'other side of the tracks?'

I would not, that is such a poor translation of God's word that it is better fit to line a birdcage than to be used for outreach.

I was a bit surprised that anyone would post the passage from a supposed 'bible' that included two vile words for man and woman. So vile in fact that they had to be snipped.