King James Problem Words

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

All I wanted to know is why the "Bible" word (of the KJV...since this is the version of this thread) meanings (which were obviously written in the 17th century) are compared to the modern definitions of those words...nothing more.

Simple, because I have not seen a single poster here who posts in 17th century English. We all speak 21st century English. Should our Bible not be in the same language that we speak?

This is the same mindset that the Roman church used to keep the Bible in Latin. All the arguments used here could have been used then. What is the fear of people having the Bible in language they can understand without running to a dictionary every few minutes?

"If one does understand understand Bible (Latin) words then they need to get a good Latin dictionary."

"Why should we dumb down God's word by putting it in the vernacular languages? Instead we should just learn how to use our Latin Bibles."

If this tool existed 1000 years ago might we see the exact same discussion with the title, "Latin trouble words"?

I purposefully left out which of the two Latin Bibles for ease of arguements sake.

 

[gb93433]

Simple, because I have not seen a single poster here who posts in 17th century English. We all speak 21st century English. Should our Bible not be in the same language that we speak?

This is the same mindset that the Roman church used to keep the Bible in Latin. All the arguments used here could have been used then. What is the fear of people having the Bible in language they can understand without running to a dictionary every few minutes?

"If one does understand understand Bible (Latin) words then they need to get a good Latin dictionary."

"Why should we dumb down God's word by putting it in the vernacular languages? Instead we should just learn how to use our Latin Bibles."

If this tool existed 1000 years ago might we see the exact same discussion with the title, "Latin trouble words"?

I purposefully left out which of the two Latin Bibles for ease of arguements sake.

Good points. Better yet we should require that anyone who wants to become a member at the local church and wants to read a Bible must have learned Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek first.

 

[David Lamb]

If words deemed are "archaic", then why do we find them in cuurrent use here in the BB?:laugh:

As far as I can see, such words are only used here on the BB when quoting from, or referring to, the AV/KJV. I have never yet seen anyone write (in answer perhaps to someone who has requested prayer), "My bowels are moved for you," or (explaining why their reply is short), "I'm going on holiday tomorrow, and must needs pack my carriages." :laugh:

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Simple, because I have not seen a single poster here who posts in 17th century English. We all speak 21st century English. Should our Bible not be in the same language that we speak?

This is the same mindset that the Roman church used to keep the Bible in Latin. All the arguments used here could have been used then. What is the fear of people having the Bible in language they can understand without running to a dictionary every few minutes?
......

The King James Version isn't in Old English. It is in an older and more formal version of Modern English. It is the language we use today.

C4K, I am certain that you can read the KJV without a problem. I think that you have been convinced by some that other folks are incapable of reading the language of the KJV. People (in general) aren't that stupid though. If they have a desire to read it then they will both read and understand it. If they are prejudiced against it by allegations of "error" and "obsolescence" then they won't read it. Is that fair?

The reason you won't see anyone writing in 17th Century English is that we have different reading and speaking (and writing) vocabularies. When I read I understand many words that I never use in speaking or writing. So, no, we should not have the Bible in the language we speak but the language we understand.

I think you are using too narrow a definition in mind for "language" anyhow. Language doesn't "change" so much as it grows. English has grown to include new words and meanings. That doesn't preclude an understanding of older forms. That a word is "obsolete" doesn't preclude our understanding it. It just says we don't use it in new literature any more.

Which Bible can an unlearned person read? An unlearned person can't read any Bible. The language used must be complex enought to translate the thoughts of the original. Hard and unusual words are going to be required for any translation. So an individual has to have some education in order to be able to read the Holy Bible. Isn't Shakespeare taught in our schools? I think it is. Are the students taught to use a dictionary? I think they are.

Much silliness has been expressed about dictionaries here. Take a close look a the various definitions in your favorite dictionary. The definitions are mostly just various specific applications of an underlying idea or concept. That is to say that they have something in common. If you understand the common idea then you don't need to constantly look for the specific definition. People do this all of the time without thinking about it. You don't need a "multi-volume dictionary" covering the exact usage of every word in order to understand English.

Your comments about the Latin are moot. We have hundreds of translations into English. No one is forcing you to read any particular version. This is a fantasy. If you go to a Church that uses a version you don't like (or doesn't use a version you do like) then you can pack your bags and go elsewhere. That isn't to say "get out if you don't like it" but only that you have your freedom.

You should reconsider some of your thinking about the Latin Bible. The Roman Empire spread Latin through much of Europe during the time before Christ. During the rise of Christianity Latin was the language that was accessible to scholars and educated people of Europe. In that aspect the Latin Bible was a positive thing.

From my point of view we have a number of people going about teaching the people NOT to use the KJV. They are constantly telling the people that the KJV is obsolete, unreadable and inaccurate. This kind of thing is reprehensible to me.

 

[Crabtownboy]

The reason you won't see anyone writing in 17th Century English is that we have different reading and speaking (and writing) vocabularies. When I read I understand many words that I never use in speaking or writing. So, no, we should not have the Bible in the language we speak but the language we understand.

True, we do use different words with different spellings ... and that is exactly why we need a more up-to-date Bible, especially for those for whom English is a second language.

The King James Version was produced in the Elizabethan period of Early Modern English, and so it uses forms of the verbs and pronouns that were characteristic of that period. If you go to the mountains of West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolins and deep Southwestern Virginia you will find people still speaking Elizabethan English, at least to a great degree. However, for the vast majority of Americans that is not true.

To say that a language grows but does not change is merely arguing symannetics. To grow is to change.

 

[David Lamb]

The King James Version isn't in Old English. It is in an older and more formal version of Modern English. It is the language we use today.

You are technically correct, if you use a capital O and a capital E for "Old English". With those capital (upper-case) initial letters, "Old English" is another name for Anglo-Saxon, spoken from about 400 AD until the Norman Conquest in 1066. It is one of the three periods into which the English language is divided. The other two are Middle English (from 1066 to the 1400s) and Modern English (1400s onwards).

Even so, the AV/KJV is in old English (small o), otherwise we would still be using the word "carriages" to mean "burdens", "prevent" to mean "block" or "stop", "suffer" to mean "allow", and so on.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

True, we do use different words with different spellings ... and that is exactly why we need a more up-to-date Bible, especially for those for whom English is a second language.

Well, you have "more up to date" Bibles already. What are you complaining about.

I work directly with a number of people for whom English is a second language. I strongly disagree with you. Folks like that are more apt to expand their vocabulary at any point. There is no greater difficulty for them to study the language used in the King James than that of a news paper. Furthermore, they need a Bible in their native language rather than English!

The King James Version was produced in the Elizabethan period of Early Modern English, and so it uses forms of the verbs and pronouns that were characteristic of that period. If you go to the mountains of West Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolins and deep Southwestern Virginia you will find people still speaking Elizabethan English, at least to a great degree. However, for the vast majority of Americans that is not true.

I live in Southwestern Virginia. I have extensive contact with "the locals" and have yet to find a pocket of Elizabethan English anywhere in the region. That is a myth.

However, Southern dialects (there are several), spoken by tens of millions of Americans, are a bit different from that spoken in say, Ohio. We are, however, able to speak, read and compose in the common fashon of others. We learn to do this.

Yes, the KJV uses words and forms that are "characteristic of the period". That is not to say that they are exclusive to the period. They should be either clearly understood or readily learned by an educated reader.

To say that a language grows but does not change is merely arguing symannetics. To grow is to change.

No. Not all change is growth. Not all growth results in change to an existing structure. My house has three additions to the original structure. Yet, the original structure remains.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

You are technically correct....

Even so, the AV/KJV is in old English (small o), otherwise we would still be using the word "carriages" to mean "burdens", "prevent" to mean "block" or "stop", "suffer" to mean "allow", and so on.

Perhaps "older English" better expresses your intent.

In your examples did you intend to use prevent = "to go before or to precede"? I think prevent = "to block or to stop" is more commonly used here.

I think all of your examples are readily understood when placed in context.

 

[Jarthur001]

No. Not all change is growth. Not all growth results in change to an existing structure. My house has three additions to the original structure. Yet, the original structure remains.

Sorry....

But this is just NOT all true.

1) Not all change is growth.

I agree. Decay is change, but most would not consider decay growth. That is unless you work in a lab that is looking for the amount of decay in the studied subject.

2) Not all growth results in change to an existing structure.

This is just not ture. If something grows, decays, what have you...it changes.


3) My house has three additions to the original structure. Yet, the original structure remains.

Because the original still exist, does not mean it is unchanged.
If you added on to the North side of your house, the old outside wall can no longer be seen form the outside of the house. It is covered by a new wall. The original structure now has a room nailed to the side of it. This my friend is change.

 

[thomas15]

Which brings up another point to ponder. Often we hear the KJVOs instruct us to simply purchase a $50.00 1850s dictionary to look up the archaic words. Many times it is phrased in such a way to imply that we are too lazy to look up words or too cheap or lacking in desire to know God fully to spend the money.

The problem of course with buying Websters 1850s dictionary is that The AV was already 140 years old since was published way back in 1611. Also, it (Websters) reflects North American usage, the KJV is Anglican. Shouldn't we be buying a 1610 English Dictionary?

Tom

Simple, because I have not seen a single poster here who posts in 17th century English. We all speak 21st century English. Should our Bible not be in the same language that we speak?

This is the same mindset that the Roman church used to keep the Bible in Latin. All the arguments used here could have been used then. What is the fear of people having the Bible in language they can understand without running to a dictionary every few minutes?

"If one does understand understand Bible (Latin) words then they need to get a good Latin dictionary."

"Why should we dumb down God's word by putting it in the vernacular languages? Instead we should just learn how to use our Latin Bibles."

If this tool existed 1000 years ago might we see the exact same discussion with the title, "Latin trouble words"?

I purposefully left out which of the two Latin Bibles for ease of arguements sake.

 

[David Lamb]

Perhaps "older English" better expresses your intent.

In your examples did you intend to use prevent = "to go before or to precede"? I think prevent = "to block or to stop" is more commonly used here.

Yes, here too. That is what I meant. In 1611, "prevent" did mean "to go before or precede", but now it means to stop someone from doing something. When the psalmist wrote (as translated in the KJV) in Psalm 88.13:

"But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee,"


​

he is not saying that his prayer will stop God doing something, but that his prayer will come before God. I agree that context will often help show that the current English meaning of a word is not the one intended, but not always.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Sorry....

But this is just NOT all true.

1) Not all change is growth.

I agree. Decay is change, but most would not consider decay growth. That is unless you work in a lab that is looking for the amount of decay in the studied subject.

2) Not all growth results in change to an existing structure.

This is just not ture. If something grows, decays, what have you...it changes.


3) My house has three additions to the original structure. Yet, the original structure remains.

Because the original still exist, does not mean it is unchanged.
If you added on to the North side of your house, the old outside wall can no longer be seen form the outside of the house. It is covered by a new wall. The original structure now has a room nailed to the side of it. This my friend is change.

1) Another change that is not growth is a lateral change.

I sometimes work in a lab. We can call decay "negative growth"!

2) and 3) Perhaps if you take an exeternal view point.

Since I live inside the house I take an internal view. Believe me - the floor still squeaks the same.

I can grow a beard but that doesn't change my hand.

I (need to) change the oil in my pickup truck but the engine remains the same.

What I am getting at is that we can add new words and structures to language while retaining the old. I am sorry but it seems self evident to me.

A.F.

 

[Logos1560]

It would seem to be as valid to maintain that English-speaking believers should have to learn the vocabulary of the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible as maintaining that they should have to learn the vocabulary of the 1500's and 1600's.

There is a Middle English dictionary A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF MIDDLE ENGLISH by A. L. Mayhew and Walter Skeat, but I find that it does not have some of the words used in Wycliffe's Bible.

There are a large number of Bible words in the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible that are no longer in use today.

 

[Logos1560]

What I am getting at is that we can add new words and structures to language while retaining the old.
A.F.

New words are added to a language, but often a number of old words and old endings are dropped or no longer used. There were a number of words in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision that the KJV translators dropped or did not use. The KJV translators did not retain all the words used in the pre-1611 English Bibles. Some words in English today are now used with a very different meaning, even an opposite meaning from what they once had.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The King James Version isn't in Old English. It is in an older and more formal version of Modern English. It is the language we use today.

Where did I say Old English. We do not use the same words we used 400 years ago in many many cases.

It is simple reality.

 

[Logos1560]

words not retained in the KJV



Along with reducing the number of uses of several words that are considered archaic, the KJV completely removed some archaic, antiquated, rare, unusual, unclear, or difficult words or spellings along with a few other words found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision. In addition, the KJV also removed, did not retain, or no longer used some words that would not be considered archaic today.

A list of words in the pre-1611 English Bibles, which are not found in the KJV, would include the following: “ableness” (2 Cor. 3:5), “abrech” (Gen. 41:43), “achat” (Exod. 39:12), “advoutry“ (Mark 7:21), “affianced” (Luke 1:27), “afterbirth“ (Deut. 28:57), “albs” (Lev. 8:13), “arb” (Lev. 11:22), “arede” (Mark 14:65), “assoyl” (Matt. 21:24), “badge“ (Acts 28:11), “beneficial“ (Acts 19:24), “beweep“ (Deut. 21:13), “boldened“ (1 Sam. 13:12), “brain pan“ (Jud. 9:53), “breastlap” (Exod. 25:7), “bruterer” (Exod. 25:7), “buballs” (1 Kings 4:23), “buggers” (1 Tim. 1:10), “bugle“ (Deut. 14:5), “bugs“ (Ps. 91:5), “byss” (Gen. 41:42), “calamite” (Exod. 30:23), “carrion“ (Lev. 5:2), “cavillation” (Luke 19:8), “cavillations“ (Lev. 19:13), “chevisance” (Deut. 21:14), “childishness“ (1 Cor. 13:11), “christened“ (1 Cor. 1:14), “clippers“ (1 Sam. 25:11), “commonalty“ (Lev. 4:13, “conjurers“ (Dan. 4:7), “consistory“ (Ps. 107:32), “cowcasins“ (Ezek. 4:15), “cratch” (Luke 2:7), “credence“ (Acts 8:12), “cressets“ (Jer. 25:10), “deadoffering“ (Lev. 3:6), “debite” (Luke 20:20), “deedslayers” (2 Kings 14:6), “delectation“ (2 Cor. 12:10), “despicions” (Acts 28:29), “discomforted“ (Ezk. 13:22), “diseasest“ (Mark 5:35), “disposers“ (1 Cor. 4:1), “dissembling“ (Prov. 12:19), “doe“ (Prov. 6:5), “door checks [or cheeks]” (Isa. 6:4), “dukedoms“ (Gen. 36:30), “effusion“ (Heb. 11:28), “egalness” (2 Cor. 8:14), “emmets“ (Prov. 30:25), “endote” (Exod. 22:16), “equalness“ (2 Cor. 8:14), “erewhile“ (John 9:27), “examinedst“ (Rev. 2:2), “excellentness“ (Ps. 96:6), “expounders“ (Jer. 27:9), “fardels” (Acts 21:15), “field devils“ (2 Chron. 11:15), “fiend“ (Mark 5:15), “flackered“ (Ezek. 10:19), “flacket” (1 Sam. 16:20), “flaggy” (1 Sam. 15:9), “flawnes” (1 Chron. 23:29), “felicity” (Gal. 4:15), “foreby“ (Lam. 1:12), “fore elders“ (Prov. 22:28), “fortuned” (2 Chron. 5:11), “fortunes“ (2 Kings 21:6), “fraudulent“ (Ps. 119:134), “frayles” (1 Sam. 25:18), “frumenty” (Lev. 23:14), “gabis“ (Job 28:18), “galaries“ (Ps. 73:4), “gaoler” (Acts 16:23), “gardes“ (Deut. 22:12), “ghostly“ (Rom. 8:5), “gloriousness“ (1 Cor. 2:1), “gorgeousness“ (Isa. 3:18), “grece” (Acts 21:35), “groveling“ (1 Sam. 17:49), “hagab” (Lev. 11:22), “harborous” (1 Tim. 3:2), “harbourless” (Matt. 25:35), “hargol” (Lev. 11:22), “healthoffering“ (Lev. 4:26), “heavengazers” (Isa. 47:13), “hedgehog“ (Lev. 11:30), “hoared“ (Josh. 9:4), “hucklebone“ (Gen. 32:25), “huswiferie“ (Prov. 31:18), “idiot“ (Job 5:2), “Iims“ (Jer. 50:39), “inquirance“ (Acts 10:17), “inconvenient“ (1 Pet. 4:4), “inconvenience“ (Acts 28:6), “interrupted“ (1 Pet. 3:7), “intolerable“ (Exod. 8:24), “invocation“ (Ps. 89:26), “ixion“ (Deut. 14:13), “jakes” (2 Kings 10:27), “lamia“ (Isa. 34:14), “lamies“ (Lam. 4:3), “latten“ (Gen. 31:42), “library“ (Ezra 6:1), “ligurious“ (Exod. 28:19), “lither“ (Rom. 12:11), “loured” (Gen. 4:5), “luck“ (Gen. 30:11), “lucky“ (Gen. 39:2), “lusty bloods“ (2 Sam. 13:28), “lute“ (Ps. 144:9), “maidenhead“ (Jud. 11:38), “male stewes“ (1 Kings 15:12), “manchet” (1 Kings 4:22), “mandragoras” (Gen. 30:14), “manslaughter“ (Hos. 4:2), “manward“ (Titus 3:4), “maund” (Exod. 29:3), “meekened“ (2 Chron. 33:19), “meinie” (Gen. 22:3), “meked“ (James 3:7), “mercifulness“ (Rom. 12:1), “mirror” (2 Cor. 3:18) “moon prophets” (Isa. 47:13), “mossell” (1 Cor. 9:9), “muzzling” (Deut. 32:2), “naughtipacks“ (Ps. 86:14), “nebb“ (Gen. 8:11), “neverthelater“ (Lev. 7:24), “nigard“ (Isa. 32:6), “nightcrow“ (Lev. 11:16), “obstinate“ (Jer. 5:23), “ohim“ (Isa. 13:21), “overbody“ (1 Sam. 23:9), “overhand“ (Hos. 4:2), “overscaped” (Lev. 19:10), “overthwart” (Deut. 32:5), “overwinner“ (1 Sam. 15:29), “panier“ (Job 41:7), “parbreak” (Num. 11:20), “partlets“ (Acts 19:12), “pecks“ (Gen. 18:6), “penance“ (Matt. 3:8), “pensiveness“ (Ps. 77:3), “perceavaunce“ (Eph. 1:8), “perquellies” (2 Sam. 5:8), “pismire” (Prov. 6:6), “pitfall“ (Job 18:10), “plage” (Deut. 17:8), “pleck” (Lev. 13:4), “porphyry” (Est. 1:6), “possessioner“ (Micah 1:15), “puissant“ (Ps. 93:4), “pyght“ (Heb. 8:2), “querne” (Isa. 47:2), “quier” (1 Kings 6:5), “raynes“ (Rev. 19:8), “rebecks” (1 Sam. 18:6), “recreate“ (Ps. 94:19), “redebush” (Isa. 9:16), “redshanke“ (Deut. 14:16), “roomth“ (2 Sam. 22:20), “rugagates” (Jud. 12:4), “sallets” (Jer. 46:4), “scrale” (Exod. 8:3), “seameaw“ (Lev. 11:16), “selaam“ (Lev. 11:22), “sethim” (Deut. 10:3), “shalms“ or “shawms” (Ps. 98:6), “shope” (Gen. 2:7), “shrewd“ (Ps. 83:3), “simnel” (Exod. 29:23), “simulation“ (James 3:17), “slade” (1 Sam. 25:20), “slops” (Isa. 3:20), “smaragdus“ (Exod. 28:17), “Sodomward“ (Gen. 13:22), “soleam” (Lev. 11:22), “spangles“ (Num. 31:50), “springalds“ (Dan. 1:4), “stackered“ (Rom. 4:20), “stellio“ (Lev. 11:30), “succourless“ (Prov. 31:8), “Sunday“ (1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10), “taxus” (Exod. 25:4), “terebinths“ (Isa. 6:13), “toot-hill“ (Gen. 31:48), “transitory“ (Prov. 31:8), “treacle” (Jer. 8:22), “tufts” (Lev. 19:27), “tushe“ (Job 39:25), “tyranny“ (Job 3:17), “tyrants“ (Job 6:23), “unfainedness“ (2 Cor. 8:8), “unghostly“ (1 Tim. 4:7), “unhealeth“ (Deut. 27:20), “unhele” (Lev. 18:16), “unlust“ (Isa. 43:22), “unquiet“ (Deut. 28:65), “unquietness“ (Acts 24:18), “unright“ (Gen. 16:5), “unshodhouse“ (Deut. 25:10), “unthrifts“ (1 Sam. 30:22), “untractable“ (Titus 1:6), “untruss” (Isa. 47:2), “untruth“ (Ps. 89:35), “uplandish“ (Jud. 5:11), “valiantness“ (Ps. 18:32), “voluptuousness“ (Titus 3:3), “wastels“ (Lev. 24:5), “wealthiness“ (Job 21:13), “weaponed“ (Prov. 6:11), “wenest” (Acts 8:20), “whale fish” (Job 7:12), “wherethrough“ (Dan. 2:1), “Whitsuntide“ (1 Cor. 16:8), “whore keeper” (Deut. 23:17), “winegardeners“ (2 Chron. 26:10), “withoutforth“ (1 Chron. 26:29), “witsafe“ (Ps. 119:29), “workmasters“ (Jer. 24:1), “worthies“ (1 Chron. 11:26), “yonderward” (1 Sam. 20:37), and “zijm“ (Isa. 13:21).

The above list does not include the many words in Wycliffe's Bible that are not used in the KJV.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Yes, here too. That is what I meant. In 1611, "prevent" did mean "to go before or precede", but now it means to stop someone from doing something. When the psalmist wrote (as translated in the KJV) in Psalm 88.13:

"But unto thee have I cried, O LORD; and in the morning shall my prayer prevent thee,"




​

he is not saying that his prayer will stop God doing something, but that his prayer will come before God. I agree that context will often help show that the current English meaning of a word is not the one intended, but not always.

Among your examples, a handy (single volume) American Heritage dictionary seems to indicate that (this sense of) "prevent" is the only one considered archaic or obsolete.

From the root I would expect an ordinary student figure out the meaning of "prevent" in this context without having to resort to a dictionary.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Where did I say Old English. We do not use the same words we used 400 years ago in many many cases.

It is simple reality.

You didn't say "Old English". I said "Old English".

Old English is a different language from modern English. The KJV is in modern English. That is the language you and I both use.

There are many words in modern English that are not commonly used. They don't cease to be modern English because of that.

Each of us speaks a slightly different subset of the English language. It is wrong to have an attitude that "It ain't English if I don't use it".

 

[AntennaFarmer]

New words are added to a language, but often a number of old words and old endings are dropped or no longer used.
.......
Some words in English today are now used with a very different meaning, even an opposite meaning from what they once had.

Specious......

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

C4K, I am certain that you can read the KJV without a problem. I think that you have been convinced by some that other folks are incapable of reading the language of the KJV. People (in general) aren't that stupid though. If they have a desire to read it then they will both read and understand it. If they are prejudiced against it by allegations of "error" and "obsolescence" then they won't read it. Is that fair?

I don't think so. I ought to be able to read the AV with its trouble words. I have been saved 34 years, been to Bible College and seminary, heard tens of thousands of messages, preached hundreds of messages, taught in Christian school, and been nearly 20 years in the ministry.

Not every in the pew has those advantages. That does not make them stupid. The question is why should they have to read and interpret words that have changed meaning or disappeared over the last 400 years?