King James Problem Words

[EdSutton]

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.

Specious......

Since I quoted the whole post of Logos1350, to which you repled with a partial cite (what you cut out, I embolded), what is allegedly "specious" about his post, even without the part you omitted? There is not one thing that is false or misleading, hence "specious", in his statements, here.

One can prefer any version, but that does not necessarily make it a good one. However, it is also not automatically "specious" to prefer or not prefer any version, for a good reason.

I can give an example of "specious" reasoning, as to versions, however. Let us say that I prefer the DARBY. Whether or not is is a good version is debatable, as is any version. But an example of "specious" reasoning would be to say that John N. Darby was wrong on his ideas of dispensations and eschatology, so therefore the DARBY version could not possibly be a good version of Scripture.

The two are not equal, and actually for one to say this, would mean that he or she knows what everyone else believed, who happened to translate their favorite version, about those subjests, and were absolutely correct in their interpretations. That fallacy simply will not hold water.

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

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

I'm way too cheap to buy it, but don't you really mean a 1611 English Dictionary?
In fact, I'm so cheap, about this, I'm not even gonna' look for one on eBay!

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

This kind of thought makes me reconsider my view, why not just go back and use an even older English version? Why not go back to Wycliff and just use a Middle English dictionary?

I've asked the same question about John Wycliffe, if not the dictionary. Not one person has answered it for me, either. I am constantly amazed at so many who pay a great deal of 'vocal' "lip service" to Desiderius Erasmus, John Wycliffe, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, et. al., as regards the Bible, but never offer to quote the first time from any of their versions, as well.

It is ridiculous to thinks that KJV words are some how "Bible" words and NKJV words are not "Bible" words or that 17th century English is more spiritual than 21st century words.

Exactly!

Actually, it is beyond "ridiculous"!

Ed

 

[Salamander]

Because of this spurious charge:



The word "conversation" is not more spiritual/heavenly that the word "conduct." They are both "Bible words."

Say what?

Conversation is received by others in any form of communication, while conduct doesn't always mean communication. Conduct also relates to how one may behave while being alone. Here we find that conversation is the correct word regarding our testimony.

Believe me, my conduct in the potty would be considered very offensive if I tried to converse my bodily functions in a conversation for others in any form of communication.

This subtle charge that those who don't use the word "conversation" instead of "conduct" are somehow less spiritual is ludicrous.

In regard to the Scriptural application, the charge is sustained.

This has been a good thread. It has caused me to re-evaluate some thoughts. Perhaps that archaic English is a key and sound reason for a modern English translation of the Byzantine text body. (Something like the NKJV perhaps ? )

Not. God isn't responsible for leaving all men unsure of life in that Jesus came so they might have life and that more abundantly.

 

[Salamander]

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

Whattsamatta? Too lazy to do a websearch for "online 1828?:laugh:

 

[Jarthur001]

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.

I have no idea where you come up with your logic, but it needs rechecked.

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

Before you added to your house, did you have the very room in the very same place, with the same nails and boards, drywall, lights, wire and all other things in place two months before you started in the same way that the room exist two months after the room was complete?

If you house exist for one moment, it has changed. Time is change, even if you do not ad on. Entropy brings change, even if you do not add a room.

Every heard of the saying..." you cannot step twice in the same river"..?

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

No...your hand now has a head that controls your hand that has a beard on it. Where as before you had a hand that was controlled by a head that had a face with no beard.


I'm done...you can have the last word.


In Christ...James

 

[Gayla]

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.

Wouldest thou please use a larger font when posting the quotes and references?:smilewinkgrin: :type:
It's hard on my eyes.

 

[David Lamb]

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

I agree with the first part, but not the second. We no longer speak and write as the Anglo-Saxons did:

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, Si þin nama gehalgod. to becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. soþlice.

​

That was a different language, as you say. I don't think anyone is trying to claim that "KJV English" is anywhere near as different to the way we speak and write today as Old English/Anglo Saxon is. But just because philologists classify both the way we speak now and the way English was spoken in the 1400s, as "Modern English", that doesn't mean that historical documents use the same words, phrasing and grammar as we do today. If it did, there would have been no point in the 1611 translation, because the Great Bible, Tyndale's translation, Coverdale's, and others were technically speaking in "Modern English".

 

[gb93433]

Imagine what it would look like if the KJVOs took the same amount of time they take trying to combat the MVs and used it to study the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages so they could study and know the truth.

Sure is a good thing we don't have many of those days of the past when a number of Christians practiced slavery. Imagine having the same argument today that the south and north had over the issue of slavery. WOW!

 

[Salamander]

Imagine what it would look like if the KJVOs took the same amount of time they take trying to combat the MVs and used it to study the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic languages so they could study and know the truth.

Sure is a good thing we don't have many of those days of the past when a number of Christians practiced slavery. Imagine having the same argument today that the south and north had over the issue of slavery. WOW!

As long as those studies prove to enhance the word of God rather than deny it, I agree!

The arguement over slavery wasn't about slave ownership, but the RIGHT of states to govern themselves apart from a dictatorial national government.

Slavery only aggrevated the situation. You comparison is therefore a faulty one.

Besides, if you want to open up the can of worms about slavery, then may I suggest you consider who it was that captured their own race, sold them to the English and North American slave traders!

Then go back and see where the Lord has His hand in the whole thing and look where many former slaves and their ancestors became Christians trusting in the same Christ we do!:wavey:

 

[Salamander]

Wouldest thou please use a larger font when posting the quotes and references?:smilewinkgrin: :type:
It's hard on my eyes.

"Hurting the eyes" is just another way of dimming the sight.

 

[Gayla]

"Hurting the eyes" is just another way of dimming the sight.

Whatcha mean by that, Salamander?

 

[gb93433]

As long as those studies prove to enhance the word of God rather than deny it, I agree!

You cannot enhance the word of God. It is what it is--God's word. Al you can do is study it to find out what God communicated.

The arguement over slavery wasn't about slave ownership, but the RIGHT of states to govern themselves apart from a dictatorial national government.

Slavery only aggrevated the situation. You comparison is therefore a faulty one.

Besides, if you want to open up the can of worms about slavery, then may I suggest you consider who it was that captured their own race, sold them to the English and North American slave traders!

Then go back and see where the Lord has His hand in the whole thing and look where many former slaves and their ancestors became Christians trusting in the same Christ we do!:wavey:

Remember why there are southern and northern Baptists. I seriously doubt that slaves became Christians because of slavery but rather because of the gospel.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Lets stay on topic - which is not slavery and state's rights.

 

[gb93433]

If one were to use much of the same reasoning of the KJVOs they would have to admit their Bible is horribly translated because there are so many words left out of the most excellent translations that preceded it. They would have to admit that they are liberals because they use the KJV which omits words that were purposely used in previous translations.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

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?

How about when you started?

 

[AntennaFarmer]

I have no idea where you come up with your logic, but it needs rechecked.

....snip....

I'm done...you can have the last word.


In Christ...James

Are you mistaking my illustrations for my logic? I don't know. Perhaps my logic comes from my career in applied science.

In any event we have stepped off topic. Perhaps we can discuss this some other time and place.

My last word is God Bless.

A.F.

 

[gb93433]

How about when you started?

My parents knew nothing about the Bible but they had one in the house on the table. One day when I was by myself I picked up the family Bible and tried reading it only to quickly realize I understood almost nothing. I did not read a Bible for about 7 years later. I tried reading that same Bible again and came to the same conclusion as I had before. Shortly after that, I encountered a Living Bible and read it for about 15 to 30 minutes each day. Later I bought an NAS.

You tell me, is it better to let a translation sit and collect dust that you do not understand or read one that you do understand? Is it better to look at a Bible that you know you do not understand or is it better to read a translation for 15-30 minutes each day that you do understand?

It is a no-brainer for anyone to know which Bible God used first in my life.

 

[Logos1560]

If one were to use much of the same reasoning of the KJVOs they would have to admit their Bible is horribly translated because there are so many words left out of the most excellent translations that preceded it.

When KJV-only reasoning is applied consistently, it does become a problem for that view. The actual evidence shows that the KJV translators make the same type changes as they updated and revised the pre-1611 English Bibles as later translations from the same underlying texts have made to the KJV.

The 1611 KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible.
Here are some examples from the book of Job of how the KJV translators made the language of the Bishops' Bible simpler in some cases or updated the language in other cases.

Job 1:5 and gat up early (Bishops) and rose up early (KJV)
Job 5:2 wrathfulness (Bishops) wrath (KJV)
Job 5:2 the ignorant (Bishops) the silly one (KJV)
Job 5:17 blessed is the man (Bishops) happy is the man (KJV)
Job 5:22 destruction and dearth (Bishops) destruction and famine (KJV)
Job 5:25 posterity (Bishops) offspring (KJV)
Job 6:7 The things that sometime I might not away withal (Bishops)
The things that my soul refused to touch (KJV)

Job 6:23 hand of the tyrants (Bishops) hand of the mighty (KJV)
Job 7:12 a whale fish (Bishops) a whale (KJV)
Job 10:21 Afore I go thither from whence (Bishops) Before I go whence (KJV)
Job 12:6 they that maliciously meddle against God dwell without care (Bishops)
they that provoke God are secure (KJV)
Job 12:17 out of their wits (Bishops) fools (KJV)
Job 15:32 afore his time (Bishops) before his time (KJV)
Job 17:1 I am hard at death’s door (Bishops) the graves are ready for me (KJV)
Job 17:2 Froward men are with me (Bishops) Are there not mockers with me (KJV)
Job 18:10 a pitfall (Bishops) a trap (KJV)
Job 18:19 any posterity (Bishops) any remaining (KJV)
Job 19:19 All my most familiars (Bishops) All my inward friends (KJV)
Job 20:8 vanish as a dream (Bishops) fly away as a dream (KJV)
Job 20:15 shall he parbreak (Bishops) he shall vomit (KJV)
Job 21:13 in wealthiness (Bishops) in wealth (KJV)
Job 22:10 compassed about (Bishops) are round about (KJV)
Job 23:11 his high way have I holden (Bishops) his way have I kept (KJV)
Job 27:13 tyrants (Bishops) oppressors (KJV)
Job 27:21 A vehement east wind (Bishops) The east wind (KJV)
Job 28:18 gabis (Bishops) pearls (KJV)
Job 30:9 jesting stock (Bishops) byword (KJV)
Job 30:27 My bowels seethe (Bishops) My bowels boiled (KJV)
Job 31:25 my hand gat so much (Bishops) mine hand had gotten much (KJV)
Job 35:14 thou sayest to God (Bishops) thou sayest (KJV)
Job 36:16 quiet replenished with fatness (Bishops) should be full of fatness (KJV)
Job 41:7 the fish panier with his head (Bishops) his head with fish spears (KJV)
Job 42:10 as he had afore (Bishops) as he had before (KJV)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

How about when you started?

This is tough. I wasn't saved until I was 18 and did not grow up in a Christian home, plus that was been 34 years. I do remember learning words like "conversation" and "careful" and did not have a real hard time learning what they meant when they were in the Bible. I have always had something of a wide vocabulary so the new words were not that difficult.

I have a deep appreciate for 17th century English, there are times, such as in the word "careful" where I think the KJV word does the far better job than any new one. I think there are times when the newer version change words just to be different, for example in 1 Corinthians 5 where the the AV uses the phrase "the love of Christ constrains us" To mind there is no better English word than "constrain."

Saying that, I do not think we need to be compelled to use words, phrases, and grammar that are not in normal use today. I don't think the 21st century reader should have to consult a dictionary when he is doing his Bible reading or devotional study.