KJV is well loved and used

[TCassidy]

After reviewing the data I've changed my number to 94%.

Tennis Participation in the U.S. Grows To 17.9 Million Players | Tennis Industry Association

Yes, but all the fans and family members are too stupid to know what "let" means, right?

 

[Rob_BW]

Yes, but all the fans and family members are too stupid to know what "let" means, right?

My wife's the tennis player in my family, so you can draw your own conclusions.

 

[TCassidy]

Most people reading the Kjv let would not see it mean to hinder!

And how do you know that? Did you ask most of the KJV users what they understood "let" in that context means?

Can we see the research you published showing that most KJV users are less knowledgeable than you regarding English vocabulary?

And, quite frankly, after reading your posts for these many years my opinion of the level of your knowledge regarding English vocabulary is much worse than my youngest grandson's.

 

[TCassidy]

My wife's the tennis player in my family, so you can draw your own conclusions.

Hmmmmm. Well. She did marry you.

 

[TCassidy]

If God spare my life, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boy that driveth the plough, and have an online subscription to the Oxford English Dictionary, to know more of the Scripture, than he doust. -- William Tyndale

So all those people, down to and including the plough boy, automatically understood the meaning of "Passover" a word invented by Tyndale?

 

[Rob_BW]

So all those people, down to and including the plough boy, automatically understood the meaning of "Passover" a word invented by Tyndale?

Maybe not immediately. But change occurred, and it entered common usage.

Some new words appear, some old words disappear, and some meanings change. Echoes of Babel, I reckon.

 

[rlvaughn]

If God spare my life, ere many yeares I wyl cause a boy that driveth the plough, who canst not read and doust not know the meaning of any wordes, to know more of the Scripture, than he doust. -- William Tyndale

Went back and touched up the Tyndale lingo. Some of that I added didn't sound like him!

Actually, I was going to translate Tyndale's statement into modern English so we could all understand it, but I ran into two problems.
1. I found I was not qualified to translate it into modern English (my modern is so 70s).
2. I found no modern group of which I could imply they do not know how to read well; ploughboys are kind of archaic, and boys possibly derogatory. I didn't want to get sued for offending anyone (too many snowflakes).

 

[rlvaughn]

Most people reading the Kjv let would not see it mean to hinder!

And how do you know that? Did you ask most of the KJV users what they understood "let" in that context means?

I let this one pass earlier. I'm sure there are some who don't know what "let" means in 2 Thess. 2:7. But in my personal experience I've not run across any of them. (Or those who don't know that prevent can mean go before, or that quick means living or alive.)

There are some who have graduated in USA unable to read even the NIV readers edition, how can they understand Kjv?

Perhaps we could start with Picture Bibles and English lessons. If they can't read the easiest reading Bibles, what will you do about it?

[Edited to add: the above statement is not just for argument. We have a serious reading problem in the US, and I'm not sure modern vernacular Bibles are helping much in this regard. And there is both "can't read" and also "don't read" problems. Audio Bibles might help with some of this, though those who don't want to read probably don't want to listen either.]

 

[Rippon]

One example would be the Kjv uses the term letteth for the Holy Spirit and the coming antichrist, while modern versions uses hinders....

Use hinder.

 

[Rippon]

To be fair, there are plenty of incomprehensible words in the newer translations as well. Consider one example out of dozens:

There is no equivalence between the number of KJV's antiquated renderings vs. the antiquated readings in the newer versions. The KJV has an overwhelming number of incomprehensible readings.

Esther 1:6 Where were white, green, and blue, hangings, fastened with cords of fine linen and purple to silver rings and pillars of marble: the beds were of gold and silver, upon a pavement of red, and blue, and white, and black, marble. (KJV)

Esther 1:6 The garden had hangings of white and blue linen, fastened with cords of white linen and purple material to silver rings on marble pillars. There were couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement of porphyry, marble, mother-of-pearl and other costly stones. (NIV)

Have you thought of the possibility that the NIV reading might be more accurate here?

 

[Rippon]

There are some who have graduated in [sic] USA unable to read even the NIV readers edition, how can they understand [sic] Kjv?

You meant Reader's Edition --commonly known as the NIrV. You need to become familiar with this translation. It will help you improve your English.

 

[Rippon]

Our resident bible expert has assured us that 99.9% of English speaking people are too dumb to know what those words mean.

WOW! What a perversion of what I had said. Your interpretation of the words of others is truly a twisting of the original.

But, of course, the new "easier to read" and "easier to understand" versions never have any words that all of the 99.9% are not familiar with.

The above is an example of the strawmen you constantly erect.

Why can't you deal honestly with any given subject?

 

[rlvaughn]

One example would be the Kjv uses the term letteth for the Holy Spirit and the coming antichrist, while modern versions uses hinders....

Use hinder.

I notice that of the 50-something versions and sub-versions (sub as in "below", revisions of versions) at Bible Gateway, only one -- but not modern -- uses hinder (and in brackets, at that). I was surprised "hinder" wasn't used more, but perhaps the connotation is weaker.

YLT
for the secret of the lawlessness doth already work, only he who is keeping down now [will hinder] -- till he may be out of the way,

The preferred newer words seem to be restrain and hold back.

CSB
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but the one now restraining will do so until he is out of the way,

MOUNCE
For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; however, the one who is now restraining will continue to do so until he is taken away.

NIV
For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.

NOG
The mystery of this sin is already at work. But it cannot work effectively until the person now holding it back gets out of the way.

 

[Logos1560]

Granted, a quick look in the dictionary would solve the problem. It's the same with the KJV or any translation.

Is it the same when readers think that they know the meaning of some words used in the KJV with different meanings and thus do not look them up but they would likely look up an uncommon or difficult word in another English translation?

Is it the same when readers cannot find the word used in the KJV in a typical one-volume English dictionary or cannot find the meaning of how the word is used in the KJV in that dictionary but readers can find the word in the other English translation in the dictionary?

 

[Logos1560]

Interesting discovery as I continued to look at the word "let": This is not exactly a case of a word altering its meaning over time. Let ("to allow") and let ("to hinder") are actually two different English words that are spelled the same but mean something different, homonyms.

At one time, there were two different words spelled "bravery" that came into English with different meanings. If I recall correctly, one word came into English from Latin and the other word came into English from French. The two words may have been spelled in different ways during the time when English did not have set spelling rules, but both came to be spelled the same. Only one of the words may be in present use, but the other word with the different meaning was used in the KJV.

 

[TCassidy]

At one time, there were two different words spelled "bravery" that came into English with different meanings.

Yeah, but we have fixed that in early 21st century English. Well, except for:

address
arm
back
bank
bark
base
bat
beam
beams
bear
board
bolt
book
bore
bow
box
bustier
cabinet
can
case
cast
cave
chair
change
check
chicken
chip
circular
clear
cleave
close
club
command
content
cool
cordial
current
crane
dance
dear
deck
down
duck
dust
employ
entrance
even
evening
exact
fair

Well, there are the first 50 of about 250 still in common use.

 

[robycop3]

I don't believe 99% of all English speakers are stupid. I was a High School and College tennis player. The word "Let" in tennis means the ball struck the top of the net but still landed in the court. The ball was "hindered" but not stopped, by the net.

So, "let" meaning "hindered" is still in usage in early 21st century English. Not lost. Not archaic.

But how often is "let" used for 'hinder' in modern speech outside of tennis? About as often as "love" is used for 'zero' outside of tennis.

I believe we all know the KJV contains many words still in common use whose meanings have drastically changed over the years, and many English users today don't know those old meanings.

 

[robycop3]

No, that can't be possible! Our resident bible expert has assured us that 99.9% of English speaking people are too dumb to know what those words mean.

But, of course, the new "easier to read" and "easier to understand" versions never have any words that all of the 99.9% are not familiar with.

For instance, everybody knows what this means, "Can that which is tasteless be eaten without salt, or is there any taste in the slime of the purslane?"

LOL! ROFLOL! Yep. I hear "slime of the purslane" every day in general conversation. Not to mention your example of the often heard and very popular porphyry,

Not to mention a modern rock band playing their sistrums...

 

[Pastor_Bob]

There is no equivalence between the number of KJV's antiquated renderings vs. the antiquated readings in the newer versions. The KJV has an overwhelming number of incomprehensible readings.

Antiquated does not always means incomprehensible nor does incomprehensible always mean antiquated. My point is, the newer versions have their share of difficult words as well. To say that the KJV should be put out to pasture because it is hard to understand is a very hypocritical position, in my humble opinion.

Have you thought of the possibility that the NIV reading might be more accurate here?

Would that really matter? If I can't understand the more accurate rendering, what's the point?

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Is it the same when readers think that they know the meaning of some words used in the KJV with different meanings and thus do not look them up but they would likely look up an uncommon or difficult word in another English translation?

Objection! Calls for speculation! There's no way I could possibly know this. From my experience as a teacher, if someone does not know what a word means, they ask.

For example, one of our college freshman ladies asked me just yesterday, "What is the difference when people say that God is Holy and that He is a 'thrice Holy' God?" It was a very good question for which I was able to give her a very quick explanation and the matter was settled.

A good teacher will, in any given subject, automatically explain difficult or seldom used words. A preacher would have to do that regardless of what version he uses in the pulpit. This is not an exclusively KJV concern.

Is it the same when readers cannot find the word used in the KJV in a typical one-volume English dictionary or cannot find the meaning of how the word is used in the KJV in that dictionary but readers can find the word in the other English translation in the dictionary?

I don't think too many people today are limited to a single dictionary. We have junior high kids in our Christian school who bring their smart phones to school with them. So, no, I don't think it is the same.