Regarding 'Archaic' English

[Saved421]

Good day,

Au revoir

 

[Saved421]

Thanks for sharing, though most of these words I already knew the vocabulary. There is no issue, define with context/studying.

The English language is getting worse and worse.

Also, governor to pilot, that's something not everyone knoweth either. Pilots would be first thought of as airplane pilots.

I am not contiuning this discussion as its not going anywhere.

When translations of the Bible are not frequently revised, we find people trying to make sense of English like this:

Exodus 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. KJV, 1611

Instead of English like this:

Exodus 19: 18. Now Mount Sinai was completely in smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly. (NRSV)

And we find archaisms like these in the KJV:

"abased" (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14) then meant "humbled"
"abide" (Acts 20:23) then meant "await"
"acquaintance" (Luke 2:44; 23:49; Acts 24:23) then meant "acquaintances"
"admiration" (Rev. 17:6) then meant "wonder"
"affections" (Gal. 5:24) then meant "passions"
"again" (Matt. 27:3; Luke 14:6) then meant "back"
"allege" (Acts 17:3) then meant present "evidence"
"allow" (Luke 11:48; Rom. 14:22; 1 Thes. 2:4) then meant "approve"
"amazement" (1 Pet. 3:6) then meant "terror"
"amend" (John 4:52) then meant "mend"
"answer" (2 Tim. 4:16) then meant "defense"
"approve" (2 Cor. 6:4; 7:11) then meant "commend" or "prove"
"assay" (Acts 9:26; 16:7; Heb. 11:29) then meant "essay" or "attempt"
"attendance" (1 Tim. 4:13) then meant "attention"
"base" (1 Cor. 1:28; 2 Cor. 10:1) then meant "lowly"
"behind" (Col. 1:24) then meant "lacking"
"bewitched" (Acts 8:9, 11) then meant "astonished"
"by and by" (Matt. 13:21; Mark 6:25; Luke 17:7; 21:9) then meant "immediately"
"careful" (Luke 10:41; Phil. 4:6) then meant "anxious"
"charged" (1 Tim. 5:16) then meant "burdened"
"charger" (Matt. 14:8, 11; Mark 6:25, 28) then meant "platter"
"charity" (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; etc.) then meant "love"
"charitably" (Rom. 14:15) then meant "in love"
"communicate" (Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:14, 15; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16) then meant "share"
"communications" (Cor. 15:33) then meant "companionship"
"concluded" (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) then meant "shut up"
"conscience" (1 Cor. 8:7; Heb. 10:2) then meant "consciousness"
"convenient" (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 5:4; Phlm. 8) then meant "fitting" or "proper"
"conversation" (2 Cor. 1:12; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 2:3; etc.) then meant "manner of life" or "conduct"
"corn" (Matt. 12:1; Mark 2:23; 4:28; etc.) then meant "grain"
"countries" (Luke 21:21) then meant "country"
"country, a" (John 11:54) then meant "the country"
"damnation" (Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; etc.) then meant "condemnation" or "judgment" (1 Cor. 11:29)
"damned" (Mark 16:16; Rom. 14:23; 2 Thes. 2:12) then meant "condemned" or "judged"
"delicately" (Luke 7:25) then meant "luxuriously"
"deliciously" (Rev. 18:7, 9) then meant "wantonly"
"doubtful" (Luke 12:29) then meant "anxious"
"draught" (Matt. 15:17; Mark 7:19) then meant "drain"
"earnestly" (Luke 22:56; Acts 23:1) then meant "carefully" or "steadfastly" or "intently"
"ensue" (1 Pet. 3:11) then meant "pursue"
"entreat(ed)" (Matt. 22:6; Luke 18:32; 20:11; etc.) then meant "treat(ed)"
"estate" (Acts 22:5) then meant "council"
"estates" (Mark 6:21) then meant "men of nobility or rank"
"ever, or" (Acts 23:15) then meant "before"
"evidently" (Acts 10:3) then meant "clearly" or "openly" (Gal. 3:1)
"fame" (Matt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mark 1:28; etc.) then meant "report" or
"feeble-minded" (1 Thes. 5:14) then meant "fainthearted"
"forward" (2 Cor. 8:10, 17; Gal. 2:10) then meant "ready" or "eager"
"frankly" (Luke 7:42) then meant "freely"
"furnished" (Matt. 22:10) then meant "filled"
"go beyond" (1 Thes. 4:6) then meant "transgress"
"good" (1 Jn. 3:17) then meant "goods"
"goodman" (Matt. 20:11; 24:43; Mark 14:14; etc.) then meant "master"
"governor" (James 3:4) then meant "pilot"
"grudge" (James 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:9) then meant "grumble"
"guilty" (Matt. 23:18) then meant "bound"
"hardly" (Matt. 19:23) then meant "with difficulty"
"instant" (Luke 23:23) then meant "insistent," or "constant" (Rom. 12:12), or "urgent" (2 Tim. 4:2)
"keep under" (1 Cor. 9:27) then meant "buffet"
"lade" (Luke 11:46) then meant "load"
"large" (Matt. 28:12) then meant "much"
"lewd" (Acts 17:5) then meant "wicked"
"lewdness" (Acts 18:14) then meant "villainy"
"listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13) then meant "wished"
"listeth" (John 3:8; James 3:4) then meant "wishes"
"lively" (Acts 7:38; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:5) then meant "living"
"loft" (Acts 20:9) then meant "story"
"marred" (Mark 2:22) then meant "destroyed"
"meat" (Matt. 3:4; 6:25; 10:10; 15:37; 24:45; etc.) then meant "food"
"minister" (Luke 4:20) then meant "attendant"
"minstrels" (Matt. 9:23) then meant "flute players"
"motions" (Rom. 7:5) then meant "passions"
"observed him" (Mark 6:20) then meant "kept him safe"
"occupy" (Luke 19:13) then meant "trade"
"other" (John 21:2; Acts 15:2; 2 Cor. 13:2; Phil. 2:3) then meant "others"
"other some" (Acts 17:18) then meant "some others"
"overcharge(d)" (Luke 21:34; 2 Cor. 2:5) then meant "over burden(ed)"
"particularly" (Acts 21:19; Heb. 9:5) then meant "in detail"
"pitiful" (1 Pet. 3:8) then meant "merciful"
"presently" (Matt. 21:19; 26:53; Phil. 2:23) then meant "immediately"
"pressed out of" (2 Cor. 1:8) then meant "oppressed beyond"
"prevent" (1 Thes. 4:15) then meant "precede"
"prevented" (Matt. 17:25) then meant "spoke first to"
"profited" (Gal. 1:14) then meant "advanced"
"profiting" (1 Tim. 4:15) then meant "progress"
"proper" (Acts 1:19; 1 Cor. 7:7) then meant "own" or "beautiful" (Heb. 11:23)
"quick" (Heb. 4:12) then meant "living"
"quit you" (1 Cor. 16:13) then meant "conduct yourselves"
"reason" (Acts 6:2) then meant "reasonable"
"record" (John 1:19; Acts 20:26; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8) then meant "witness"
"respect, had" (Heb. 11:26) then meant "looked"
"room" (Matt. 2:22; Luke 14:7, 8, 9, 10; Acts 24:27; 1 Cor. 14:16) then meant "place"
"sardine" (Rev. 4:3) then meant "sardius"
"scrip" (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4; etc.) then meant "bag"
"secondarily" (1 Cor. 12:28) then meant "secondly"
"sentence" (Acts 15:19) then meant "judgment"
"several" (Matt. 25:15) then meant "particular"
"shamefacedness" (1 Tim. 2:9) then meant "modesty" or "propriety"
"shape" (John 5:37) then meant "form"
"should" (Acts 23:27) then meant "would"
"sincere" (1 Pet. 2:2) then meant "pure"
"strange" (Acts 26:11) then meant "foreign"
"strangers of" (Acts 2:10) then meant "visitors from"
"string" (Mark 7:35) then meant "band"
"study" (1 Thes. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:15) then meant "strive"
"tables" (Luke 1:63; 2 Cor. 3:3) then meant "tablets"
"take no thought" (Matt. 6:25, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Luke 12:11, 22, 26) then meant "be not anxious"
"taking thought" (Matt. 6:27; Luke 12:25) then meant "being anxious"
"temperance" (Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6) then meant "self-control"
"temperate" (1 Cor. 9:25; Tit. 1:8) then meant "self- controlled"
"translated" (Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5) then meant "transferred"

No, study meant study.

Quick as living is defined in O.T. in same context.

We still use tables as flat objects such as I seen in a comment before: timetable.

Our tongues do have a string.

Quick ye/you as man defined in a parrel verse.

Room is still used as a way meaning space in English.

 

[JonC]

I am not going to argue with you all, agree to disagree.

I have no issue with the KJB English, even if I did, I will study it using English. I do not speak Greek or Hebrew.

Have a good day.

The thing is to find a translation you can understand and will read and study. For you it is the KJV. That's great.

You will find on this site that very few, if any, are anti-KJV. Most of us grew up with and love the KJV.

The reason people tend to start off defensive is that there have been some in the past who are KJVO (they comdemn God's Word if it is not their preferred translation). There are others who simply prefer the KJV.

The most important thing when it comes to legitimate English translations of Scripture is that one reads and studies it. A Bible collecting dust on a table is of no use.

 

[Saved421]

The thing is to find a translation you can understand and will read and study. For you it is the KJV. That's great.

You will find on this site that very few, if any, are anti-KJV. Most of us grew up with and love the KJV.

The reason people tend to start off defensive is that there have been some in the past who are KJVO (they comdemn God's Word if it is not their preferred translation). There are others who simply prefer the KJV.

The most important thing when it comes to legitimate English translations of Scripture is that one reads and studies it. A Bible collecting dust on a table is of no use.

Yes, we need to study the Bible.

The KJB is easier to read than the NIV, and not every easy to read Bible is safe.

 

[JonC]

Yes, we need to study the Bible.

The KJB is easier to read than the NIV, and not every easy to read Bible is safe.

Some find the KJV easier to read. Others find the NIV, ESV, NKJV, or NASB (naming a few faithful translations) easier to read.

I would not condemn any legitimate translation. People need to study the translation that they will faithfully study and understand.

I like using several (including the KJV). Each translation has its weakness (inherit in translations). One of my least favorites was the HCSB, but it was perhaps the first to translate John 3:16 accurately (most kept the KJV rendering because it is the most memorized verse). But in other places their eord choices were odd.

I like the KJV and NKJV as these two offer a balance between word choices and learning to keep the literary style. I like the NASB for word choices, and use it for study often, but they lose the style.


My recommendation is the use of a few legitimate translations of God's Word.

But if a person chooses only one then pick one they understand. Scripture was originally written in plain, common language that those in the congregation could understand.

 

[John of Japan]

Dear community,


The Bible is not any book, it should use Biblical Language.

Thanks for reading,

Shawn

Please define "Biblical language." As a Bible translator and someone teaching translation, I should know what it is so that I can properly translate. How will I recognize "Biblical language" in Japanese?

 

[JesusFan]

I was thinking specifically of John 3:16 (one I've heard KJO preachers misrepresent in error) and perhaps "Lucifer" as a proper name (an error KJVO Christians often make in fighting against other Believer's use of God's Word).

For the most part, the KJV andcother translations line yo very well to me. But I grew up having to read antiquated English in school (and I liked reading that literature). I also grew up hearing and using the KJV.

So to me I don't always appreciate the barrier the language of the KJV poses to others. I know it dies because I've worked with people who struggled, not with Scripture but with the language (they were expected to overcome a language barrier before they would be able to struggle with God's Word).

Some will actually pray in Kjv, guess just as Allah can hear only prayers in Arabic, Yahweh only in "holy English"

 

[JesusFan]

I am not going to argue with you all, agree to disagree.

I have no issue with the KJB English, even if I did, I will study it using English. I do not speak Greek or Hebrew.

Have a good day.

You can still though use Hebrew and Greek study tools

 

[JesusFan]

Some find the KJV easier to read. Others find the NIV, ESV, NKJV, or NASB (naming a few faithful translations) easier to read.

I would not condemn any legitimate translation. People need to study the translation that they will faithfully study and understand.

I like using several (including the KJV). Each translation has its weakness (inherit in translations). One of my least favorites was the HCSB, but it was perhaps the first to translate John 3:16 accurately (most kept the KJV rendering because it is the most memorized verse). But in other places their eord choices were odd.

I like the KJV and NKJV as these two offer a balance between word choices and learning to keep the literary style. I like the NASB for word choices, and use it for study often, but they lose the style.


My recommendation is the use of a few legitimate translations of God's Word.

But if a person chooses only one then pick one they understand. Scripture was originally written in plain, common language that those in the congregation could understand.

All of those MV mentioned are easier to read and understand than the Kjv though

 

[JesusFan]

Please define "Biblical language." As a Bible translator and someone teaching translation, I should know what it is so that I can properly translate. How will I recognize "Biblical language" in Japanese?

So if God had to wait until the arrival of Kjv "Holy English", then we had no legit translation anywhere until 1611? and all other language translations in Japanese, Chinese, German etc would be fakes?

 

[JesusFan]

Please define "Biblical language." As a Bible translator and someone teaching translation, I should know what it is so that I can properly translate. How will I recognize "Biblical language" in Japanese?

Guess Kjv English to bible same way Arabic is to koran, only legit translation language?

 

[JonC]

All of those MV mentioned are easier to read and understand than the Kjv though

I don't have a problem with the KJV, but I grew up studying that translation.

I had a conversation last week about John 3:16. The guy I was speaking with always took "for God so loved the world" to be indicating the reason God sent His Son. I've mostly seen it taken as the quality of love. But the verse actually speaks of how God loved the world.

That is a small issue in overall doctrine (as the errors in understanding are not untruths). But it illustrates how words can be misunderstood centuries after their writing.

As believers we should strive to produce and maintain God's Word in a faithful but accessible manner. We are stewards of work that has been done, and with the KJV this includes providing a translation for people in the vernacular.

 

[John of Japan]

Guess Kjv English to bible same way Arabic is to koran, only legit translation language?

Well, there is a modern and a classical Arabic, as I understand it.

 

[JonC]

Well, there is a modern and a classical Arabic, as I understand it.

It's all Arabic to me.

 

[Conan]

Preface to the KJV

The Translators to the Reader

Reasons Moving Us To Set Diversity of Senses in the Margin, where there is Great Probability for Each​

 

[Saved421]

Dear community,

It seems this discussion is not going to go anywhere, so I am retiring from this discission.

I do want to note I did not grew up on the KJB, and its not impossible to understand the A.V.

I believe the Bible over scholars, the marginal notes are not scripture.

Let's not agure anymore and focus on gospel sharing.

Shawn

 

[Conan]

Dear community,

It seems this discussion is not going to go anywhere, so I am retiring from this discission.

I do want to note I did not grew up on the KJB, and its not impossible to understand the A.V.

I believe the Bible over scholars, the marginal notes are not scripture.

Let's not agure anymore and focus on gospel sharing.

Shawn

Marginal notes can be scripture. Read what the 1611 Translators said, against the Roman Catholics. You represent the Roman Catholics instead of the 1611 Translators on this issue. Marginal notes can be and are at times scripture. Read the wisdom of the 1611 Translators, not the protestations of the Roman Catholics.

 

[Saved421]

Marginal notes can be scripture. Read what the 1611 Translators said, against the Roman Catholics. You represent the Roman Catholics instead of the 1611 Translators on this issue. Marginal notes can be and are at times scripture. Read the wisdom of the 1611 Translators, not the protestations of the Roman Catholics.

I believe the text, not the scholars and neither the marginal notes.

Au revoir,

Shawn

 

[Logos1560]

I believe the text, not the scholars and neither the marginal notes.

The varying English text of many different editions of the KJV is the work of one exclusive group of Church of England scholars--the same scholars who made its marginal notes. When you believe the English text of the KJV, you may be believing the scholars who made it over the preserved original-language words of Scripture.

Some of the marginal notes of the 1611 edition of the KJV come from the text of the pre-1611 word of God translated in English as found in the 1560 Geneva Bible or the 1568 Bishops' Bible.

 

[John of Japan]

I believe the text, not the scholars and neither the marginal notes.

Au revoir,

Shawn

I asked you a sincere question, relevant to the thread and to my ministry in Bible translation, and you're leaving without answering it.

You wrote, "The Bible is not any book, it should use Biblical Language."

I wrote: "Please define "Biblical language. As a Bible translator and someone teaching translation, I should know what it is so that I can properly translate. How will I recognize 'Biblical language' in Japanese?"

Please answer. You must have some principles to share.

Added in: Many years ago on the island of Hokkaido, Japan, a salesman came to my door. We got to talking about the Japanese Bible. He was Buddhist, but had a definite opinion about "holy writings." He believed they should read and sound like holy writings. I've often pondered just what he meant by that. Anyone like to try?