Regarding 'Archaic' English

[JD731]

A great deal of deceit concerning the Scriptures can be found in the over 200 books that advocate a modern KJV-only view.

I would not consider myself to be a defender of books that defend a KJV only viewpoint. I do not read them. Neither do I join in fellowship with men or groups simply because they are KJV only. For instance I did not have to read Riplinger's book to know it was not for me because I know the ways of God that he does not use women to teach his doctrines any more than I believe limited atonement, as taught by others who claim they are the most spiritual teachers in the room, is the true gospel of God. Their books would not convince me of that. There is deceit everywhere and taking a KJV only, or other, position is not proof that one is spiritual. People sometimes have different reasons for their affiliations.

The reason, I think, the KJV is "only" in the English language is because the English are the believers and the preachers and the missionaries in this age. I think the language of the KJV is God's idea. God is not like everybody else. He is holy and separate from sinners and he says that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. He speaks differently from the world. He desires us to be holy and godly and peculiar. He is not trying to make us like the world, he is trying to make us like himself. He is one (1) God and he is peculiar when you are speaking of different gods men tends to worship. He is not like any of them.

Satan is rubbing out the holiness of God and it is reflected in the presentations of a worldly church. It looks like the world, talks like the world, has a long matted haired Jesus to worship, it sounds like the world, and it has enough Bibles to not be constrained by any of them. It is the time of hypocrites, posing as Christians while denying the true Christian faith and saturating the landscape with Bibles they encourage everyone to carry but not for the purpose of believing. This is a satanic doctrine and is proof of the great apostasy and the time and place these Bibles are showing up and the fruit they are producing in the world makes this undeniable. Paul said "let every one of you speak the same things" in a passage in which the context is how God translates his thoughts to be our thoughts through his own chosen words. We know the fruit of the translation committees is 100% different and we have more sects and isms than ever, you must agree that the wheel has run off. (Some say I am of Calvin, others, I am of Luther, etc)

It is insane when you think about it. But, I do believe from reading your position on the Christian faith that you have chosen your friends well.

Because there are no new revelations after the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, the words that were given through the first century apostles remains the same authority of God now as then and our works will be judged by those words if we are saved.

Thankfully, it is more important to encounter a faithful preacher of the gospel of God than a KJV Bible. You can hear the preacher but you must read the KJV. The KJV is not what God uses to save sinners, it is what he uses to teach saved people. The preacher is going to tell you how to be saved by telling you about the one who can save you, whether he has a copy of the scriptures on his person or not. The KJV is going to instruct you about God and how to live to please him after you are saved. Salvation is not dependent on having the scriptures but it is dependent on the word of God getting into your heart so it can convict your conscience and God says (and proves) that it gets there through the ears and not through the eyes. Faith is not by sight, it is by hearing. God could have saturated the earth with Bibles, but he did not choose that way. He gave one Bible so we can all speak the same things and has saturated the earth with Christians that have a commission to preach the word.

I like it!

 

[Logos1560]

Getting back to the subject or topic of this thread concerning archaic English in the KJV, KJV-only authors make non-true claims concerning the number of archaic words in the KJV, a non-true claim that the KJV has a built-in dictionary for all its words, a non-true claim that there are no archaic words found in the KJV, a non-true claim that the KJV only rarely updated archaic words or language in the Bishops' Bible and other pre-1611 English Bibles, a non-true claim that archaic words should be kept unchanged in the KJV instead of being updated, and a non-true claim that the KJV is easier to read and understand than the NKJV and other post-1611 English Bibles.

All KJV-only authors do not make all these claims, but these are actual non-true claims that have been made by KJV-only authors.

 

[Deacon]

Last year I retired and moved away from my church of 20 years.
Recently, I was given the opportunity to re-organized the church library of the congregation I have been worshiping with since then.

While beginning the task today I stumbled across a translation by J.B. Philips, the title, Letters to Young Churches (1956).
The translation had a foreword by C.S. Lewis, a portion of which I'll quote below.

...the Authorized Version has ceased to be a good (that is, a clear) translation. It is no longer modern English: the meanings of words have changed. The same antique glamour which has made it (in the superficial sense) so ‘beautiful’, so ‘sacred’, so ‘comforting’ and so ‘inspiring’, has also made it in many places unintelligible. Thus where St Paul says ‘I know nothing against myself,’ it translates ‘I know nothing by myself’. That was a good translation (though even then rather old-fashioned) in the sixteenth century: to the modern reader it means either nothing, or something quite different from what St Paul said. The truth is that if we are to have translation at all we must have periodical re-translation. There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once and for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed.

And finally, though it may seem a sour paradox – we must sometimes get away from the Authorized Version, if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations endear but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity the transporting or horrifying realities of which the book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame or struck dumb with terror or carried out of ourselves by ravishing throes and adoration. Does the word ‘scourged’ really come home to us like ‘flogged’? Does ‘mocked him’ sting like ‘jeered at him’?

We ought therefore to welcome all new translations (when they are made by sound scholars) and most certainly those who are approaching the Bible for the first time will be wise not to begin with the Authorized Version – except perhaps for the historical books of the Old Testament where its archaisms suit the saga-like material well enough. Among modern translations those of Dr Moffat and Monsignor Knox seem to me particularly good. The present volume concentrates on the epistles and furnishes more help to the beginner: its scope is different. The preliminary abstracts to each letter will be found especially useful, and the reader who has not read the letters before might do well to begin by reading and reflecting on these abstracts at some length before he attempts to tackle the text. It would have saved me a great deal of labor if this book had come into my hands when I first seriously began to try to discover what Christianity was.

Rob

 

[Craigbythesea]

Last year I retired and moved away from my church of 20 years.
Recently, I was given the opportunity to re-organized the church library of the congregation I have been worshiping with since then.

While beginning the task today I stumbled across a translation by J.B. Philips, the title, Letters to Young Churches (1956).
The translation had a foreword by C.S. Lewis, a portion of which I'll quote below.

...the Authorized Version has ceased to be a good (that is, a clear) translation. It is no longer modern English: the meanings of words have changed. The same antique glamour which has made it (in the superficial sense) so ‘beautiful’, so ‘sacred’, so ‘comforting’ and so ‘inspiring’, has also made it in many places unintelligible. Thus where St Paul says ‘I know nothing against myself,’ it translates ‘I know nothing by myself’. That was a good translation (though even then rather old-fashioned) in the sixteenth century: to the modern reader it means either nothing, or something quite different from what St Paul said. The truth is that if we are to have translation at all we must have periodical re-translation. There is no such thing as translating a book into another language once and for all, for a language is a changing thing. If your son is to have clothes it is no good buying him a suit once and for all: he will grow out of it and have to be re-clothed.

And finally, though it may seem a sour paradox – we must sometimes get away from the Authorized Version, if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty also lulls. Early associations endear but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity the transporting or horrifying realities of which the book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame or struck dumb with terror or carried out of ourselves by ravishing throes and adoration. Does the word ‘scourged’ really come home to us like ‘flogged’? Does ‘mocked him’ sting like ‘jeered at him’?

We ought therefore to welcome all new translations (when they are made by sound scholars) and most certainly those who are approaching the Bible for the first time will be wise not to begin with the Authorized Version – except perhaps for the historical books of the Old Testament where its archaisms suit the saga-like material well enough. Among modern translations those of Dr Moffat and Monsignor Knox seem to me particularly good. The present volume concentrates on the epistles and furnishes more help to the beginner: its scope is different. The preliminary abstracts to each letter will be found especially useful, and the reader who has not read the letters before might do well to begin by reading and reflecting on these abstracts at some length before he attempts to tackle the text. It would have saved me a great deal of labor if this book had come into my hands when I first seriously began to try to discover what Christianity was.

Rob

I have here in my study the following books by J.B. Philips:

The New Testament in Modern English, J. B. Phillips, 1958
Seventeenth Printing, 1968. A new hardcover copy

New Testament, 1958

The Gospels, 1952, 1957

The Young Church in Action, 1955

Letters to Young Churches, 1947, 1957

The Book of Revelation, 1957

I purchased them years ago when I did not know any better.

 

[Deacon]

I purchased them years ago when I did not know any better.

One of the bibles that I carried around and studied from when as a young Christian was the Zondervan Layman's Parallel Bible.
I think it included the KJV, NASB, NRSV and the Living Bible

I'm of the opinion that paraphrase Bibles are worthwhile and often quite helpful when introducing a new believer to the Scriptures.
They communicate "big picture" concepts.

Of the Philips translation C.S. Lewis wrote: "[the translation and each Epistle introduction] furnishes more help to the beginner..."

My former pastor's wife enjoyed the Philips translation and the pastor frequently referenced it during his sermons to communicate the clear meaning of a passage.

I don't have a grand collection of Bible translations on my book shelves; only two paraphrase Bibles, to include the Philips New Testament in Modern English and The James Moffat Translation: both offered unique contributions to modern biblical translation.

Rob

 

[robycop3]

Dear community,

I think its important to note that The KJB's English is British English not American English.

Second, I have seen/heard these archaic words being used in real life, mostly in documentaries and videos.

Its interestingly to note that many of these old terms are still used in the naval/mitary and other industries.

The Reformation translators sought for an time when English will have words that would be pure, different than common words used.

There are also quotes about how that the phrasing of the Bible should be not the same as common phrasing.

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

Thanks for reading,

Shawn

The KJV (NOT "KJB"!) was written mostly in the Elizabethan English og its time, not in any "Biblical" English. There's no such thing. God, who made all languages, spoke to the human writers of Scripture in THEIR languages, not in any special dialect.

 

[JesusFan]

The KJV (NOT "KJB"!) was written mostly in the Elizabethan English og its time, not in any "Biblical" English. There's no such thing. God, who made all languages, spoke to the human writers of Scripture in THEIR languages, not in any special dialect.

Some seem to equate the Kjv English as being like Holy Spirit language, for just as he gave to the Hews the Hebrew OT, and to the Gentiles Koine Greek back in the day, He gave to all since 1611 the kjv

 

[Craigbythesea]

One of the bibles that I carried around and studied from when as a young Christian was the Zondervan Layman's Parallel Bible.
I think it included the KJV, NASB, NRSV and the Living Bible

I'm of the opinion that paraphrase Bibles are worthwhile and often quite helpful when introducing a new believer to the Scriptures.
They communicate "big picture" concepts.

Of the Philips translation C.S. Lewis wrote: "[the translation and each Epistle introduction] furnishes more help to the beginner..."

My former pastor's wife enjoyed the Philips translation and the pastor frequently referenced it during his sermons to communicate the clear meaning of a passage.

I don't have a grand collection of Bible translations on my book shelves; only two paraphrase Bibles, to include the Philips New Testament in Modern English and The James Moffat Translation: both offered unique contributions to modern biblical translation.

Rob

A few important points:

(1) James Moffatt’s, A New Translation of the Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments is NOT a paraphrase, but a translation and mutilation of the Bible in colloquial English.

(2) J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English is a paraphrase rather than a translation and mutilation of the Bible in colloquial English.

(3) Paraphrases of the Bibles are worse than worthless because they introduce new believers to severe distortions of the Scriptures while at the same time distracting them from the Bible itself.

There is an excellent documented article on the internet that compares side by side James Moffatt’s, A New Translation of the Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English, and the Revised Standard Version of 1946.

J. B. Phillips, The New Testament in Modern English

There is also an excellent documented article on the internet that compares side by side the American Standard Version (1901) and Moffatt Bible (1935). This article about James Moffatt’s, A New Translation of the Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments also highlights a few of the very many mutilations (“emendations”) of the Bible found in Moffatt’s “Bible”.

Moffatt Version

 

[Alan Dale Gross]

Dear community,

I think its important to note that The KJB's English is British English not American English.

Second, I have seen/heard these archaic words being used in real life, mostly in documentaries and videos.

Its interestingly to note that many of these old terms are still used in the naval/mitary and other industries.

The Reformation translators sought for an time when English will have words that would be pure, different than common words used.

There are also quotes about how that the phrasing of the Bible should be not the same as common phrasing.

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

Thanks for reading,

Shawn

PERFECT.

 

[Saved421]

Yes, its perfect.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Yes, its perfect.

The King James is perfect? Not by any means. It's a good Bible, but to call it "perfect" is to worship it. That's idolatry.

I've banned you twice because you asked twice for your account to be ended. I complied.

Twice I've banned you at your request and twice now you've come back with your "perfect" Bible teachings.

I don't get it.