Should all archaic words have been left in text of KJV?

[Logos1560]

In their books, KJV-only authors have claimed that archiac words should be left in the text and that accuracy will be sacrificed if they are changed or updated. It is clear that the KJV translators did not follow the opinion of Samuel Gipp, who wrote that "we should leave the archaic word in the text" (Answer Book, p. 13). KJV-only author Timothy Morton also contended that the archaic words should be left in the text. Morton claimed: "If these [archaic] words are changed in the text then accuracy must be sacrificed, and this would be a terrible mistake" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 37). H. D. Williams asserted: "The few archaic words in the King James Bible do not require change" (Pure Words of God, p. 13). Edward Hills suggested that "perhaps the best way" ["to handle this matter of obsolete words"] "is to place the modern equivalent in the margin" (KJV Defended, p. 218). Hills added: "This will serve to increase the vocabulary of the reader and avoid disturbance of the text" (Ibid.). Likewise, Peter Ruckman commented that "any 'archaic' words could be printed in the margin without disturbing the text" (Christian's Handbook, p. 180, footnote 13). Ruckman suggested that "the 'archaic words' could be listed in the margin and given the modern equivalents" (Alexandrian, Part One, p. 21). Laurence Vance asked and answered: "Does the AV contain archaic words? Certainly. Should we therefore replace it with something else? Certainly not" (Archaic Words, p. 390; see also King James, His Bible, pp. 147, 152). In his publication O Timothy, David Cloud commented: "Actually there are only a few antiquated words in the KJV, and these can be explained in the margin or in a small lexicon in the back of the Bible" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 1).

Is it in effect being claimed that the KJV translators should have left all archaic words that they found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles in the text of the 1611 and that the KJV translators sacrificed accuracy if they updated or changed any such words in the pre-1611 Bibles? Does a consistent application of the documented KJV-only claims above imply that the KJV translators were wrong to update any archaic words in the pre-1611 English Bibles? Did the KJV translators disturb the text of the English Bibles of their day [the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible] by updating or revising words in them?

 

[Tater77]

If you see the KJV for what it is and that is a translation then this is not an issue. The archaic words should be updated or at the very least definitions put in the margin by default. These exist, my mother in law have one, i think its called a "hard words defined edition" or something like that.

The old pronouns are fine if they cause you no trouble in reading and you understand their usage.

The words choices of the KJV should never be looked at as the default. Its a translation, a good one but nothing more. When you have a Hebrew or Greek verse that has no variant or nothing more than a few spelling variants then you have a faithful copy of the original and a translation should never take priority over that. Despite what KJVO literature tells you, the Bible mss agree far more than many think. Most differences are translational, not mss related.

 

[Keith M]

In their books, KJV-only authors have claimed that archiac words should be left in the text and that accuracy will be sacrificed if they are changed or updated. It is clear that the KJV translators did not follow the opinion of Samuel Gipp, who wrote that "we should leave the archaic word in the text" (Answer Book, p. 13). KJV-only author Timothy Morton also contended that the archaic words should be left in the text. Morton claimed: "If these [archaic] words are changed in the text then accuracy must be sacrificed, and this would be a terrible mistake" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 37). H. D. Williams asserted: "The few archaic words in the King James Bible do not require change" (Pure Words of God, p. 13). Edward Hills suggested that "perhaps the best way" ["to handle this matter of obsolete words"] "is to place the modern equivalent in the margin" (KJV Defended, p. 218). Hills added: "This will serve to increase the vocabulary of the reader and avoid disturbance of the text" (Ibid.). Likewise, Peter Ruckman commented that "any 'archaic' words could be printed in the margin without disturbing the text" (Christian's Handbook, p. 180, footnote 13). Ruckman suggested that "the 'archaic words' could be listed in the margin and given the modern equivalents" (Alexandrian, Part One, p. 21). Laurence Vance asked and answered: "Does the AV contain archaic words? Certainly. Should we therefore replace it with something else? Certainly not" (Archaic Words, p. 390; see also King James, His Bible, pp. 147, 152). In his publication O Timothy, David Cloud commented: "Actually there are only a few antiquated words in the KJV, and these can be explained in the margin or in a small lexicon in the back of the Bible" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 1).

Is it in effect being claimed that the KJV translators should have left all archaic words that they found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles in the text of the 1611 and that the KJV translators sacrificed accuracy if they updated or changed any such words in the pre-1611 Bibles? Does a consistent application of the documented KJV-only claims above imply that the KJV translators were wrong to update any archaic words in the pre-1611 English Bibles? Did the KJV translators disturb the text of the English Bibles of their day [the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible] by updating or revising words in them?

The various KJVs should be left just as they were published. God has graciously provided us with modern Bible translations that update the language of Scripture. Modern Bible translators take into account the growing and evolving English language so that the meaning of Scripture is kept just as it was written. If someone wants to use one of the KJVs that's fine by me - as long as that person doesn't abandon scriptural authority, become their own final authority and declare all other translations really aren't the word of God.

 

[Tater77]

Well yes , the current KJV's should be left alone. But a faithful updated language version couldn't hurt. At the very least market a KJV with the original and updated margin notes (like a good Cambridge print) and definition margin notes also.

 

[Baptist4life]

I don't mean to de-rail this thread, but does anyone else notice that EVERYTHING Logos1560 posts seems to be "cut and paste"?

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Is it in effect being claimed that the KJV translators should have left all archaic words that they found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles in the text of the 1611 and that the KJV translators sacrificed accuracy if they updated or changed any such words in the pre-1611 Bibles?

Archaic or not, I have not yet witnessed any evidence that indicates that the KJV translators were granted supreme knowledge to choose the only acceptable English words for our Bible.

Does a consistent application of the documented KJV-only claims above imply that the KJV translators were wrong to update any archaic words in the pre-1611 English Bibles?

Yes, and virtually all KJV-prefectionist claims are proven invalid when applied consistently to other TR-based, pre-1611 English Bibles.

Did the KJV translators disturb the text of the English Bibles of their day [the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible] by updating or revising words in them?

For example, notice that in Mark 9:45 the KJV retains the established word "halt" (also see Matthew 18:8, Luke 14:21, John 5:3) --

And yf thy foote offende thee, cut it of: It is better for thee to go halt into lyfe, then hauyng two feete, to be cast into hell, into fire that neuer shalbe queched: (Bishops')

Likewise, if thy foote cause thee to offend, cut it off: it is better for thee to go halt into life, then hauing two feete, to be cast into hell, into the fire that neuer shalbe quenched, (Geneva)

And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (KJV) ​

But seemingly without compunction the king's revisers changed "halt" to "lame" in Matthew 11:5 (and at least 4 other verses where both the Bishops' & Geneva had "halt"/"halting": Matthew 21:14; Luke 7:22; Acts 8:7; and Hebrews 12:13) --

The blinde receaue their sight, the halt do walke, the lepers are cleansed, and the deafe heare, the dead are raised vp, and the poore receaue the Gospell. (Bishops')

The blinde receiue sight, and the halt doe walke: the lepers are clensed, and the deafe heare, the dead are raised vp, and the poore receiue the Gospel. (Geneva)

The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. (KJV)​

BTW, in each verse the underlying Greek is the same word cholos (Strong's #5560). Today, "halt" in the sense of 'lame' or 'crippled' (from the Middle English word halten meaning 'to limp') is recognized as an archaic English term. The common verb "halt" used in our contemporary speech for 'stop' or 'pause' comes from a German origin (halten meaning 'to stop').

 

[Jerome]

Yes, an oh so passe word like halt has no place in today's Bible, only literary snob types like the readers of Field and Stream Online could be expected to know what it means.

fieldandstream.com...April 08, 2009 article...Wounded Cape Buffalo

 

[Logos1560]

The various KJVs should be left just as they were published.

Very few of the many different editions of the KJV have been left 100% the same as the edition in which they were first printed. Some editions of the 1611 edition have been printed the same in text although some of those editions have been printed in a different style type or font [Roman type rather than the original Gothic type]. The first American edition of the KJV printed in 1782 was once reprinted just as when it was first published. Some KJV editions were reprinted the same in sterotype editions for a good number of years. When a new edition was prepared, it would often have at least a few changes.

Many other editions of the KJV have had some changes of some type introduced when they were reprinted.

 

[Logos1560]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logos1560
Does a consistent application of the documented KJV-only claims above imply that the KJV translators were wrong to update any archaic words in the pre-1611 English Bibles?


Yes, and virtually all KJV-prefectionist claims are proven invalid when applied consistently to other TR-based, pre-1611 English Bibles.

The pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV itself provide valid evidence that shows that updating of archaic words is not wrong. The KJV translators did update a good number of words now considered archaic that were found in the pre-1611 English Bibles.

Several times the KJV updated the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible's rendering “betimes” (Gen. 19:2, 20:8, 22:3; Exod. 8:20, 9:13, 24:4; Josh. 7:16; 1 Sam. 1:19, 29:10, etc.) with “early.” Coverdale’s had “betimes” at least twenty times. The 1568 Bishops’ Bible used “betimes” or “betymes” several times (Gen. 20:8, 26:31, 2 Chron. 36:15, Job 8:5, 24:5, Ps. 5:3, 59:16, 143:8, Prov. 13:24, Isa. 50:4, 60:1, Jer. 7:13, 11:7, Eze. 24:18, Dan. 6:19, Zech. 10:1). By updating or revising, the KJV reduced the number of uses of “betimes” to five (Gen. 26:31, 2 Chron. 36:15, Job 8:5, 24:5, Prov. 13:24). The Geneva Bible has “betimes” at Psalm 101:8 where the KJV has “early” while the opposite is true for Job 8:5.

 

[Logos1560]

the king's revisers changed "halt" to "lame" in Matthew 11:5 (and at least 4 other verses where both the Bishops' & Geneva had "halt"/"halting": Matthew 21:14; Luke 7:22; Acts 8:7; and Hebrews 12:13) -

Yes, the KJV did update archaic uses of "halt" with "lame" at Matthew 11:5, 15:30, 15:31, 21:14, Luke 7:22, and Acts 3:2, 11 in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles. It also substituted "lame" at Acts 8:7 for "halted" and at Hebrews 12:13 for "halting."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

aye. It's nae Demesne.

 

[EdSutton]

Yes, an oh so passe word like halt has no place in today's Bible, only literary snob types like the readers of Field and Stream Online could be expected to know what it means.

fieldandstream.com...April 08, 2009 article...Wounded Cape Buffalo

I'm pretty sure that the sentry's cry of "Halt! Or I'll shoot!" didn't exactly mean "Limp! Or I'll Shoot!"

Ed

 

[franklinmonroe]

Yes, an oh so passe word like halt has no place in today's Bible, only literary snob types like the readers of Field and Stream Online could be expected to know what it means. ...

First, I am not personally responsible for establishing the 'archaic' status of English words; "halt" is so noted in several dictionaries. I am fairly confident that this is done by the literary community at large without specific prejudice towards the KJV text.

Second, the word "halt" is claimed to be 'archaic', not extinct. It is my belief (I make no attempt to support this as a fact at this time) that some 'archaic' words have been spared complete banishment from popular literature by their rare whimsical inclusion simply as a biblically reminiscent turn-of-phrase. No doubt "halt" (as 'lame') will appear in the Wall Street Journal sometime this year.

"Africa deals with the halt and the maimed in the form of lions and hyenas ..." (from website article)

Third, there is no certainty that the majority of Field & Stream readers actually could accurately define "halt" without the context. Remove this sentence from the story (about crippling poacher’s snares), delete the parallel words "and the maimed", and then see how many contemporary readers really know the archaic sense of "halt" as 'lame'.

"There is one thing more. I would like to think that somewhere in one of the nastier neighborhoods in hell there is a wire loop waiting for the foot of the poacher who snared her." (last line of online article)

 

[robycop3]

To answer the opening Q-If the words were not archaic when the KJV was made, they shoulda been left in, but, given as the KJV was the most modern English BV when it was made, it is only natural that it was in the most-current English of its time.

 

[franklinmonroe]

In their books, KJV-only authors have claimed that archiac words should be left in the text and that accuracy will be sacrificed if they are changed or updated. ...

The issue above is about words that have become 'archaic' since 1611; that is, words that are now obsolete. Some folks do not wish to have the text changed; I believe that this is what the authors below were addressing in those quotes --

... KJV-only author Timothy Morton also contended that the archaic words should be left in the text. Morton claimed: "If these [archaic] words are changed in the text then accuracy must be sacrificed, and this would be a terrible mistake" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 37). H. D. Williams asserted: "The few archaic words in the King James Bible do not require change" (Pure Words of God, p. 13). ...

But, this statement presents an argument that the KJV men set a precedent of specifically changing "archaic" words --

... It is clear that the KJV translators did not follow the opinion of Samuel Gipp, who wrote that "we should leave the archaic word in the text" (Answer Book, p. 13). ...

Certainly the KJV men changed the words from those used in previous English versions, but were any of those words already 'archaic' at that time? If so, which ones?

Ultimately, a willingness to change words was demonstrated by the KJV men and it doesn't matter to me if any of those words were currently (then) 'archaic' or not.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Certainly the KJV men changed the words from those used in previous English versions, but were any of those words already 'archaic' at that time? If so, which ones?

Ultimately, a willingness to change words was demonstrated by the KJV men and it doesn't matter to me if any of those words were currently (then) 'archaic' or not.

I think they did what ANY good translator should do- use the best contemporary- usage word that fits the definition and context.

 

[Logos1560]

Certainly the KJV men changed the words from those used in previous English versions, but were any of those words already 'archaic' at that time? If so, which ones?

Along with reducing the number of uses of several archaic words, 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. The KJV also removed or no longer used some words that would not be considered archaic today.

A list of words in the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'), 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), “almery“ (Deut. 28:17), “almuggim“ (1 Kings 10:11), “arb” (Lev. 11:22), “arede” (Mark 14:65), “assoyl” (Matt. 21:24), “atone“ (2 Cor. 5:20), “badge“ (Acts 28:11), “banketed“ (Job 1:4), “beer“ (Isa. 24:9), “beneficial“ (Acts 19:24), “beweep“ (Deut. 21:13), “boldened“ (1 Sam. 13:12), “brain pan“ (Jud. 9:53), “brawn“ (Ps. 119:70), “breakfast“ (Heb. 12:16), “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), “burgesship“ (Acts 22:28), “byss” (Gen. 41:42), “calamite” (Exod. 30:23), “carpets“ (Prov. 31:22), “carrion“ (Lev. 5:2), “cavillation” (Luke 19:8), “cavillations“ (Lev. 19:13), “chaft bones“ (Prov. 30:14), “chevisance” (Deut. 21:14), “childishness“ (1 Cor. 13:11), “childship“ (Rom. 9:4), “christened“ (1 Cor. 1:14), “clippers“ (1 Sam. 25:11), “colled“ (Isa. 15:2), “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), “cupboards“ (Isa. 39:2), “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), “emperor“ (Luke 20:25), “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), “falcon“ (Lev. 11:17), “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), “flittings“ (Ps. 56:8), “foreby“ (Lam. 1:12), “fore elders“ (Prov. 22:28), “fortuned” (2 Chron. 5:11), “fortunes“ (2 Kings 21:6), “fraudulent“ (Ps. 119:134), “frayles” or “frailes” (1 Sam. 25:18), “frumenty” (Lev. 23:14), “gabis“ (Job 28:18), “galaries“ (Ps. 73:4), “gaoler” (Acts 16:23), “gard“ (Exod. 28:8), “gardes“ (Deut. 22:12), “ghostly“ (Rom. 8:5), “gloriousness“ (1 Cor. 2:1), “gnew“ (Rev. 16:10), “goers“ (Mark 6:31), “gorgeousness“ (Isa. 3:18), “goshawk“ (Lev. 11:13), “grece” (Acts 21:35), “grennes“ (Ps. 140:5), “groveling“ (1 Sam. 17:49), “hagab” (Lev. 11:22), “handreaching“ (Acts 11:29), “hangman“ (Mark 6:27), “harborous” (1 Tim. 3:2), “harbourless” (Matt. 25:35), “hargol” (Lev. 11:22), “hawthorn“ (2 Chron. 25:18), “healthful“ (Tit. 2:11), “healthoffering“ (Lev. 4:26), “heavengazers” (Isa. 47:13), “hedgehog“ (Lev. 11:30), “hilchapels“ (Amos 7:9), “hoared“ (Josh. 9:4), “hucklebone“ (Gen. 32:25), “huswiferie“ (Prov. 31:18), “idiot“ (Job 5:2), “ignorancies“ (Heb. 9:7), “Iims“ (Jer. 50:39), “improve“ (2 Tim. 4:2), “indwellers“ (Isa. 18:3), “inquirance“ (Acts 10:17), “incontinently“ (Mark 5:13), “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” or “iakes” (2 Kings 10:27, Dan. 2:5, 3:29), “Jewship“ (Gal. 1:13), “knappeth“ (Ps. 46:9), “lamia“ (Isa. 34:14), “lamies“ (Lam. 4:3), “latten“ (Gen. 31:42), “lavatory“ (2 Chron. 4:10), “lay people“ (Acts 4:13), “lecture“ (Acts 13:15), “lever“ (1 Cor. 14:19), “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), “manginess“ (Deut. 28:27), “manslaughter“ (Hos. 4:2), “manward“ (Titus 3:4), “marshal“ (Gen. 41:12), “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) “misdoers“ (Isa. 53:12), “monstrous beasts“ (Isa. 34:14), “moon prophets” (Isa. 47:13), “mossell” (1 Cor. 9:9), “Muscatel“ (Isa. 27:1), “muzzling” (Deut. 32:2), “naughtipacks“ (Ps. 86:14), “nebb“ (Gen. 8:11), “neers“ (Isa. 34:6), “neverthelater“ (Lev. 7:24), “nigard“ (Isa. 32:6), “nigardness“ (Isa. 32:6), “nightcrow“ (Lev. 11:16), “nippers“ (Isa. 50:6), “obstinate“ (Jer. 5:23), “ohim“ (Isa. 13:21), “otemeel“ [oatmeal] (Prov. 27:22), “overbody“ (1 Sam. 23:9), “overhand“ (Hos. 4:2), “overscaped” (Lev. 19:10), “overskipped“ (Deut. 26:13), “overthwart” (Deut. 32:5), “overwinner“ (1 Sam. 15:29), “panier“ (Job 41:7), “parbreak” (Num. 11:20), “partlets“ (Acts 19:12), “patron“ (Acts 27:11), “pecks“ (Gen. 18:6), “penance“ (Matt. 3:8), “pensiveness“ (Ps. 77:3), “perceavaunce“ (Eph. 1:8), “perquellies” (2 Sam. 5:8), “pickt“ (2 Chron. 13:3), “pight“ (Heb. 8:2), “pill“ (2 Cor. 12:17), “pismire” (Prov. 6:6), “pitfall“ (Job 18:10), “plage” (Deut. 17:8), “pleck” (Lev. 13:4), “porphyry” (Est. 1:6), “possessioner“ (Micah 1:15), “prerogative“ (John 1:12), “puissant“ (Ps. 93:4), “pyght“ (Heb. 8:2), “quadrin“ (Mark 12:42), “querne” (Isa. 47:2), “quier” (1 Kings 6:5), “racked“ (Heb. 11:35), “rascal“ (Num. 11:4), “raynes“ (Rev. 19:8), “rebecks” (1 Sam. 18:6), “recreate“ (Ps. 94:19), “redebush” (Isa. 9:16), “redshanke“ (Deut. 14:16), “rickes“ (Jud. 15:5), “rigorousness“ (Rom. 11:22), “roomth“ (2 Sam. 22:20), “rowneth“ (Isa. 5:9), “rugagates” (Jud. 12:4), “rythe“ (Jer. 49:31), “sallets” (Jer. 46:4), “scrale” (Exod. 8:3), “seameaw“ (Lev. 11:16), “seditious“ (Ezra 4:12), “selaam“ (Lev. 11:22), “senator“ (Isa. 3:3), “sequester“ (Prov. 18:1), “sermon“ (Jer. 11:1), “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), “softness“ (Phil. 4:5), “soleam“ (Lev. 11:22), “solicit“ (Prov. 6:3), “spangles“ (Num. 31:50), “sparrowhawk“ (Deut. 14:15), “sparsed“ (2 Cor. 9:9), “springalds“ (Dan. 1:4), “stackered“ (Rom. 4:20), “stambered“ (Mark 7:32), “stellio“ (Lev. 11:30), “stuffed“ (1 Sam. 19:13), “succourless“ (Prov. 31:8), “Sunday“ (1 Cor. 16:2, Rev. 1:10), “taxus” (Exod. 25:4), “terebinths“ (Isa. 6:13), “term“ (Ezek. 22:4), “testimonial“ (Luke 21:13), “toad“ (Lev. 11:29), “toot-hill“ (Gen. 31:48), “transitory“ (Prov. 31:8), “treacle” (Jer. 8:22), “trowel“ (Amos 7:7), “tufts” (Lev. 19:27), “tushe“ (Job 39:25), “tyranny“ (Job 3:17), “tyrants“ (Job 6:23), “unexpert“ (Heb. 5:13), “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), “unquieted“ (1 Sam. 28:15), “unquietness“ (Acts 24:18), “unright“ (Gen. 16:5), “unshodhouse“ (Deut. 25:10), “unthrifts“ (1 Sam. 30:22), “unthrifty“ (Prov. 6:12), “untractable“ (Titus 1:6), “untruss” (Isa. 47:2), “untruth“ (Ps. 89:35), “uplandish“ (Jud. 5:11), “valiantness“ (Ps. 18:32), “voluptuousness“ (Titus 3:3), “wallfish“ (Isa. 27:1), “wastels“ (Lev. 24:5), “wealthiness“ (Job 21:13), “weaponed“ (Prov. 6:11), “weeding“ (1 Sam. 13:20), “wenest” (Acts 8:20), “whale fish” (Job 7:12), “wherethrough“ (Dan. 2:1), “Whitsuntide“ (1 Cor. 16:8), “whore keeper” (Deut. 23:17), “wiliness“ (Ps. 10:2), “winegardeners“ (2 Chron. 26:10), “withoutforth“ (1 Chron. 26:29), “witsafe“ (Ps. 119:29), “workmasters“ (Jer. 24:1), “worthies“ (1 Chron. 11:26), “wrutt“ (Ps. 80:13), “yonderward” (1 Sam. 20:37), and “zijm“ (Isa. 13:21).

A good number of the words in the above list were likely archaic or becoming archaic in the early 1600's which could be why the KJV translators did not use them.

 

[Harold Garvey]

In their books, KJV-only authors have claimed that archiac words should be left in the text and that accuracy will be sacrificed if they are changed or updated. It is clear that the KJV translators did not follow the opinion of Samuel Gipp, who wrote that "we should leave the archaic word in the text" (Answer Book, p. 13). KJV-only author Timothy Morton also contended that the archaic words should be left in the text. Morton claimed: "If these [archaic] words are changed in the text then accuracy must be sacrificed, and this would be a terrible mistake" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 37). H. D. Williams asserted: "The few archaic words in the King James Bible do not require change" (Pure Words of God, p. 13). Edward Hills suggested that "perhaps the best way" ["to handle this matter of obsolete words"] "is to place the modern equivalent in the margin" (KJV Defended, p. 218). Hills added: "This will serve to increase the vocabulary of the reader and avoid disturbance of the text" (Ibid.). Likewise, Peter Ruckman commented that "any 'archaic' words could be printed in the margin without disturbing the text" (Christian's Handbook, p. 180, footnote 13). Ruckman suggested that "the 'archaic words' could be listed in the margin and given the modern equivalents" (Alexandrian, Part One, p. 21). Laurence Vance asked and answered: "Does the AV contain archaic words? Certainly. Should we therefore replace it with something else? Certainly not" (Archaic Words, p. 390; see also King James, His Bible, pp. 147, 152). In his publication O Timothy, David Cloud commented: "Actually there are only a few antiquated words in the KJV, and these can be explained in the margin or in a small lexicon in the back of the Bible" (Issue 6, 1995, p. 1).

Is it in effect being claimed that the KJV translators should have left all archaic words that they found in one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles in the text of the 1611 and that the KJV translators sacrificed accuracy if they updated or changed any such words in the pre-1611 Bibles? Does a consistent application of the documented KJV-only claims above imply that the KJV translators were wrong to update any archaic words in the pre-1611 English Bibles? Did the KJV translators disturb the text of the English Bibles of their day [the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible] by updating or revising words in them?

I won't be participating in this forum much. My observations here show many are quite rude to the point of sarcasm and also being venomous.

I will give my view, if that is ok?

My studies of "archaic" words shows there are only facsimilies of them and not equivalents.

Many words used in the KJV have specific meanings which newer words do have the same meaning in most cases, but not in all cases. The newer words carry most of the meaning, but alter it sometimes and according to the culture of the person reading them may suggest something different than what the words truly mean.

I believe we should be "apt to teach". This means a full understanding of the words, being able to teach others also what the Bible is saying. This being apt would then require the understanding of what the older words say and how they reflected the meaning at that itme in history.

One word I see misapplied so often as if it is the "wrong word" is "unicorn". I too thought it was the wrong word until I researched it out and found that the newer meaning defines it as the mythical beast that is a horse with a twisted horn protruding from its forehead.

What was to my utter amazement was the "unicorn" was actually an ox found in that region, much like a rhino, and is today extinct.

I was fascinated to find out how wrong I was, and that the Bible was more accurate than I had previously understood!:thumbs:

 

[Harold Garvey]

[/SIZE]

I wanted to ask, was that "your" list or was it copied and pasted?

 

[Baptist4life]

I remarked before that MOST of Logos1560's posts seem to be "copy and paste". Welcome to the forum.