Bill Fortenberry, who is a KJV defender with views similar to yours, would claim to be an authority on English. Bill Fortenberry claims to have read 10,000 books in English. Are you claiming to be a self-appointed authority on the English language with more knowledge than these three people?
Bill Fortenberry wrote: “The next period of the English language extending from 1450 to 1690 is known as Early Modern English” (
False Friends and True Enemies, p. 239;
Stewardship Requires Fidelity: A Biblical Case for the King James Version, p. 41).
April Mahon, who is Forbes Professor of English language, referred to “Early modern English (a convenient if slightly amorphous term which covers at least 1500-1700)” (Mugglestone,
Oxford History of English, p. 180).
David Crystal, who has been referred to as "the world's greatest authority on the English language," maintained that Early Modern English is “usually taken to begin around the time of the arrival of printing in Britain (1476) and to end around the lifetime of Dr. Johnson (died 1784)” (
Making Sense, p. 180).
The English in the pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV is Early Modern English, not Modern English.
David Crystal noted: “The King James Bible looks backward in its grammar, and preserves many of the forms and constructions which were falling out of use elsewhere” (
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, p. 65). David Crystal maintained that the KJV translators “often opted for older forms of the language, when modern alternatives were available” (
Ibid.). David Crystal wrote: “The
-eth [ending] was already dying out in Shakespeare’s day, and a century later wouldn’t be seen at all, other than in writers being deliberately archaic – or, as with
the taxman cometh, being jocular” (
Making Sense, p. 181). David Crystal wrote: “The third person singular of the present tense of verbs is always –(
e)
th. In other texts of the period, it is being replaced by -
s” (
Cambridge Encyclopedia, p 65). Concerning the KJV, David Crystal pointed out: “In particular, the modern use of
do with negatives and in questions is missing: we find
they knew him not instead of
they did not know him. By contrast, both old and new constructions are used in Shakespeare, and the
do construction became standard by about 1700” (
Ibid.).
Cannot the word of God be preserved in present-day Modern English in the same sense that the word of God can be preserved in Early Modern English?
Do you in effect deny that God preserves His Word in present-day Modern English in the NKJV just as well as God preserves His word in 1500's English [Early Modern English or Elizabethton English] in the KJV?
