Is updating archaic words wrong?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Logos1560, May 11, 2005.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV-only author Timothy Morton claimed that archaic words should be left in the text. Morton claimed: "If these words [referring to 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). KJV-only author Samuel Gipp wrote that "we should leave the archaic word in the text" (ANSWER BOOK, p. 13).

    Did the KJV translators update any archaic words in the earlier English Bibles? Did the KJV translators sacrifice accuracy if they updated archaic words? Should all the archaic words of the earlier English Bibles have been left in the text?
     
  2. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    This path to salvation has not changed one
    letter in the past 1500+ years:

    Romans 10:9 (The Latin Vulgate:)
    quia si confitearis in ore tuo Dominum
    Iesum et in corde tuo credideris quod
    Deus illum excitavit ex mortuis salvus eris


    Does it bother you to know 280,000,000
    Americans cannot read it?

    [​IMG] Praise Iesum [​IMG]
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Let's see, Logos...I recall seeing "congregation" in the Tyndale's Bible changed to "church" in the AV, the reason being that Tyndale believed the "church" to be only those who'd taken the Holy Orders, while KJ 70 years later believed the Church to be whe whole congregation.

    And they certainly updated the sentence constructions. Here's John 3:16 from the 1539 Tyndale's Bible: "For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe."

    And from the AV 1611: "For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

    Spellings notwithstanding, quite a bit of wording and construction differences between versions only some 70 years apart.

    Are these differences wrong? NO. They reflect the English of their respective times of writing.
     
  4. Ben W

    Ben W
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2002
    Messages:
    8,868
    Likes Received:
    0
    If it is wrong to change "Archaic" words, then it follows that it is wrong to translate those words into other languages.
     
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Gail Riplinger wrote: "Only rarely does the KJV change an 'archaic' phrase, like the Bishops' 'forged cavillation' in Luke 19:3, to the easier 'false accusation,' or the Bishops' 'they wote not' to the KJV's 'they know not' in Luke 23:34" (IN AWE OF THY WORD, p. 136).

    Gail Riplinger also wrote: "This author's earlier book, THE LANGUAGE OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE, documents that the King James Bible has a built-in dictionary which defines all its words. The difficult ones are no exception" (p. 286).

    Does the KJV only "rarely" update archaic words or phrases in one or more of the earlier English Bibles? Does the KJV define all of its archaic words so that no dictionary is needed?
     
  6. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    My I ask?
    Is there a single English BV out there that one would never need an English dictionary for?

    This is for you guys who use all those variuous Modern BV's. I wouldn't know, but I would say that there ISN'T just because nobody knows what every single word means.

    Is it wrong to change alledged archaic words? I don't suppose it is wrong, per se, but why would you need to, especially in light of your answer to my question above?

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  7. mioque

    mioque
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    'Is there a single English BV out there that one would never need an English dictionary for?"
    "
    Good News for modern man?
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably not... but you would know when a dictionary was required since the usage of common words would be according to the current understanding of them.

    It can be problem to consult a dictionary frequently or to stumble over the phrasing of the KJV. One can know the definitions for all the words in a sentence and still not be able to discern them meaning if they can't follow the phrasing.

    But beyond having to use a dictionary or struggling with the grammar is the use of words that modern readers think they know. Some words that we commonly use to mean one thing today meant something else 400 years ago- ie. communicate, conversation, prevent,...

    People can also make mistakes in their understanding due to the way phrases are put together.

    I think the problems people are ignorant of are alot more to be concerned about than the occasions when they know that they don't know something.

    Another thing that I have witnessed is that people hear things like "If someone is spirit-filled then they can understand the KJV". Some carry it even further and say if someone is saved they should be able to understand the KJV. This leads some people to fear admitting that they don't understand it. So instead of admitting their ignorance, they do the best they can... which sometimes may mean that they misunderstand the meaning.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Jeremiah 30:3
    For, lo, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will bring again the captivity of my people Israel and Judah, saith the LORD:

    Many people reading this would believe God intends to make Israel captive again, when the REAL meaning is just the opposite, that God will END their captivity, which was then imposed upon them by Babylon. The KJV uses this opposite meaning of the same phrase here:

    Jeremiah 28:3
    Within two full years will I bring again into this place all the vessels of the LORD's house, that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from this place, and carried them to Babylon:

    While the meaning of each may have been perfectly clear to the British of 400 years ago, it may not be so apparent to the English reader of today. Nothing wrong with updating this phraseology.
     
  10. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good point. Words still in use but whose meaning today is very different from the meaning in the 1500's and in 1611 may be more of a problem than a difficult word whose accurate definition can be found in a common dictionary. Readers may assume that they know these words and their meaning without realizing that the word had a very different meaning as used in the KJV. The correct meaning of how some archaic words in the KJV are likely used may be only found in the big 20+ volume OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY. How many average readers of the KJV have the OED at their home?

    Is the common meaning of the following words the same as the way the word was used in the KJV:

    discover (Micah 1:6)
    turtle (Jer. 8:7)
    health (Ps. 42:11)
    rid (Ps. 144:7)
    hard (Acts 18:7)
    let (2 Thess. 2:7)
    prevent (1 Thess. 4:15)
    rank (Gen. 41:5)
    nephews (1 Tim. 5:4)
    carriages (Acts 21:15)
    leasing (Ps. 5:6)
     
  11. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    FYI; Logos1560,
    I could just as easily post a list of out of context words from the NIV that I doubt the average couldn't define either, even though they are commonly used words.

    I understand your point, but I don't believe it is as much of a problem as some would like for us to believe it is.

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  12. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jim,

    You are missing the point here. I think that you are looking at the issue from a bias point of view.

    The words in question are not out of context, the words in question are commonly used words and the meaning of those words has changed in 400 years. How is someone supposed to know that prevent as we know it is not the same prevent used in the KJV?

    Bringing the NIV into this does not address the issue of the KJV needed an update.

    Last September you and I had a PM discussion about the very same thing. You sent me those words from the NIV and ignored what I had pointed out about the words in the KJV that has changed meanings.

    It is an issue when words that have changed meanings change the context of the scriptures and does not correctly convey what God is telling us. This is yet another good example of why God’s Word is a living Word therefore it changes with the language in order to convey what God is saying accurately.

    For those who love the KJV there are some updated KJVs:

    NKJV
    KJ21
    TMB
    Etc…

    Is it not important that God’s word be understood and readable? Why should a person be forced to look up common words in order to discover the 1611 meanings? How many people would even suspect that the words have changed?

    This is a good example of why the KJV needs a simple update.
     
  13. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a question for you Scott J...could it be that they don't understand because they are not saved/Spirit-filled? Why exactly are we afraid to make such an observation/judgment when the Scriptures plainly teach that as truth? Last time I checked that is exactly one of the jobs of the Holy Spirit...to teach men all things.

    Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

    You see the problem is not the scripture, the problem is man yeilding to the Holy Spirit or even having the Holy Spirit. My question is simply...why are we so quick to run from this truth?

    Study is hard work (2 Tim. 2:15)...perhaps the hardest part is submitting to the great teacher...The Holy Spirit.

    Just my thoughts,
    Max
     
  14. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,428
    Likes Received:
    72
    What about those who do not speak/read English very well? What about those who do not speak English at all?

    Are they unsaved? Are they not filled with the Spirit?
     
  15. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    What about those who do not speak/read English very well? What about those who do not speak English at all?

    Are they unsaved? Are they not filled with the Spirit?
    </font>[/QUOTE]The topic of the thread is about a particular version in a particular language...I would argue the same logic for any language...this is not about language anyway, it is about the Holy Spirit job of teaching you truth from the Scriptures...no matter the language.

    Max
     
  16. David J

    David J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Messages:
    796
    Likes Received:
    0
    And could not the Holy Spirit lead someone to use a NIV, NKJV, NASB, KJ21, TMB, or ESV?

    The KJVO Spirit defense is a very weak defense at best.
     
  17. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just a question for you Scott J...could it be that they don't understand because they are not saved/Spirit-filled?</font>[/QUOTE] Not if the actual point of failure is language.
    Because the Scriptures do not teach that someone is in such a condition if their language skills do not render them capable of understanding a translation that is not written in the common vernacular of the day.

    The NT was originally given in the language commonly spoken among the people... lost and spiritually weak people could understand the words but not the concepts communicated by the words.

    If that applies even one whit to this discussion then we need to forgo ALL translations and pick up a Greek/Hebrew Bible... and look at it intently until we are miraculously receive the ability to read it.

    FTR, if you are talking about Jesus' promise of the Spirit, it more than likely refers to the Apostles who were the recipients of the founding doctrines of the church as well as the human vehicles for writing scripture ("all things").

    As mentioned above, this relates to Christ's authorization of the Apostles to establish the church and write the inspired NT.

    I agree if and when someone understands the language in which the Word is communicated in.
    We aren't running. You have attempted to misapply a scripture that says nothing about the KJV or even translations.

    The Holy Spirit inspired the Word in the common language of the people. That is the best way for it to be studied.
     
  18. av1611jim

    av1611jim
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Davidj;
    You are right. I did ignore this issue when you brought it up in our PM exchange. I apologize if that offended you. I did it intentionally because I see this as an issue that is really a non-issue.

    As Pastor Max has pointed outit is hopeless without the Holy Spirit. I say you could have the "scriptures" in second grade level English and folks still would not understand it. For this reason;
    1Co 2:6
    ¶ Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:
    1Co 2:7
    But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
    1Co 2:8
    Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
    1Co 2:9
    But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
    1Co 2:10
    But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
    1Co 2:11
    For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
    1Co 2:12
    Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
    1Co 2:13
    Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
    1Co 2:14
    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    You just cannot get around it. Without the Holy Spirit guiding your understanding, the Holy Scriptures are a closed book to you. Hence...modernism's arguments fall on deaf ears with this man. ;)

    I, personally, know many first, second, and third grade children who have no problems whatsoever with understanding the KJV. Of course that comes with a caveat. We give them Scriptures appropriate for their age. Like John 3:16, Rom. 10:13 and such like.

    We also have many "newbies" who may struggle at first, but they learn and grow in grace and have no real troubles with the KJV.

    I think there is way too much underestimating of the power of God here when we insist that Scripture needs updated every 25 years. (No mention of the fact we get a "new" Bible very 5-10 or even sooner.)

    Ye have not because ye ask not. And ye ask amiss that ye may consume it upon your lusts.

    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally...

    Lord!? Please help me to understand what you are telling me here in this passage of your Holy Scripture.

    How hard is that?

    In HIS service;
    Jim
     
  19. PASTOR MHG

    PASTOR MHG
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    297
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen and Amen Bro. Jim!

    The strange part of this for me is understanding the MV's philosophy of the "best way for it to be studied" is in the common language of the day...yet they are the very same people telling us to run back to the Greek and Hebrew.

    Scott, the point is taken as to the exact interpretation of the John 14 passage dealing directly with the disciples...but the passage Jim posted in 1 Corinthians certainly opens the same truth up to all of us. Nice try though!

    Max [​IMG]
     
  20. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    Both of these things are true. The Bible should be translated as accurately as possible into the current vernacular so that the average man does not have to struggle with the language to read and study. At the same time, God chose the original languages... He made them ultimately the primary source for determining a meaning- not translations.
     

Share This Page

Loading...