King James Problem Words

Too me the "archaic words" view is one of the weakest arguments against the KJV

Now the archaic grammar is a different story

 

The use of a dictionary to aid in understanding the words in the KJV or another translation has not been objected to.

There are some words used in the KJV that are not listed in the common one-volume English dictionaries that most people would have. There are also some words that are listed in those one-volume English dictionaries that do not have a definition listed for the sense or way that the word is used in the KJV.

 

I am saying that once one considers what is being said, no other understanding could be reached.

It is something we find in the English when comparing thought to thought.

A quick dog must be alive and living.

The KJB offers a clearer rendering than the Bishop's in that no one ever held a race between a living dog and a dead lion.

Please don't misrepresnt what I said in this fashion, although I don't think it was your motive.

I don't think the KJB translators "updated" anything, just they made the word of God perfectly clear to prevent any misunderstanding when context, definition, and reality are incorporated.

 

I have the grrrrrrrrreatest appreciation of the prose and eloquent form of what you're referring to as "archaic".


Tony the Tiger would be proud of me!:laugh:

 

Clear evidence that readers who have read the KJV for many years and who are supposed to be experts in the meaning of words in the KJV still misunderstand or read wrong meanings into some words in the KJV can be found in books written by KJV-only authors.

Some KJV-only authors read a different meaning or a current definition into the KJV’s uses of “replenish” in spite of the available evidence that "replenish" was used in the KJV with the same meaning as "fill."
For example, in his commentary on Genesis, Peter Ruckman claimed that “replenish indicates some kind of a previous population” (p. 44). KJV-only author Len Smith asserted that “replenish means to refill or to fill again and implies that something was there before” (Age of Reason, D4, p. 1).

Some KJV-only authors read a wrong meaning into the KJV's use of "Easter."

Here is some more evidence that shows that KJV-only authors have given different meanings for the same words in the KJV. KJV-only author David Cloud defined “coney” as “a rabbit” (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 90; Concise KJB Dictionary, p. 20). The 2003 New Pilgrim Bible with KJV-only consulting editors Jerry Rockwell and Douglas Stauffer has this note for Leviticus 11:5: “coney--a rabbit” (p. 169). On the other hand, Waite’s Defined KJB gave this definition: “small, rabbit-like nocturnal animal that lives in rock holes; perhaps hyraxes” (p. 899). The Trinitarian Bible Society’s Bible Word List and “a Bible Word List” in the back of the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV explained or defined “coney” as a “hyrax, rock-badger.” This same Bible Word list that was recommended by David Cloud “to help people understand the KJV” conflicts with Cloud’s definition (Faith, p. 602). Steven White defined “coney” as “an adult rabbit, or rabbit-like animal” (White’s Dictionary, I, p. 261). Can the word coney in the KJV be used to mean “rabbit” and “not a rabbit” at the same time? In another example, Waite’s Defined KJB has one definition for target at 1 Samuel 17:6 [“a small shield” (p. 423)] while David Cloud’s Way of Life Encyclopedia gave a different definition [“small spear; javelin” (p. 432)]. White’s Dictionary of the King James Language defined bravery at Isaiah 3:18 as “the condition of possessing the qualities of bold courage” (p. 185). On the other hand, David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary has a different definition: “beauty” (p. 14). Flagon at a specific verse (2 Samuel 6:19) is defined both as “a cake of grapes” (Concise KJB Dictionary, p. 36) or “raisin-cake” (Waite’s Defined KJB, p. 456) and as “bottle holding liquid; flask” (Daniels’ KJB Companion).

 

That is why I suggest to have a comprehensive understanding of any word to incorprate an exhaustive dictionary. Failing to do so exemplifies ignorance and usually offers a misrepresentation in mmay cases, except where the simplistic understanding is approached.

Then we find we are limiting one's intelligence and not promoting education.

I firmly believe we are to be expositional to make sure any understanding is approached. For some this is too much info for the mind to consider, but it certainly makes sure all bases are covered.

When offered more info than previously understood, the educational process has become active!:wavey:

 

That can be said about any man using any version.

Men are not infallible, while God's word remains Infallible.

 

Have you compared the language of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision to the language of the 1611 KJV to see whether or not they updated any of it?


Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs maintained that the KJV translators “revised words that were passing out of use, and they availed themselves of words which had recently come into use” (Coming of the KJ Gospels, p. 48).

 

Due to experience, what you seem to be asking results in a "slippery slope" when you use the term "update". I'll stick with the better and more realistic approach in clarity over that.

I say this due to the fact that the KJB doesn't limit itself with the problems associated with dialect as the previous English version did, if that is what you want to be understood as saying "update" then I agree.

 

As usual you don't have a clue what I am talking about

 

Ed

 

2Cor 1:12 For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward.

Phil 3:20 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ

 

Merriam-Webster is not a hard dictionary to use - look at its first defintion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conversation

 

I apologise, Tim; I should have added: "Even so, I completely agree that there are only two possibilities - to be in Christ, or to be outside Christ, or to put it another way, to be with Christ, or to be without Him." In other words, I completely agree, Tim.

It seems to me that the English word "without" was used in the AV/KJV to translate two (at least) different Greek words, one meaning "outside of" (as in "without the camp"), the other meaning "lacking" (as when Jesus snt the disciples out "without purse, and scrip, and shoes")

 

If it is that easy why not read Old English all of the time?

The fact is that the more a person has to look up word the less likely they are to read it.

I have yet to hear a KJVO person ever use archaic language when they speak to people on the street and in the church. When the NT was written, it was written in everyday language.

Just imagine the preacher at your church telling the congregation that he was gay.

That ought to tell you the impact of words which have changed meaning.

 

Yerp! It has "obsolete" before the actual definition.

 

I agree with you 100% Logos1560. In addition, knowing the actual meaning of the words is only half of the issue, the other is use of grammar and syntax. So not only do the MVs replace archaic words, they sometimes re-arrange word order to conform to modern usage and understanding.

My theory is, that many (no all) KJVO only think they know how to actually fully understand the translation. I have said it before on this forum, I would like to take some of the KJVO proponents and give them obscure verses to explain the meaning without commentary or dictionary or sermon notes and see how well they do.

Tom

 

Maybe you shouldn't be so vague?

I understand that you think the language of the 1611 is archaic. But I find it to be precise, so I suppose I should adopt the new thinking that preciseness is archaic by today's standards?