Vulgar

And Sal replied with the gracious retort of:"Most already know the period as the Elizabethan era.Quit playing stupid."

Well Sal,I have some news for you.You follow the 1769 Blayney Edition.The spelling,grammar,punctuation and typeface were standardized at that point -- not in 1611.So we're speaking of a time 158 years after the Anglican Version was made.Therefore,it certainly wasn't in the Elizabethan period.The era of standardization according to what you accept was when George the third was King of England.He reigned from 1760-1820.He was born in 1738,and died in 1820.

You called me a liar for pointing this out.But,despite your protestations "explicity" is still not a word.Perhaps you are confusing "explicit" or "explicitly" with the non-word "explicity".




[/quote]

 

Um, would this be a good place to note that the word "vulgar" is not found in the text of any of the 21 English versions to be found on Bible Gateway that predate 1970, aside from one instance in the AMP?

Just wonderin'.

G'nite, all. :sleeping_2:

Ed

 

Dr.Miles Smith wrote the Preface to the KJV.It's been said many times here and elsewhere that KJVO's would give up their Onlyism by reading and applying the merits of that Preface.

The word "vulgar" appeared almost 20 times in my scan of the Preface.

The following are some excerpts regarding some things of which the KJVO's should take note.

...they provided translations into the vulgar for their countymen.

...the meanest translation of the Bible in English ...is the word of God ... though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace,nor peradventure so fitly for phrase,nor so expressly for sense,everywhere.

No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word,or forbidden to be current,notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

...our translations,and our often correcting of them (if it to be counted a fault to correct)...

Erasmus' translation of the New Testament,so much different from the Vulgar...

Dr.Smith said that marginal readings are there so that one shouldn't "dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily."

Dr.Smith went on to say that the text is sometimes not clear.

...we can use liberty "in our English versions out of the Hebrew and Greek."

But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself,as in the language of Canaan,that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.

 

FTR, I am referring to the actual text of the 66 Books, not the prefaces, introduction, notes, etc. of the various versions.

Ed

 

I know.However,it's still a resource associated with the 1611.

 

You do not quote from the 1611.Therefore the era which you put greater emphasis upon with respect to the Bible revision you happen to prefer is more than a century and a half after the Anglican Version.The spelling,grammar,punctuation and typeface are what you yield to.

The fact remains that you called me a liar because I insisted that "explicity" is not a word.Your link did not even identify your unique neologism.You stand alone in many respects Sal.

Only in your mind Mr.Wannabe Webster.

 

They are one and the same penned by Dr.Miles Smith.If you fully understood the Preface you would drop your KJV stance like hot potato.

You don't make any sense here.Dr.Smith was humble when he wrote the Preface.But your phrase "to avoid the accusations of being pious" is strange.In the 17th century (when the 1611 came out) and the 18th century (when Paris and Blayney made their corrections) the word "pious" had no negative connotations.So how could he (not "they") want to avoid being pious?

[By the way,the Geneva Bible was quoted exclusively in his Preface.]

 

O boy!You are getting lost in your words.A revision means change.The KJV was revised numerous times.That means it was updated,improved,corrected.An alteration took place.

LOL.Have you become the new Grammar Cop on the block?I'll have you know that Ed Sutton has the corner on that market (at least on the BB).

So you regard the practice of stranding prepositions as breaking the rules of standard English.Do you realize that you do it often?Do you think the KJV has never left a preposition at the end of any sentence?If it is the case that the KJV has "dangling prepositions" would that convince you that the Anglican Version has mistakes in it?Further,wouldn't that cause you to abandon your KJVO stance?

Seriously,in naturally spoken and written English prepositions are found at the end of sentences quite often.If you tried to avoid it --you'd have even more problems.The converted sentences would be very awkward and ungrammatical.

Look at the following examples.

It's cold,so we should go in.
We have much to be thankful for.
What are you talking about?
Put this book where you got it from.
Who are you writing to?
What are you looking at?

Have you ever said the above in speech or in print form?If so,did you violate "the rule"?! How then should you be punished?

Face it.It's normal and correct English.It's been a part of our (both American and British)language for a long time.

You really need to be more selective as to the use of the word "liar"."Explicity" just isn't a word.You made a mistake and meant "explicitly".Oops,I just remembered you can't bear the thought of erring.Therefore,though it's in no known dictionary it must exist --Sal says so.

 

Sal,I know English is challenging for you.However,the word exclusively refers to only one thing.In Dr.Smith's Preface he quoted only from the Geneva Bible.Therefore,he did not also quote from the KJV.Kapish?

 

Rippon: // Look at the following examples.

It's cold,so we should go in.
...
What are you looking at?

Have you ever said the above in speech or in print form?If so,did you violate "the rule"?! How then should you be punished? //

I remember my English teachers telling me:
" Never ever use a preposition to end your sentence with! "