A new King James Bible defense book

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Baptist in Richmond:ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Early Modern English, as skanwmatos showed us, is quite similar to Contemporary English. Of course I am a Purist with respect to this beautiful language of ours; therefore, my opinion has an obvious bias!!!

But it's not C.E. We simply don't talk, write, or spell that way any more.

And people from New York don't talk, write, or spell exactly the same way as people from Los Angeles. What is "Contemporary English" for a person from Wisconsin may not be "Contemporary English" for a person from Alabama.

My point was, and still is, that KJV English is NOT closer to Old English than the currently used Late Modern English of the 21st century.

 

[TC]

Originally posted by Askjo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TC:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I have and use and love the KJV (multiples copies even - including the AV1611 facimile copy). I also have and use other English translations - both older and newer than the KJV. You implied that I didn't fear God because I didn't want this guy's book (which is what this thread is about) about KJVOnlyism. I said that this guy's book is not a must have for me - not that the KJV is not a must have for me.

Get an accurate translation! Because it is better than any corrupted translations. </font>[/QUOTE]Can you read? I said I have multiple revisions of the KJV including the original. I also have the Geneva Bible and Tydale's 1535 NT. What is not accurate about those?

 

[Askjo]

Originally posted by TC:
Can you read? I said I have multiple revisions of the KJV including the original. I also have the Geneva Bible and Tydale's 1535 NT. What is not accurate about those?

I have 1525, 1537 and 1557 NT. They mostly agreed with the KJV. Should I complain about the accuracy? Why you?

 

[HankD]

Not to derail this thread or anything, but the KJV is not written in old English or even middle English. It is written in what is referred to as early modern English.

It is Elizabethan-Jacobean period English which is NOT spoken today in any English speaking country apart from Shakespearean plays.

Try this sentence on a waitress the next time you go to restaurant:

Peradventure , I, having found grace in thine eyes, wouldst thou bringest to me a vessel of coffee and a morsel of apple daintie.

See what kind of response you get.

the original language of the NT was "koine" or a common Greek which the average person with a limited education and vocabulary could learn quickly and be conversant.

If the Koinê is an outgrowth of Classical Greek, what are the differences between the two? Robertson states the basic differences succinctly. Koinê was more practical than academic, putting the stress on clarity rather than eloquence. Its grammar was simplified, exceptions were decreased and generalized, inflections were dropped or harmonized, and sentence-construction made easier. Koinê was the language of life and not of books.

Online at http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~jtreat/koine/classical.html

The same problem is arising with the KJV and the modern generation being distanced from the Word of God as happened in the past to the KJVO rival error the Latin Vulgate Only heresy.

As Italians became distanced in language from 4-5th century latin, eventually, the Word of God was made inaccessible to them by the Church of Rome.

Elizabethan-Jacobean period English is no longer the "language of life" of 21st century America, Canada, Australia, England, etc.

HankD

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Refreshed:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TC:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Refreshed:
Phillip,

Not to derail this thread or anything, but the KJV is not written in old English or even middle English. It is written in what is referred to as early modern English.

Jason

Technically, yes. But it is closer to the old English than the modern English we speak today. </font>[/QUOTE]That is untrue. We must be careful about how far we go in arguing our position, one way or the other. In an attempt to add credence to their position (like it needs any additional credence), MVers, which some would consider me to be, like to use the argument that the language of the KJV is outdated, which is a demonstrable falsehood, as is your statement that the language of the KJV is closer to old English than modern English. It IS modern English and very few of the words, not the language itself have passed from common use.

Jason </font>[/QUOTE]First, you need to define, are we discussing the 1611 translation or the 1769 version or those in between. Today the internation English language is considered "English Business Language". The language we speak is still far removed from that spoke in the 1700's. Yes, technically, many words may still retain their meaning today, but your average person does not understand the real meaning because most words have taken on more modern meanings. Dr. Bob supplied a good list of words (somewhere on this site) that most college students do not even recognize. (Or recognize in the old translator's meaning.)

When I say old English, I am not referring to it as a scholar might. I am providing this for a group of average people to understand and when I say "old English"---well, yes, it is "old English", maybe not by a scholars name since there IS OLDER English, but to us, it IS "OLD ENGLISH".

And yes, I will say that many people today have great difficulty even understanding the scriptures using the KJV. This is the reason we do need newer translations and will in the future as our language continues to evolve.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
My point was, and still is, that KJV English is NOT closer to Old English than the currently used Late Modern English of the 21st century.

You are correct, skanwmatos.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by tinytim:
" The RT is "guided
by usage of believing churches,"

What, when was the RCC church considered a believing church by a KJVO?


I would be interested in having one, just to know what the KJVO crowd will be debating next year.

BTW a good book -- Robert Joyner's "King James Only"!!!

I think it would be a waste of money. Somehow, I think you would be getting the SAME OLE' THANG, maybe in a new wrapper.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Askjo:
I have 1525, 1537 and 1557 NT. They mostly agreed with the KJV. Should I complain about the accuracy? Why you?

Alas, you are giving us a glimpse into your thought process. Interesting that they "mostly agreed with the KJV" when they predate the 1769 Revision you extol.

I am sure that they were striving to "agree" with the REVISION of the KJV that was still over a century from completion...

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TC:
Technically, yes. But it is closer to the old English than the modern English we speak today.

Let's test that assertion.

1. John 3:16 in Old English: "God lufode middan-eard swa', daet he sealde his 'an-cennedan sunu, daet nan ne forweorde de on hine gelyfp, ac haebbe dact 'ece lif."

2. John 3:16 from the 1611 "For God so loued y(e) world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life."

3. John 3:16 in Contemporary Modern English NKJV "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

After carefully reading the above which two do you think are closest? 1 and 2 or 2 and 3? The answer seems pretty obvious to me that 2 and 3 are nearly identical, but 1 is so strange it is largely unreadable to the early 21st century reader.

In my opinion your thesis is proven to be false. </font>[/QUOTE]Again, you are looking from an "Ivory Tower" view of the subject. The bottom line is that the KJV is written in an era when a version of English that is "old" compared to what we use today, was used. PERIOD. You can get as technical as you want and Yes I know there are much older versions of English, as proven by your point, but STILL the KJV is written in what a modern American on the street would call "Old English" 'cause it ain't NEW! Get It?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by robycop3:
Baptist in Richmond:ABSOLUTELY NOT!
Early Modern English, as skanwmatos showed us, is quite similar to Contemporary English. Of course I am a Purist with respect to this beautiful language of ours; therefore, my opinion has an obvious bias!!!

But it's not C.E. We simply don't talk, write, or spell that way any more.

And people from New York don't talk, write, or spell exactly the same way as people from Los Angeles. What is "Contemporary English" for a person from Wisconsin may not be "Contemporary English" for a person from Alabama.

My point was, and still is, that KJV English is NOT closer to Old English than the currently used Late Modern English of the 21st century. </font>[/QUOTE]This is actually a quite useless conversation skanwmatos for three reasons:

1) This is not the threads actual subject matter and you have made your point and I don't think anybody will disagree that TRUE and LITERAL olde English is not in the 1611. Okay, no problem. The English of 1611 AND 1769 is STILL "OLD". At least 200 years or more.

2) I don't care what you say, the bottom line is that the English of the KJV is "OLD" as in it is NOT MODERN and whether or not we cannot define what contemporary English is due to the different dialects is a moot issue in regards to your argument.

3) Who cares if the KJV is closer to the CE than the OE. It is STILL "Old". If you are 200 years old, then for you it may not be old, but my bet is, that you are not that old and thou didst not learn the 1700 English when thou wert a child.

 

[skanwmatos]

Fine. Have it your way. Wallow in your own ignorance. The fact remains that the KJV is in Modern English and bears virtually no resemblance to Old English as the quote of John 3:16 clearly proves.

 

[Phillip]

You know folks. I keep asking this question and I keep getting "novels" or "completely ignored responses" for answers. This IS related to this thread because this is what the book is about.

1. KJVO folks, WHICH Version of the KJV is the Inspired Word of God...Inerrant.....The 1611, the 1769 version or one in between (Please fill in the year _______). Revisions have been made, which contains the inerrant word?

2. KJVO folks, Where do you come up with the idea that the KJV HAS to be the ONLY Word of God in English? Where in the BIBLE (which you may certainly use any version of your KJV that you wish) do you get "The KJV Version will be the Inerrant Word of God in English and of every other English translation in existence."

If I could get REAL answers to these, then I might consider your position. My Mind can change, but I suspect, there may NOT be REAL answers to these questions. Therefore, the bottom line (lacking the real answers -- not yet forthcoming) is that KJVOism is simply tradition originating at some point AFTER the 1800's. (We have discussed the history, I'm just making a point.)

Finally, Bro. Kinney, I must say that I do respect your answer that a person can be saved, but they are inferior Bibles (the MVs). I appreciate your candor and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree that point.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Fine. Have it your way. Wallow in your own ignorance. The fact remains that the KJV is in Modern English and bears virtually no resemblance to Old English as the quote of John 3:16 clearly proves.

I am not going to stoop to attacking you personally based on your education, or background, but my point is, was and still remains:

WHO CARES? It is non-issue on this point.

Like I said above okay, okay, it is closer to modern than old, but it ain't modern. I agree with you, read my lips, we are NOT discussing the definitions of English here, we have gone past that (I thought.) Whew!!!????!!!!

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Phillip:
You know folks. I keep asking this question and I keep getting "novels" or "completely ignored responses" for answers. This IS related to this thread because this is what the book is about.

1. KJVO folks, WHICH Version of the KJV is the Inspired Word of God...Inerrant.....The 1611, the 1769 version or one in between (Please fill in the year _______). Revisions have been made, which contains the inerrant word?

You know i'm not KJVO, but I feel the true KJV is the 1873 version. It contains all of the marginal notes of the 1611. And is truer to the TR (so far to what i've seen) than the 1611.

Strange the KJVOs seem to ignore this version.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Fine. Have it your way. Wallow in your own ignorance. The fact remains that the KJV is in Modern English and bears virtually no resemblance to Old English as the quote of John 3:16 clearly proves.

Who have you led to Christ recently using that KJV?
Where I live those kinds of issues are a non-issue. There are so many who need to hear the gospel and don't go to church that those other issues are virtualy non-existent. Finally a local KJVO and KJV perference church got a pastor that believes evangelism is a personal responsibility. But the old KJVO die-hards are not so sure they like that pastor. He dumps their reponsibility in their own lap. But the church still sits on its holy hill being mentioned by those who pass by. They have their nice building to hold the dead until they finally die. Their brand of translation is more important to them than those dying without Jesus.

They really do love their KJV translation. But the people in town that is questionable.

 

[robycop3]

Skanwmatos:And people from New York don't talk, write, or spell exactly the same way as people from Los Angeles. What is "Contemporary English" for a person from Wisconsin may not be "Contemporary English" for a person from Alabama.

My point was, and still is, that KJV English is NOT closer to Old English than the currently used Late Modern English of the 21st century.

Time for a reality check. No one in either NY or LA carry on everyday conversations in the Elizabethan English of the late 1500s-early 1600s. Label it modern English till you run outta Post-Its, but it's still archaic.

That's why I mention the Model-T. Ask any auto enthusiast whether or not the Model-T is a modern car or not & they'll say, "Yes, it is". It has all the basic features of a contemporary car except an electric starter. But ask anyone who's ever driven a Model-T any distance whether it's easier to drive than a late model. Same with the KJV. It's a "Model-T Bible", perfectly legit, but somewhat harder for many English readers to understand. Why struggle with archaic English when we have Bibles in OUR English?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Time for a reality check. No one in either NY or LA carry on everyday conversations in the Elizabethan English of the late 1500s-early 1600s.

Once again you seem to have missed the point. Just because New Yorkers and Los Angelenos talk quite differently does not mean one of the other of them is not speaking Modern English.

Label it modern English till you run outta Post-Its, but it's still archaic.

No, Old English is archaic. Some of Middle English is archaic. Modern English is Modern English. There are subgroups of Modern English: Early Modern English, Late Modern English, and others, but they are all still Modern English. All you have to do is check any competent English Textbook to discover this deep unsearchable truth.

Why struggle with archaic English when we have Bibles in OUR English?

I don't struggle with it and it is in MY English, Modern English. I suggest you read "Spreading the Word: Language and Dialect in America," by John McWhorter (associate professor of linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley). It will clear up your misconceptions regarding what you call "OUR English." He says in the introduction,

"The idea that there is one 'best' English shining in the sky is so intuitively plausible, and so relentlessly hammered into us throughout our lives, that it is natural for teachers to consider part of their jobs to be upholding standard English. . . . However, we are misled in thinking of varieties of English other than the standard as 'wrong.' . . . We will see in this book that other kinds of English are not bastardizations of standard English but variations upon the basic plan of English, of which the standard is but one" (p. ix).

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Phillip:
WHO CARES? It is non-issue on this point.

If it is such a "non-issue" why did you bring it up?

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by tinytim:
You know i'm not KJVO, but I feel the true KJV is the 1873 version. It contains all of the marginal notes of the 1611. And is truer to the TR (so far to what i've seen) than the 1611.

Actually the 1873 edition of Scrivener restored many of the 1611 readings which have been changed in later editions, most notably the 1762 and 1769 revisions. So, it read MORE like the 1611 than any other edition.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Who have you led to Christ recently using that KJV?

I don't keep score or carve notches in my bible, but I use the KJV in all of my preaching and personal work. Several people have been drawn to Christ via that preaching and personal work in the past couple of weeks.

Where I live those kinds of issues are a non-issue. There are so many who need to hear the gospel and don't go to church that those other issues are virtualy non-existent. Finally a local KJVO and KJV perference church got a pastor that believes evangelism is a personal responsibility. But the old KJVO die-hards are not so sure they like that pastor. He dumps their reponsibility in their own lap. But the church still sits on its holy hill being mentioned by those who pass by. They have their nice building to hold the dead until they finally die. Their brand of translation is more important to them than those dying without Jesus.

What is your point?

They really do love their KJV translation. But the people in town that is questionable.

And what does this have to do with me and my statement you quoted to launch into this rant? Or is it just ad hominem? "I know a KJV church and they don't love souls." Something like that? Can't the KJVOs on the forum say, "I know a MV church and they don't love souls." Isn't that a not only subjective argument, but a spurious one as well?