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.
A new King James Bible defense book
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Will J. Kinney, Mar 25, 2004.
Page 3 of 15
-
-
-
-
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.
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 -
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. :rolleyes: -
-
-
I am sure that they were striving to "agree" with the REVISION of the KJV that was still over a century from completion...
:rolleyes: -
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? :rolleyes: -
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. :D -
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.
-
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. -
WHO CARES? :rolleyes: 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!!!????!!!! -
Strange the KJVOs seem to ignore this version. -
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. -
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? -
-
-
-
Page 3 of 15