Damnation?

þ This is a 'thorn', which is the modern 'th'.

ð this an 'eth' which is also pronounced as 'th'.

HankD

 

I think I found righteousness - "rihtwisena"?
Thats one word?

 

Here it is:

Luke 1:15

BTW the first one I posted was Psalm 1.

old English circa 1000AD:

Luke 1:15
Soðlice he byð mære beforan drihtne and he ne drincð win ne beor:
and he byð gefylled on haligum gaste. þonne gyt of hys modor innoðe:

Middle English circa 1300

Luke 1:15
soþli he shal be gret biforn þe lord, & he shal not drinke wyn & cyþir, & he shal be fulfild wiþ þe holi gost ÿit of hys moder wombe.

1611 Luke 1:15
For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.


What's the point? michelle accused me of perpetrating a lie by saying the following:

This is simply not so, several of the early and middle English words did not carry over into the later periods i.e (Soðlice, soþli, for) but were replaced. The grammar and syntax changed evidenced by the fact that:
The old English Luke 1:15 passage contains 26 words.
The Middle English Luke 1:15 passage contains 30 words.
The 1611 Luke 1:15 contains 33 words.

Letters of the Old and Middle English alphabet were dropped in the modern alphabet.

I am not perpetrating a lie. The English language has changed and will continue to change as it is a dynamic language.

Now of course one could in KJVO fashion change the definition of “change” in order to be right no matter what the cost.

HankD

 

3] Him byð swa þam treowe þe byð aplantod neah wætera rynum,
Þæt sylð his wæstmas to rihtre tide, and his leaf and his blæda ne fealwiað, ne ne seariað, swa byð þam men þe we ær ymbspræcon; eall him cymð to gode þæt þæt he deð.

the Psalm 1 clue

correct, although the KJV translates unrihtwisan - unrighteousness as ungodly

HankD

 

þ This is a 'thorn', which is the modern 'th'.

ð this an 'eth' which is also pronounced as 'th'.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]Thank you Brother HankD.

I notice when studying the KJV1611 compared
to the KJV1769 that other letter changes
also were taking place.

1. The vowel part of "I" remained an "I"
while the constant part became a "J".
That way King Iames became King James.

2. I always wondered why the symbol
"w" was called the DOUBLE "U" -- that
symbol sure looks like a DOUBLE "V".
Seems about 1611, surely before 1769
that the "U" and "V" traded places.
So sure enough, the "w", the
DOUBLE "U" really used to be a DOUBLE "V".

But hey, when you know that English
never changes and you don't have to
remember the changes -- when you know
then you REALLY know that you know.
So we can't let a few alphabet changes
get us all doubty and pouty, eh?

 

Thw "w" is still the same sound in Welsh "oo".

I don't know, but I would guess a Welsh speaker would do a good job with the Old English.

Neat posts - thanks Hank!

 

Actually Ed, it is one of the pleasures of my life to see the prescious Word of God translated into different languages.

Yur welcome C4K

HankD

 

Several places on this board
you can find my explanation of how the
term "Fundamentalist" went from describing
a Christian movement member, which movement
stressed a literal interpertion of The Bible.
That was largely true from the 1920s through
the 1970s.
In the 1980s, "Fundamentalist" mean a member of any
religion that stressed a literal
interperation of the basic text of
their relition.
In the 1990s, "Fundamentalist" meant "bigot".

That is a fairly dramatic turn of events
in a mere 20 years -- "Fundamentalist" went
from being a proud Christian movement
to represent a dispicable epithat with
which to label someone.

 

Hank,

do you understand this and the English words and meanings of this today? Or is this a foreign language to you?:


Psalms 1

1. Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
2. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
3. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
4. The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
5. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
6. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.


or this:


Luke 1

1. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
2. Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
3. It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
4. That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
5. There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
6. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
7. And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years.
8. And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest's office before God in the order of his course,
9. According to the custom of the priest's office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.
10. And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense.
11. And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.
12. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him.
13. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.
14. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth.
15. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.


Would you like me to give the definitions of those words for you? Are these words spelled differently? Please tell me Hank, how this, is not our language today?


You are perpetrating a lie to justify your compromise with error at the expense of the truth.


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

When all else fails, sidestep the issue at hand (the dynamic of the English language) try to make others look foolish, followed by a personal attack and an accusation.

BTW here are some of your own words to Brother Ed

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
When all else fails, sidestep the issue at hand (the dynamic of the English language) try to make others look foolish, followed by a personal attack and an accusation.

--------------------------------------------------

No, the accusation is that the KJB is difficult to understand today because our language has changed so much from then (1600 - 1769). And the examples you gave to show this are not the same as you all are claiming it is: trying to show it is the same of the KJB to our language today. You have not shown this. You have shown the Old English is not understandable to us today, but you have NOT SHOWN that the KJB of today, or then is not understandable today, nor has it changed because of the dynamics of our language. The only thing you have shown is that it CAN change, but the FACT of this issue is that it has NOT CHANGED.


Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Obviously you are still
straitened in your own bowels. By contrast
Brother HankD has been refreshed in his
bowels.

 

OK, but this is another issue. Please show me in this thread where I said the King James is so difficult to understand because of the changes from (1611-1769).

Yes the KJV is becoming more difficult for the 21st century person to understand.
God first gave the NT message in koine Greek, a common language easily understood by the average person. Even if Ruckman is right about a “universal language” Elzabethan-Jacobean English is not 21st century English. Now I can give examples (bowels, parbar, anon, prevent) but all you will say is that you understand it and for that matter,so would I, because you and I have been cloistered in our churches to understand it, but not the common man on the street (unless of course you don’t think the common man should hear the Gospel preached).

But I’m still not going to let you get away with calumniating me, not because I care so much for my own vindication but to reveal something about you to yourself.

Some one said :

You responded

While I agree that many people do have problems with the English language, I didn’t address that part of the issue, I addressed the denial on your part that "the English language isn’t changing".

Ed made a blanket statement without limitations or a time frame reference “the English language changes”, you returned in like kind “The language isn’t changing”.

I proved he was right and then you switched over to the issue I hadn’t addressed.

Naughty girl!


HankD

 

Does my understanding of this verse made
sense to you? Is it the best understanding?

Revelation 6:6 (KJV1769):
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say,
A measure of wheat for a penny,
and three measures of barley for a penny;
and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

This is what the warning about the 3rd horse said:
A days wages for a days food for the family or
a days food for your livestock -- forget
anything fancy like oil or wine.

This then is a picture of the pale horse: Famine.

 

You're "whistling up the wind" Ed.

Either you won't get an answer or you'll get an accusation.

After all, when could you buy a measure of wheat for a penny?

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
Ed made a blanket statement without limitations or a time frame reference “the English language changes”, you returned in like kind “The language isn’t changing”.
--------------------------------------------------

Hank

Do you understand the word "isn't"? This you have not proved. I never said "hasn't", nor "can't", but used present tense "isn't".


love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Revelation 6:6 (KJV1769):
And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say,
A measure of wheat for a penny,
and three measures of barley for a penny;
and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.

Alternate reading likely for today's reader:

During the reign of the Antichrist, food
will be dirt cheap (a day's food /wheat/
for $0.01) -- so cheap that people will
have to worry about overeating ("oil and the wine").
This then is a picture of the pale horse bringing gluttony.

Yes, due to inflation, the reading of this
verse since 1611 has changed. In 1611 a penny was
a day's wages. In 2004 if you don't make $42.00 you
are working for less than minimum wage.

 

By this then you admit that it has and/or can?

HankD

 

--------------------------------------------------
By this then you admit that it has and/or can?

--------------------------------------------------

I never said that it hasn't, or that it couldn't. What I have been saying is that it isn't. Present tense. Obviously the words in Old English are not understandable to us today because of the spelling differences in the words, however they were the same words and meanings then, as they are today, to which was my POINT. Your POINT was that this is the same difference that we see from the KJB to the mv's today, to which is NOT true.

I would appreciate it, if someone could inform me as to how to bolden the typeface on my computer, as I do not want anyone here thinking I am yelling, as this is not what I am doing, nor my intent. I just do not know how to make the typeface bold.

Any suggestions would be very helpful. Thank you.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle