Is it a myth that KJV has "archaic" English?

[Logos1560]

why should His Word change?

If you are suggesting or implying that updating or revising a Bible translaion is changing God's Word, are you in effect suggesting that the KJV translators changed God's Word when they made hundreds and even thousands of updatings, revisions, and changes in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision? The KJV introduced many changes and revisions in the text of the loved, widely read, widely used English Bible of the day--the Geneva Bible.

 

[kubel]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever... why should His Word change?

Jesus Christ may be the same yesterday, today, and forever, but our languages are not. Ever since the Tower of Babel, mankind has been struggling with evolving languages.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever... why should His Word change?

I have to wonder my brother if you would have said this to King James in 1611?

 

[David Lamb]

Um, he admitted that the word "shambles" is actually more accurate. I wouldn't call that conceding, but some would like for others to think Dr. Gipp did concede.

That is the normal dishonesty we find quite often.

It might be more accurate if the usual meaning of "shambles" today was the same as it was in 1611, but it is not. If a mother says to her son, "Go and tidy your bedroom. It's a shambles!" she is saying it is very untidy, not that it is a meat market. That is the usual meaning of the word today. So what is wrong with translating the Greek word as "meat market," as the NKJV does?

 

[Keith M]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever... why should His Word change?

God's word hasn't changed...but some of the English words used to convey God's word have changed. God's word is not limited to a particular set of words in a particular language. It's absolutely ridiculous to attempt to limit God by limiting the words used to convey His word.

 

[David Lamb]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever... why should His Word change?

God's Word does not change - it endures for ever. But the actual human words used to express God's word do indeed change, otherwise we would have to learn Greek and Hebrew in order to read it.

 

[Logos1560]

It might be more accurate if the usual meaning of "shambles" today was the same as it was in 1611, but it is not. If a mother says to her son, "Go and tidy your bedroom. It's a shambles!" she is saying it is very untidy, not that it is a meat market. That is the usual meaning of the word today. So what is wrong with translating the Greek word as "meat market," as the NKJV does?

1 Cor. 10:25a
Whatsoever is sold in the market, that eat (Tyndale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Taverner's, 1568 Bishops)
Whatsoever is sold in the flesh market, that eat (1535 Coverdale's, 1539 Great Bible)
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, eat (1582 Rheims N.T.)

 

[robycop3]

Another such word is "corn". The KJV did not goof when it called wheat 'corn'. In 1604, it was a non-specific term for any grain. In fact, when Englishmen first saw maize, which we now call corn, they called it "corn" because they didn't know what else to call it! They just knew it was a grain food.

In the 1600s, God caused His word to be written in the language current for the day, understandable by any English reader, same as He still does today. I believe He keeps the old versions before us to show the preservation & continuity of His word, and NOT to be a permanent fixture that no other versions can replace for everyday use.

 

[Salamander]

The poster 'readmore' wrote that "Dr. Samuel Gipp concedes this". What was "this"? The 'this' was that "KJVO advocates claim there are archaic words in the KJV". Notice these emphasized words from the website's Gipp article --

QUESTION: Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't we need a modern translation to eliminate them?

ANSWER: Yes and No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible but No, we do not need a modem translation to eliminate them.

EXPLANATION: That there are archaic words in the Bible is very true. An archaic word is a word which is no longer used in every day speech and has been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic word is found in I Corinthians 10:25.
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:"
The word "shambles" is archaic. It has been replaced in common speech with the word "market place", Indeed we can be certain that "shambles" was a much more accurate description of the ancient market place (and many around the world today). It has none the less passed from common use...​

Duh!
​

So, it is ver clear that Gipp DOES affirm that there are archaic words. Gipp does not 'admit' that "shambles" is more accurate; rather, Gipp asserts that it is more accurate, but without offering any real direct evidence. That is, Gipp does not prove how/why "shambles" is more accurate than "marketplace". I happen to think that the archaic words of the KJV were the most accurate words available at the time, but its reassuring to see the explanation.

"Shambles" is actually more accepted worldwide, beyond your rationalizations.

The article goes on with a different (and lengthy) example from I Samuel 9:1-11, ending with the recommendation that "when preaching" just "tell the congregation" what the archaic word means. I have no problem with that advise, but the article does address what an independent reader is supposed to do when confronted with archaic words.

Exactly what anyone who knows what a dictionary is for, unless you'd rather them either remain ignorant or come running to you for the answer! :sleep:

 

[Salamander]

It might be more accurate if the usual meaning of "shambles" today was the same as it was in 1611, but it is not. If a mother says to her son, "Go and tidy your bedroom. It's a shambles!" she is saying it is very untidy, not that it is a meat market. That is the usual meaning of the word today. So what is wrong with translating the Greek word as "meat market," as the NKJV does?

"Meat market" designates only a meat market. "Shambles" designates a place of commerce where a plethora of avenues are availabble to the beholder.

To refer to something being in shambles denotes a disarray of sorts.

More harm is done to the reader to signify the whole meaning of the reference to be limited to only a meat market.

Thus the "archaic" word: shambles, gives the emphasis for the reader to search more diligently the entire meaning rather than settle for hawg jowles.:laugh:

 

[Ed Edwards]

I just really like the way you think, Mr. Lamb! Will you adopt me, please?

I"ll soon be 18 years older than you.
I'd be glad to adopt a bright child like you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I couldn't help but think of the King James Bible Companion when I saw this topic. It's from Chick Publications. Kinda gave me a chuckle when I saw it:

coverfront.jpg (38KB)


Then I read the back cover (particularly the second paragraph):

coverback.jpg (46KB)


Well then in that case... ::burns all other translations::

It is quite useful though.

Amen, Brother Kubel -- You are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Looking at the back page of the KJV Companion
I see the obscure word 'necromancer' (talking to the dead)
This actually isn't archaic. There are related
words where the Greek prefix 'necro-' is
used to denote the dead, their corpse, their
departed spirit, etc.
'necrophilia' - lover of the dead, sex with the dead
'necrophagia - eating the dead
'necrophobia' - abnormal fear of the dead
Needless to say, 'necromancer' is NOT
defined in any of the KJVs that
I have read, not even the Apocrypha.

Deuteronomy 18:11 (HCSB = Holman Christian
Standard Bible /Holman, 2003):
cast spells, consult a medium or a familiar spirit,
inquire of the dead.

Deu 18:11 (Geneva Bible, 1587 Edition):
Or a charmer, or that counselleth with spirits,
or a soothsaier,
or that asketh counsel at ye dead.

TeeHee, the HCSB is closer to the Geneva Bible than
to the KJVs.

Much easier to understand than 'necromancer'.
This word 'necromancer' appears once in the
KJV1769 Edition. It is the translation of
three Greek words. Some argue the HCSB is
poor cause it ADDS a word to the Greek: 'the'.
If that be true, than a word count of 2 is taken
from the Greek to make the KJV1769 Edition.

Here are the three words in the Greek, from STRONG'S:


H1875
דּרשׁ
dârash
daw-rash'
A primitive root; properly to tread or frequent;
usually to follow (for pursuit or search); by
implication to seek or ask; specifically to worship:
- ask, X at all, care for, X diligently, inquire,
make inquisition, [necro-] mancer, question,
require, search, seek [for, out], X surely.


H413
אל אל
'êl 'el
ale, el
(Used only in the shortened constructive form (the second form));
a primitive particle, properly denoting motion towards,
but occasionally used of a quiescent position, that is,
near, with or among; often in general, to: - about,
according to, after, against, among, as for, at,
because (-fore, -side), both . . . and, by, concerning,
for, from, X hath, in (-to), near, (out) of, over,
through,to(-ward), under, unto, upon,
whether, with(-in).

H4191
מוּת
mûth
mooth
A primitive root; to die (literally or figuratively); causatively
to kill: - X at all, X crying, (be) dead (body, man, one),
(put to, worthy of) death, destroy (-er), (cause to, be like to, must)
die, kill, necro [-mancer], X must needs, slay, X surely,
X very suddenly, X in [no] wise.

I just love Stong's -- the Greek translator's shortcut:godisgood:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday,
today and forever... why should His Word change?

English Changes, not Messiah Jeshua.
We are discussing the unnecessary
puting of artificial stepping stones
(in the cross traffic, where the blind will stuble)
in the way of people who aren't familiar with
Early Modern English.

BTW, the real problem using the KJVs
is not that an obscure, unknown word pops up
every now & again, but that words that look
familiar but have obscure, unknown meanings
hit the unsuspecting in their blind spots.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The King James Version (Authorized)
1 Corinthians 10:25 (KJV1769 Edition, crosswalk.com)
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat,
asking no question for conscience sake:

The King James Version (Authorized)
1 Corinthians 10:25 (KJV1769 Edition with Strong's Numbers,
e-sword.com):
Whatsoever3956 is sold4453 in1722
the meat market,3111 that eat,2068
asking no question350, 3367
for conscience sake:1223, 4893

So I guess I have a BAD copy of the KJV1769?
My 1976 Dictionary says that 'shambles'
is archaic.

 

[Ed Edwards]

1. & 2. are on the previous post:

3.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
KJV1611 Edition (electronic)

4.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
KJV1611 Edition (paper)

5.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
HOLY BIBLE, King James Version
(World Publishing Company, date unknown)
KJV1769 Edition or so
(but no clue about which KJV it
really is???) This copy was acquired in 1953.

6.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
GOOD NEWS AMERICA,
GOD LOVES YOU (New Testament),
King James Version
(Holman Bible Publishers, 1983)
KJV1769 Edition or so
(but no clue about which KJV it
really is???)

7.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
KJV Prophecy Study Bible,
General Editor Grant R. Jeffrey
(Zondervan, 1998
KJV1769 Edition (paper)

8.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
Tim LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible
(AMG Publishers, 2000)
KJV1769 Edition or so
(but no clue about which KJV it
really is???)

9.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
HOLY BIBLE, King James Version
(Cambridge University Press, date unknown)
KJV1769 Edition or so
(but no clue about which KJV it
really is???)

10.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
KJV1873 Edition (paper)

11.
1 Cor 10:25 has 'shambles' in my
HOLY BIBLE
(American Bible Society, 1851)
KJV1851 Edition?
(but no clue that it is KJV???)
(it belonged to my Grandmother
and her Mother before her.)

I have 11 different KJVs?

 

[franklinmonroe]

I"ll soon be 18 years older than you.
I'd be glad to adopt a bright child like you.

I accept your generous offer; please send cash, Dad!

 

[franklinmonroe]

"Shambles" is actually more accepted worldwide, beyond your rationalizations...

I think I understand your reaction to my statement; you probably misinterpretated the emphasis on "were" was a swipe at the KJV being outdated or something, but actually that wasn't the intent. I was merely addressing an earlier implication that those (archaic) words weren't even the most accurate ones at that time --

I happen to think that the archaic words of the KJV were the most accurate words available at the time,...

But as I plainly wrote, I think that the KJV choices were the right ones.

"Shambles" is actually more accepted worldwide,...

As soon as you substantiate it with your source (or some other proofs), this is a will be a great point in our favor!

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

"Shambles" doesn't mean a marketplace in UK or Hiberno-English.


Well, at least Hiberno-English, Bro Lamb may correct me on UK English if I am mistaken

 

[Jerome]

In Philadelphia, "the shambles" is a marketplace, a farmer's market.