Quintessence of the KJV II

the KJV II translation has never really taken off. the KJBOs hate it for daring to "improve" on the "perfect," and the rest don't think it improves on accuracy like more modern translations do (for a even-handed history, see Prof Wallace's account--http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/KJVtoRV.htm).

calling non-KJBOs anti-KJBs is like comparing apples with oranges. then again, what's new fr the KJBO camp?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Quintessence of the KJV II
(Hey, if you can call me KJO, I can call you anti-KJV.)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
Quintessence of the KJV II<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Perhaps you should have posted this under the topic "Quintessence of the KJV." I know that thread has degenerated into an argument over the viability of the reading comprehension study, and whether children cry over other things as well, but some on the BB will not be able to discern between "Quintessence of the KJV (Part) II" (Jonah 3:11?), as was the clear intention of the topic title, and a study of the KJV II, by Mr. Green.

 

The KJV is not Modern English. You can buy a 1611 KJV (not referring to the 1769 revision that everyone calls the 1611 KJV) and in some ways it is similar to German. The various revision in the 2oth century from the NKJV and it seems the KJV21 have improved on the 1769 revision. Revisions have absolutely nothing to do with contemporary worship. Revisions are necessary since the English lnguage is constantly evolving. Else we would still be using the GREAT BIBLE or GENEVA BIBLE.

 

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. The KJV (even the 1611 edition) is modern English

Old English 500-1100 AD
Middle English 1100-1500 AD
Modern English 1500-Present

The difference you note in the 1611 edition is not the English, but the type face. It was first printed in what was called "Black Type" which was a form of Germanic Script. When that type face is transposed into modern Roman type it is simple to read.

For instance 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."

And the same verse in Modern English "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

 

Dr. Thomas,

No, one talks in KJV-Shakespeare language. It is not modern and outdated. One example is the use of "prevent" in 1 Thess. which does not mean "prevent" in the modern sense but means "precede". In the KJV "Conversation" is not talking about talking but "Lifestyle" in the KJV. There are many more examples but we don't say to one another "How art thou" anymore because it is a archaic saying. Certainly the KJV-Shakespeare language is higher English but so was Classical Greek a higher Greek than Biblical Koine Greek. Regardless of what text books say, You talk the KJV-Shakespeare language on the street and they will say "huh!?".

 

Kiffin, perhaps you have missed the point. The KJV is modern English, but, as with all languages, words come, go, and change meaning. Take for instance the word "gay." To a man of my generation, it means "happy and care free" but to a younger person it is a synonym for "sodomite." I remember when "grass" was something which was mowed, not smoked, and that speed was something you did in your dad's '47 Lincoln, not a drug you took. But, I am sure you would not say that I don't speak modern English simply because I am of your father's or possibly your grandfather's generation.

You mention the "thee" and "thou" pronouns in the KJV. Well, those pronouns were not in common usage in 1611 either (read the "To The Reader" in the front of a good KJV and you will note their absence). They were a grammatical device brought forward from Middle English (1100-1500) to help the English reader differenciate between the singular and plural number, and objective and subjective case of the pronouns in question, which the Greek makes very clear.

 

Thomas,

Thanks for the clarification. Maybe a better way of phrasing is to say the KJV is not contemporary in the modern sense. That can be viewed either positively or negatively I also understand.

 

Dr. C:

Now I understand why you favor the KJV: You're Oooooold!

[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
I am sorry, but you are incorrect. The KJV (even the 1611 edition) is modern English

Old English 500-1100 AD
Middle English 1100-1500 AD
Modern English 1500-Present<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dr. Cassidy,

The time periods you listed above are probably accepted (more or less) by those involved in the study of English literature. They are pretty good for classifying English work (including the KJV) into a distinct period. However, they are arbitrary. If you compare work from the beginning of one period and the end of a period, they may look more like the previous or next period in style, respectively, than they look like one another.

If you will notice, there are 600 years of Old English, 400 years of Middle English, and, according to your post, we are already &gt;500 years into Modern English. It should be further noted that many on this board say that even in the days of 1611, people did not talk with "thees and thous" (suggesting that, even though the KJV was written in 1611, the translators may have used language that was substantially pre-1611).

I move for a vote. It has been long enough since 1500, yea verily, even since 1600 to proclaim that yet another period in English has past. We are now in the Post-Modern English Era (not to be confused with post-modern ideaology).

Facetiously,

[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]