Archaisms in the KJV.

[Jordan Kurecki]

I’ve been doing some studying into the archaic features of the KJV.

i found that the difference between -eth and -est is that one is second person and another is third person. So it would seem that this would add detail to the Bible and therefore accuracy.

However, practically speaking it seems to me that this doesn’t really add information because of English Syntax, it would seem that the subject of the sentence will always supple that information and therefore these endings are unnecessary. Does anyone know of any places in the English bible where having these Archaic endings give the reader more clarity? 

[robycop3]

  The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes He has caused/allowed in English since 1611.

[swathdiver]

6 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes He has caused/allowed in English since 1611.

Show me another perfect, inerrant bible in the English.

[Pastor Matt]

6 hours ago, robycop3 said:

  The KJVO myth is man-made & false. Just as God caused the KJV to be made to present His word in the then-current English style, He has caused newer translations to be made to reflect the changes He has caused/allowed in English since 1611.

If we start a new topic about this, would you be willing to actively discuss it with us? 

[robycop3]

Sure, Matt & Swathdiver!

[robycop3]

18 hours ago, swathdiver said:

Show me another perfect, inerrant bible in the English.

  The KJV is far-from-inerrant. A glaring goof in it is "Easter" in Acts 12:4. (Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts".) And a poor rendering that's caused a lotta controversy is "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13.  The NKJV is much-more error-free than the KJV is, as is the NASV.

17 hours ago, Matt Souza said:

If we start a new topic about this, would you be willing to actively discuss it with us? 

  If you choose to start a new topic on this, please let me know its title & which sub-forum it'll be in. I shall be more-than-happy to prove the KJVO myth false.

Edited March 8, 2019 by robycop3

[DaveW]

If you are suggesting that there was no pagan feast around that time that the translators later referred to as "Easter", then you are seriously mistaken.

4 hours ago, robycop3 said:

The NKJV is much-more error-free than the KJV is, as is the NASV.

Do you believe that there is a perfectly preserved Word of God today, or is there only "best we can do so far"?

[Pastor Matt]

I had our midweek service last night. I'll open up a topic as soon as I get a chance so that this topic can remain about Archaisms in the KJV.

[robycop3]

  OK, And, I'll answer the questions asked of me in this topic in the new one.

  As for Mr. Kurecki's OP in this topic,  I don't know of any of the KJV's archaisms that give more clarity to any of its verses today. We must remember the KJV was made for the British of the Elizabethan-Jacobean period 400 years ago. That's why it's important to have MODERN bible translations, in OUR English style.

[robycop3]

  I'll go ahead & start the new topic, as you're apparently busy at this time. If you choose to move it from this sub-forum, please let me know.

Thanx In Advance!

[Salyan]

Actually, I find that much of a modern English use is dumbed down and oversimplified. We don’t use nearly the breadth of language available to us in classic English.  I have no desire to use a Bible whose language has similarly been simplified to the point it can no longer be accurate.

The scholarly knowledge present in the KJV is also something that can hardly be replicated today. I wouldn’t trust modern “translators” to have the same language knowledge. Ever studied just how educated they were, and how many steps were taken to remove bias or inaccuracy from the text?

 The specificity provided by the singular/plural meanings of thou/you are not always discernible from the context.  And where they are, it really is a lot easier to understand the difference from the word itself, rather than studying it out through the context. Why wouldn’t you want to use what’s available?

 

[robycop3]

  Let us not forget those "scholars" of 400 years ago "cured" headaches & other ailments centered in the head by trepanning, that is, cutting a hole in the skull to allow the "bad humours" to escape.

[Jim_Alaska]

1 hour ago, robycop3 said:

  Let us not forget those "scholars" of 400 years ago "cured" headaches & other ailments centered in the head by trepanning, that is, cutting a hole in the skull to allow the "bad humours" to escape.

This argument is a "Straw Man" and meant to deflect answering a genuine opinion from someone else that views the subject differently. 

I've studied the qualifications and credits of the original translators and I will take their translation abilities over yours in a heartbeat. Oh, and I'll also take their ability in the form of the KJV. 

Please keep in mind, although I am certain you have; that this message forum is exclusively KJV and will remain so long after you have gone, as will my opinion. If you came here with the intention of changing it, or to cause trouble over our use of the KJV, you may as well give it up, you will not succeed. 

[robycop3]

  Well, actually,  I'm not a translator, but there's a VAST difference in the knowledge of 400 years ago & the knowledge of now, in the time where God said knowledge would greatly increase. And that knowledge necessarily includes that of God's word.

 

  And I came here to share knowledge with other Baptists, but I know for certain that the KJVO myth is not true. It has absolutely NO Scriptural support, even in the KJV itself, which, alone, makes it false.

 

  As for archaisms in the KJV, there are quite a few now, same as Wycliffe's 1384 translation contained archaisms to the British of the 17th century, let alone US.  God keeps His word in current vernacular in many languages, causing new translations to be made according to the changes HE causes/allows in the languages.

[DaveW]

21 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

  Well, actually,  I'm not a translator, but there's a VAST difference in the knowledge of 400 years ago & the knowledge of now, in the time where God said knowledge would greatly increase. And that knowledge necessarily includes that of God's word.

You are right - there is not a person alive today who could rival the linguistic skills of many on the KJV translation panel.

There is indeed a VAST difference.....