Jump to content
Online Baptist

Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      2


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
28 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I see no edification in this any longer.

Not all edifying conversations are agreeable in nature and at times will reveal an area of disagreement between those engaged in it but its still an edifying conversation because the intent is still, as Webster's 1828 says, "To instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally, and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness."

I don't have any malicious intent in dealing with this matter here but am simply trying to help and show the reason for the greater conflict among translators. The only way we (modernist, Biblicists, and those who try to mix the two systems) will ever come to any sort of consensus is if we have the hard conversations about our innate philosophies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Why would you need to update anything? The ‘old language’ is still perfectly good English.The fact that modern folks are too lazy to learn the meanings of words is no reason to change the Bible. Save

In my estimation the poll title is misleading and should not be used on this forum. The poll title is: "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update? The poll title insinuates that the KJV is

Since an answer does not seem forthcoming, allow me to provide the grammatical facts concerning the meaning and significance of the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye."   Concerning PER

  • Administrators
38 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

What if someone is in church and just listening to the reading of God's word (without explanation)?  What if he is unable to understand some things due to archaic or obsolete words and can't check everything in a dictionary? 

ASK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
40 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Would it not be better for God's word to be read in modern words that people actually use today?  The KJV was written in Early Modern English, which is a different stage of the English language than exists today.  Can't we update the KJV to today's stage of English to help people understand?

This is the excuse that has generated numerous modern perversions of God's word. You are certainly free to use any or all of them; or update the KJV as you see fit. 

I am no Bible scholar, but I believe that God is perfectly able to not only preserve His word as He has promised, but use it as He has to save the souls of a lost and dying world.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

ASK

The best ways to solve an issue is often the simplest.

Practically all modern versions were made to solve the problem of "archaism" yet many still want to make another and another. I'm beginning to think our problem is not a lack of updates but rather that too many people refuse to give up the KJV for updates, so they keep offering us more.

They ask: "How much change will you accept to move from the archaic version?"

Here is my answer: Until the conversation stops being about the "archaism" in scripture and returns to the "purity" of God's word, I won't even consider your new updates, much less collaborate with you to make a single change.

If you came to me and asked if I would have an interest in purifying and helping to convey scripture to a people who did not have a pure, accurate and precise bible in their language then I would perhaps consider the project. But I have no interest in the fools errand of changing the scripture from a pure, accurate and precise language into something less in the name of ever changing "archaism".

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, John Young said:

Here is my answer: Until the conversation stops being about the "archaism" in scripture and returns to the "purity" of God's word, I won't even consider your new updates, much less collaborate with you to make a single change.

Brother Young,

Without seeking to answer whether an "archaism" is either good or bad, I simply would ask -- Based upon the definition of an "archaism," does the 1769 edition (which is the one that we actually use) of the King James translation actually contain any "archaisms"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
23 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

does the 1769 edition (which is the one that we actually use) of the King James translation actually contain any "archaisms"

It really depends on who you talk to. Its a very subject specific concept. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have no interest in discussing something with someone who wants to keep caricaturing my position as being more concerned with catering to the reader than accuracy of word choice. You keep asserting this false either or fallacy and It’s quite annoying.

The whole point of Bible Translation in the first place is to put the words of God from Hebrew and Greek into language understood by the reader. 
 

Not one single person in this thread has advocated for making any changes that would diminish meaning, yet you keep making unfounded accusations that those in favor of any kind of update simply don’t care about accuracy. Just because you keep repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Brother Young,

Without seeking to answer whether an "archaism" is either good or bad, I simply would ask -- Based upon the definition of an "archaism," does the 1769 edition (which is the one that we actually use) of the King James translation actually contain any "archaisms"?

4 hours ago, John Young said:

It really depends on who you talk to. Its a very subject specific concept. 

Well, in my post above I was talking to you, Brother John Young, and asking you, Brother John Young, a question.

On the other hand, if someone is talking to me, Pastor Scott Markle, and asking me that same question, I would be compelled to answer that yes indeed there are archaisms in the 1769 edition of the King James translation.  An "archaism" is defined as "an archaic word, usage, style, practice, etc."  The word "archaic" is defined as "belonging to an earlier period, ancient; antiquated, old-fashioned; that has ceased to be used except for specific purposes, as in poetry, church ritual, etc."  Now, my admission above does NOT mean that I am arguing that "archaisms" are either good or bad to retain or remove.  Rather, I believe that when considering a subject, it is best to consider ALL of the relevant facts in relation to that subject; and from my own perspective the factual existence of "archaisms" (in word usage, spelling, grammatical construction, punctuation, etc.) is a relevant fact in relation to this subject.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
48 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I have no interest

That's fine. I' haven't attacked you. I simply shared my concerns with your terminology and my views on the subject matter. You and anyone else can share your "Thoughts about an update to the KJV" in this thread if you want as well. 
 

6 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I would be compelled to answer that yes indeed there are archaisms

In my opinion "archaisms" is a fundamentally is flawed concept. Much less one that should be a primary consideration in updating scripture. As an example, the material of Mark Ward in particular shows the extent to which this concept takes over in one's mind to turn much of the words one is not familiar with into "archaisms". So no, I personally to not consider the words of scripture to be archaic, nor do I consider it, on its own, a valid reason to change any word for a more "modern" equivalent. Just like fads "modern" changes like the wind but the classical seldom does. It is better to learn a word than to change a word.

Now, could there be a better grammatical concept or mode of spelling that comes into use that better conveys something present in scripture? Or is the update's primary focuses on purity, precision and accuracy of scripture? and not simply modernization for the sack of it? then in my opinion I may consider such updates. As I said before I am not opposed to updates if they are actually needed for biblically right reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
19 minutes ago, John Young said:

..the extent to which this concept takes over in one's mind to turn much of the words one is not familiar with into "archaisms". 

This. Soooooo much this. There are plenty of words still reasonably commonly used in the English language that any one given person may not know... but that doesn't mean it is archaic!  Cue rant on the dumbing down of modern society...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
22 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I thought the 1611 was the the most common around ifb folk. 

Not my experience, most have the same one I have and provide the same quotations I find in my 1769 KJV-AV.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, John Young said:

That's fine. I' haven't attacked you. I simply shared my concerns with your terminology and my views on the subject matter. You and anyone else can share your "Thoughts about an update to the KJV" in this thread if you want as well. 
 

In my opinion "archaisms" is a fundamentally is flawed concept. Much less one that should be a primary consideration in updating scripture. As an example, the material of Mark Ward in particular shows the extent to which this concept takes over in one's mind to turn much of the words one is not familiar with into "archaisms". So no, I personally to not consider the words of scripture to be archaic, nor do I consider it, on its own, a valid reason to change any word for a more "modern" equivalent. Just like fads "modern" changes like the wind but the classical seldom does. It is better to learn a word than to change a word.

 

Every word that John said is correct. I have seen lists of 'archaic' words that do not match each other. I have heard of 'archaic' words that I do not consider archaic. A long time ago I started to check the 'archaic' words in a modern dictionary and found all of the ones in a modern dictionary that were considered archaic. I did not check every one as the list of words considered 'archaic' was too long and opinions change.

Also, in my first post I mentioned that those individuals who use the KJV and do not want to see it updated would be considered dunces and idiots. After reading Jordan's post I guess I need to add the word 'superstitious' to my list.

I am of the opinion that the 'archaic' words in the KJV is a smokescreen to allow the translator, or translation committee, to produce another version of the Bible to make more money and help their denomination or business. All, repeat all, of the versions from the RV 1882 version to the NKJV are not accurate translations of the written word of God. The new translations use deceit to peddle their wares (translations). The deceit can be read in every 'Introduction' or 'Preface' of the translation. The modern version translators use the deceit of 'modernizing' the 'archaic' words, updating the scriptures, using the 'original' Greek, and other reasons, to deceive the religious public.

In other words, I am of the persuasion that the 1769 edition of the King James Version is a faithful rendition of the 1611 King James Version and is adequate, accurate, faithful and does not need updating in any way or manner; including the 'archaic' words.

Edited by Alan
grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Other than spelling, were there any substantial updates in the language of the KJV from 1611 to 1769?  1769 is still about 250 years ago....

You can go on line and compare them verse by verse for several of your favorite KJV passages. There were grammatical revisions, standardized punctuation, and changes in the presentation of letters 'v' for 'u' is just one example. Go check it out, I did some 30 or 40 years ago and have forgotten most of what was done. The new modern English of the 1769 is preferred by many (I say most) but some still like to see words like "Couenant" over the newer "Covenant" [Joshua 3:11] but not me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I'm trying not to be an advocate but those objections hardly seem argue worthy. Not everyone has a dictionary handy, nor are even in the practice of looking up words. ( I agree they should be, it would be unwise for them not to be) Besom was the word for broom back then, as that was what the broom was.

Maybe something between our wants are not being communicated well enough for an image board. Anyways this is going to my last post in this thread, I see no edification in this any longer.

Just a suggestion: Folks could use their 'smart' phone to look up word meaning? Most people who wouldn't understand 1769 English have a 'smart' phone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
16 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

What if someone is in church and just listening to the reading of God's word (without explanation)?  What if he is unable to understand some things due to archaic or obsolete words and can't check everything in a dictionary?  Shouldn't we be able to have understandable words in such a scenario?  Would it not be better for God's word to be read in modern words that people actually use today?  The KJV was written in Early Modern English, which is a different stage of the English language than exists today.  Can't we update the KJV to today's stage of English to help people understand?

Folks could do what the Bible instructs wives to do if they have a question: 1 Corinthians 14:35   "And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home:" So, if you're a husband or single, study and or ask your pastor. The age of the microwave 'can't wait for my soup to heat up,' has invaded Bible study. Don't we have time to spend on here debating over the need for changes to English? So, why can't folks devote more time to the things that are eternal and forsake some of the present, go study.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I know that in my contact with people I may use modern language to witness to them. It's because I have forgotten more once memorized verses than I probably should admit. So, I have to paraphrase even my preferred 1769 version. But, all of this discussion is just a diversion from what we all need to do--more witnessing. The greater problem in the world today is too little labor for the harvest and too much of having the last word.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Salyan said:

This. Soooooo much this. There are plenty of words still reasonably commonly used in the English language that any one given person may not know... but that doesn't mean it is archaic!  Cue rant on the dumbing down of modern society...

So that there is understanding of my own position here - I would agree with the above comment.  There are likely to be many words which some would classify as "archaic" that are viewed as such simply because of societal ignorance.  However, as I stated in my posting above to Brother Young, I am still compelled to acknowledge that there are indeed some "archaic" elements in the 1769 edition of the King James translation.  To give an example - Ending verbs with "th" is now an "archaic" element of the English language.  Do I believe that this "archaic" element hinders understanding overmuch.  No, I do not.  Yet I am still compelled to acknowledge the fact that it is an "archaic" element.  

By the way, I myself do NOT believe that an "update" is of much value in the present day; and I would NOT likely be interested in supporting such an effort or using such a product.  The primary reason is that the controversy over the matter of translations has grown far too large for yet another revision/update attempt.  Even more, this controversy exists because the deception of false translations has grown beyond measure in our time.  I do not see that it is valuable for us to add yet more to the mix, but to remain firmly planted on a foundation of proven ground (even if it requires a little extra effort in Bible study and Bible learning).

So then, why did I even engage the matter of "archaisms"?  I did so because from my perspective the existence of some "archaic" elements in the 1769 edition of the King James translation is a FACT.  Even so, (from my perspective) denying or ignoring facts on a subject can only skew a legitimate consideration and understanding of that subject.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
18 hours ago, Salyan said:

My experience from people who claim not to understand the KJV because it's too 'hard' or 'old-fashioned', is that they object to the thee's and thou's and to the (apparently) big words.  I would contend that removing all thee's and thou's for modern pronoun usage would reduce accuracy, and ditto for "simplifying" words.  I'd really love to have the OP respond to my query as to examples of the words he would update, and their replacement, to see if my experience holds true. 
 

Hi, the idea is not to simplify words, but to modernize them.  As much as I love the KJV, there are archaic words in the KJV that we normally do not use today.  What would be wrong with updating rejoiceth to rejoices?  or peradventure to perhaps?  I heard a preacher who actually would read the "eth" ending words out loud as we say them today when he was reading Scripture in church.  The idea is not to change the meaning of anything, but to use modern language with the same meaning.  Other versions actually change meanings in the KJV, which is not the idea I originally posted about.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
12 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

I know that in my contact with people I may use modern language to witness to them. It's because I have forgotten more once memorized verses than I probably should admit. So, I have to paraphrase even my preferred 1769 version. But, all of this discussion is just a diversion from what we all need to do--more witnessing. The greater problem in the world today is too little labor for the harvest and too much of having the last word.

I agree it is so valuable to go witnessing, but does that mean there is nothing else worthy of our time?  Shouldn't a discussion take place about so many of God's people using a Bible with antiquated language throughout the entire Scriptures?  Isn't it good and worthwhile for God's people to spend time discussing having the Holy Scriptures in language that people in their day actually use (for the believer and the non-believer)?  Do you think the archaic language of the KJV has no disadvantage?  And is it true that the best Bible we can have today is one that generally uses archaic language?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
13 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

You can go on line and compare them verse by verse for several of your favorite KJV passages. There were grammatical revisions, standardized punctuation, and changes in the presentation of letters 'v' for 'u' is just one example. Go check it out, I did some 30 or 40 years ago and have forgotten most of what was done. The new modern English of the 1769 is preferred by many (I say most) but some still like to see words like "Couenant" over the newer "Covenant" [Joshua 3:11] but not me.

I have studied it.  I don't think there was much updating of the grammar and vocabulary.  The 1769 is still very close to the 1611 other than spelling changes.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I have studied it.  I don't think there was much updating of the grammar and vocabulary.  The 1769 is still very close to the 1611 other than spelling changes.  

Correct.  Although there were a small handful of word changes, the great majority of updates in the 1769 edition of the King James translation were spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and italics changes.

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Hi, the idea is not to simplify words, but to modernize them.  As much as I love the KJV, there are archaic words in the KJV that we normally do not use today.  What would be wrong with updating rejoiceth to rejoices?  or peradventure to perhaps?  I heard a preacher who actually would read the "eth" ending words out loud as we say them today when he was reading Scripture in church.  The idea is not to change the meaning of anything, but to use modern language with the same meaning.  Other versions actually change meanings in the KJV, which is not the idea I originally posted about.

 

Those specific examples would not concern me (unless there’s some grammatical meaning to that suffix that I am not aware of). Although it’s pretty easy to understand either way and, IMO, not worth the bother. (I probably still wouldn’t use the new version, because I prefer the more poetic original.) 

Your issue with ‘rejoiceth’ isn’t that it is an archaic word, though; it is the word form/suffix you would like to change.  The root word itself is in common use.
And I will say that ‘peradventure‘ is a lovely word still commonly used well into the 20th century - it would be a shame to lose it completely from our vocabulary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
13 minutes ago, Salyan said:

And I will say that ‘peradventure‘ is a lovely word still commonly used well into the 20th century - it would be a shame to lose it completely from our vocabulary. 

Sister Salyan,

I myself would agree with your comment above.  I would retain "peradventure," and NOT change it to "perhaps."  Such would be one of those cases wherein I would NOT view the word "peradventure" as an "archaic" word, but simply as a less used "modern" word due to societal ignorance. 

(Joke warning - I am starting to paint up my protest signs now: KEEP the word "peradventure.")

Edited by Pastor Scott Markle
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I think some words could still be kept in English (for example in literature), even if they were updated in the KJV.  Words would not automatically disappear from English just because the KJV updated them.  Some words are now classified as "literary."  The problem with having those kinds of words in Scripture, is that Scripture is often used orally.  So while certain words may be in usage in literature, having them used orally can sound very odd, formal, and antiquated when they aren't meant to sound that way.  And I think many of those words are not well known and would not be well understood orally, even if they are "literary" words.  Why make everyone look up many words in the dictionary when modern equivalents could be used instead?  Do we really need to be whipping out smartphones to use dictionaries during church to understand God's Word?  I know that even after I do look up and understand an archaic word, I can easily forget it because the KJV may be the only place I ever see it.  And it may be more than a year before I see it again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
12 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I think some words could still be kept in English (for example in literature), even if they were updated in the KJV.  Words would not automatically disappear from English just because the KJV updated them.  Some words are now classified as "literary."  The problem with having those kinds of words in Scripture, is that Scripture is often used orally.  So while certain words may be in usage in literature, having them used orally can sound very odd, formal, and antiquated when they aren't meant to sound that way.  And I think many of those words are not well known and would not be well understood orally, even if they are "literary" words.  Why make everyone look up many words in the dictionary when modern equivalents could be used instead?  Do we really need to be whipping out smartphones to use dictionaries during church to understand God's Word?  I know that even after I do look up and understand an archaic word, I can easily forget it because the KJV may be the only place I ever see it.  And it may be more than a year before I see it again.

I'm sorry, but that's just not a good enough reason to mess with a Bible translation. And your reasoning is just so... modern. If a word seems odd to you because you don't hear it used regularly, then start using it regularly, and it'll soon stop sounding odd.  And if you want to remember words better, then you could write the definition in the margin for next time (it's probably not a great argument to suggest you're reading your Bible through so irregularly - not that I can judge!). All the objections above are easily remedied by people simply expanding their vocabulary - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect adults (and children) to do. 

32 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Would anyone have a problem updating a word like bruit?

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
16 minutes ago, Salyan said:

I'm sorry, but that's just not a good enough reason to mess with a Bible translation. And your reasoning is just so... modern. If a word seems odd to you because you don't hear it used regularly, then start using it regularly, and it'll soon stop sounding odd.  And if you want to remember words better, then you could write the definition in the margin for next time (it's probably not a great argument to suggest you're reading your Bible through so irregularly - not that I can judge!). All the objections above are easily remedied by people simply expanding their vocabulary - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect adults (and children) to do. 

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

Who can tell us what bruit means in Nahum 3:19?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I agree it is so valuable to go witnessing, but does that mean there is nothing else worthy of our time?  Shouldn't a discussion take place about so many of God's people using a Bible with antiquated language throughout the entire Scriptures?  Isn't it good and worthwhile for God's people to spend time discussing having the Holy Scriptures in language that people in their day actually use (for the believer and the non-believer)?  Do you think the archaic language of the KJV has no disadvantage?  And is it true that the best Bible we can have today is one that generally uses archaic language?

Nothing 'archaic" for me I've read and memorized it much of my life. I had to LEARN and STUDY (caps for emphasis) but other than that it's fine. So, I don't imagine you go quoting the NLT when you witness either. So, what good does any change do for youor  for the individual you witness to?

The first time I needed clarification I had to actually ask someone about it, imagine that; setting aside pride long enough to admit ignorance. It was Matthew 24:7 "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." As a pre-teen I had nothing to worry about because my home was an enormous distance from a sea or an ocean. Have you allowed yourself to confront someone over your own lack of understanding?

Edited by 1Timothy115
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I have studied it.  I don't think there was much updating of the grammar and vocabulary.  The 1769 is still very close to the 1611 other than spelling changes.  

Did you use the microwave oven method of study? Add a few more seconds next time.

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

www.truth.sg/Which%20KJV,%201611%20Or%201769,%20Do%20You%20Use.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 1/28/2021 at 1:57 PM, Salyan said:

This. Soooooo much this. There are plenty of words still reasonably commonly used in the English language that any one given person may not know... but that doesn't mean it is archaic!  Cue rant on the dumbing down of modern society...

I think "rant" should be removed from present use and substituted with "wild vehement action." Of course someone will come along and ruin it by making their own language changes. Then I'll have to declaim them violently. Couldn't resist 🤣.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

www.truth.sg/Which%20KJV,%201611%20Or%201769,%20Do%20You%20Use.pdf

And these are more of the FACTS that should be considered in the discussion; for whenever we disregard or distort the facts of truth, we always end up going astray in some manner or fashion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators
5 hours ago, Salyan said:

 

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)

I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 

JMO. 

There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?
       
      I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.
       
      I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).
       
      on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.
       
      What is your position and why do you hold to it?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 41 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...