Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Recommended Posts

  • Members

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Members
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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 by robycop3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

  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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
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.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...