By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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"?

[John Young]

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. 

[Jordan Kurecki]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

 

[Salyan]

57 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

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.

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. 

Also, I object to your (earlier) labelling of various of us (assumedly including me, from your indicators) of having a superstitious attachment to the words of the KJV. I support using good English, which includes many words that are considered archaic to young people due simply to their poor grasp of the English language.  I have said nothing to suggest I have an overattachment to the KJV words itself. I'm not KJV only - I'm Textus Receptus only. What I am is a big fan of good English and not changing things just for the sake of change. Who cares if something is old-fashioned - there's nothing wrong with that! (That last line not directed to anyone in particular; just a generic rant.)

[John Young]

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.

[Salyan]

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...

[1Timothy115]

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.

 

[Alan]

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 January 28, 2021 by Alan
grammar

[1Timothy115]

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.

[1Timothy115]

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.

[1Timothy115]

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.

[1Timothy115]

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.

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.

[BibleBeliever5]

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.

 

[BibleBeliever5]

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?

[BibleBeliever5]

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.  

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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 January 29, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle

[Salyan]

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. 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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 January 29, 2021 by Pastor Scott Markle