KJV only question

[Silent Enigma]

I've got a question not about the KJV-only issue per se, but about using archaic language.

I've found that often writers who espouse the KJV only stance also will spell words incorrecty (in modern grammar) just to make what they write look more like KJV language.

Example: armour instead of armor.

I really find this rather funny.

My questions are: Why do they do this?

and

Do you find this funny, too?

[kyzar]

I don't think its funny!!! Armour is spelt like that in Australia! lol :-)

It's exactly the same as the difference between colour and color. Without the 'U' is the American spelling, with is the UK/Australian spelling. There's nothing archaic about it, just that Australians are more classy than Americans :D (just kidding!)

[Theophorus]

I've got a question not about the KJV-only issue per se, but about using archaic language.

I've found that often writers who espouse the KJV only stance also will spell words incorrecty (in modern grammar) just to make what they write look more like KJV language.

Example: armour instead of armor.

I really find this rather funny.

My questions are: Why do they do this?

and

Do you find this funny, too?

It is just a reflection of what you readeth. I find spelling to be more of an unconscious exercise, rather than deliberate. The true KJV influence is more likely to be found in the excessive use of colons, and semi-colons.

[jangnim]

I've got a question not about the KJV-only issue per se, but about using archaic language.

I've found that often writers who espouse the KJV only stance also will spell words incorrecty (in modern grammar) just to make what they write look more like KJV language.

Example: armour instead of armor.

I really find this rather funny.

My questions are: Why do they do this?

and

Do you find this funny, too?

The queens English is used in most places where England ruled, however, we Americans, rebels that we are have altered spellings to suit ourselves. I don't know that either spelling is more correct than the other, since both are accepted as modern spellings. However, as a non-KJV onlyist, I can't say that those preachers are doing this for the reasons you have judged either. Some of them are long dead, like John Wesley, whose writings are still read today. I really don't know of a modern author who would write in the style of the KJV. Can you offer an example?

[abbygirlforever]

The only reason I can think of for somebody writing like that today is if he/she is a poet. I know I do it when I'm writing poetry sometimes. "Thee"s and "Ye"s are easy to rhyme.

[Theophorus]

A man's conversation in this present culture, with its various distractions and its propensity towards the blunt, might misunderstand your complaint; though they are without excuse, being entwined in the mundane aspects of existence they fail to see the subtle, but are inclined to embrace only that which is in their own vision. Brutes they may be; but mercy should be poured upon them: For pretension can only be appreciated by those who drink from the same well, and take pleasure in its peculiar odour. ;)

[jangnim]

A man's conversation in this present culture, with its various distractions and its propensity towards the blunt, might misunderstand your complaint; though they are without excuse, being entwined in the mundane aspects of existence they fail to see the subtle, but are inclined to embrace only that which is in their own vision. Brutes they may be; but mercy should be poured upon them: For pretension can only be appreciated by those who drink from the same well, and take pleasure in its peculiar odour. ;)
.....And who authored this?

While it is not the simplest thing to understand, it is acceptable modern English. British spelling for odor is odour I think. The rest is simply predoctorate level writing. I've read many a book written in this style by masters and doctorate students, as well as by professors themselves. They are, for the most part, writing to others of their own, and not to you or I.

Simply put this is not King Jamesish, it is written in what I would affectionately call 'scholarese'. I would say that this was written some time ago, from the word usage, possibly the late 1800's or maybe even earlier.

[jlujan69]

A man's conversation in this present culture, with its various distractions and its propensity towards the blunt, might misunderstand your complaint; though they are without excuse, being entwined in the mundane aspects of existence they fail to see the subtle, but are inclined to embrace only that which is in their own vision. Brutes they may be; but mercy should be poured upon them: For pretension can only be appreciated by those who drink from the same well, and take pleasure in its peculiar odour. ;)

I must admit, that my first impression was that you were quoting something Paul wrote. Now, at the very least, this looks like something Paul would write though not necessarily in Scripture.

[~Heavens_Bride~]

In Canada armour IS the correct spelling :P

as is neighbOUR, harbOUR, parlOUR...lol
I write like that all the time...and I am noit KJV Only! lol

[jangnim]

In Canada armour IS the correct spelling :P

as is neighbOUR, harbOUR, parlOUR...lol
I write like that all the time...and I am noit KJV Only! lolSo Canada adopted the British spellings? Wow I didn't know that.

[g4goddess]

I don't think its funny!!! Armour is spelt like that in Australia! lol :-)

It's exactly the same as the difference between colour and color. Without the 'U' is the American spelling, with is the UK/Australian spelling. There's nothing archaic about it, just that Australians are more classy than Americans :D (just kidding!)

:wave:
Canadians spell it that way too!! Also neighbour, colour etc. - it's because we were part of the crown, so we still spell that way.

and in tribute to our french heritage we also spell centre for places, not the middle (center).

[Shane Roach]

I must admit, that my first impression was that you were quoting something Paul wrote. Now, at the very least, this looks like something Paul would write though not necessarily in Scripture.

Well, Paul wrote in an entirely different language, for one....

I think the fellow who posted this wrote it himself to poke fun.

While I'm not a KJV only sort of fellow, it is my favorite for two reasons. First, it is beautiful to read. Second, as an old translation made before a lot of the modern furor, and as a translation that has stood the test of time, I find it free of some of the extremes of modern re-interpretation that I find in some of the more popular 'common language' versions of the Bible popping up now. It's interesting how similar versions like the New American Standard, NIV, or KJV can be, then turn around and read the modern language versions where they quite literally add entire phrases.

Anyhow, just my observation. I also would add I don't think "Fundamentalist" and "KJV only" are ideas that are entirely inseperable. I'm pretty darned fundamental, but I am not a KJV only believer.

[Theophorus]

Well, Paul wrote in an entirely different language, for one....

I think the fellow who posted this wrote it himself to poke fun.

Guilty as charged



While I'm not a KJV only sort of fellow, it is my favorite for two reasons. First, it is beautiful to read. Second, as an old translation made before a lot of the modern furor, and as a translation that has stood the test of time, I find it free of some of the extremes of modern re-interpretation that I find in some of the more popular 'common language' versions of the Bible popping up now.

Bingo!! Me too for exactly the same reasons, plus a couple of more, but those are the two biggies.

What is the purpose of language? I would say that it is at least twofold.

First, it is the medium for expressing our thoughts and feelings as well as conveying information, so in that sense it is important for the language used to be relevant to its intended audience. It should holdto meanings and style in common with the majority of the recepients in order to accomplish its goal. The goal in this case being a presentation of the holy scriptures to english speaking people.

That being said, the second purpose of language, or more precisely written language, is for preservation. To keep something from being lost. It is impossible for any written manuscript not to have a bias or context of its period embedded within it. Even the original Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew texts exists within this confine.

This being the case I believe that the KJV gives us an english presentation of scripture that is much more "neutral" and "honest" than many of the translations in existence today for the reasons Shane Roach stated.

[Acquired Tastes]

So Canada adopted the British spellings? Wow I didn't know that.

I think Canada has always spelled it that way, as have Australia, New Zealand, and most other former British colonies.

[Llauralin]

I've got a question not about the KJV-only issue per se, but about using archaic language.

I've found that often writers who espouse the KJV only stance also will spell words incorrecty (in modern grammar) just to make what they write look more like KJV language.

Example: armour instead of armor.

I really find this rather funny.

My questions are: Why do they do this?

and

Do you find this funny, too?

Actually, I do find your statement rather funny, mostly because even though I'm American I always used to spell these words as colour, honour, etc, but not because I prefered the KJV (I had never read it at the time), but rather because I read vastly more English classics than American books. In America there may very well be a convergence between those who use either an older, or a less American mode of spelling and writing, and those who prefer the KJV, but in my opinion such would not usually pe caused so much by pretention, as by what they read more generally, what they're used to, and what they grew up with.

In my case, I always used to, and still often do, use un-American spellings, a load of semi-colons, and rather long, convoluted sentences (one of my friends has never gotten over teasing my for editing "a myrid of medusa-like locks" into her JR. high essay). The reason for this was neither a conscious desire to be pretentious, nor a result of reading the KJV, but rather a natural consiquience of spending most of my childhood reading English "classics" from before the 1950s. Also as a result, for the longest time I hadn't a clue why anyone thought that the KJV was less "relevent" or "understandable," than more modern versions. Quite the contrary, while I do not believe in "KJV only," it struck me as much more beautiful, peotic, and subtle than many modern versions.

[jangnim]

Also as a result, for the longest time I hadn't a clue why anyone thought that the KJV was less "relevent" or "understandable," than more modern versions. Quite the contrary, while I do not believe in "KJV only," it struck me as much more beautiful, peotic, and subtle than many modern versions.Gee thats great. LOL. I always had a hard time with KJV myself until I began to read other books. Unfortunately I didn't start that until I was 15 or so.:)