TwinCrier's guide to the English Language

[TwinCrier]

Having trouble reading the King James Bible? Oh, thou jarring long-tongued scurvy-knave! Here is my guide to help you through the tough language of English.

Whatever you learned about masculine and feminine adjectives in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Spanish, French or what ever other language you know.... fergitaboutit. Wipe it from your memory. In English only things with gender are assigned gender. Forget about infinitives and grammar. All you need to know is this:

Thees and thous (and thy and thine) will trouble YOU no longer. These hard to understand archaic words are simple singular forms for the word YOU. You and your and yours are used when speaking to multiple people. However, be aware that referring to a group as "you people" is oft considered a racial slur in modern English.

Hither means here and thither means there.

If you com across a short word that doesn't seem to make sense, see how it fits into the sentence, Oft usually means often and yon means yonder.... see how easy that can be? We do this much in our modern slang.

Lastly, verbs that end with -th are present tense. Add an s instead and you'll be fine. It's not the Elizabethan English that is troublesome, but the modern English, full of slang and double meaning, that causes confusion.

Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel, when we learn that "I before E except after C" isn't so weird after all. ^_^

[Logos1560]

Having trouble reading the King James Bible?

It's not the Elizabethan English that is troublesome,

Are you implying that it is wrong to update archaic words? Would you say that present-day English readers never read the wrong meaning into any words used in the KJV?

[Morgaine1205]

Having trouble reading the King James Bible? Oh, thou jarring long-tongued scurvy-knave! Here is my guide to help you through the tough language of English.

Whatever you learned about masculine and feminine adjectives in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Spanish, French or what ever other language you know.... fergitaboutit. Wipe it from your memory. In English only things with gender are assigned gender. Forget about infinitives and grammar. All you need to know is this:

Thees and thous (and thy and thine) will trouble YOU no longer. These hard to understand archaic words are simple singular forms for the word YOU. You and your and yours are used when speaking to multiple people. However, be aware that referring to a group as "you people" is oft considered a racial slur in modern English.

Hither means here and thither means there.

If you com across a short word that doesn't seem to make sense, see how it fits into the sentence, Oft usually means often and yon means yonder.... see how easy that can be? We do this much in our modern slang.

Lastly, verbs that end with -th are present tense. Add an s instead and you'll be fine. It's not the Elizabethan English that is troublesome, but the modern English, full of slang and double meaning, that causes confusion.

Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel, when we learn that "I before E except after C" isn't so weird after all. ^_^
Thee thanks thou kindest lady for thou most knowledgeable lesson! :) (how'd I do?)

[Jim1927]

I am English, and I can tell you there is a lot more than thee's and thou's to throw one off in the KJV.

What about Hinder and let? They too have opposite meanings, just to mention two words.

How many people can say the loved Shakespeare when in school? How many say they fully understood what Shakespeare was saying in his writings.

Even to-day, we have different meanings for simple words in English. When I first came to the USA, the hardest time I had was with the usage of certain words. If I bed you for the night, what might you think? What if I knock you up in t' morning? And never should I admonish you to keep your pecker up! Then there is walking through the subway or sitting on a chesterfield rather than puffing it.

English is not always straightforward, and especially 1611 English. Hence the need for upgrades.

When I publicly read from my faithful 1945 KJV, I always change the words as I read it.

Cheers,

Jim

[Pepperoni]

Having trouble reading the King James Bible? Oh, thou jarring long-tongued scurvy-knave! Here is my guide to help you through the tough language of English.

Whatever you learned about masculine and feminine adjectives in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Spanish, French or what ever other language you know.... fergitaboutit. Wipe it from your memory. In English only things with gender are assigned gender. Forget about infinitives and grammar. All you need to know is this:

Thees and thous (and thy and thine) will trouble YOU no longer. These hard to understand archaic words are simple singular forms for the word YOU. You and your and yours are used when speaking to multiple people. However, be aware that referring to a group as "you people" is oft considered a racial slur in modern English.

Hither means here and thither means there.

If you com across a short word that doesn't seem to make sense, see how it fits into the sentence, Oft usually means often and yon means yonder.... see how easy that can be? We do this much in our modern slang.

Lastly, verbs that end with -th are present tense. Add an s instead and you'll be fine. It's not the Elizabethan English that is troublesome, but the modern English, full of slang and double meaning, that causes confusion.

Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel, when we learn that "I before E except after C" isn't so weird after all. ^_^
Well, I like it . . .

[TwinCrier]

Are you implying that it is wrong to update archaic words? Would you say that present-day English readers never read the wrong meaning into any words used in the KJV?If YOU update the "archaic" words, to help YOU understand it better as I do while reading, no, no problem. If you let some ungodly scholar alter your bible out of laziness, then yes, I have a problem.

I am English, and I can tell you there is a lot more than thee's and thou's to throw one off in the KJV.

What about Hinder and let? They too have opposite meanings, just to mention two words.

How many people can say the loved Shakespeare when in school? How many say they fully understood what Shakespeare was saying in his writings.

Even to-day, we have different meanings for simple words in English. When I first came to the USA, the hardest time I had was with the usage of certain words. If I bed you for the night, what might you think? What if I knock you up in t' morning? And never should I admonish you to keep your pecker up! Then there is walking through the subway or sitting on a chesterfield rather than puffing it.

English is not always straightforward, and especially 1611 English. Hence the need for upgrades.

When I publicly read from my faithful 1945 KJV, I always change the words as I read it.

Cheers,

JimI have a public high school education and I've always known what hinder and let mean. Are you suggesting those words aren't used today? :scratch: If Shakespeare is SO difficult, why isn't there a new revised version of Romeo and Juliette? :scratch: The word of God doesn't need upgrades, KJV 1.0 works just fine. ^_^ God doesn't need our help getting His point across.

[RichardT]

I thanketh thou kindest lady for thy most knowledgeable lesson! :) (how'd I do?)

fixed it.

[1057]

I use Archaic Words and the Authorized Version by Vance and King James Bible Word Book (http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Bible-Word-Book/dp/0785248595/sr=8-2/qid=1165357709/ref=sr_1_2/102-1872408-3048169?ie=UTF8&s=books) edited by Manser. And you can always just use Strong's to get a definition.

It really isn't hard to get the hang of the KJV. In terms of literary merit, this is the most beautiful book in English.

[Jim1927]

Indeed the most beautiful piece of literature.

Isaiah 36: 12..."Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] with you?" (KJV)

NIV "Was it only to your master and you that my master sent me to say these things, and not to the men sitting on the wall - who, like you, will have to eat their own filth and drink their own urine."

Please tell me what "let" and "hinder" mean.

Thank you,

Jim

[RichardT]

Indeed the most beautiful piece of literature.

Isaiah 36: 12..."Hath my master sent me to thy master and to thee to speak these words? hath he not sent me to the men that sit upon the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] with you?" (KJV)

NIV "Was it only to your master and you that my master sent me to say these things, and not to the men sitting on the wall - who, like you, will have to eat their own filth and drink their own urine."

Please tell me what "let" and "hinder" mean.

Thank you,

Jim

I like the KJV translation of the verse better.

[Logos1560]

If YOU update the "archaic" words, to help YOU understand it better as I do while reading, no, no problem. If you let some ungodly scholar alter your bible out of laziness, then yes, I have a problem.

The word of God doesn't need upgrades, KJV 1.0 works just fine.

Are you suggesting that it was wrong for the KJV translators to update or upgrade the earlier English Bibles of which it was a revision (Tyndale's to Bishops')?
Should they have left in all the words below?

abject (Dan. 4:17) Geneva
abrech (Gen. 41:43) Tyndale's
achat (Exod. 39:12) Tyndale's
advoutry (Mark 7:21) Tyndale's
affianced (Luke 1:27) Geneva
albs (Lev. 8:13) Tyndale's
arb (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
arede (Mark 14:65) Tyndale's
assoyl (Matt. 21:24) Tyndale's
breastlap (Exod. 25:7) Coverdale's
bruterer (Deut. 18:10) Tyndale's
buballs (1 Kings 4:23) Matthew's
buggerers (1 Tim. 1:10) Geneva
byss (Gen. 41:42) Tyndale's
calamite (Exod. 30:23) Tyndale's
cavillation (Luke 19:8) Bishops'
chevisance (Deut. 21:14) Tyndale's
commonalty (Lev. 4:13) Tyndale's
cratch (Luke 2:7) Geneva
debite (Luke 20:20) Tyndale's
deedslayers (2 Kings 14:6) Coverdale's
despicions (Acts 28:29) Tyndale's
diseasest (Mark 5:35) Tyndale's
door cheeks (Exod. 12:23) Geneva
egalness (2 Cor. 8:14) Tyndale's
endote (Exod. 22:16) Tyndale's
erewhile (John 9:27) Tyndale's
execrable (1 Cor. 12:3) Geneva
fardels (Acts 21:15) Geneva
flacket (1 Sam. 16:20) Matthew's
flaggy (1 Sam. 15:9) Matthew's
flawnes (1 Chron. 23:29) Matthew's
felicity (Gal. 4:15) Bishops'
fish panier (Job 41:7) Bishops'
forcer (1 Sam. 8:8) Matthew's
frayles (1 Sam. 25:18) Coverdale's
frumenty (Lev. 23:14) Tyndale's
gabish (Job 28:18) Geneva
gaoler (Acts 16:23) Geneva
grece (Acts 21:35) Tyndale's
hagab (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
handfasted (Deut. 22:23) Tyndale's
harborous (1 Tim. 3:2) Geneva
harbourless (Matt. 25:35) Tyndale's
hargol (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
haunted (John 3:22) Tyndale's
heavengazers (Isa. 47:13) Bishops'
hoared (Josh. 9:5) Matthew's
hucklebone (Gen. 32:25) Bishops'
Iim (Isa. 13:22) Geneva
jakes (2 Kings 10:27) Geneva
lamies (Lam. 4:3) Coverdale's
loured (Gen. 4:5) Tyndale's
manchet (1 Kings 4:22) Matthew's
mandragoras (Gen. 30:14) Tyndale's
maund (Exod. 29:3) Tyndale's
meinie (Gen. 22:3) Tyndale's
mizzling (Deut. 32:2) Tyndale's
moon prophets (Isa. 47:13) Bishops'
mossell (1 Cor. 9:9) Tyndale's
overscaped (Lev. 19:10) Tyndale's
overthwart (Deut. 32:5) Coverdale's
parbreak (Num. 11:20) Tyndale's
partlet (Exod. 28:32) Tyndale's
perquellies (2 Sam. 5:8) Coverdale's
pismire (Prov. 6:6) Geneva
plage (Deut. 17:8) Tyndale's
pleck (Lev. 13:4) Tyndale's
porphyry (Esther 1:6) Geneva
querne (Isa. 47:2) Bishops'
quier (1 Kings 6:5) Bishops'
raught (Ruth 2:14) Matthew's
rebecks (1 Sam. 18:6) Geneva
recule (2 Sam. 11:15) Geneva
redebush (Isa. 9:18) Coverdale's
rugagates (Jud. 12:4) Bishops'
sallets (Jer. 46:4) Bishops'
scrale (Exod. 8:3) Tyndale's
sethim (Deut. 10:3) Tyndale's
shawms (Ps. 98:6) Coverdale's
shope (Gen. 2:7) Tyndale's
simnel (Exod. 29:23) Tyndale's
slade (1 Sam. 25:20) Matthew's
slops (Isa. 3:20) Geneva
smaragdus (Exod. 28:17) Coverdale's
soleam (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
taxus (Exod. 25:4) Tyndale's
toot-hill (Gen. 31:49) Tyndale's
treacle (Jer. 8:22) Coverdale's
tunicle (Exod. 29:5) Coverdale's
unghostly (1 Tim. 4:7) Tyndale's
unhallow (Lev. 19:12) Coverdale's
unhele (Lev. 18:16) Tyndale's
wenest (Acts 8:20) Tyndale's
whalefish (Job 7:12) Bishops'
Whitsuntide (1 Cor. 16:8) Tyndale's

[aReformedPatriot]

I wonder, who told you the KJV was the only acceptable translation?

[1057]

Please tell me what "let" and "hinder" mean.

Thank you,

Jim
You are most welcome.

Let, from Old English letten, means obstruct. In modern English, anything that hinders a tennis game is called a "let". Let also means "permit" and it's used that way in the KJV as well. There are many other English words like this (e.g. "lie" means a falshood or to lay down).

Hinder (from Middle English bihinden) means behind, at the back, or at the rear.

And yes, the KJV is quite beautiful. Have you studied prosody? Can you find the dactyl in Isaiah 14:12? How art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer, Son of the morning!

[Logos1560]

The word of God doesn't need upgrades, KJV 1.0 works just fine

Do you use the original 1611 edition or do you use one of the upgraded later KJV editions?

There are 2,000 differences or changes that affect the sound of words between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present Oxford edition of the KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible.

There are 4,000 differences or changes between the present Oxford KJV edition and the 2005 Cambridge edition in the NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Anyone here can download for free and read the 1611 KJV and also the latest edition to see any difference for themselves by clicking here (http://www.e-sword.net/). The differences I think are over stated. Also from this same site you can download for free the Webster 1828 dictionary and read the meaning of KJV words.

[Logos1560]

The differences I think are over stated.

The number of differences are under stated by KJV-only authors. Ed DeVries wrote: “Buy a KJV at any bookstore and compare it to a KJV from 1611 and you will see that EVERY word is the same” (Divinely Inspired, Inerrantly Preserved, p. 66). William Bradley claimed that “the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James Bible printed in 1997” (Purified Seven Times, p. 115). Mickey Carter suggested that "the words were never changed" between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition (THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME, pp. 173-174).

When some differences are acknowledged, the number is usually understated. D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV plus "285 minor changes of form" (Defending the KJB, p. 244, see also pp. 3-4). In another book, Waite noted that he “found only 421 changes to the ear from the 1611 original compared with the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible of today” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions, p. 53, see also pp. 90-93). He indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they “would get the same results” (p. 93).

I did the same comparison that Waite did and used the same criteria for listing differences that he used, and I found that Waite's count is inaccurate. I found over 2,000 of the same-type differences that were listed by Waite.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Would you have a list of verses I could look at that use completely different words? Different spelling of words isn't a big deal to me. You may know I'm not KJV only but I like the truth about the whole translation debate to be known.

The number of differences are under stated by KJV-only authors. Ed DeVries wrote: “Buy a KJV at any bookstore and compare it to a KJV from 1611 and you will see that EVERY word is the same” (Divinely Inspired, Inerrantly Preserved, p. 66). William Bradley claimed that “the King James Bible printed in 1611 reads the same as the King James Bible printed in 1997” (Purified Seven Times, p. 115). Mickey Carter suggested that "the words were never changed" between the 1611 edition and the 1769 edition (THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME, pp. 173-174).

When some differences are acknowledged, the number is usually understated. D. A. Waite admitted that there are "136 substantial changes" between the 1611 KJV and current KJV plus "285 minor changes of form" (Defending the KJB, p. 244, see also pp. 3-4). In another book, Waite noted that he “found only 421 changes to the ear from the 1611 original compared with the 1917 Old Scofield King James Bible of today” (Fundamentalist Mis-Information on Bible Versions, p. 53, see also pp. 90-93). He indicated that he was sure that if another person did the same comparison that they “would get the same results” (p. 93).

I did the same comparison that Waite did and used the same criteria for listing differences that he used, and I found that Waite's count is inaccurate. I found over 2,000 of the same-type differences that were listed by Waite.

[1057]

Changes in the King James Version (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html)

Original errors of the press corrected (from Matthew):

4:25 great great -- great
5:47 do you-- do ye
8:25 awoke, saying -- awoke him, saying
21:20 away?-- away!
26:34 might -- night

This is why I don't use a "1611" KJV (there are manuscript differences in the first edition so there really is no single "original" KJV). I'll defend the KJV, but it wasn't perfect then and it's not perfect now.

[Logos1560]

Would you have a list of verses I could look at that use completely different words?

It would take several pages to list all 2,000 of the changes.

I will briefly list some of the bigger differences.

six words added to 1611 Eccl. 8:17 ["yet he shall not find it"]

three words added to 1611 at several verses:
Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, Jud. 1:31, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13

two words added to 1611 at several verses:
Exod. 15:25, Exod. 21:32, Exod. 35:11, Lev. 19:34, Lev. 26:23, Deut. 26:1, 1 Sam. 18:27, Ezek. 34:31, Ezek. 46:23, John 7:16, 1 John 5:12

There are over 60 verses where later editors add one word not in the 1611. There are 15 to 20 verses where later editors omit one word found in the 1611.

There are over 30 verses where changes in the number [singular/plural] of words was made [That is not including the ones listed by Waite].

[1057]

In the year 1611 there were two distinct folio editions of this Bible published. Each of them has errors and readings peculiar to itself. One edition has, for instance, "Judas" instead of "Jesus" in Matt. xxvi., 36; the other has a part of the verse repeated in Exod. xiv., 10, making what printers call "a doublet." In Gen. x., 16, one copy reads the "Emorite," and the other the "Amorite." One has in Ruth iii., 15, "He went into the city;" the other has, "She went into the city." This led to their being designated, the great He Bible, and the great She Bible. Source (http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html)

[Matthan]

I am so glad you finally got me straight on this, TC! And here after all these years I thought "Thee" was the place I put my golf ball just before I once again made a fool of myself.

Matthan

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Those are press errors according the source you're using so that didn't really answer my request. I did look at a good bit of the rest of the page though and didn't see any good examples that I was looking to find. Most of the stuff seems to be differences in italics and such.

Changes in the King James Version (http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html)

Original errors of the press corrected (from Matthew):

4:25 great great -- great
5:47 do you-- do ye
8:25 awoke, saying -- awoke him, saying
21:20 away?-- away!
26:34 might -- night

This is why I don't use a "1611" KJV (there are manuscript differences in the first edition so there really is no single "original" KJV). I'll defend the KJV, but it wasn't perfect then and it's not perfect now.

[PrincetonGuy]

Having trouble reading the King James Bible? Oh, thou jarring long-tongued scurvy-knave! Here is my guide to help you through the tough language of English.

Whatever you learned about masculine and feminine adjectives in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Spanish, French or what ever other language you know.... fergitaboutit. Wipe it from your memory. In English only things with gender are assigned gender. Forget about infinitives and grammar. All you need to know is this:

Thees and thous (and thy and thine) will trouble YOU no longer. These hard to understand archaic words are simple singular forms for the word YOU. You and your and yours are used when speaking to multiple people. However, be aware that referring to a group as "you people" is oft considered a racial slur in modern English.

Hither means here and thither means there.

If you com across a short word that doesn't seem to make sense, see how it fits into the sentence, Oft usually means often and yon means yonder.... see how easy that can be? We do this much in our modern slang.

Lastly, verbs that end with -th are present tense. Add an s instead and you'll be fine. It's not the Elizabethan English that is troublesome, but the modern English, full of slang and double meaning, that causes confusion.

Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel, when we learn that "I before E except after C" isn't so weird after all. ^_^


I have many different copies and editions of the King James Version in my study, so I took a look at them to see how they differ. I found Matt. 4:2 especially interesting. Here is a summary of what found. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse.

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

Has the KJV preserved for all eternity God’s Holy Word in English? My grandmother did a better job than this of preserving her strawberries.

But that is not all! How about the readability? What English grammatical form is being rendered here, and precisely what does it mean? Do any of you King James Version readers know the answer to that question? Anglican Bishop (1613-1667) Jeremy Taylor gave us this translation, “he was afterwards an hungry.” And what is the difference between being “an hungered” (etc.) and being “hungry?” Do any of you King James Version readers know the answer to that question?

God preserved Matt. 4:2 in Greek, and the Greek text here is very plain and easy to read. The KJV is sadly confused and obscure.

The NASB, 1995, is very plain and easy to read, “He then became hungry,” an accurate, very readable translation of the Greek wording here where a third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used. The very same third person singular active aorist indicative Greek verb is used in Mark 11:12 and, of course, the NASB translates this identical verb in an identical manner. In the KJV, however, this identical verb in Mark 11:12 is translated differently than it is in Matt. 4:2, using a much less precise translation than that found in the NASB.

Mark 11:12 And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry. (KJV, all editions)

Anyone, anyone at all, who is familiar with New Testament Greek and the translations of it in the KJV and NASB, 1995, knows for an absolute, incontrovertible fact that the translation of the Greek New Testament found in the NASB, 1995, is VERY much more accurate than the translation of the Greek New Testament found in any edition of KJV. Who would want to drive an old, broken-down Chevy when for the same price he could drive a Rolls Royce Bentley? A country farmer might reply, “My Chevy gets me where I’m goin’.” But that is not always true! It breaks down in Matt. 4:2, Mark 11:12, and thousands of other places in the New Testament alone!

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

It would take several pages to list all 2,000 of the changes.

I will briefly list some of the bigger differences.

six words added to 1611 Eccl. 8:17 ["yet he shall not find it"]

three words added to 1611 at several verses:
Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, Jud. 1:31, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13

two words added to 1611 at several verses:
Exod. 15:25, Exod. 21:32, Exod. 35:11, Lev. 19:34, Lev. 26:23, Deut. 26:1, 1 Sam. 18:27, Ezek. 34:31, Ezek. 46:23, John 7:16, 1 John 5:12

There are over 60 verses where later editors add one word not in the 1611. There are 15 to 20 verses where later editors omit one word found in the 1611.

There are over 30 verses where changes in the number [singular/plural] of words was made [That is not including the ones listed by Waite].

Thanks for your reply. I would be curious for the reasoning of the 1611 translation and then reason for the changes. It looks like from just looking up a few of the verses you listed that some repeated phrases were taken out.

[1057]

Who would want to drive an old, broken-down Chevy when for the same price he could drive a Rolls Royce Bentley? A country farmer might reply, “My Chevy gets me where I’m goin’.”
It does. Christians have been sanctified through prayerful, submissive reading of the KJV for centuries. It works. It's like errors on a CD--there are algorithms that compensate for glitches and contextually "figure out" what it's supposed to sound like, unless the CD is badly scratched. The KJV is fine. The imperfections in translation will lead no one to heresy or immorality. The difficulties in reading older English are eased by reading the whole book and getting the contexts.

Personally, I'm devoted to the King James because the translators had a sense of the holy. You can feel it in the rhythms of the language. The modern translations are somewhat better in word-for-word accuracy, but the sentences are pedestrian. Portions of the New Jerusalem Bible and the Holman Christian Standard are notable exceptions. But the KJV is king.

[JPPT1974]

The KJV is the language that the people
In those times spoke even though I use the
NIV to better understand.

[PrincetonGuy]

It does. Christians have been sanctified through prayerful, submissive reading of the KJV for centuries. It works. It's like errors on a CD--there are algorithms that compensate for glitches and contextually "figure out" what it's supposed to sound like, unless the CD is badly scratched. The KJV is fine.

The English language is very much alive and constantly changing. Therefore, translations of foreign language works into English must either be revised often to maintain their accuracy and readability or they gradually become more and more inaccurate and unreadable. The most popular versions of the Bible are being revised frequently because the English language is rapidly changing and because of progress in Biblical scholarship. Here are some examples along with their revision dates:

Jerusalem Bible, 1966
New Jerusalem Bible, 1985

New American Bible, 1970
New American Bible, with the Revised New Testament, 1986

Revised Standard Version, 1946, 1952, 1971
New Revised Standard Version, 1989

New American Standard Bible, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977
New American Standard Bible, Updated Version, 1995

New English Bible, 1961, 1970
Revised English Bible, 1989

When translations of the Bible are not frequently revised, we find people trying to make sense of English like this:

Exodus 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended vpon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. KJV, 1611

Instead of English like this:

Exodus 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently. (NASB, 1995)

[PrincetonGuy]

And we find archaism like these:

"abased" (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14) then meant "humbled"
"abide" (Acts 20:23) then meant "await"
"acquaintance" (Luke 2:44; 23:49; Acts 24:23) then meant "acquaintances"
"admiration" (Rev. 17:6) then meant "wonder"
"affections" (Gal. 5:24) then meant "passions"
"again" (Matt. 27:3; Luke 14:6) then meant "back"
"allege" (Acts 17:3) then meant present "evidence"
"allow" (Luke 11:48; Rom. 14:22; 1 Thes. 2:4) then meant "approve"
"amazement" (1 Pet. 3:6) then meant "terror"
"amend" (John 4:52) then meant "mend"
"answer" (2 Tim. 4:16) then meant "defense"
"approve" (2 Cor. 6:4; 7:11) then meant "commend" or "prove"
"assay" (Acts 9:26; 16:7; Heb. 11:29) then meant "essay" or "attempt"
"attendance" (1 Tim. 4:13) then meant "attention"
"base" (1 Cor. 1:28; 2 Cor. 10:1) then meant "lowly"
"behind" (Col. 1:24) then meant "lacking"
"bewitched" (Acts 8:9, 11) then meant "astonished"
"by and by" (Matt. 13:21; Mark 6:25; Luke 17:7; 21:9) then meant "immediately"
"careful" (Luke 10:41; Phil. 4:6) then meant "anxious"
"charged" (1 Tim. 5:16) then meant "burdened"
"charger" (Matt. 14:8, 11; Mark 6:25, 28) then meant "platter"
"charity" (1 Cor. 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; etc.) then meant "love"
"charitably" (Rom. 14:15) then meant "in love"
"communicate" (Gal. 6:6; Phil. 4:14, 15; 1 Tim. 6:18; Heb. 13:16) then meant "share"
"communications" (Cor. 15:33) then meant "companionship"
"concluded" (Rom. 11:32; Gal. 3:22) then meant "shut up"
"conscience" (1 Cor. 8:7; Heb. 10:2) then meant "consciousness"
"convenient" (Rom. 1:28; Eph. 5:4; Phlm. 8) then meant "fitting" or "proper"
"conversation" (2 Cor. 1:12; Gal. 1:13; Eph. 2:3; etc.) then meant "manner of life" or "conduct"
"corn" (Matt. 12:1; Mark 2:23; 4:28; etc.) then meant "grain"
"countries" (Luke 21:21) then meant "country"
"country, a" (John 11:54) then meant "the country"
"damnation" (Matt. 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; etc.) then meant "condemnation" or "judgment" (1 Cor. 11:29)
"damned" (Mark 16:16; Rom. 14:23; 2 Thes. 2:12) then meant "condemned" or "judged"
"delicately" (Luke 7:25) then meant "luxuriously"
"deliciously" (Rev. 18:7, 9) then meant "wantonly"
"doubtful" (Luke 12:29) then meant "anxious"
"draught" (Matt. 15:17; Mark 7:19) then meant "drain"
"earnestly" (Luke 22:56; Acts 23:1) then meant "carefully" or "steadfastly" or "intently"
"ensue" (1 Pet. 3:11) then meant "pursue"
"entreat(ed)" (Matt. 22:6; Luke 18:32; 20:11; etc.) then meant "treat(ed)"
"estate" (Acts 22:5) then meant "council"
"estates" (Mark 6:21) then meant "men of nobility or rank"
"ever, or" (Acts 23:15) then meant "before"
"evidently" (Acts 10:3) then meant "clearly" or "openly" (Gal. 3:1)
"fame" (Matt. 4:24; 9:26, 31; 14:1; Mark 1:28; etc.) then meant "report" or
"feeble-minded" (1 Thes. 5:14) then meant "fainthearted"
"forward" (2 Cor. 8:10, 17; Gal. 2:10) then meant "ready" or "eager"
"frankly" (Luke 7:42) then meant "freely"
"furnished" (Matt. 22:10) then meant "filled"
"go beyond" (1 Thes. 4:6) then meant "transgress"
"good" (1 Jn. 3:17) then meant "goods"
"goodman" (Matt. 20:11; 24:43; Mark 14:14; etc.) then meant "master"
"governor" (James 3:4) then meant "pilot"
"grudge" (James 5:9; 1 Pet. 4:9) then meant "grumble"
"guilty" (Matt. 23:18) then meant "bound"
"hardly" (Matt. 19:23) then meant "with difficulty"
"instant" (Luke 23:23) then meant "insistent," or "constant" (Rom. 12:12), or "urgent" (2 Tim. 4:2)
"keep under" (1 Cor. 9:27) then meant "buffet"
"lade" (Luke 11:46) then meant "load"
"large" (Matt. 28:12) then meant "much"
"lewd" (Acts 17:5) then meant "wicked"
"lewdness" (Acts 18:14) then meant "villainy"
"listed" (Matt. 17:12; Mark 9:13) then meant "wished"
"listeth" (John 3:8; James 3:4) then meant "wishes"
"lively" (Acts 7:38; 1 Pet. 1:3; 2:5) then meant "living"
"loft" (Acts 20:9) then meant "story"
"marred" (Mark 2:22) then meant "destroyed"
"meat" (Matt. 3:4; 6:25; 10:10; 15:37; 24:45; etc.) then meant "food"
"minister" (Luke 4:20) then meant "attendant"
"minstrels" (Matt. 9:23) then meant "flute players"
"motions" (Rom. 7:5) then meant "passions"
"observed him" (Mark 6:20) then meant "kept him safe"
"occupy" (Luke 19:13) then meant "trade"
"other" (John 21:2; Acts 15:2; 2 Cor. 13:2; Phil. 2:3) then meant "others"
"other some" (Acts 17:18) then meant "some others"
"overcharge(d)" (Luke 21:34; 2 Cor. 2:5) then meant "over burden(ed)"
"particularly" (Acts 21:19; Heb. 9:5) then meant "in detail"
"pitiful" (1 Pet. 3:8) then meant "merciful"
"presently" (Matt. 21:19; 26:53; Phil. 2:23) then meant "immediately"
"pressed out of" (2 Cor. 1:8) then meant "oppressed beyond"
"prevent" (1 Thes. 4:15) then meant "precede"
"prevented" (Matt. 17:25) then meant "spoke first to"
"profited" (Gal. 1:14) then meant "advanced"
"profiting" (1 Tim. 4:15) then meant "progress"
"proper" (Acts 1:19; 1 Cor. 7:7) then meant "own" or "beautiful" (Heb. 11:23)
"quick" (Heb. 4:12) then meant "living"
"quit you" (1 Cor. 16:13) then meant "conduct yourselves"
"reason" (Acts 6:2) then meant "reasonable"
"record" (John 1:19; Acts 20:26; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8) then meant "witness"
"respect, had" (Heb. 11:26) then meant "looked"
"room" (Matt. 2:22; Luke 14:7, 8, 9, 10; Acts 24:27; 1 Cor. 14:16) then meant "place"

[PrincetonGuy]

And like these:

"sardine" (Rev. 4:3) then meant "sardius"
"scrip" (Matt. 10:10; Mark 6:8; Luke 9:3; 10:4; etc.) then meant "bag"
"secondarily" (1 Cor. 12:28) then meant "secondly"
"sentence" (Acts 15:19) then meant "judgment"
"several" (Matt. 25:15) then meant "particular"
"shamefacedness" (1 Tim. 2:9) then meant "modesty" or "propriety"
"shape" (John 5:37) then meant "form"
"should" (Acts 23:27) then meant "would"
"sincere" (1 Pet. 2:2) then meant "pure"
"strange" (Acts 26:11) then meant "foreign"
"strangers of" (Acts 2:10) then meant "visitors from"
"string" (Mark 7:35) then meant "band"
"study" (1 Thes. 4:11; 2 Tim. 2:15) then meant "strive"
"tables" (Luke 1:63; 2 Cor. 3:3) then meant "tablets"
"take no thought" (Matt. 6:25, 28, 31, 34; 10:19; Luke 12:11, 22, 26) then meant "be not anxious"
"taking thought" (Matt. 6:27; Luke 12:25) then meant "being anxious"
"temperance" (Acts 24:25; Gal. 5:23; 2 Pet. 1:6) then meant "self-control"
"temperate" (1 Cor. 9:25; Tit. 1:8) then meant "self- controlled"
"translated" (Col. 1:13; Heb. 11:5) then meant "transferred"

[PrincetonGuy]

And we find translation errors like these,

"devils" (Matt. 4:24; 8:16, 33; Mark 1:32; 5:12; etc.) for "demons"
"by" (Matt. 5:21) for "to"
"of" (Matt. 6:1) for "with"
"I am a" (Matt. 8:9) for "I, too, am a"
"Who is" (Matt. 18:1) for "Who, then, is"
"are gone out" (Matt. 25:8) for "are going out"
"in the end of the Sabbath" (Matt. 28:1) for "after the Sabbath"
"observed" (Mark 6:20) for "kept safe"
"pineth away" (Mark 9:18) for "stiffens out" or "becomes rigid"
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty" (Luke 3:23) for "And when He began his ministry, Jesus himself was about thirty"
"in the plain" (Luke 6:17) for "on a level place"
"Herod will kill" (Luke 13:31) for "Herod wants to Kill"
"husks" (Luke 15:16) for "pods"
"in their generation" (Luke 16:8) for "in relation to their own generation"
"possess" (Luke 18:12) for "get"
"possess" (Luke 21:19) for "gain"
"bare" (John 12:6) for "used to pilfer"
"comfortless" (John 14:18) for "orphans"
"Touch me not" (John 20:17) for "stop clinging to me"
"when this was noised abroad" (Acts 2:6) for "when this sound occurred"
"should be saved" (Acts 2:47) for "were being saved"
"Grecians" Acts 6:1; 9:29) for "Hellenists" or "Hellenistic Jews"
"Libertines" (Acts 6:9) for "Freedmen"
"since you believed" (Acts 19:2) for "when you believed"
"taken up" (Acts 27:40) for "casting off" or "cutting loose"
"they" (Acts 28:1) for "we"
"remission" (Rom. 3:25) for "passing over"
"ordinances" (1 Cor. 11:2) for "traditions"
"gathering" (1 Cor. 16:1, 2) for "collection"
"all died" (2 Cor. 5:14) for "were all dead"
"knew" (2 Cor. 12:2) for "know"
"large a letter" (Gal. 6:11) for "large letters"
"dung" (Phil. 3:8) for "rubbish"
"Euodias" (Phil. 4:2) for "Euodia" (Euodias is masculine rather than feminine)
"gain is godliness" (1 Tim. 6:5) for "godliness is a means of gain"
"embraced" (Heb. 11:13) for "obtained"
"appearing" (1 Peter 1:7, 13) for "revelation"
"sincere" (1 Peter 2:2) for "pure"
"kings and priests" (Rev. 1:6) for "a kingdom, priests"
"kingdoms" (Rev. 11:15) for "kingdom"

[PrincetonGuy]

Anyone here can download for free and read the 1611 KJV and also the latest edition to see any difference for themselves by clicking here (http://www.e-sword.net/). The differences I think are over stated. Also from this same site you can download for free the Webster 1828 dictionary and read the meaning of KJV words.

There are some very real differences between the 1611 KJV and today's KJV's (Published by Cambridge University Press). Some examples:



"And she laid up his garment by her, until *her* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, 1611 KJV)

"And she laid up his garment by her, until *his* lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, today's KJV)

Whose lord came home -- hers or his?


"If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels, and the ox shall be stoned." (Ex. 21:32, 1611 KJV)

"If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels *of silver*, and the ox shall be stoned." (Ex. 21:32, today's KJV)

Just "shekels?" Or "shekels" of a specific type?


"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *names* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, 1611 KJV)

"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the *name* of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, today's KJV)

One name or many names?


"And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *an unleavened cake* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, 1611 KJV)

"And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be *unleavened cakes* of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, today's KJV)

How many unleavened cakes are required here? Just one? Or more than one?


"Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *houses* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, 1611 KJV)

"Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the *house* of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, today's KJV)

One house or many houses?


"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, 1611 KJV)

"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep *all* my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, today's KJV)

Will it be well with Israel if they keep just some of God's commandments, or must they keep all of them?


"And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *at* the time of harvest,)" (Josh. 3:15, 1611 KJV)

"And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks *all* the time of harvest,) (Josh. 3:15, today's KJV)

Does the water of the Jordan overflow at some point during harvest season, or does it overflow throughout the entire harvest season?


"And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple." (2 Kg. 11:10, 1611 KJV)

"And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple *of the LORD*." (2 Kg. 11:10, today's KJV)

Is it just "temple," or is it "temple of the LORD?"


"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek *good.*" (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV)

"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek *God*." (Psa. 69:32, today's KJV)

So do we seek good or God?


"Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yea further though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." (Eccl. 8:17, 1611 KJV)

"Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, *yet he shall not find it*; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." (Eccl. 8:17, today's KJV)

Are the words "yet he shall not find it" the words of God or not?


"Sing, O *heaven*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *God* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, 1611 KJV)

"Sing, O *heavens*; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *the LORD* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, today's KJV)

Is it "heaven" or "heavens?" And is the Divine Name used here or not?


"So the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life." (Jer 38:16, 1611 KJV)

"So *Zedekiah* the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life." (Jer 38:16, today's KJV)

So is the king mentioned by name or not?


"Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *God*, and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, 1611 KJV)

"Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit *Gad,* and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, today's KJV)

Have the Ammonites inherited both God and God's cities? Or merely the territory and cities of Gad?


"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto *the children of thy people*, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

To whom is Ezekiel to go -- to his people, or to their children?


"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, 1611 KJV).

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it *not* upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, today's KJV).

So did she pour it out or not?


"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, 1611 KJV)

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art *the Christ*, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, today's KJV)

Just Christ? Or THE Christ?


"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *came* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, 1611 KJV)

"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he *ran* and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, today's KJV)

Did the man simply come to Jesus, perhaps walking? Or did he run to Jesus?


"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, 1611 KJV)

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of *all things* from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, today's KJV)

Did Luke have perfect understanding of only a few things, or of all things?


"Therefore his *sister* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, 1611 KJV)

"Therefore his *sisters* sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, today's KJV)

Did only one of the two sisters send word to Jesus about Lazarus, or did they both send word?


"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps in governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, 1611 KJV)

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, *helps, governments*, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, today's KJV)

Is Paul speaking of one administrative gift known as "helps in governments," or is he speaking of two different gifts, a gift of "helps" and a gift of "governments?"


"In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:" (2 Cor 11:32, 1611 KJV)

"In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city *of the Damascenes* with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:" (2 Cor 11:32, today's KJV)

Just "the city?" Or "the city of the Damascenes?"


"Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." (Eph. 6:24, 1611 KJV)

"Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. *Amen*. " (Eph. 6:24, today's KJV)

Do I hear an "amen" or not?


"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, 1611 KJV)

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than *godly edifying* which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, today's KJV)

So is it merely edifying, or is it a particluar kind of edifying, namely, godly edifying?


"The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13, 1611 KJV)

"The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, *and the books*, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13, today's KJV)

Was Timothy to bring the books or not?


"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifice*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, 1611 KJV)

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual *sacrifices*, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, today's KJV)

Is Peter telling us to offer one single spiritual sacrifice, or many different spiritual sacrifices?


"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, 1611 KJV)

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not *the Son of God* hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, today's KJV)

So is it "the Son" or "the Son of God?"


*Please Note: These notes are from a document sent to me some years ago. I have not verified the accuracy of all of the contents. If you find any errors, please post them in this thread with reference to this post.

[PrincetonGuy]

But the KJV is king.

Which KJV is King—the more recent editions, or the real King James Translation of 1611?

[1057]

Which KJV is King—the more recent editions, or the real King James Translation of 1611?The one you buy at Amazon is a literary masterpiece of the first rank.


When translations of the Bible are not frequently revised, we find people trying to make sense of English like this:

Exodus 19:18 And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended vpon it in fire: and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly. KJV, 1611

Instead of English like this:

Exodus 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was all in smoke because the LORD descended upon it in fire; and its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked violently. (NASB, 1995)

What word is hard to understand? Ascended? Furnace? The verse is not at all obscure and the rhythyms are beautiful. The alliterative "quaked greatly" is lost in the NASB. The one-syllable words at the end of the KJV verse have more "punch"; the NASB verse ends in chatter.

The language of the KJV is unhurried and graceful; it chants. The modern translations aren't reverent; they are functional and hurried and devoid of meter. They don't instill awe. But they do contain the propositional content of the Christian faith, and there are people being saved through these translations. The important thing is to read with faith, whatever you're reading.

[TwinCrier]

Do you use the original 1611 edition or do you use one of the upgraded later KJV editions?

There are 2,000 differences or changes that affect the sound of words between the 1611 edition of the KJV and the present Oxford edition of the KJV in the Scofield Reference Bible.

There are 4,000 differences or changes between the present Oxford KJV edition and the 2005 Cambridge edition in the NEW CAMBRIDGE PARAGRAPH BIBLE.
Do you copy and paste this exact phrase into every single bible versions topic? I use a 1611 in a modern font, although the 1769 edition is good as well. The only "changes" are related to spelling and not actual doctrine.

http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

[TwinCrier]

I have many different copies and editions of the King James Version in my study, so I took a look at them to see how they differ. I found Matt. 4:2 especially interesting. Here is a summary of what found. Notice especially the last phrase in that verse.

Mat 4:2 And when hee had fasted forty dayes and forty nights, hee was afterward an hungred. 1611

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered. 1817

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1824

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1867

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward a hungered. 1874

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1898

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 1917, Scofield Bible (Oxford)

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Oxford Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. No date, recent, Cambridge Bible

Mat 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward ahungered. 1971, American Bible Society


We find here five different renderings of the last phrase in Matt. 4:2, all them in the KJV:

hee was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward an hungered.
he was afterward a hungered.
he was afterward an hungred.
he was afterward ahungered.

Has the KJV preserved for all eternity God’s Holy Word in English? My grandmother did a better job than this of preserving her strawberries.


Funny how every change is only spelling. Every single version of that verse says the exact same thing. There is no doubt in any way what is meant. 40 days isn't changed to 22, 40 nights isn't left off in some of the verses and then brought back later.....
Now the modern versions change virgin to maiden and master to teacher, when those words are in no way simular, while removing references to the blood of Christ, sin, Lucifer, hell and other words that are of vital importance in Christian growth:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/king_james-proofs.htm

[TwinCrier]

Question: If it's so important to get rid of the thees and thous, why not change out hymn books as well? Certainly hymns aren't as sacred as God's word?
Answer: Because fewer churches use hymnbooks and choose instead to print out 7-11 praise songs for an overhead projector so there's no money in it for the publishers, but Christians are always willing to pony up the dough for the latest, coolest revised paraphrase. :cry:
For most Christians, it doesn't matter if they have the final authority, because the bible has no authority in their life anyways.

[Logos1560]

The only "changes" are related to spelling and not actual doctrine.



Actually, enough evidence has already been presented in this thread to prove that all the changes are not related to spelling.

Do you claim adding or omitting the name of God only relates to spelling?

[TwinCrier]

I have looked at the 'evidence' and found it lacking. Omitting the name of God?!?! What a ridiculous claim. It's clear which versions leave of things of importance:
http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html

[IndyRider]

I have looked at the 'evidence' and found it lacking. Omitting the name of God?!?! What a ridiculous claim. It's clear which versions leave of things of importance:
http://biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html
I'm just glad you changed your signature. By the way is that an elected position?

[Logos1560]

Omitting the name of God?!?! What a ridiculous claim.

The KJV translators themselves were responsible for keeping the following rendering from the Bishops' Bible: “that were in the temple” (2 Kings 11:10) that omitted the phrase “of the LORD” that had to be added by editors in later KJV editions. If the KJV translators simply kept these renderings or omissions from the Bishops’ Bible, they cannot accurately be considered printing errors. Did the Holy Spirit guide the KJV translators to keep these renderings from the Bishops’ Bible that later editors corrected?


Along with the examples in the previous paragraph, the 1611 edition of the KJV includes a number of other renderings from the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible that later editors would change or correct. Thus, these renderings that even some KJV-only advocates acknowledge to be “errors” (supposedly made by the printers) would have been the responsibility of the KJV translators since the translators kept them from the Bishops’ Bible. David Norton maintained that “there are some 250 variants where the first [1611] edition preserves a 1602 reading” (Textual History, p. 36). Norton noted that the 1568 edition of the Bishops’ Bible has the consistent spelling “Aialon” for a Hebrew name, “but the 1611 KJB follows the variations of the 1602 text exactly, giving ‘Aialon,‘ ‘Aiialon,‘ and ‘Aijalon’” (p. 35). Norton asserted that a clear error in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible at 1 Kings 8:61 [“the Lord [B]your God”] was kept in the 1611 edition while the 1568 Bishops’ Bible had the correct rendering [“the Lord our God”] (p. 36). This error was corrected in the 1629 Cambridge KJV edition. Norton also observed that “the present tense at Acts 23:3, ‘then saith Paul,‘ where the Greek and the context require the past, also comes from the 1602 text” while the 1568 Bishops’ text had “then said Paul” (p. 36). Norton suggested that the keeping of errors from the 1602 text is “important for establishing that the [KJV] translators were fallible in their attention to the text: sometimes they nodded” (p. 36). Actual evidence confirms that the KJV translators kept some renderings from the Bishops’ Bible that later KJV editors considered to be errors or to need changed.

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). There are several verses where one or more of the pre-1611 English Bibles had the name of God where it is not found in the KJV.

Gen. 23:6 prince of God (Tyndale's, Great, Geneva, Bishops' Bibles) mighty prince (KJV)
Exod. 9:28 of God (Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Great, Bishops' Bibles) mighty (KJV)
1 Sam. 14:15 fear sent of God (Tyndale's, Matthew's)
very great trembling (KJV)
2 Sam. 20:20 God forbid, God forbid (Geneva, Bishops' Bibles) Far be it, far be it (KJV)
2 Chron. 24:18 wrath of God (Bishops') wrath (KJV)
Matt. 13:20 the word of God (Tyndale's, Matthew's) the word (KJV)
Mark 14:62 power of God (Geneva, Bishops') power (KJV)

[mont974x4]

So long as the intended message isn't changed I have no problem with the various versions...so long as its read and not just a paperweight collecting dust.

[PrincetonGuy]

The modern translations aren't reverent; they are functional and hurried and devoid of meter. They don't instill awe.

This is a VERY sweeping statement! The truth is that the character of recent translations of the Bible is extremely diverse, ranging from simple the New Century Version translated at the third grade reading level to the majestic New Jerusalem Bible and the exceptionally accurate and precise Updated New American Stand Bible (1995). The first four verses of the Epistle to the Hebrews are provided below as an illustration.

Heb. 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets. He spoke to them many times and in many different ways. 2 And now in these last days God has spoken to us through his Son. God has chosen his Son to own all things. And he made the world through his Son. 3The Son reflects the glory of God. He is an exact copy of God’s nature. He holds everything together with the powerful word. The Son made people clan from their sins. Then he sat down at the right side of God the Great One in heaven. 4 The Son became much greater than the angels. And God gave him a name that is much greater than theirs. (NCV)


Heb. 1:1 At many moments in the past and by many means, God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets; 2 but in our time, the final days, a he has spoken to us in the person of his Son, b whom he appointed heir of all things c and through whom he made the ages. d 3 He is the reflection of God's glory and bears the impress of God's own being, e sustaining all things by his powerful command; and now that he has purged sins away, he has taken his seat at the right hand of the divine Majesty on high. 4 So he is now as far above the angels as the title which he has inherited is higher than their own name. (NJB)

Heb. 1:1. God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
2. in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
3. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4. having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. (NASB, 1995)

Heb. 1:1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
4. Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (KJV, recent edition)

If God Himself were to call me on the telephone and begin speaking to me in Swedish, I would immediately seek out a translator of Swedish who was very knowledgeable of both Swedish and English and who would give me a VERY accurate and precise translation without substituting meter or rhyme for accuracy and precision, and if the translation did not flow beautifully and eloquently that would not bother me at all—all that I would care about is the accuracy and the precision in translating the meaning of the words in their syntactical and contextual relationship.

The translators of the KJV had very little knowledge of the Greek language and virtually no Greek lexicons, grammars, or concordances to help them. Today, translators have scores of these to work with, and the lexicons and grammars and being revised or rewritten every several years as new information about the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek New Testament is learned from archaeological discoveries, grammatical analysis, and comparative studies that new advances in computer technology have made possible. Hundreds of volumes of exegetical commentaries on the New Testament books are now available to translators, none of which were available to the translators of the KJV. And thousands upon thousands of very detailed studies of parts of the individual books of the Greek New Testament are now available to translators, giving them vast amounts of data to help them to understand more clearly the precise meaning of individual words and phrases in their syntactical and contextual relationships.

[UBERROGO]

Nice post, I have to go make sure no one [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]eths against a wall now.

[1057]

This is a VERY sweeping statement! The truth is that the character of recent translations of the Bible is extremely diverse, ranging from simple the New Century Version translated at the third grade reading level to the majestic New Jerusalem Bible and the exceptionally accurate and precise Updated New American Stand Bible (1995).
I've read the NIV, HCSB and the NASB1995 in their entirety, and large portions of several other translations, including the NJB. I'm impressed by the clarity of the NLT--it's as if the verses are custom-written for your own brain. But the verses of the Psalms tend to be longer and poetry is sacrificed for clarity. Hey, to each his own. Every verse of the NIV is written in perfect American English--a Bible Strunk & White could love, and this is the version I'd recommend to new believers. The translation of Amos in the HCSB is simply brilliant, but there are a few (very few) clunkers in that translation (imo) where the alliteration is awkward: "My soul is swallowed up in sorrow." The New Jerusalem Bible is the best modern version for literary quality (imo). I remember being very impressed by the Psalms and epistles.

But there is nothing sweeping or even unusual in saying that the King James is the preeminent literary translation, and that its language is "elevated" compared to the others. No one ever spoke the language of the KJV. People didn't talk that way in 1611, just as people in the 1950s didn't sound like Dylan Thomas poems.

I'd say most modern translators are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Bible is being dumbed down for consumers who are not willing to smarten up. And there is something seemingly Gramscian in the undermining of holiness, as if Scripture shouldn't be impressive. Our sense of the holy is at stake here.

[mont974x4]

I've read the NIV, HCSB and the NASB1995 in their entirety, and large portions of several other translations, including the NJB. I'm impressed by the clarity of the NLT--it's as if the verses are custom-written for your own brain. But the verses of the Psalms tend to be longer and poetry is sacrificed for clarity. Hey, to each his own. Every verse of the NIV is written in perfect American English--a Bible Strunk & White could love, and this is the version I'd recommend to new believers. The translation of Amos in the HCSB is simply brilliant, but there are a few (very few) clunkers in that translation (imo) where the alliteration is awkward: "My soul is swallowed up in sorrow." The New Jerusalem Bible is the best modern version for literary quality (imo). I remember being very impressed by the Psalms and epistles.

But there is nothing sweeping or even unusual in saying that the King James is the preeminent literary translation, and that its language is "elevated" compared to the others. No one ever spoke the language of the KJV. People didn't talk that way in 1611, just as people in the 1950s didn't sound like Dylan Thomas poems.

I'd say most modern translators are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Bible is being dumbed down for consumers who are not willing to smarten up. And there is something seemingly Gramscian in the undermining of holiness, as if Scripture shouldn't be impressive. Our sense of the holy is at stake here.
Poetry is of no consequence. It is the message that is important. So long as the original message is not watered down or messed with, I see no reason to downplay the authority, authenticity, or usefulness of newer translations.

To argue one translation is better than another is simply a more academic approach to the old this denomination is better than that one debate. It's divisive and generally a selfish and arrogant discussion that robs us all.

God is holy and His Word is holy whether it is written in old Enlgish, new English, Serbian, Japanese or any other language. The Holy Spirit will speak through it all to those He wills.


If you enjoy one version over another then by all means read it. The fact is we are free to choose and not free to demean other translations or people who who choose them.

[1057]

To argue one translation is better than another is simply a more academic approach to the old this denomination is better than that one debate. It's divisive and generally a selfish and arrogant discussion that robs us all.

If you enjoy one version over another then by all means read it. The fact is we are free to choose and not free to demean other translations or people who who choose them.
Actually, we don't have to treat everything as if it has equal merit. Radical equalitarianism isn't a Christian virtue.

And I never said that anyone isn't "free to choose" (what a slogan) and I did say that people are being saved through the modern translations.

[Joykins]

Thees and thous (and thy and thine) will trouble YOU no longer. These hard to understand archaic words are simple singular forms for the word YOU. You and your and yours are used when speaking to multiple people.


Thee and thou are also considered informal and "you" is considered formal. This is a distinction that did not carry over into non-early modern English so they can all be used as "you." Thou should always be used as the subject (like "I") and thee as the object (like "me"), unless you're a Quaker in which case Thee is used as both subject and object.

[zhilan]

Tune in next week, same bat time, same bat channel, when we learn that "I before E except after C" isn't so weird after all. ^_^

Can you really prove this?? I'm highly skeptical.....

*sings song from school, "I before E except after C except "eih" as in neighbor or sleight..." :swoon:

I still remember all those painful C's on my elementary school report card for spelling..... :cry:

[arunma]

I've read the NIV, HCSB and the NASB1995 in their entirety, and large portions of several other translations, including the NJB. I'm impressed by the clarity of the NLT--it's as if the verses are custom-written for your own brain. But the verses of the Psalms tend to be longer and poetry is sacrificed for clarity. Hey, to each his own. Every verse of the NIV is written in perfect American English--a Bible Strunk & White could love, and this is the version I'd recommend to new believers. The translation of Amos in the HCSB is simply brilliant, but there are a few (very few) clunkers in that translation (imo) where the alliteration is awkward: "My soul is swallowed up in sorrow." The New Jerusalem Bible is the best modern version for literary quality (imo). I remember being very impressed by the Psalms and epistles.

But there is nothing sweeping or even unusual in saying that the King James is the preeminent literary translation, and that its language is "elevated" compared to the others. No one ever spoke the language of the KJV. People didn't talk that way in 1611, just as people in the 1950s didn't sound like Dylan Thomas poems.

I'd say most modern translators are trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The Bible is being dumbed down for consumers who are not willing to smarten up. And there is something seemingly Gramscian in the undermining of holiness, as if Scripture shouldn't be impressive. Our sense of the holy is at stake here.

Eryk, if I may ask, what is your impression of the English Standard Version? I think the ESV is a most excellent balance between literary quality and readability.

[Adammi]

I'm sure that this has already been pointed out, but there are many modern revisions of Romeo and Juliette. For which I am very thankful, I can't imagine what 9th grade English would have been like without them. *memories*

I learned from these modern revisions that, "O Romeo, Romeo! wherefore art thou Romeo?" has nothing to do with physical location.

[1057]

Eryk, if I may ask, what is your impression of the English Standard Version? I think the ESV is a most excellent balance between literary quality and readability.
The mixing of obsolete and modern grammar and vocabulary makes this a particularly awkward translation.

The online NET Bible has a similar problem--some parts are more literal than others, some are more dynamic. Overall, it just doesn't sound like ANYTHING.

I do appreciate the fact that the ESV is more literal here and there than the NASB ("Adam knew his wife"; "All Scripture is breathed out by God" for theopneustos).

The ESV is a slight revision of the RSV, itself a revision of the King. This is what happens:

James 1:19 KJV swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath

This verse is in cretic meter--accent on first and third of three syllables. Also note the alliteration of the s words.

James 1:19 ESV quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger;

The ESV has two syllables at the end instead of one, and the alliteration was lost by substituting quick.

This is why, in terms of style, the best modern translations are new translations, not revisions.

[JacobHall86]

If you let some ungodly scholar alter your bible out of laziness, then yes, I have a problem. The word of God doesn't need upgrades, KJV 1.0 works just fine. ^_^ God doesn't need our help getting His point across.

I LOL'd at all this.

You do realize the Irony of saying all this without being able to read Greek and Hebrew right? You actually have let some UnGodly scholar alter the Bible into another langauge because of Laziness. If you, or anyone else were truely earnest in their defense of the Bible they would learn the Original Languages.

And the KJV is what you call an "upgrade" since its not the original languages.

[PrincetonGuy]

The ESV is a slight revision of the RSV, itself a revision of the King. This is what happens:

James 1:19 KJV swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath

This verse is in cretic meter--accent on first and third of three syllables. Also note the alliteration of the s words.

James 1:19 ESV quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger;

The ESV has two syllables at the end instead of one, and the alliteration was lost by substituting quick.

This is why, in terms of style, the best modern translations are new translations, not revisions.

I believe that the New Testament documents are inspired writings and therefore I believe that the translation of them into English should place much more emphasis upon a precise translation of the meaning of the words in their syntactical and contextual relationships rather than upon style or upon alliteration, meter, or other qualities of sound. The English words “quick and “swift” are not exact synonyms. The word “quick” stresses “instancy of response and is likely to connote native rather than acquired power” (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary) and “applies especially to something that happens promptly or occupies but little time; it suggests alacrity or celerity, especially in action, rather than velocity of movement” (Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms published by Merriam-Webster). The word “swift,” on the other hand, “suggests great rapidity, frequently coupled with ease or facility of movement (Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms published by Merriam-Webster). In the case of James 1:19, the translation of the Greek word ταχὺς as “quick” is much to be preferred, therefore, over the translation of the word as “swift.”

It is very important here to remember that the English Standard Version is a revision of the Revised Standard Version and that the men who translated it were exceptionally well educated and had a command of the English language second to none. When the Revised Standard Version was revised in 1971, the revisers retained the word “quick” in James 1:19 and the translators of the English Standard Version did well to continue to retain it. It is also the choice of the translators of the NASB, the NRSV, the NIV, the NAB, HCSB, the NJB and several other recent translations of the Bible. All of these translators were, of course, familiar with the KJV and its use of the word “swift,” but they all chose the word “quick” over the word “swift.”

It must also be considered that the word “quick” is used only four times in the New Testament of KJV, and in all four places it has the meaning of “alive,” the original meaning of the word going back to the 12th century, rather than “without delay.” In one of these four places, Heb. 4:12, the use of the word “quick” meaning “alive” has caused more than one reader of the KJV to misunderstand the text:

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[Adammi]

I think that the Bible must not only be translated into a language, but also into a culture.

[JPPT1974]

Yeah as it doesn't matter how you
Read the Bible whether KJV or NIV
Just as long as you understand and
Know that it's God's book.