Should we have to know these words?

[Logos1560]

Is it wrong to update the archaic words and language in a Bible translation? Is accuracy lost when words are updated? Should archaic words be left in the text with their meaning only explained in marginal notes? Should Bible readers be required to learn the vocabulary of Bible translators that lived 200, 300, 400, or 500 years ago? I ask these questions because there are some who claim that archaic words should be left in the text and should not be updated and who claim that if archaic words are updated accuracy is lost.

Here are some words from the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') of which the KJV was a revision. If the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was included, it would be easier to compile even a longer list. Some of my examples are used more than once and sometimes in more than one pre-1611 English Bible. In case anyone is interested in checking them out, I will list one reference with one pre-1611 Bible that uses the word. Perhaps you know some of these words or can figure some of them out. Can you figure them out without seeing what the KJV translators used to update or replace them? :D :)

adject (Dan. 4:17) Geneva
achat (Exod. 39:12) Tyndale's
advoutry (Mark 7:21) Tyndale's
albs (Lev. 8:13) Tyndale's
arb (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
arede (Mark 14:65) Tyndale's
bruterer (Deut. 18:10) Tyndale's
buballs (1 Kings 4:23) Matthew's
byss (Gen. 41:42) Tyndale's
calamite (Exod. 30:23) Tyndale's
cavillation (Luke 19:8) Bishops'
chevisance (Deut. 21:14) Tyndale's
debite (Luke 20:20) Tyndale's
diseasest (Mark 5:35) Tyndale's
flawnes (1 Chron. 23:29) Matthew's
felicity (Gal. 4:15) Bishops'
frayles (1 Sam. 25:18) Coverdale's
grece (Acts 21:35) Tyndale's
hagab (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
hargol (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
heavengazers (Isa. 47:13) Bishops'
hoared (Josh. 9:5) Matthew's
hucklebone (Gen. 32:25) Bishops'
lamies (Lam. 4:3) Coverdale's
loured (Gen. 4:5) Tyndale's
manchet (1 Kings 4:22) Matthew's
maund (Exod. 29:3) Tyndale's
meinie (Gen. 22:3) Tyndale's
moon prophets (Isa. 47:13) Bishops'
parbreak (Num. 11:20) Tyndale's
perquellies (2 Sam. 5:8) Coverdale's
pleck (Lev. 13:4) Tyndale's
querne (Isa. 47:2) Bishops'
quier (1 Kings 6:5) Bishops'
redebush (Isa. 9:18) Coverdale's
rugagates (Jud. 12:4) Bishops'
sallets (Jer. 46:4) Bishops'
shawms (Ps. 98:6) Coverdale's
taxus (Exod. 25:4) Tyndale's
unghostly (1 Tim. 4:7) Tyndale's
whalefish (Job 7:12) Bishops'
Whitsuntide (1 Cor. 16:8) Tyndale's

Should English readers today have to know these words and was it wrong that these words were updated and replaced in our English translations?

[BigChrisfilm]

Would you please lay off the KJV of the Bible? Don't you actually spend anytime READING the Bible?

[Logos1560]

The truth is consistent. The KJV itself does not teach a KJV-only view. The KJV itself and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision provide valid evidence that refutes inconsistent KJV-only reasoning. Pointing out inconsistencies in the man-made KJV-only view is not being against the KJV.

KJV-only author Samuel Gipp wrote that "we should leave the archaic word in the text" (Answer Book, p. 13). KJV-only author Timothy Morton also contended that the archaic words should be left in the text. Morton claimed: "If these [archaic] words are changed in the text then accuracy must be sacrificed, and this would be a terrible mistake" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 37). Even KJV defender Edward Hills suggested that “perhaps the best way” [“to handle this matter of obsolete words”] “is to place the modern equivalent in the margin” (KJV Defended, p. 218). Peter Ruckman commented that “any ‘archaic’ words could be printed in the margin without disturbing the text” (Christian’s Handbook, p. 180, footnote 13). Peter Ruckman suggested that “the ‘archaic words’ could be listed in the margin and given the modern equivalents” (Alexandrian, Part One, p. 21). Laurence Vance asked and answered: "Does the AV contain archaic words? Certainly. Should we therefore replace it with something else? Certainly not" (Archaic Words, p. 390; see also King James, His Bible, pp. 147, 152).

The inaccurate claims of KJV-only authors should be replaced with truth.

3 John 4
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[Seeker of the Truth]

To each his own.

[BigChrisfilm]

The truth is consistent. The KJV itself does not teach a KJV-only view. The KJV itself and the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision provide valid evidence that refutes inconsistent KJV-only reasoning. Pointing out inconsistencies in the man-made KJV-only view is not being against the KJV.

KJV-only author Samuel Gipp wrote that "we should leave the archaic word in the text" (Answer Book, p. 13). KJV-only author Timothy Morton also contended that the archaic words should be left in the text. Morton claimed: "If these [archaic] words are changed in the text then accuracy must be sacrificed, and this would be a terrible mistake" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 37). Even KJV defender Edward Hills suggested that “perhaps the best way” [“to handle this matter of obsolete words”] “is to place the modern equivalent in the margin” (KJV Defended, p. 218). Peter Ruckman commented that “any ‘archaic’ words could be printed in the margin without disturbing the text” (Christian’s Handbook, p. 180, footnote 13). Peter Ruckman suggested that “the ‘archaic words’ could be listed in the margin and given the modern equivalents” (Alexandrian, Part One, p. 21). Laurence Vance asked and answered: "Does the AV contain archaic words? Certainly. Should we therefore replace it with something else? Certainly not" (Archaic Words, p. 390; see also King James, His Bible, pp. 147, 152).

The inaccurate claims of KJV-only authors should be replaced with truth.

3 John 4
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.

John 8:32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
When is the last time you even read a Bible? Why should I take advise about which Bible I should read from a guy who doesn't read it himself?

[Logos1560]

BigChrisfilm, in none of my posts have I encouraged you to stop reading the KJV. The English translation I read the most is the KJV, and I have not objected to any one reading it. I do have valid reasons for objecting to the posting of inaccurate claims about the KJV and about other English translations. The KJV itself does not teach your KJV-only view. After you posted many inaccurate, misleading, and even false claims about the NKJV, you now seem to want to avoid facing the accurate, valid evidence that refuted your claims.

[arunma]

Would you please lay off the KJV of the Bible? Don't you actually spend anytime READING the Bible?

I think his problem is that we cannot let this line of reasoning excuse errors and outright lies. KJV-onlyism is a lie, and it is founded on lies (incidentally, who is "the father of lies?"). I agree with him that we cannot compromise with falsehood.

[BigChrisfilm]

I think his problem is that we cannot let this line of reasoning excuse errors and outright lies. KJV-onlyism is a lie, and it is founded on lies (incidentally, who is "the father of lies?"). I agree with him that we cannot compromise with falsehood.
Ok, that's fine, but it's not a lie, and don't get me started on what is.

[BigChrisfilm]

Your assumptions about me are just as inaccurate as your assumptions about the NKJV. You should not be so hasty to make assumptions and accusations about matters about which you have not studied enough and about which you do not know enough. You have already acknowledged that you know nothing about the good 1560 Geneva Bible, one of the most important English translations of which the KJV was a revision.

Proverbs 18:15 The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge:; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.
And you didn't answer my question. How much do you read the Bible?

[Logos1560]

James 3:17-18 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Is there evidence of the wisdom that is from above in the KJV-only view? Are the exact same standards and principles applied to all translations without partiality and hypocrisy or is partiality shown to one English translation?

The truth is consistent. The same exact standards and principles that applied to the translating of the Scriptures before 1611 also applied in 1611 and still apply today. The same exact standards and principles that applied to the translating of the Scriptures into languages other than English also applied to its translating into English. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. Was the KJV-only view true before 1611?

[BigChrisfilm]

James 3:17-18 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

Is there evidence of the wisdom that is from above in the KJV-only view? Are the exact same standards and principles applied to all translations without partiality and hypocrisy or is partiality shown to one English translation?

The truth is consistent. The same exact standards and principles that applied to the translating of the Scriptures before 1611 also applied in 1611 and still apply today. The same exact standards and principles that applied to the translating of the Scriptures into language other than English also applied to its translating into English. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. Was the KJV-only view true before 1611?
And you didn't answer my question. How much do you read the Bible?

[Logos1560]

And you didn't answer my question.

You ignore the fact that a question can be answered with another question, and you ignore the fact that you have not answered many questions I asked you. You are attempting to use a question as a way to avoid facing the facts. Furthermore, an answer to your question would not show who was right or wrong about the Bible translation issue. I likely have read and studied the Scriptures more than you have. Regardless, the person who claims to read the Scriptures the most can still be wrong in his views and understanding of the Scriptures. If you are so well-read in the Scriptures, please show where your KJV-only view is actually taught in the KJV. The issue being discussed here involves whether or not the KJV-only view is taught in the Scriptures and whether or not the claims of the KJV-only view can be applied consistently.

Since the truth is consistent, one way that I attempt to show the problems with KJV-only reasoning is by applying KJV-only claims consistently. If applying a KJV-only claim to the KJV seems to make the KJV look bad, I contend that the problem is with the inconsistent KJV-only view and not with the KJV itself.

A fair examination of the KJV-only view and any view of Bible translation involves applying the claims of that view to its own preferred translation or to its final authority. When the KJV-only view is evaluated by its own principles, claims, and methods, many serious inconsistencies and problems appear. Any attempt to apply the claims of the KJV-only view to the KJV is usually misrepresented as an attack on the KJV itself. Is it fair and charitable for KJV-only advocates to misrepresent an examination of the claims of the KJV-only view as an attempt "to destroy the King James Bible itself" (Waite, Fuzzy Facts, p. 4)? Instead, applying KJV-only claims and principles consistently suggests that an inconsistent KJV-only view harms the KJV itself and demonstrates that such a view is invalid. Can any view of Bible translation be correct if it does not consistently apply the same principles, rules, or standards to every translation? The actual documented evidence shows that KJV-only advocates should be taken to task for the many inconsistent and inaccurate claims in their writings and posts. KJV-only author D. A. Waite acknowledged: "People have a right to have gross errors corrected and truth upheld" (Fuzzy Facts, p. 84). The way that KJV-only advocates react to valid, documented evidence will reveal a great deal about their view.

[DLMoody]

"there are some who claim that archaic words should be left in the text and should not be updated and who claim that if archaic words are updated accuracy is lost."
That is why that is called legalism. Abiding by silly rules to gain better standing in God's sight.
Do you want god advice? From some of the best theologians in the world? Buy a NKJV or NASB.
In Christ,
Greg

[BigChrisfilm]

You ignore the fact that a question can be answered with another question, and you ignore the fact that you have not answered many questions I asked you. You are attempting to use a question as a way to avoid facing the facts. Furthermore, an answer to your question would not show who was right or wrong about the Bible translation issue. I likely have read and studied the Scriptures more than you have. Regardless, the person who claims to read the Scriptures the most can still be wrong in his views and understanding of the Scriptures. If you are so well-read in the Scriptures, please show where your KJV-only view is actually taught in the KJV. The issue being discussed here involves whether or not the KJV-only view is taught in the Scriptures and whether or not the claims of the KJV-only view can be applied consistently.

Since the truth is consistent, one way that I attempt to show the problems with KJV-only reasoning is by applying KJV-only claims consistently. If applying a KJV-only claim to the KJV seems to make the KJV look bad, I contend that the problem is with the inconsistent KJV-only view and not with the KJV itself.

A fair examination of the KJV-only view and any view of Bible translation involves applying the claims of that view to its own preferred translation or to its final authority. When the KJV-only view is evaluated by its own principles, claims, and methods, many serious inconsistencies and problems appear. Any attempt to apply the claims of the KJV-only view to the KJV is usually misrepresented as an attack on the KJV itself. Is it fair and charitable for KJV-only advocates to misrepresent an examination of the claims of the KJV-only view as an attempt "to destroy the King James Bible itself" (Waite, Fuzzy Facts, p. 4)? Instead, applying KJV-only claims and principles consistently suggests that an inconsistent KJV-only view harms the KJV itself and demonstrates that such a view is invalid. Can any view of Bible translation be correct if it does not consistently apply the same principles, rules, or standards to every translation? The actual documented evidence shows that KJV-only advocates should be taken to task for the many inconsistent and inaccurate claims in their writings and posts. KJV-only author D. A. Waite acknowledged: "People have a right to have gross errors corrected and truth upheld" (Fuzzy Facts, p. 84). The way that KJV-only advocates react to valid, documented evidence will reveal a great deal about their view.
And you didn't answer my question. How much do you read the Bible?

[DLMoody]

And you didn't answer my question. How much do you read the Bible?
How unloving is it to imply that another believer doesn't read their Bible because they disagree with you? Maybe you are sick of defending the KJV but that doesn't give you the right to talk like that. Jesus is Truth and Love! Not one or the other.

Fundementalists bicker about everything but the fundamentals!

[BigChrisfilm]

How unloving is it to imply that another believer doesn't read their Bible because they disagree with you? Maybe you are sick of defending the KJV but that doesn't give you the right to talk like that. Jesus is Truth and Love! Not one or the other.

Fundementalists bicker about everything but the fundamentals!
I have asked him like 18 times, and each time he will not answer my question, therefor, it is because he doesn't have one, and I am just pointing that out, by asking him over and over again.

[Logos1560]

In his introduction to his 1833 translation, Noah Webster noted that the word discover now usually means "to find, see, or perceive for the first time," but that in its usage in the KJV the intended meaning was "uncover, make bare, or expose to view." At Micah 1:6, Webster pointed out that "the all-seeing God had nothing to find or see for the first time" and that "the sense of the word is to uncover, to lay bare" (p. ix). At his entry discover in his 1828 Dictionary, Webster observed that "we discover what before existed, though to us unknown." Can the eternal, all-knowing God discover what before existed? At Isaiah 47:3, Coverdale’s, Great, Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles have “discovered” while the KJV updated it to “uncovered.” Again the Geneva and Bishops’ rendering “discover” (Lev. 18:7, 8, 9, 11, 15) was changed to “uncover” in the KJV. Coverdale’s Bible also illustrated this obsolete or archaic useage with its rendering “discovered” at Luke 12:2 while Tyndale’s and Bishops’ have “uncovered” and the Geneva and KJV have “revealed.” Coverdale’s, Great, and Bishops’ have “discover” and Geneva has “discovered” at Proverbs 11:13 where the KJV has “revealeth.” At Daniel 2:47, the KJV has “reveal” where Coverdale’s has “discover.” “Discover” was Coverdale’s and Bishops’ rendering at Ezekiel 4:7 while the Geneva and KJV have “uncovered.” On the other hand, Coverdale’s and Geneva have “uncover” at Deuteronomy 22:30 where the Great and Bishops’ have “unheal” and the KJV has “discover.” Waite’s Defined KJB indicates that “discover” (Deut. 22:30) is archaic and defines it as “reveal, expose, uncover” (p. 296).

In this example, the KJV updated some archaic uses of "discover" in the pre-1611 English Bibles but also kept some.

[DLMoody]

I guess I get sick of hearing both sides. I have never spoken with an IFB that did not sound as if they were condemnig the world and other Christians for not being pro-KJV, anti-rock, etc.(and I've probably spoken to about 20. I know it's not much but still). I'm wondering where the love is? It seems like Christians are either too fluffy and they won't stand for Biblical Truth or they're hard and judgmental. C'mon guys! There is a battle going on for people's souls. Shouldn't we be more concerned about scripture's innerrancy? Christ's Deity? The existence of Absolute Truth? Why so much bicker over the KJV?!? If a person is honest with themself there is no way they can get off saying that the KJV is the only true version. This debate is just another of Satan's ploys to get everyone off track!
I know there are sectios missing in newer translations. I kow they omit Christ's name in certain places. But there are reasons for that and none of it affects doctrine or the context of a passage. This is another one of Satan's ploys to get us off track! Let's turn to God.

[Seeker of the Truth]

Hey, isn't D.L. Moody dead? ^^ concerning the guy above me.

[DLMoody]

No, I'm back from the dead. I am now about 170 yrs. old.

[JimfromOhio]

The purpose to spread the gospel is to spread the Word of God in person's own language level, not the Church tradition's language level. Grace means to help the lost to KNOW Christ and have them understand salvation in their own level of english skills. Those who place KJV as the true translation will often ignored the Great Commission. I have learned how "self-righteous" type of believers or some called them "legalism" that they really expect certain people should be able to read KJV regardless their english level. KJV is personal preference rather than divine preference.

King James Version Reading Level: 12.00
Readability: Difficult to read due to 17th-century English vocabulary and word order
Reference Support Material: High Number of Translators: 54
Translation Philosophy/Format: Word-for-word
Notes: Traditionally loved and accepted by all Christians. Purpose in translation was "to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they can understand." Published in 1611. Timeless treasure. Source: http://www.zondervanbibles.com/translations.htm

My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.-First Corinthians 2:4-5

There have been for years in Christianity on intellectual pride. Superiorism in regards to biblical translations who have no compassion to those who is having a hard time reading KJV. They are called "Stumble Causers". :doh: It is grievous for us to cause others to stumble. One of our Great Commission is to disciple Christians the most basic way to know Christ. Teaching Christians to rely onthe Holy Spirit that Good News can be communicated in a linguistically.

Christian egoism based on intelligence in relation to other people are determined by class favoritism or by lack of comfort with those of another culture, language, or status whether higher or lower than ours. But whatever triggers favoritism violates brotherly/sisterly love. To avoid causing others to stumble is itself strong incentive to walk by the Spirit. Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.-First Corinthians 8:1

Also See: Matthew 18:6

[Logos1560]

The purpose to spread the gospel is to spread the Word of God in person's own language level, not the Church tradition's language level.

KJV is personal preference rather than divine preference.

Superiorism in regards to biblical translations who have no compassion to those who is having a hard time reading KJV.

A personal preference to read and use the KJV would not be a problem or an issue. Those who claim or imply a divine requirement or command for their KJV-only view do seem to divide believers unnecessarily.

[spiritwarrior37]

I myself read the KJV because I love the way the language flows. I am an avid reader of English Lit. and have no trouble reading the KJV. I also look at many translations when preparing a sermon or a lesson. Yes, the language is old and considered outdated by most, but it is my preference. That doesn't mean it is right for everyone. Some would have a hard time understanding the KJV. I believe that whatever version of the Bible is reader friendly for a certain person is fine, as long as the Bible maintains Christ born of a virgin,crucified on the cross, and risen from the dead it is fine with me. Just remember the main goal here: winning the lost. If that takes a NASB,NIV,ESV, Amplified, etc. to do this, then by all means do it. It is time for the bickering over which Bible translation is best to end. I love my KJV, but would use any means necessary to win lost souls to Christ.

God bless all my brothers in Christ.

[DeaconDean]

Just remember the main goal here: winning the lost. If that takes a NASB,NIV,ESV, Amplified, etc. to do this, then by all means do it. It is time for the bickering over which Bible translation is best to end. I love my KJV, but would use any means necessary to win lost souls to Christ.

God bless all my brothers in Christ.


A big AMEN to that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[JimfromOhio]

I myself read the KJV because I love the way the language flows. I am an avid reader of English Lit. and have no trouble reading the KJV. I also look at many translations when preparing a sermon or a lesson. Yes, the language is old and considered outdated by most, but it is my preference. That doesn't mean it is right for everyone. Some would have a hard time understanding the KJV. I believe that whatever version of the Bible is reader friendly for a certain person is fine, as long as the Bible maintains Christ born of a virgin,crucified on the cross, and risen from the dead it is fine with me. Just remember the main goal here: winning the lost. If that takes a NASB,NIV,ESV, Amplified, etc. to do this, then by all means do it. It is time for the bickering over which Bible translation is best to end. I love my KJV, but would use any means necessary to win lost souls to Christ.

God bless all my brothers in Christ.

Amen and we are to trust the Holy Spirit to convict a sinner to turn to Christ that KJV cannot do. :thumbsup:

[mesue]

Is it wrong to update the archaic words and language in a Bible translation? Is accuracy lost when words are updated? Should archaic words be left in the text with their meaning only explained in marginal notes? Should Bible readers be required to learn the vocabulary of Bible translators that lived 200, 300, 400, or 500 years ago? I ask these questions because there are some who claim that archaic words should be left in the text and should not be updated and who claim that if archaic words are updated accuracy is lost.

Here are some words from the pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops') of which the KJV was a revision. If the 1380's Wycliffe's Bible was included, it would be easier to compile even a longer list. Some of my examples are used more than once and sometimes in more than one pre-1611 English Bible. In case anyone is interested in checking them out, I will list one reference with one pre-1611 Bible that uses the word. Perhaps you know some of these words or can figure some of them out. Can you figure them out without seeing what the KJV translators used to update or replace them? :D :)

adject (Dan. 4:17) Geneva
achat (Exod. 39:12) Tyndale's
advoutry (Mark 7:21) Tyndale's
albs (Lev. 8:13) Tyndale's
arb (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
arede (Mark 14:65) Tyndale's
bruterer (Deut. 18:10) Tyndale's
buballs (1 Kings 4:23) Matthew's
byss (Gen. 41:42) Tyndale's
calamite (Exod. 30:23) Tyndale's
cavillation (Luke 19:8) Bishops'
chevisance (Deut. 21:14) Tyndale's
debite (Luke 20:20) Tyndale's
diseasest (Mark 5:35) Tyndale's
flawnes (1 Chron. 23:29) Matthew's
felicity (Gal. 4:15) Bishops'
frayles (1 Sam. 25:18) Coverdale's
grece (Acts 21:35) Tyndale's
hagab (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
hargol (Lev. 11:22) Tyndale's
heavengazers (Isa. 47:13) Bishops'
hoared (Josh. 9:5) Matthew's
hucklebone (Gen. 32:25) Bishops'
lamies (Lam. 4:3) Coverdale's
loured (Gen. 4:5) Tyndale's
manchet (1 Kings 4:22) Matthew's
maund (Exod. 29:3) Tyndale's
meinie (Gen. 22:3) Tyndale's
moon prophets (Isa. 47:13) Bishops'
parbreak (Num. 11:20) Tyndale's
perquellies (2 Sam. 5:8) Coverdale's
pleck (Lev. 13:4) Tyndale's
querne (Isa. 47:2) Bishops'
quier (1 Kings 6:5) Bishops'
redebush (Isa. 9:18) Coverdale's
rugagates (Jud. 12:4) Bishops'
sallets (Jer. 46:4) Bishops'
shawms (Ps. 98:6) Coverdale's
taxus (Exod. 25:4) Tyndale's
unghostly (1 Tim. 4:7) Tyndale's
whalefish (Job 7:12) Bishops'
Whitsuntide (1 Cor. 16:8) Tyndale's

Should English readers today have to know these words and was it wrong that these words were updated and replaced in our English translations?
What's your point?

[Logos1560]

Is it wrong to update the archaic words and language in a Bible translation? Is accuracy lost when words are updated? Should archaic words be left in the text with their meaning only explained in marginal notes? Should Bible readers be required to learn the vocabulary of Bible translators that lived 200, 300, 400, or 500 years ago? I ask these questions because there are some who claim that archaic words should be left in the text and should not be updated and who claim that if archaic words are updated accuracy is lost.

What's your point?

My opening paragraphy clearly indicated my point if you answered the questions in it. My last question in that post also indicated my point. The point is that it is not wrong to update archaic words in an earlier translation. It was not wrong for the KJV translators to update archaic words in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision, and it is not wrong for later English translators to update archaic words in the KJV. Accuracy is not lost when archaic words are updated as claimed by some KJV-only authors.

[TwinCrier]

Is it wrong to update the archaic words and language in a Bible translation? Is accuracy lost when words are updated? Should archaic words be left in the text with their meaning only explained in marginal notes?

"there are some who claim that archaic words should be left in the text and should not be updated and who claim that if archaic words are updated accuracy is lost."
When I was in school if we didn't know a word, we either asked, or better yet, looked it up in the dictionary so we could LEARN it and improve our vocabulary. Don't approach bible reading with a dread of learning anything. LEARN the bible, don't just read it.
James 1:22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

[Logos1560]

looked it up in the dictionary so we could LEARN it and improve our vocabulary.

Some words in the KJV may not be in the common one-volume paperback editions of English Dictionaries or even all hardback editions. In addition, if these words are in the dictionary, the definition for their archiac usage may not be in the commonly used dictionaries. Most English readers do not have copies of the expensive multi-volume OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY that is more likely to give definitions for some of the archaic words in the KJV.

Another problem is the fact that many English readers think they know the meaning of certain words used in the KJV and would not be likely to look up their meaning and thus they do not realize that the word in the KJV was used with a very different meaning. For one example, most English readers probably think that they know the meaning of the word "turtle." They might not realize that it was used with a different meaning in the KJV (Song of Solomon 2:12).

[mesue]

...
Accuracy is not lost when archaic words are updated as claimed by some KJV-only authors.
Do you have an English degree? Where is your degree from? Was your Master thesis on the Efficacy Of Archaic Words?

[Logos1560]

Puritan William Whitaker (1547-1595) observed: "No inconvenience will follow if interpretation or versions of scripture, when they have become obsolete and ceased to be easily intelligible, be afterwards changed and corrected" (Disputation on Holy Scripture against the Papists, p. 232). Jakob Van Bruggen wrote: "One who holds to the KJV without updating it contributes to its neglect and progressive disuse" (The Future of the Bible, p. 148). As Noah Webster noted in the introduction to his 1828 Dictionary, "No art nor effort can completely arrest alternations in a living language."

[daveleau]

Is it wrong to update the archaic words and language in a Bible translation? Is accuracy lost when words are updated? Should archaic words be left in the text with their meaning only explained in marginal notes? Should Bible readers be required to learn the vocabulary of Bible translators that lived 200, 300, 400, or 500 years ago? I ask these questions because there are some who claim that archaic words should be left in the text and should not be updated and who claim that if archaic words are updated accuracy is lost.





Should English readers today have to know these words and was it wrong that these words were updated and replaced in our English translations?

Considering the fact that the Apostles wrote 4 Gospels of Jesus to overcome social barriers such as language understanding and cultural differences, and considering the fact that there is no such thing as a perfect translation of anything from one language into another language because of the lexical differences....absolutely nothing is wrong with updating language to aid in understanding. :)

In Him,
Dave

[PrincetonGuy]

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 the 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)

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"


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"

[Logos1560]

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 the accuracy and readability or they gradually become more and more inaccurate and unreadable.
"quick" (Heb. 4:12) then meant "living"
"

The archaic use of "quick" at Romans 12:1 in 1526 Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1557 Whittingham's, and 1568 Bishops' is updated to "living" in the KJV. At Ecclesiastes 9:4, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Bishops’ use of “quick dog” is updated to “living dog“ in the KJV. Wycliffe’s had “quick” at John 4:11 and 7:38 where the KJV has “living.“ Another archaic use of "quick" at Romans 14:9 is updated to "living" in the KJV while archaic uses of "quick" remained in the KJV at Psalm 55:15, Acts 10:42, 2 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 4:12, and 1 Peter 4:5. The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible has “living” at Acts 10:42 and 2 Timothy 4:1.

[TwinCrier]

PrinctionGuy, those words are still used in modern English, usually by those who claim to be to scholarly to read the old KJV.

[daveleau]

PrinctionGuy, those words are still used in modern English, usually by those who claim to be to scholarly to read the old KJV.

I gotta agree on that one. Those aren't that far removed from daily language, and are easily recognizable, unlike some others used in the KJV.

[PrincetonGuy]

PrinctionGuy, those words are still used in modern English, usually by those who claim to be to scholarly to read the old KJV.

I gotta agree on that one. Those aren't that far removed from daily language, and are easily recognizable, unlike some others used in the KJV.

I did not write that the words are archaic, but that the usage of them as found in the KJV is archaic. If the words themselves were archaic, as are many words in the KJV, that would not be a serious problem; the serious problem here is that the words when read today in the KJV are misunderstood by the average reader who is not aware of the changes in meaning.

When a careful reader comes to an archaic word that he does not understand, he looks it up in a good dictionary, like Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. However, when he reads words that are part of his daily vocabulary he does not look them up and he understands their meaning to be the contemporary meaning that he is accustomed to. And this does not only apply to laymen, it also applies to pastors who lack an extensive formal education. I have all too many times heard the KJV preached in Baptist pulpits where the true meaning of the biblical text was overlooked by the pastor and a very false meaning of the text was taught because the pastor was not aware that the meaning of the words in his King James translation of the Bible was VERY different than the meaning that he was accustomed to. This may not happen in your particular Baptist church, but it is happening today in Baptist churches all over the United States and Canada. And in Sunday school classes in Baptist churches it is a huge and pervasive problem for which there is no justification in light of the fact that translations of the Bible are readily available today which are much more accurately translated than the KJV and which totally avoid the use of archaisms.

[PrincetonGuy]

The archaic use of "quick" at Romans 12:1 in 1526 Tyndale's, 1535 Coverdale's, 1537 Matthew's, 1539 Great, 1557 Whittingham's, and 1568 Bishops' is updated to "living" in the KJV. At Ecclesiastes 9:4, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Great, and Bishops’ use of “quick dog” is updated to “living dog“ in the KJV. Wycliffe’s had “quick” at John 4:11 and 7:38 where the KJV has “living.“ Another archaic use of "quick" at Romans 14:9 is updated to "living" in the KJV while archaic uses of "quick" remained in the KJV at Psalm 55:15, Acts 10:42, 2 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 4:12, and 1 Peter 4:5. The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible has “living” at Acts 10:42 and 2 Timothy 4:1.

Translation inconsistencies abound in old translated works where the translation was performed by several or more translators without the benefit of modern word processing programs. This is what one would expect in the King James Version, and it is what one finds. Indeed, the lack of consistency in translating specific words is a significant problem in the King James Version. While it is obvious that many Greek words have more than one meaning, and thus require different English words to translate them, needless variation causes confusion. This confusion is especially great when one attempts to do a word study using the King James Version. For example, The Greek word katargein is found 27 times in the New Testament and is rendered 17 different ways in the King James Version. Logizesthai is rendered "counted" in Rom. 4:3, "reckoned" in Rom. 4:9, and "imputed" in Rom. 4:22, 23. In all four verses the meaning is the same and so is the context. Again in Romans, we find the same problem in 5:2, 3, 11 where kauchometha is rendered by "rejoice," "glory," and "joy" even though the meaning and context is the same. The Epistle to the Romans is difficult enough for many readers to understand without these needless and confusing variations. Unfortunately, any more examples could be cited.

A feature in the King James Version that makes it difficult to follow and understand is the variety of spellings it uses for proper nouns, especially between the Old and New Testaments. New readers of the Bible could easily get lost in the confusion. Some examples of persons are:

Agar, Hagar
Jonah, Jona, Jonas
Balak, Balac
Cis, Kish
Judas, Judah, Juda, Jude
EliJah, Elias
korah, Core
Elisha, Eliseus
Luke, Lucas
Enos, Enosh
Marcus, Mark
Gideon, Gedeon
Noe, Noah
Henoch, Enoch
Puoh, and Puah
Hezekiah, Ezekiah
Sara, Sarah
Hosea, Osee
Sheth, Seth
Isaiah, Esaias, Esay
Timothy, Timotheus
Jephthae, Jephthah
Zechariah, Zecharias
Jered, Jared Zera, Zarah
Jeremiah, Jememias, Jeremie

Some examples of places are:

Azza, Gaza
Raamses, Rameses
Canaan, Channan
Saron, Sharon
Kidron, Cedron
Sina, Sinai
Midian, Madian
Sodom, Sodoma
Phoneonicia, Phenice
Tyrus, Tyre


On the other hand, the King James Version frequently fails to translate important distinctions in the Greek text. Rather it uses the same English word for different Greek words even though the distinction may be important in the Greek New Testament. For example, the shift from douloi (Matt. 22:3, 4, 6, 8, 10) to diakonoi (Matt. 22:13) in the parable of the wedding feast is totally obscured in the King James Version. Also, in 1 Cor. 14:20 two different Greek words are translated "children" rather than "children" and "babes." In Revelation the Zoon and therion are not distinguished, that is, the "living creatures" in heaven and the other "beasts" of Revelation.

1 Peter 5:7, in the King James Version, reads, “Casting all you care upon him; for he careth for you,“ making no distinction between two different Greek words. The New American Standard Bible reads here, “casting all your anxiety upon Him, because He cares for you.” The New International Version also makes this distinction, and reads here, “Cast all you anxiety on him because he cares for you.”

In Galatians 6 we find an apparent contradiction in the King James Version when we compare verse 2 with verse 5,

6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.

6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

This “apparent” contradiction disappears when the reader reads these two verses in a more accurate translation that translates the distinction between the two different Greek words translated “burden” in the King James Version. In the New American Standard Bible we read,

6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ.

6:5 For each one shall bear his own load.

[Logos1560]

Translation inconsistencies abound in old translated works where the translation was performed by several or more translators without the benefit of modern word processing programs.

A few times, the KJV translators may have introduced variations in their renderings when they chose or kept one rendering from one pre-1611 English Bible but a different rendering from another pre-1611 Bible. For example, at 1 Chronicles 6:28, the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible's rendering "Shemuel" with the Bishops‘ Bible rendering "Samuel" while it kept "Shemuel" from the Geneva a few verses later (6:33). The Bishops‘ Bible had “Samuel“ at both verses where the Geneva had “Shemuel.” The KJV may have taken the rendering “land of Armenia” (2 Kings 19:37, Isa. 37:38) from the Bishops’ Bible while taking “mountains of Ararat” (Gen. 8:4) from the Geneva. All four times the Geneva Bible rendered the Hebrew word “Ararat” (Gen. 8:4, 2 Kings 19:37, Isa. 37:38, Jer. 51:27) while the Bishops’ Bible rendered it “Armenia” three of the times and “Ararat” once (Jer. 51:27). At Genesis 10:6, the KJV seems to have taken the Bishops’ spelling “Phut” while at 1 Chronicles 1:8 it seems to have taken the Geneva Bible’s spelling “Put.“ At Ezekiel 27:10, the KJV may have followed the Geneva [“Phut”] while following the Bishops’ [“Libya”] at Ezekiel 30:5 where the Geneva has “Phut.“ At Numbers 10:29, the KJV may have followed the Bishops’ rendering “Raguel” while at Exodus 2:18 it may have kept the Geneva Bible rendering “Reuel.“ The Bishops’ Bible had “Raguel” at both verses (Exod. 2:18, Num. 10:29) where the Geneva had “Reuel.“ Six times the KJV agreed with the Bishops’ Bible spelling “Enos” (Gen. 4:26, 5:6, 7, 9, 10, 11), and one time it agreed with the Geneva Bible spelling “Enosh” (1 Chron. 1:1). The Geneva had “Enosh” all seven times while the Bishops’ had “Enos.“ Did the KJV take “diminish” at Exodus 5:8 from the Geneva and take “minish” at Exodus 5:19 from the Bishops’? The Geneva Bible has “trumpet” twice at 1 Corinthians 15:52 while the Bishops’ Bible has “trump” twice. The KJV seems to have “last trump” from the Bishops’ and “trumpet” from the Geneva.

[PrincetonGuy]

A few times, the KJV translators may have introduced variations in their renderings when they chose or kept one rendering from one pre-1611 English Bible but a different rendering from another pre-1611 Bible. For example, at 1 Chronicles 6:28, the KJV replaced the Geneva Bible's rendering "Shemuel" with the Bishops‘ Bible rendering "Samuel" while it kept "Shemuel" from the Geneva a few verses later (6:33). The Bishops‘ Bible had “Samuel“ at both verses where the Geneva had “Shemuel.” The KJV may have taken the rendering “land of Armenia” (2 Kings 19:37, Isa. 37:38) from the Bishops’ Bible while taking “mountains of Ararat” (Gen. 8:4) from the Geneva. All four times the Geneva Bible rendered the Hebrew word “Ararat” (Gen. 8:4, 2 Kings 19:37, Isa. 37:38, Jer. 51:27) while the Bishops’ Bible rendered it “Armenia” three of the times and “Ararat” once (Jer. 51:27). At Genesis 10:6, the KJV seems to have taken the Bishops’ spelling “Phut” while at 1 Chronicles 1:8 it seems to have taken the Geneva Bible’s spelling “Put.“ At Ezekiel 27:10, the KJV may have followed the Geneva [“Phut”] while following the Bishops’ [“Libya”] at Ezekiel 30:5 where the Geneva has “Phut.“ At Numbers 10:29, the KJV may have followed the Bishops’ rendering “Raguel” while at Exodus 2:18 it may have kept the Geneva Bible rendering “Reuel.“ The Bishops’ Bible had “Raguel” at both verses (Exod. 2:18, Num. 10:29) where the Geneva had “Reuel.“ Six times the KJV agreed with the Bishops’ Bible spelling “Enos” (Gen. 4:26, 5:6, 7, 9, 10, 11), and one time it agreed with the Geneva Bible spelling “Enosh” (1 Chron. 1:1). The Geneva had “Enosh” all seven times while the Bishops’ had “Enos.“ Did the KJV take “diminish” at Exodus 5:8 from the Geneva and take “minish” at Exodus 5:19 from the Bishops’? The Geneva Bible has “trumpet” twice at 1 Corinthians 15:52 while the Bishops’ Bible has “trump” twice. The KJV seems to have “last trump” from the Bishops’ and “trumpet” from the Geneva.


Thank you for posting these observations! We do not know with any certainty the mechanics by which this mishmash of inconsistencies made their way into the KJV, but we know for a fact that they are there and that they diminish to a substantial extent the usefulness of the KJV as a primary study Bible. Thank you also for your many excellent posts on the KJV and for the spirit in which you write and post them.

[JPPT1974]

Those words were used in the
Biblical days as well as the days
Of Ceasar Augustus it seems
Beautiful language I will admit
Wished that we can used that language today.

[TwinCrier]

Luke 4:4 reads And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Some of the new bible versions leave off "but by every word of God." It's clear why they do that.

[PrincetonGuy]

Luke 4:4 reads And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Some of the new bible versions leave off "but by every word of God." It's clear why they do that.

Luke 4:4. But Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, `Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.' '' (KJV, 1769)

Luke 4:4. Jesus answered him, "It is written, "One does not live by bread alone.' " (NRSV)

Luke 4:4. And Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.' " (NASB, 1995)

Luke 4:4 is one of the many verses in the New Testament that conclusively proves that some of the people behind the KJO movement are either less educated and less cognizant than my neighbor’s two-year-old grandson or are outright deceivers for they willfully and deliberately seek to deceive the naïve and uninformed public into believing that contemporary translations of the Bible (that are more accurately and more precisely translated than the KJV using a much clearer diction, and syntax that is on the one hand much more contemporary and on the other hand more accurately translates the syntax of the Greek New Testament basing the whole of it upon the finest and most up to date studies of the manuscript evidence for the original New Testament text inspired by God) leave out parts of the word of God for sinister purposes. Therefore, let’s take a look at Luke 4:4 and see for ourselves who is telling the truth—and who is not!

Jesus, speaking in Luke 4:4, in our best preserved and most accurate manuscripts of the Gospel According to Luke, is quoting from Deut. 8:3 in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament,

Deut. 8:3. καὶἐκάκωσέν σε καὶἐλιμαγχόνησέν σε καὶἐψώμισέν σε τὸ μαννα, ὃ οὐκ εἴδησαν οἱ πατέρες σου, ἵνα ἀναγγείλῃ σοι ὅτι οὐκ ἐπ᾿ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεται ὁἄνθρωπος, ἀλλ᾿ἐπὶ παντὶῥήματι τῷἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ ζήσεται ὁἄνθρωπος.

Deut. 8:3. He humbled you by letting you hunger, then by feeding you with manna, with which neither you nor your ancestors were acquainted, in order to make you understand that one does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of the Lord. {Or [by anything that the Lord decrees]} (NRSV)

Deut. 8:3. "He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. (NASB, 1995)

and Luke quotes Jesus as having said (quoting from the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy),

καὶ ἀπεκρίθηὁ ᾿Ιησοῦςπρὸςαὐτὸνλέγων·γέγραπταιὅτιΟὐκἐπ᾿ἄρτῳ μόνῳ ζήσεταιὁ ἄνθρωπος,

As we can see, Luke does not quote Jesus as quoting the entire verse, but only the part of the verse that was applicable to what he was teaching. Many late Greek manuscripts of Luke have Jesus quoting more of Deut. 8:3 than do the most reliable ancient manuscripts, including the words,

ἀλλ᾿ἐπὶ παντὶῥήματι τῷἐκπορευομένῳ διὰ στόματος θεοῦ ζήσεται ὁἄνθρωπος.

but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God shall man live.

Therefore the most accurate contemporary translations of the Bible do not include these words. However, these same words are included in the most reliable ancient manuscripts of Matt: 4:4 and thus the most accurate contemporary translations of the Bible do include these words here.

Matt. 4:4. But he answered, "It is written,
"One does not live by bread alone,
but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.' " (NRSV)

Matt. 4:4. But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.' " (NASB, 1995)

As we can all see for ourselves, there is nothing at all sinister about the most accurate contemporary translations of the Bible—they translate the words that are in the most reliable ancient manuscripts of the New Testament and omit the words found in the unreliable late manuscripts. No truth is omitted as is falsely claimed by some of the people behind the KJO movement—we saw with our own eyes that the very words in question ARE included where they belong, in Deut. 8:3 and Matt. 4:4.

This does not answer, however, the question why these words are included in Matt. 4:4 and not in Luke 4:4. The German scholar, Schürmann, argued, based upon the wording of Luke 4:22, that the words were included in the Q document but that Luke omitted them because he did not believe that the preservation of life should be attributed to the word of God but to God Himself. I believe that it is more probable that Matthew added the words from Deuteronomy in order to make the quote more complete. But of course this question is not really important because we have the original quote in Deuteronomy and NONE of the “modern versions” fit to be called a translation of the Bible omit those words.

What is important, however, is that some of the people behind the KJO movement have no interest in the truth—all that they care about is defending a man-made doctrine based upon a lack of knowledge, lies, and deception.

Please pray for the deliverance of those persons who have been sucked into the KJV movement.

Note: The Greek word ῥήματι used in the Septuagint is a translation of the Hebrew word מוצא, and different from the Greek word Λόγος found in John 1:1, etc.