"Not everyone who needs to read the Bible is well educated or a skilled reader." Thank you brother, this is my main thing that I wish KJVO people would see.
Brother I totally agree with you. I am a 66 year old college graduate and retired police sgt.. I am blessed in that I have Been in a solid Honest Fundamentist Baptist Church. Our pastor led us out of KJV only many years ago. There was no church split, no one that I know of left our Church. We are blessed with a good solid ministry. Keep up telling the truth on this issue. It is a very emotional issue with some fellow Christians. You are right on with the KJV onlyism issue.
I remember hearing pastors make jokes about peculiar people, particularly IFB pastors who were more extreme. They would say that it actually meant set apart, but if we followed all their rules, people would think we're peculiar.
Just want to thank you. I started reading the ESV and it's like reading the Bible for the first time. I wasn't KJV only, but I think I took pride in reading it. And I do like the poetry, or the sound of it. But I will beware from now on.
To be fair, I probably would have said "want" meant "desire," but I always would have thought of it in the sense that I will not desire anything because the Lord will provide all my needs.
Acts 8:29-31 KJV Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. KJV even makes the point that the words must be understood to have power in the reader’s life.
there was one witticism on "quick" that in crossing a (New York) city street you're either quick or you're dead. Your "old codgers in McDonald's" reminds me of when I used to drop a Hardee's on Saturday for their wonderful sandwiches and cinnamon-raisin biscuits i used to listen in on 4 older gentlemen enjoy their memories of yesteryear. Seriously, i don't know the term for this but corn discovered in the New World became popular back in England and became their word for "grain." (I did hear about corn supposedly found in an Egyptian tomb but that's another discussion).
I don’t think I’ve heard ‘corn’ used to mean ‘grain in general’ in the UK, except in older books and songs, which does point to archaism or obsolescence. But, I would imagine it’s only recently moved over into the archaic column because of the influence of American media on our vocabulary.
Hey, Mark. Just curious if that test / quiz ever got created. I'd be curious to take it myself and share it with others to see how we fare. And while I do love my CSB you introduced me to, I sometimes have to look up words there as well (e.g. wadi and maybe a few others), but at least I know I have to look them up.
As South African English(Closely linked to British English), corn can mean both the indian type and the other type. In Afrikaans corn can be rendered "koring" meaning grains. Again, awesome work, thank you for your time and energy and for breaking it down in a fun interesting way.
Thank you again for this video.I was reading an article which quoted Acts 2:38 read it in KJV,NKJV,NASB and NIV all seem to mean that one must be baptized for the forgiveness.What is your take on this verse was it correctedly translated or should it read "be baptized because your sins" were forgiven".It seem to teach baptism is needed in order to be forgiven or saved.
in america, some who read the kjv think the kjv speaks of maize but maize is from the new world and did not exist in the old world during new testament times. The grains of the new testament where wheat, barley, millet. They also had spelt which is a type of wheat.
Regarding "corn," in the UK version of the ESV, Matthew 12:1 reads, "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of corn and to eat." My pastor reads from an old ESV-UK edition which occasionally differs from the regular ESV we have in our pews.
I grew up believing it was quite natural that we were to be a peculiar people… In the world eyes, we are quite odd, we live our life loving and adoring and invisible God, as Paul said, if it was not true, we would be most miserable😉 I learned about this false friend when I was in my late teens, but I still had an affinity for this understanding (or rather misunderstanding). Perhaps it was a elitism thing… Being proud of not fitting in… I was KJV only for perhaps 5 years beginning around age 10 or so. My brother and I prided ourselves as vocabulary buffs. I switched to predominantly using ASV for another five years or so and branched out from there for the last 10 years (I’m 31 now). I’ve always been a nerdy, engineering type, grammar Nazi, vocabulary loving individual… So watching your content, it has been a bit surprising how many of these words I still don’t know by heart. A lot of times, when I come up to them, I go oh yeah, I know this has a different meaning, what was it again… for example, when you asked in the other video what we thought moderation meant, I had looked it up just a few months ago, but I completely drew a blank and could not remember what I meant in that context.
I think plenty of people still use "fair" to mean "beautiful" (such as "fair maiden") and "want" to mean "lack," (as in "for want of a nail") so those don't generally confuse me.
That’s pretty much exactly what I’m doing. It is not a disparagement of the KJV to point out dead words and false friends. They are the result of language change.
A lot of these obsolete senses are used in traditional rural dialects of Southern English, perhaps under the continuing influence of the KJV. The same could be said for the German Bible in Amish groups. I am by no means a KJV-onlyist, but I am a moderate hieratic-English-ist and Anglophile, so I feel that the role of pointing out false friends is more to enrich our language rather than to argue against the KJV (or RSV...or Douay-Rheims). Indeed, we Antiochian Orthodox use early modern English translations for the Divine Liturgy. I am moderate, because the occasional modern translation is refreshing, particularly when the translation is more accurate than an early modern translation.
As long as people are well aware of what they're doing (and I'm an Anglophile, too!), I don't mind too much. But very few KJV users are aware of false friends, in my experience. And I think that in church services we have a special duty to make truth as accessible to the uninitiated man of 1 Cor 14 as we can. But I have to admit that when I have a liturgical itch, I like the BCP, and its antiquated language is part of its value and its charm. I'm not at all immune to the pull of the antiquarian and the reverent! I just think we have Bible telling us that edification requires intelligibility, especially in group settings where you can't (and shouldn't) control the educational levels of those who enter.
In response to your question, no, corn is not understood in the generic sense you describe, at least in my experience. That does not rule out a regional usage of which I am not aware. For example, in northern English counties, I have come across the words 'ye' and 'yonder', which are far from standard British English words.
But is not the quickening, as it relates to pregnancy, an example of a form of the word quick being used to indicate the time in which an expecting mother (before modern medicine) first knew that there was life growing inside her womb?
If I have more time, I could learn more 1611 archaic english by reading annotated plays by the contemporaries of shakespeare such as christopher marlowe, ben jonson, etc. Arden Shakespeare has annotated plays of the contemporaries of Shakespeare like White Devil by John Webster, Jew Of Malta By Christopher Marlowe, Dutch Courtesan by John Marston, etc. New Mermaids has annotated plays of the contemporaries of Shakespeare like Duchess Of Malfi by John Webster, Volpone by Ben Jonson, etc. The more 1611 archaic english works you read, the more natural it becomes to read 1611 archaic english.
Mark Ward I’m confused. So you would like people even if they aren’t Pastors? The video specifically said Pastors. I think I would be interested but I am not a Pastor. I’m just a bible teacher. Our church uses the KJV but we ain’t mad about it like others are.
The pastor of the church that I grew up in (a KJV-Only church, naturally) did a sermon series on the "ye are... a peculiar people" passage... Using the modern definition of peculiar to explain that, compared to the world, we should be seen as "different" or "strange". I don't disagree with the point he was making - but he could have and should have made that point with different scripture (like Romans 12:2), but it was comical to me, as someone aware of this "false friend", that someone who spent my entire adolescence trying to gaslight me into believing that the KJV was in fact the EASIEST version to read would so eloquently prove himself wrong by spending a solid month of sermons on a theme derived from a misinterpretation of the obsolete language. If you are familiar with the AWANA program at many churches, the entire program is derived from a misunderstanding of the false friend of "study". It's a good program, but its core premise is to memorize scripture passages (hit the books, as you put it) so that you can be an approved workman.
By eerie coincidence, I just learned this very week the meaning of "study" in 2 Timothy 2.15! I'm in my early 50s, a lifetime KJV reader (although I've also been using modern translations for 25 years), and hobby-level etymologist, but I picked this one up only now because I'd never bothered to compare the KJV of that verse to something more recent. A "false friend" indeed!
I never get tired of hearing this. I never get tired of having the same experience myself. I don’t have an exhaustive knowledge of all the false friends. I have just highly tuned my contextual-reading sensitivity to spot them. And often I encounter them without being sure, at first, that I’ve hit a false friend.
To sink the Good Ship King James, one needs to say this: What the heck about non-English speakers? What's THEIR "authorized version?" Everything else amounts to an exacerbation of the problem--Anglo-centric Calvinist navel-gazing.
@@QuietlyContemplating Interesting. Thank you for that reply. Today's Calvinists are ESV loyal, correct? I'll have to change that last line to: "Anglo-centric" something or other. Any ideas? So what are KJVO's? How do they believe?
This seems very reasonable, but lacks context to evaluate properly. Consider the following: Let - still used in modern tennis for anything that hinders the game and in many passports in the phrase “without let or hindrance”. Want - used as recent as 2009 in an Economist article entitled “In Want of a Loan”. Fetched a compass - there are two modern devices referred to as compasses, not just the one mentioned in the video. One is used to find directions, and the other is used to draw a circle. More to the point, the underlying Greek word is defined as some form of moving around by no less than six standard Greek lexicons: Friberg, Luow-Nida, Liddell-Scott, Thayer's, Moulton-Milligan and Baur-Arndt-Gingrich. Not one of them defined it as simply “remove”. Not to mention that if most of the modern versions say the same thing, meaning they could not come up with anything they thought was better, why are we talking about it? Quick(en) - Evidently Time magazine did not consider it dead when they quoted the Biblical phrase “the quick and the dead” in 1993. The second aspect of this concept is that the KJV is not exclusive in the use of challenging words. The NIV, the best selling English Bible version, according to a list published by Evangelical Christian Publishers Association in January of 2020, has these confusing terms, (among others): “Portent” for “wonder” in Isaiah 20:3. “Fall short” for “cut in pieces” in Psalms 58:7' “Brooches” for “bracelets” in Exodus 35:22. “filigree” for “inclosings” in Exodus 28:20. “Goyim” for “nations” in Genesis 14:1. “Haunt” for “place” in Psalms 44:19. “Oblivion” for “forgetfulness” in Psalms 88:12 Wrapping up this too long comment with two final thoughts. 1. Christ did not market Himself in order to appeal to the public. He instead set up obstacles to weed out the uncommitted. The constant addition of new English Bible versions is part of a philosophy in American churches to market Christianity to appeal to the culture. Altering Christianity for this purpose ALWAYS ends in error. 2. If the underlying motivation behind new Bible versions was truly readability (in the broadest sense, I'm not referring specifically to Dr. Ward in this), there would not be so many versions on the market with more coming. We would have corrected what was needed and that would have been the end of it. There is another purpose underneath all this and we would do well to realize that and consider what it might be.
Darren, I'm genuinely trying to understand your argument here: are you saying that modern readers a) *will* understand "let," "want," "fetched a compass," or "quicken" in the respective passages I mention, or b) that they *should* understand-as in they are morally obligated to do the work to figure out the meaning of these phrases rather than simply reading a contemporary translation, or c) that most people *won't* understand these KJV words, and that's the point: Jesus is trying to weed out the uncommitted? Or perhaps you'd combine b) and c)? And, brother, we've been through this before, I'm afraid: you're using a stock KJV-Only strategy that I mention (partly with you in mind) in this video: ruclips.net/video/asSlqplyj_0/видео.html. I don't expect you to have watched all the videos, but here's the basic idea: my KJV-Only brothers like to give lists of words like this, but they don't quote the whole sentences in which they appear. That sometimes changes matters. They also don't distinguish between difficult *words* and obscure *things* (in other words, they confuse word and concept). They also don't make any effort to discern why the NIV (or ESV or NKJV or NASB or what have you) translators might have made these choices. The point of the NIV is not "make literally everything easier." The goal is a combination of updating the language and, in a few places, making it more accurate to the Hebrew or Greek-just like the KJV translators attempted to do when they revised the Bishop's Bible of 1568. So I challenge you in a brotherly way here: work through every last one of the examples you just gave in a blog post on your blog. Look in the lexicons and commentaries until you can discern why the NIV translators made these choices-until you can state those reasons the way they would state them. Until you can do that, you are not walking in charity toward your brothers. You are answering matters before you hear them.
@Mark Ward Sure, glad to explain further. 1) My point with the specific words you highlighted was to provide context which was lacking in your presentation. They are not as obsolete, archaic and misunderstood as you make them out to be. 2) My point about the uncommitted was that instead of accommodating Himself to the whims of the public, Christ deliberately hid the truth from those who were not truly interested in knowing or submitting to it, (Matthew 13:10-17). As for the quotes from the NIV, now I am trying to understand your point. When dealing with the KJV, we must update any word that is the least bit confusing, (even those the other versions still use). But when dealing with the NIV, we must fully research every reason and motive they had in using the word, (which is impossible), before we even label the word hard to understand. Otherwise we are being uncharitable. Why the double standard?
Friend, I’ve patiently answered your questions. I think it only fair to ask you to patiently answer mine before posing more. I’m still genuinely curious as to whether you’re going for my a), b), c), or some combination thereof.
Thank you for your concern about my emotional state while answering your questions, that is very kind. You need not worry, though, it has not caused me the least bit of anxiety. As to my response, you asked for clarification of my argument and I provided exactly that. I also addressed your statements concerning the NIV. What I am not inclined to do, is be pinned down by artificial parameters set by you. If you are still having trouble understanding my position, I will most gladly, (and patiently), clarify further. May God bless you with an enriching Lord's Day!
I looked in my OEM under the fourth fifth and sixth definition of the word study. It agrees with the king James Bible for some reason you picked a Definition that did not agree with the king James Bible.?? also look at Ecclesiastes 12:12 says much study is a weariness of the flesh that shows you study is a mental effort to learn information
OEM, my friend? What is that? I *did* agree with the King James Bible at 2 Tim 2:15. I explain further in this video: ruclips.net/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/видео.html And good work looking up Ecc 12:12! But the fact that "study" is used there in a sense we use today doesn't mean that "study" means the same thing everywhere it's used. Does that make sense?
What about the first and second person pronouns in the king, James Bible, which are more accurate and correct the other corrupt versions do not use these that means they’re not correct and they’re not true why do you conveniently overlook these facts and many of these other so-called Bibles have many Words that people do not understand much more than a King James Bible
"Not everyone who needs to read the Bible is well educated or a skilled reader." Thank you brother, this is my main thing that I wish KJVO people would see.
✔
Brother I totally agree with you. I am a 66 year old college graduate and retired police sgt.. I am blessed in that I have
Been in a solid Honest
Fundamentist Baptist Church. Our pastor led us out of KJV only
many years ago. There was no church split, no one that I know of left our Church. We are blessed with a good solid ministry. Keep up telling the truth on this issue. It is a very
emotional issue with some fellow Christians. You are right on with the KJV onlyism issue.
Thank you so much for the encouragement, brother.
I remember hearing pastors make jokes about peculiar people, particularly IFB pastors who were more extreme. They would say that it actually meant set apart, but if we followed all their rules, people would think we're peculiar.
Right! This kind of thing fills the Bible with random puns. =(
Thank you, Mark for your in-depth analysis of these false friends.
My pleasure!
Thank you for PREVENTING my understanding. A well researched and explained point makes the argument QUICK 😋
Ha! Got it! =)
Just want to thank you. I started reading the ESV and it's like reading the Bible for the first time. I wasn't KJV only, but I think I took pride in reading it. And I do like the poetry, or the sound of it. But I will beware from now on.
Enjoy! The KJV is still good to read-but mainly if you’re also reading translations into your language, too, like the ESV.
To be fair, I probably would have said "want" meant "desire," but I always would have thought of it in the sense that I will not desire anything because the Lord will provide all my needs.
The “wrong” meaning isn’t too far off!
Acts 8:29-31 KJV
Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot.
And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?
And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
KJV even makes the point that the words must be understood to have power in the reader’s life.
there was one witticism on "quick" that in crossing a (New York) city street you're either quick or you're dead. Your "old codgers in McDonald's" reminds me of when I used to drop a Hardee's on Saturday for their wonderful sandwiches and cinnamon-raisin biscuits i used to listen in on 4 older gentlemen enjoy their memories of yesteryear. Seriously, i don't know the term for this but corn discovered in the New World became popular back in England and became their word for "grain." (I did hear about corn supposedly found in an Egyptian tomb but that's another discussion).
The "quick or dead" joke is great-I wonder how many people are able to get it now, and I wonder how many would have gotten it in 1900, and 1800.
About acts 28:13. I believe by removed it means shoved off/launched. Remove the boat from the dock. Or re-moved as in moved again.
I don’t think I’ve heard ‘corn’ used to mean ‘grain in general’ in the UK, except in older books and songs, which does point to archaism or obsolescence. But, I would imagine it’s only recently moved over into the archaic column because of the influence of American media on our vocabulary.
You may be right.
Hey, Mark. Just curious if that test / quiz ever got created. I'd be curious to take it myself and share it with others to see how we fare. And while I do love my CSB you introduced me to, I sometimes have to look up words there as well (e.g. wadi and maybe a few others), but at least I know I have to look them up.
Do you mean kjvquiz.com?
@@markwardonwords Perfect! Thanks, I somehow hadn't run across that yet.
As South African English(Closely linked to British English), corn can mean both the indian type and the other type. In Afrikaans corn can be rendered "koring" meaning grains.
Again, awesome work, thank you for your time and energy and for breaking it down in a fun interesting way.
Ah, very interesting! Thank you for this!
Thank you again for this video.I was reading an article which quoted Acts 2:38 read it in KJV,NKJV,NASB and NIV all seem to mean that one must be baptized for the forgiveness.What is your take on this verse was it correctedly translated or should it read "be baptized because your sins" were forgiven".It seem to teach baptism is needed in order to be forgiven or saved.
It might seem to teach that-but it has to be read along with the rest of the New Testament, which clearly shows that no work can save us.
Thanks for your advice and for mentioning the three books that can be helpful in understanding archaic words in the KJV.
But no one is teaching that baptism is a work of man.
in america, some who read the kjv think the kjv speaks of maize but maize is from the new world and did not exist in the old world during new testament times. The grains of the new testament where wheat, barley, millet. They also had spelt which is a type of wheat.
You do good work and I appreciate you
Thanks, James! Appreciate your faithful viewership-and faithful comments.
"Rightly dividing the truth......." has always made me wonder. 😅
Now you have me thinking of "cut to the quick."
Regarding "corn," in the UK version of the ESV, Matthew 12:1 reads, "At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck ears of corn and to eat." My pastor reads from an old ESV-UK edition which occasionally differs from the regular ESV we have in our pews.
Interesting!
I grew up believing it was quite natural that we were to be a peculiar people… In the world eyes, we are quite odd, we live our life loving and adoring and invisible God, as Paul said, if it was not true, we would be most miserable😉
I learned about this false friend when I was in my late teens, but I still had an affinity for this understanding (or rather misunderstanding). Perhaps it was a elitism thing… Being proud of not fitting in…
I was KJV only for perhaps 5 years beginning around age 10 or so. My brother and I prided ourselves as vocabulary buffs. I switched to predominantly using ASV for another five years or so and branched out from there for the last 10 years (I’m 31 now). I’ve always been a nerdy, engineering type, grammar Nazi, vocabulary loving individual… So watching your content, it has been a bit surprising how many of these words I still don’t know by heart. A lot of times, when I come up to them, I go oh yeah, I know this has a different meaning, what was it again… for example, when you asked in the other video what we thought moderation meant, I had looked it up just a few months ago, but I completely drew a blank and could not remember what I meant in that context.
Right! This is exactly my experience! Love this comment.
I think plenty of people still use "fair" to mean "beautiful" (such as "fair maiden") and "want" to mean "lack," (as in "for want of a nail") so those don't generally confuse me.
Me too. But I have direct evidence that “want” in Psalm 23:1 was misunderstood by a large percentage of people on a quiz at a KJV-Only church.
Yeah but how many people who aren't familiar with older songs or literature would use those terms.
Thanks so much for another helpful video. Your explanation in the first half of the video is much appreciated.
So glad it was helpful!
I'm wondering how to encourage others to try alternate translations without appearing to disparage the KJV.
That’s pretty much exactly what I’m doing. It is not a disparagement of the KJV to point out dead words and false friends. They are the result of language change.
A lot of these obsolete senses are used in traditional rural dialects of Southern English, perhaps under the continuing influence of the KJV. The same could be said for the German Bible in Amish groups. I am by no means a KJV-onlyist, but I am a moderate hieratic-English-ist and Anglophile, so I feel that the role of pointing out false friends is more to enrich our language rather than to argue against the KJV (or RSV...or Douay-Rheims). Indeed, we Antiochian Orthodox use early modern English translations for the Divine Liturgy. I am moderate, because the occasional modern translation is refreshing, particularly when the translation is more accurate than an early modern translation.
As long as people are well aware of what they're doing (and I'm an Anglophile, too!), I don't mind too much. But very few KJV users are aware of false friends, in my experience. And I think that in church services we have a special duty to make truth as accessible to the uninitiated man of 1 Cor 14 as we can.
But I have to admit that when I have a liturgical itch, I like the BCP, and its antiquated language is part of its value and its charm. I'm not at all immune to the pull of the antiquarian and the reverent! I just think we have Bible telling us that edification requires intelligibility, especially in group settings where you can't (and shouldn't) control the educational levels of those who enter.
In response to your question, no, corn is not understood in the generic sense you describe, at least in my experience. That does not rule out a regional usage of which I am not aware. For example, in northern English counties, I have come across the words 'ye' and 'yonder', which are far from standard British English words.
Excellent! I appreciate this. Language is so cool! I really want to go back to England.
But is not the quickening, as it relates to pregnancy, an example of a form of the word quick being used to indicate the time in which an expecting mother (before modern medicine) first knew that there was life growing inside her womb?
Sure, though I question whether people should be expected to make that connection-if they even know about that use. Is “made alive” bad English?
Compass: an instrument used in geometry to draw a perfect circle
And what does it mean to fetch one?
If I have more time, I could learn more 1611 archaic english by reading annotated plays by the contemporaries of shakespeare such as christopher marlowe, ben jonson, etc. Arden Shakespeare has annotated plays of the contemporaries of Shakespeare like White Devil by John Webster, Jew Of Malta By Christopher Marlowe, Dutch Courtesan by John Marston, etc. New Mermaids has annotated plays of the contemporaries of Shakespeare like Duchess Of Malfi by John Webster, Volpone by Ben Jonson, etc. The more 1611 archaic english works you read, the more natural it becomes to read 1611 archaic english.
Why are you only wanting Pastors in your study that you mentioned near the end of this video?
Not only pastors-but they have access to groups of survey takers.
Mark Ward I’m confused. So you would like people even if they aren’t Pastors? The video specifically said Pastors. I think I would be interested but I am not a Pastor. I’m just a bible teacher. Our church uses the KJV but we ain’t mad about it like others are.
Can you message me privately through my website contact form? Got a question or two for you.
Mark Ward what is your website? All I see are links to books to purchase.
If you’re on Twitter, you can DM me @ImJimR87
nice... Latin is a very interesting language... :)
I've been binging the History of English Podcast big time, and yes Latin most certainly is fascinating.
"study" = make every effort to sort out what the text means... "it includes hitting the books" .... nice... :)
So, sister, do KJV readers need to hit the OED? Is that what you recommend?
The pastor of the church that I grew up in (a KJV-Only church, naturally) did a sermon series on the "ye are... a peculiar people" passage... Using the modern definition of peculiar to explain that, compared to the world, we should be seen as "different" or "strange".
I don't disagree with the point he was making - but he could have and should have made that point with different scripture (like Romans 12:2), but it was comical to me, as someone aware of this "false friend", that someone who spent my entire adolescence trying to gaslight me into believing that the KJV was in fact the EASIEST version to read would so eloquently prove himself wrong by spending a solid month of sermons on a theme derived from a misinterpretation of the obsolete language.
If you are familiar with the AWANA program at many churches, the entire program is derived from a misunderstanding of the false friend of "study". It's a good program, but its core premise is to memorize scripture passages (hit the books, as you put it) so that you can be an approved workman.
By eerie coincidence, I just learned this very week the meaning of "study" in 2 Timothy 2.15! I'm in my early 50s, a lifetime KJV reader (although I've also been using modern translations for 25 years), and hobby-level etymologist, but I picked this one up only now because I'd never bothered to compare the KJV of that verse to something more recent. A "false friend" indeed!
I never get tired of hearing this. I never get tired of having the same experience myself. I don’t have an exhaustive knowledge of all the false friends. I have just highly tuned my contextual-reading sensitivity to spot them. And often I encounter them without being sure, at first, that I’ve hit a false friend.
To sink the Good Ship King James, one needs to say this: What the heck about non-English speakers? What's THEIR "authorized version?"
Everything else amounts to an exacerbation of the problem--Anglo-centric Calvinist navel-gazing.
@@QuietlyContemplating Interesting. Thank you for that reply. Today's Calvinists are ESV loyal, correct?
I'll have to change that last line to: "Anglo-centric" something or other. Any ideas?
So what are KJVO's? How do they believe?
This seems very reasonable, but lacks context to evaluate properly. Consider the following:
Let - still used in modern tennis for anything that hinders the game and in many passports in the phrase “without let or hindrance”.
Want - used as recent as 2009 in an Economist article entitled “In Want of a Loan”.
Fetched a compass - there are two modern devices referred to as compasses, not just the one mentioned in the video. One is used to find directions, and the other is used to draw a circle. More to the point, the underlying Greek word is defined as some form of moving around by no less than six standard Greek lexicons: Friberg, Luow-Nida, Liddell-Scott, Thayer's, Moulton-Milligan and Baur-Arndt-Gingrich. Not one of them defined it as simply “remove”. Not to mention that if most of the modern versions say the same thing, meaning they could not come up with anything they thought was better, why are we talking about it?
Quick(en) - Evidently Time magazine did not consider it dead when they quoted the Biblical phrase “the quick and the dead” in 1993.
The second aspect of this concept is that the KJV is not exclusive in the use of challenging words. The NIV, the best selling English Bible version, according to a list published by Evangelical Christian Publishers Association in January of 2020, has these confusing terms, (among others):
“Portent” for “wonder” in Isaiah 20:3.
“Fall short” for “cut in pieces” in Psalms 58:7'
“Brooches” for “bracelets” in Exodus 35:22.
“filigree” for “inclosings” in Exodus 28:20.
“Goyim” for “nations” in Genesis 14:1.
“Haunt” for “place” in Psalms 44:19.
“Oblivion” for “forgetfulness” in Psalms 88:12
Wrapping up this too long comment with two final thoughts.
1. Christ did not market Himself in order to appeal to the public. He instead set up obstacles to weed out the uncommitted. The constant addition of new English Bible versions is part of a philosophy in American churches to market Christianity to appeal to the culture. Altering Christianity for this purpose ALWAYS ends in error.
2. If the underlying motivation behind new Bible versions was truly readability (in the broadest sense, I'm not referring specifically to Dr. Ward in this), there would not be so many versions on the market with more coming. We would have corrected what was needed and that would have been the end of it. There is another purpose underneath all this and we would do well to realize that and consider what it might be.
Darren, I'm genuinely trying to understand your argument here: are you saying that modern readers a) *will* understand "let," "want," "fetched a compass," or "quicken" in the respective passages I mention, or b) that they *should* understand-as in they are morally obligated to do the work to figure out the meaning of these phrases rather than simply reading a contemporary translation, or c) that most people *won't* understand these KJV words, and that's the point: Jesus is trying to weed out the uncommitted? Or perhaps you'd combine b) and c)?
And, brother, we've been through this before, I'm afraid: you're using a stock KJV-Only strategy that I mention (partly with you in mind) in this video: ruclips.net/video/asSlqplyj_0/видео.html. I don't expect you to have watched all the videos, but here's the basic idea: my KJV-Only brothers like to give lists of words like this, but they don't quote the whole sentences in which they appear. That sometimes changes matters. They also don't distinguish between difficult *words* and obscure *things* (in other words, they confuse word and concept). They also don't make any effort to discern why the NIV (or ESV or NKJV or NASB or what have you) translators might have made these choices. The point of the NIV is not "make literally everything easier." The goal is a combination of updating the language and, in a few places, making it more accurate to the Hebrew or Greek-just like the KJV translators attempted to do when they revised the Bishop's Bible of 1568.
So I challenge you in a brotherly way here: work through every last one of the examples you just gave in a blog post on your blog. Look in the lexicons and commentaries until you can discern why the NIV translators made these choices-until you can state those reasons the way they would state them. Until you can do that, you are not walking in charity toward your brothers. You are answering matters before you hear them.
@Mark Ward Sure, glad to explain further.
1) My point with the specific words you highlighted was to provide context which was lacking in your presentation. They are not as obsolete, archaic and misunderstood as you make them out to be.
2) My point about the uncommitted was that instead of accommodating Himself to the whims of the public, Christ deliberately hid the truth from those who were not truly interested in knowing or submitting to it, (Matthew 13:10-17).
As for the quotes from the NIV, now I am trying to understand your point. When dealing with the KJV, we must update any word that is the least bit confusing, (even those the other versions still use). But when dealing with the NIV, we must fully research every reason and motive they had in using the word, (which is impossible), before we even label the word hard to understand. Otherwise we are being uncharitable. Why the double standard?
Friend, I’ve patiently answered your questions. I think it only fair to ask you to patiently answer mine before posing more. I’m still genuinely curious as to whether you’re going for my a), b), c), or some combination thereof.
Thank you for your concern about my emotional state while answering your questions, that is very kind. You need not worry, though, it has not caused me the least bit of anxiety.
As to my response, you asked for clarification of my argument and I provided exactly that. I also addressed your statements concerning the NIV. What I am not inclined to do, is be pinned down by artificial parameters set by you. If you are still having trouble understanding my position, I will most gladly, (and patiently), clarify further. May God bless you with an enriching Lord's Day!
I went back and re-read my comments and added some phrases for clarification. I hope it helps.
I looked in my OEM under the fourth fifth and sixth definition of the word study. It agrees with the king James Bible for some reason you picked a Definition that did not agree with the king James Bible.?? also look at Ecclesiastes 12:12 says much study is a weariness of the flesh that shows you study is a mental effort to learn information
OEM, my friend? What is that?
I *did* agree with the King James Bible at 2 Tim 2:15. I explain further in this video: ruclips.net/video/Nzgmi6I2HIE/видео.html
And good work looking up Ecc 12:12! But the fact that "study" is used there in a sense we use today doesn't mean that "study" means the same thing everywhere it's used. Does that make sense?
What about the first and second person pronouns in the king, James Bible, which are more accurate and correct the other corrupt versions do not use these that means they’re not correct and they’re not true why do you conveniently overlook these facts and many of these other so-called Bibles have many Words that people do not understand much more than a King James Bible
I've given careful attention to your question about second-person pronouns. Check out kjbstudyproject.com and watch the first of the two videos.
The KJV should be considered just as "corrupt" as any other version of the Bible for the simple reason that it is not the original Hebrew and Greek.