Questions Regarding Archaic Words

[AVBunyan]

I’ve been seeing a lot of references lately on these “archaic†words in the AV1611. Been giving it some thought here and have some questions.

There are a lot and I now it is long and boring to some – even me!!!! I understnd long posts are not read much anyway and I am now trying to shorten mine.

I’m not expecting anyone to answer all of these but if you had any thoughts on some of them I’d be interested in hearing them.

1. If God had the AV translators put those words down in 1611 (I just happen to believe he did) then if God was pleased with them why do we have a problem with them?

2. Where do we get the idea that these “archaic†words need to be changed? By whose authority are we to go changing words?

3. Why is it that so many before us had no issues with them? How did so many get saved from 1600 to 1940 or so with these “archaic†words?

4. Were the folks that lived prior to us smarter than us? Many only had one or two books in their homes and I’ll give you one guess which one was one of the books.

5. Instead of updating the AV1611 why not “update†our reading and grammar skills? I mean, with all the means at our disposal don’t you think we should be able to read better?

6. Are we to believe that the modern versions sound more like God should? Should God sound like us or should we sound like him?

7. Instead of bringing God’s words down to our sub-standard reading level why not raise our standards to meet God’s?

8. Just because we don’t “talk this way anymore†does that mean the Bible needs to be changed or do we need to be changed?

9. What would have been more profitable – “raising†the reading level of the common man so he would increase knowledge in all areas or “lowering†the standards so he wouldn’t have to read “archaic†words but in turn be “dumbed down†so he could not increase in knowledge in other areas?

10. Are the “archaic†words the real issue? For this is one of the main issues people “say†they have. Or is it the issue of final authority? The old nature doesn’t like to be pinned down you know – yours doesn’t – mine doesn’t.

11. If one were to come up with a new version that only “updated†the “archaic†words then would it really make a difference – would that be sufficient? See #10

12. What is wrong with using an English dictionary instead of a Greek/Hebrew lexicon, etc.?

13. What would be easier for the average Joe (like myself) – looking up the word in a good English dictionary or learning Greek/Hebrew?

14. Do you really believe the “updated†versions have increased Bible reading and scriptural knowledge because they have been updated? Can you prove that the average Joe is more spiritual today than the average Joe of yesterday?

15. Compare the writers today with the writers of yesterday – who would you rather be like? Have you read much of their works?

16. Compare the spiritual lives of the saints of yesterday with the average saint today – who would you rather be like? Have you read much of their lives?

17. Based upon # 15 and #16 what book do you think the writers and saints of yesterday read? Do you think that had some bearing on the quality of their writings and spiritual lives? If so, wouldn’t you think we would want to emulate what they did?

Well – I’m out of questions for now – aren’t you glad?
Now I know you have your own.

Bottom line – I believe the “archaic†words issue is an excuse. There are so many links and articles showing the modern versions use words that are more difficult to understand.

Remember the KJV texts came from Greek texts that used koine Greek – the average Greek of the day for the average Joe. The modern versions used texts from Greek manuscripts that used classical Greek which was a fancier Greek for philosophers and writers like Origen and his crowd – hence why the modern versions sound “different†but are not really easier to read and understand.

If the modern versions make it easier to understand then why are saints today more carnal, fleshly, worldly, and inferior in Bible knowledge than the saints of yesterday?

I’m listening – I’ve read the lives of many older “average†saints and I’ll take their spiritual lives over mine or most anybody else’s I’ve seen today.

God bless

 

[Orthodox Christian]

I’ve been seeing a lot of references lately on these “archaic†words in the AV1611. Been giving it some thought here and have some questions.

There are a lot and I now it is long and boring to some – even me!!!! I understnd long posts are not read much anyway and I am now trying to shorten mine.

I’m not expecting anyone to answer all of these but if you had any thoughts on some of them I’d be interested in hearing them.

1. If God had the AV translators put those words down in 1611 (I just happen to believe he did) then if God was pleased with them why do we have a problem with them?
That's a fair question. Since a proper understanding of these words requires study, why not simply apply that energy to the study of the Greek? After all, Elizabethan English is "all Greek" to many, if not most.

2. Where do we get the idea that these “archaic†words need to be changed? By whose authority are we to go changing words?
The language has changed, as language does. Modern Greek is very different from ancient Greek. Italian is quite dissimilar from Latin. Etc. Perhaps the words of the KJV do not need to be changed- but one will need to consult dictionaries and lexicons to know what the translators were trying to say. IE, one needs a translation of their translation.

3. Why is it that so many before us had no issues with them? How did so many get saved from 1600 to 1940 or so with these “archaic†words?
People are being saved because it is the will of God, and because the people hear the Word of the Lord which rings through the scripture.

I might ask why the Greek and Latin were good enough for 1500 years, but then those Reformers had to go and change things.
But I would be disingenuous to do so. I think it is wonderful for scripture to be available in the native tongue of the people. If Acts 2 is any indicator, God loves that too, for the glories of God were proclaimed in the all the tongues of the people.

4. Were the folks that lived prior to us smarter than us? Many only had one or two books in their homes and I’ll give you one guess which one was one of the books.
Let's step back even further, before the advent of the printing press: There was a time when people had no book in their homes- yet they knew much of the scripture by heart. How? By learning it from the liturgies, where it was set to music- which makes memorization MUCH easier.

5. Instead of updating the AV1611 why not “update†our reading and grammar skills? I mean, with all the means at our disposal don’t you think we should be able to read better?
I couldn't agree more. Why not challenge people to be educated in the classics? Learn to read Greek and Latin, and perhaps German also, for those fans of the Reformation.

6. Are we to believe that the modern versions sound more like God should? Should God sound like us or should we sound like him?
What sounds like God is when a modern or older version is demonstrated, not spoken only.

7. Instead of bringing God’s words down to our sub-standard reading level why not raise our standards to meet God’s?
Again, I agree. Will you be joining me in studying the Greek texts, then?

8. Just because we don’t “talk this way anymore†does that mean the Bible needs to be changed or do we need to be changed?
If you wish to evangelize, you had better use the NKJV.

9. What would have been more profitable – “raising†the reading level of the common man so he would increase knowledge in all areas or “lowering†the standards so he wouldn’t have to read “archaic†words but in turn be “dumbed down†so he could not increase in knowledge in other areas?
Sounds like you have two projects going: one to raise the literacy level of your fellow citizens, and another to proclaim the scriptures to a lost world. I adjure you to make the gospel simple and accessible. I didn't say 'easy,' I said simple, as in unfettered with tradition or flowery words.

10. Are the “archaic†words the real issue? For this is one of the main issues people “say†they have. Or is it the issue of final authority? The old nature doesn’t like to be pinned down you know – yours doesn’t – mine doesn’t.
Final authority rests with Jesus, the pantokrator, Lord and Ruler of All. He gave authority to the Church. Most folks don't want to be "pinned down" by either Him or His Body (Church).

11. If one were to come up with a new version that only “updated†the “archaic†words then would it really make a difference – would that be sufficient? See #10
It might be helpful- but not sufficient. None of it is sufficient without the illumination of the Holy Spirit.

12. What is wrong with using an English dictionary instead of a Greek/Hebrew lexicon, etc.?
So your implicit position here is that a translation magisteriumj spoke in 1611, and who has authority to supercede their interpretation??? Neither Catholics nor Orthodox cling to such a rigid, static tradition.
You've simply replaced the fathers of the councils with the fathers of the KJV translation.

13. What would be easier for the average Joe (like myself) – looking up the word in a good English dictionary or learning Greek/Hebrew?
Before you were arguing against taking shorcuts, and arguing for greater devotion to study. Now you appeal to "easier?"

14. Do you really believe the “updated†versions have increased Bible reading and scriptural knowledge because they have been updated? Can you prove that the average Joe is more spiritual today than the average Joe of yesterday?
Define "more spiritual." Try to remember that most of the heretical sects of Protestantism were born in the USA between 1800 and 1930. Are today's prosperity and revivalist Protestants sects more or less spiritual than JWs, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Oneness Pentecostals?
I don't know- I think it's a draw.

15. Compare the writers today with the writers of yesterday – who would you rather be like? Have you read much of their works?
Well, now you have a point- a sociocultural point. Are you aware that all of those writers and theologians of days gone by were educated in the classics, and read and wrote in Latin and Greek? Now, one may receive a Ph.D. without ever learning a second language of any sort.

16. Compare the spiritual lives of the saints of yesterday with the average saint today – who would you rather be like? Have you read much of their lives?
I have read extensively of the lives of saints, including those modern saints from the 15th-21st centuries. Whether it was Moravians selling themselves into slavery to evangelize, or Patrick returning to Ireland to evangelize, they all have something in common that is indeed in short supply in the West today: sacrifice and devotion. Did I mention holiness?
But we have many saints who were holy, devoted, and sacrificial in Communist Russia and Red China. Likewise, there were saints of every tradition who laid down their lives for each other, for the Jews, and for truth in Nazi Germany.

What you see in the West is the natural outcome of ease and comfort. For this reason, James warned us of the snare of wealth. But call to mind those who are even today in chains in Vietnam and in Sudan- many of these are your Evangelical brethren- and they are putting forth a true and glorious witness in suffering.

17. Based upon # 15 and #16 what book do you think the writers and saints of yesterday read? Do you think that had some bearing on the quality of their writings and spiritual lives? If so, wouldn’t you think we would want to emulate what they did?
You are taking the words out of my mouth. The first and foremost book for one and all is holy scripture. Aside from that, the Ladder of Divine Ascent, Augustine's Confessions, the works of Origen and the sermons of Chrysostom, Maximos the Confessor's commentary on the Lord's Prayer. In more recent times, perhaps Pilgrim's Progress, Tozier, Schaeffer, Chesterton.


Well – I’m out of questions for now – aren’t you glad?
Now I know you have your own.

Bottom line – I believe the “archaic†words issue is an excuse. There are so many links and articles showing the modern versions use words that are more difficult to understand.

Remember the KJV texts came from Greek texts that used koine Greek – the average Greek of the day for the average Joe. The modern versions used texts from Greek manuscripts that used classical Greek which was a fancier Greek for philosophers and writers like Origen and his crowd – hence why the modern versions sound so “different†but are not really easier to read and understand.
You've actually mischaracterized and distorted the history and source of texts badly here. The issue is NOT the Greek used, but the text families and who preserved them.

If the modern versions make it easier to understand then why are saints today more carnal, fleshly, worldly, and inferior in Bible knowledge than the saints of yesterday?
Only in our Western World is this true- and it has nothing to do with translation, as I've stated above.

I’m listening – I’e read the lives of many older “average†saints and I’ll take their spiritual lives over mine or most anybody else’s I’ve seen today.
I agree wholeheartedly, and I commend your humility and devotion to following Christ. There is no doubt that we in our present age BADLY need spiritual renewal and revival, and scripture will be our straightedge by which to believe and behave. Therefore, properly translated and interpreted text is imperative..

God bless

 

[kwag_myers]

1. If God had the AV translators put those words down in 1611 (I just happen to believe he did) then if God was pleased with them why do we have a problem with them?

For the same reason the Jesus spoke Aramaic and David spoke Hebrew. It was the language of the people of that day. We have a problem with these words because we don't talk like that anymore.

2. Where do we get the idea that these “archaic†words need to be changed? By whose authority are we to go changing words?

See my answer to #1.

3. Why is it that so many before us had no issues with them? How did so many get saved from 1600 to 1940 or so with these “archaic†words?

I would offer that past revivals are the workings of the Holy Spirit and not the printed word. Consider when the Gentiles first received the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44. Note that Peter was still speaking when the Holy Spirit came to them. When the Holy Spirit moves, nothing can stop it.

4. Were the folks that lived prior to us smarter than us? Many only had one or two books in their homes and I’ll give you one guess which one was one of the books.

It's not about intellect, but about faith.

5. Instead of updating the AV1611 why not “update†our reading and grammar skills? I mean, with all the means at our disposal don’t you think we should be able to read better?

Hmmm! I tried to educate you on the meaning of a word and you rejected it. I'd say that you've answered your own question. We don't want to accept anything that doesn't support our current doctrinal beliefs.

6. Are we to believe that the modern versions sound more like God should? Should God sound like us or should we sound like him?

I think you miss the point of us having God's Word. It's not about how we talk, but how we walk. If you want to be like Jesus, learn Aramaic.

7. Instead of bringing God’s words down to our sub-standard reading level why not raise our standards to meet God’s?

See my answer to #5.

8. Just because we don’t “talk this way anymore†does that mean the Bible needs to be changed or do we need to be changed?

Remember the bronze serpent in Numbers 21:9? Remember how the Israelites began to worship it in 2 Kings 18:4? IMHO, you're worshiping a relic of the past. I'm not spending any more time on this. There are people dying to know about Jesus and you want to teach them a dead language first, then tell them about Jesus?

Why do you think Jesus talked in parables? So that they could understand. I guess that's why I have such a problem with this 1611 thing. Why make it more difficult, why not preach the Gospel in a language that all can easily understand?

 

[AVBunyan]

So that they could understand. I guess that's why I have such a problem with this 1611 thing. Why make it more difficult, why not preach the Gospel in a language that all can easily understand?

This is my issue Kwag - why all of a sudden is the AV to difficult when folks for over 350 years (farmers, coal-miners, slaves, heathen, cannibals, etc.) had no issues with it.

I understand the Holy Spirit is the teacher.

Are those past folks smarter than us?

My point - the AV1611 is not that difficult and past history of revivals proves this.'

Yes, I know the word of God was around prior to 1611 in multiple translations - I am talking about the 1611 and since then since this AV1611 has been such a thorn in the flesh for many today.

Summary - the AV1611 is not that difficult - why has it become, all of a sudden, so "difficult"? Worked fine for over 350 years - what has changed?

 

[farley]

AV,

This is an execellent thread, thank you for starting it!

You asked...

This is my issue Kwag - why all of a sudden is the AV to difficult when folks for over 350 years (farmers, coal-miners, slaves, heathen, cannibals, etc.) had no issues with it.

I'm sure that there are others here, but in my view, it is mostly YOU who are misinterpreting the archaic language in this forum. You take the phrase "of Christ" literally, in verses where it can/should mean "in Christ", as is evident by the work of Greek scholars in later versions.

A non-scriptural example - I have an elderly uncle in his eighties. Just the other day he said, "When I get up of a morning, I like a hot, buttered biscuit!". In this context it is easy to draw the proper reference to what he's implying by the use of "of" here. And if not, I can just ask him for clarification. Too bad we don't have that "ask" option with the scripture.

Anyway, thanks for allowing me my rant!

BTW...I won't even go into the other area, where you constantly crusade for the 1611 version of KJ, yet never use it in your posts, you seem to prefer quoting the 1769 revision of KJ.

In Christ,

farley

 

[santamarana]

So that they could understand. I guess that's why I have such a problem with this 1611 thing. Why make it more difficult, why not preach the Gospel in a language that all can easily understand?

This is my issue Kwag - why all of a sudden is the AV to difficult when folks for over 350 years (farmers, coal-miners, slaves, heathen, cannibals, etc.) had no issues with it.

I understand the Holy Spirit is the teacher.

Are those past folks smarter than us?

My point - the AV1611 is not that difficult and past history of revivals proves this.'

Yes, I know the word of God was around prior to 1611 in multiple translations - I am talking about the 1611 and since then since this AV1611 has been such a thorn in the flesh for many today.

Summary - the AV1611 is not that difficult - why has it become, all of a sudden, so "difficult"? Worked fine for over 350 years - what has changed?

If you want to get to the root why don;t we just teach everyone to study greek and hebrew, and aramaic so we can get right down to the original languages that the people read them in their day, and maybe we will be closer to God.

 

[AVBunyan]

BTW...I won't even go into the other area, where you constantly crusade for the 1611 version of KJ, yet never use it in your posts, you seem to prefer quoting the 1769 revision of KJ.In Christ,farley

Farley - I'm talking about the King James Bible you can get at Walmart for $5.95 - Generally it is called the AV1611 - I know about 1769, revisions, etc.

I believe you know what I'm referring to - why keep bringing this date thing up? After all I write and this keeps being brought up. :-?

 

[AVBunyan]

If you want to get to the root why don;t we just teach everyone to study greek and hebrew, and aramaic so we can get right down to the original languages that the people read them in their day, and maybe we will be closer to God.

Well, Santa, how do you know which Greek or Hebrew text to study? There are about a million aren't there? (exaggerating here so forgive me) Since they all read different how would you know which one is right or not?

I, by faith, take the King James Bible I have in my hands to be the pure word of God - perfect without error or mixture of error. Now, if a publisher changed something in my BIble that I don't know about then tough apples - I still by faith take what I have to be the word of God and I believe God honors this text - he will give account - not me.

Let's be real here - what would be easier to learn today for the common Joe - Greek/Hebrew or the most commonly used, international language of today, which is English? Don't you God knew this?

How many do you know that really speak Greek or Hebrew?

By the way - Moses and Pharoah undoubtedly spoke in Egyptian - should we learn Egyptian to check it out in case Moses heard Pharaoh wrong? :o

2 Cor 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

If you had the originals you wouldn't understand it anymore than what you have now.

If I had the real "originals" in my hands then I would lock them in a safe and pick up my KJV and go preach. :wink:

 

[santamarana]

If you want to get to the root why don;t we just teach everyone to study greek and hebrew, and aramaic so we can get right down to the original languages that the people read them in their day, and maybe we will be closer to God.

Well, Santa, how do you know which Greek or Hebrew text to study? There are about a million aren't there? (exaggerating here so forgive me) Since they all read different how would you know which one is right or not?

I, by faith, take the King James Bible I have in my hands to be the pure word of God - perfect without error or mixture of error. Now, if a publisher changed something in my BIble that I don't know about then tough apples - I still by faith take what I have to be the word of God and I believe God honors this text - he will give account - not me.

Let's be real here - what would be easier to learn today for the common Joe - Greek/Hebrew or the most commonly used, international language of today, which is English? Don't you God knew this?

How many do you know that really speak Greek or Hebrew?

By the way - Moses and Pharoah undoubtedly spoke in Egyptian - should we learn Egyptian to check it out in case Moses heard Pharaoh wrong? :o

2 Cor 5:7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight

If you had the originals you wouldn't understand it anymore than what you have now.

If I had the real "originals" in my hands then I would lock them in a safe and pick up my KJV and go preach. :wink:

Do you use the original version of the 1611 that has not bee revised in any way for corrections and so fourth?

I doubt it.

 

[AVBunyan]

Do you use the original version of the 1611 that has not bee revised in any way for corrections and so fourth?I doubt it.

Santa - go to Walmart or Target - grab a King James Bible and that is it - I'm fine with that -

Again, with feeling - I know about revisions - I call the 1769 or whatever version the 1611 becasue they all from the 1611 and that is just a name - the AV1611 - I like that name. Yes, I have a copy fo a 1611 - I read my Walmart version.

 

[santamarana]

Do you use the original version of the 1611 that has not bee revised in any way for corrections and so fourth?I doubt it.

Santa - go to Walmart or Target - grab a King James Bible and that is it - I'm fine with that -

Again, with feeling - I know about revisions - I call the 1769 or whatever version the 1611 becasue they all from the 1611 and that is just a name - the AV1611 - I like that name. Yes, I have a copy fo a 1611 - I read my Walmart version.

Again you dodged the question.
Do you study the "Original" The one that has not had any corrections made to it at all. I am talking about the one that is from the year 1611 Not 2005 at walmart. I am talking about the one that has an extra 16 books that were taking out later on.
This is the one I'm talking about.

The very first year the “Authorized†Version (KJV) was printed, it went through several quick changes due to errors. A careful review KJV Bibles with the date 1611 on them revealed they were not all identical. One 1611 printing contained “and he went into the city†in Ruth 3:15 while another 1611 had “and she went into the city.†Another 1611 printing had “Judas†for “Jesus†in Mat. 26:36. It came to be known as the “Judas Bible.†Many other such errors occurred throughout the printing of the King James Version over the centuries. Below is a list of some of the more humorous blunders contained in KJV printings.

(1) 1611, Great "He" Bible, (Ruth 3:15, "and he went into the city.")
(2) 1611, Great "She" Bible, (Ruth 3:15), "and she went into the city.")
(3) 1611, "Judas" Bible, (Mat. 26:36, "Judas" for "Jesus.")
(4) 1631, "Wicked" Bible, (Ex. 20:14, omits the "not.")
(5) 1638, "Forgotten Sins" Bible, (Luke 7:47).
(6) 1641, "More Sea" Bible, (Rev. 21:1, "There was more sea.")
(7) 1653, "Unrighteous" or Field's Bible, (1 Cor. 6:9, "unrighteous shall inherit.")
(8) 1702, "Printers" Bible, (Ps. 119:161, "Printers have persecuted.")
(9) 1711, "Profit" Bible, (Isa. 57:12, "shall profit" instead of "shall not profit.")
(10) 1716, "Sin On" Bible, (John 5:14, "sin on more" for "sin no more.")
(11) 1717, "Vinegar" Bible, (Luke 20, "parable of the Vinegar" instead of "Vineyard."
(12) 1746, "Sting" Bible, (Mark 7:37, "sting of his tongue" not "string."
(13) 1792, "Denial" Bible, (Lk. 22:34, Philip denies Jesus instead of Peter.
(14) 1801, "Murderers" Bible, (Jude 1:16, "murderers" used instead of "murmurers."
(15) 1802, "Discharge" Bible, (1 Tim. 5:21, "I discharge" instead of "I charge."
(16) 1804, "Lions" Bible, (1 Kings 7:19, "out of thy lions" instead of "loins."
(17) 1805, "To-Remain" Bible, (Gal. 4:29, "to remain" inserted instead of a comma.
(18) 1806, "Standing Fishes" Bible, (Ezek. 47:10, "the fishes shall stand" instead of "fishers."
(19) 1807, "Ears to ear" Bible, (Mat. 13:43, "ears to ear" instead of "to hear."
(20) 1810, "Wife-Hater" Bible, (Lk. 14:26, "hate not . . . and his own wife" instead of "life.")
(21) 1823, "Camels" Bible, (Gen. 24:61, "Rebekah arose, and her camels" instead of "damsels."
(22) 1829, "Large Family" Bible, (Isa. 66:9, "not cease to bring to birth" instead of "not cause to bring forth."
(23) undated, "Fool" Bible, Psalm 14:1, "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God" instead of "there is no God."

Many people do not realize how many times the King James Bible has been changed in some form or another. There have been changes made in the KJV in the following years: 1613, 1616, 1617, 1618, 1629, 1630, 1633, 1634, 1637, 1638, 1640, 1642, 1653, 1659, 1675, 1679, 1833, 1896, 1904.

All of the above changes retained the original name. However, in recent times, in additions to changes being made in the text, even the very name of the Bible has changed. Few people realize that all these Bible Versions listed below are nothing more than revisions of the original 1611 King James Version

Revised Version
American Version
Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version
New Revised Standard Version
New American Standard Version
King James Version II (KJII) (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
King James for the 21st Century (KJ21)
King James 2000 (KJ2000)
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) (formerly named King James II)
Modern King James Version (MKJV)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Revised Authorised Version (RAV) (British edition of the NKJV)
Revised King James New Testament (RKJV)
The Third Millennium Bible (TMB)
Updated King James Version (UKJV)

There have even been “updates†(more revisions) of some of the revised versions of the King James Version, the New American Standard Version being an example.

So then the most “Inerrant†English Bible translation, according to the KJV-only fundamentalists, is actually the most changed and revised version on the market. How ironic! It would actually be hilarious were it not for the fact that we are dealing with the most important book in the world.

The one that came off the press in 1611 thats the one I'm talking about.
The one that doesn't have any flaws because it was written by the finger of God himself. Course He must have been in a hurry in order to have it changed 19 times. Oh well nobodys perfect.

 

[AVBunyan]

Few people realize that all these Bible Versions listed below are nothing more than revisions of the original 1611 King James Version

Revised Version
American Version
Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version
New Revised Standard Version
New American Standard Version
King James Version II (KJII) (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
King James for the 21st Century (KJ21)
King James 2000 (KJ2000)
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (LITV) (formerly named King James II)
Modern King James Version (MKJV)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Revised Authorised Version (RAV) (British edition of the NKJV)
Revised King James New Testament (RKJV)
The Third Millennium Bible (TMB)
Updated King James Version (UKJV)

This is where your research is flawed Santa - most of the versions above are not based upon the texts the AV1611 came from - they are not revisions of the 1611.

The NKJV and some of the others have some scripture in it but where there vary from the AV they get from the corrupt texts of Egypt.

Most of the ones you listed above are based upon the texts that originated out of Alexandria from the 3rd century with Origen as the author.

All modern versions are based upon the corrupt Greek/Hebrew manuscripts of Egypt from the 3rd century. The AV1611 and all genuine revisions on are based upon those texts that originated from Asia Minor - the line of manuscripts that God has been using since the 1st century.

I don't care for those "KJV updated", etc.

God bless

 

[Vic C.]

santamarana, most of what you posted in that first list would be considered typographical errors, which as you stated, were revised (corrected).

Also, I am a reader of the LITV. I do not consider it a KJ revision. It is a literal translation of the Textus Receptus using the closest comtemporary English possible, while retaining the original meaning. I am not a fan of critical text.

 

[kwag_myers]

This is my issue Kwag - why all of a sudden is the AV to difficult when folks for over 350 years (farmers, coal-miners, slaves, heathen, cannibals, etc.) had no issues with it.

I understand the Holy Spirit is the teacher.

Are those past folks smarter than us?

My point - the AV1611 is not that difficult and past history of revivals proves this.'

Yes, I know the word of God was around prior to 1611 in multiple translations - I am talking about the 1611 and since then since this AV1611 has been such a thorn in the flesh for many today.

Summary - the AV1611 is not that difficult - why has it become, all of a sudden, so "difficult"? Worked fine for over 350 years - what has changed?

I think that it probably boils down to the level of education. Up until the mid-20th century, literacy was limited among the general population. This is why some denominations that date back centuries took it upon themselves to tell the congregation what the Bible said. Now, literacy is the norm. We have a world of information at our fingertips and self-study is very easy. So my theory is that since we no longer have the clergy telling us what the Bible says, and we can now research for ourselves, we can see for ourselves which translations are of poor quality and which are closer to the original text.

 

[AVBunyan]

Up until the mid-20th century, literacy was limited among the general population. Now, literacy is the norm.

The point I'm making is the AV1611 was well-recieved by the common folks and they had no issues with the language and there were incredible and world-wide miraculous results with the the KJV among all folks.

If the results were there with the KJV then why do we think by updating we can get better results? :o

We haven't gotten better results with all our "education" and 100 or so "updated" versions.

And by the way - I believe we have been sold a bill of goods in believing those folsk were mostly illiterate. I've read where this has been exaggerated so as to make our age look more "enlightened".

God bless

 

[BenJasher]

2. Where do we get the idea that these “archaic†words need to be changed? By whose authority are we to go changing words?

3. Why is it that so many before us had no issues with them? How did so many get saved from 1600 to 1940 or so with these “archaic†words?

4. Were the folks that lived prior to us smarter than us? Many only had one or two books in their homes and I’ll give you one guess which one was one of the books.

5. Instead of updating the AV1611 why not “update†our reading and grammar skills? I mean, with all the means at our disposal don’t you think we should be able to read better?

Your questions, comments and arguments would make sense to someone who doesn't know the difference. No offense.

I tell you what, in my library, I have a commentary on the book of Hoseah. It was written in 1545. It is written in English. But you probably wouldn't be able to read it. The alphabet is different. The words are different. The language is different. For all that it matters, Middle English (which is what it was written in) is a foreign language to what we are familiar with today.

Are you proposing that the only way that we should be allowed to read the Bible is if we are able to read and write in Middle English? Middle English is very closely akin to the Norman and Saxon languages which are definitely foreign languages to us.

The language we speak today is vastly different to what the Founding Forefathers spoke when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. Is is strangely different to what Abraham Lincoln wrote and spoke in his day.

My point is that you are confusing apples and oranges. The original languages that the scriptures were written in is what is "inspired and infallible", not our translations of those ancient scripts. When you read the Authorized Version of the Bible, what you are reading is a modern revision of what was written in 1611. Most people today would not be able to navigate through a 1611 version of the AV.

As our language morphs as time goes on (which it does) we will need to continue to update our bibles to reflect what those original languages mean to us. Don't be afraid of this. Be afraid of those who would tell you that the original scripts need to be updated.

 

[AVBunyan]

When you read the Authorized Version of the Bible, what you are reading is a modern revision of what was written in 1611. Most people today would not be able to navigate through a 1611 version of the AV..

I understand the differences betwen 1611 and 1769, etc.

I don't expect peopel to have to navigate through the original 1611's.

What I am talking about is what you can get at Walmart today for $5.95 - folks should have no trouble reading it - I think they are using it as an excuse that the language is so "archaic" - plus they are being told such by critics who have rejected the authority of the KJV.

Problem is they are not just "updating" the KJV - they are slowly replacing it with the corrupt texts of Origen from Egypt and the average person doesn't realize it - they are just listening and trusting the "scholars" and publishers. :-?

 

[BenJasher]

OK, so far, so good; although I don't see where you are coming from with your remark about Origen's texts.
Further, what makes you think Origen's texts would be corrupt? Do you mean that someone corrupted them, or that Origen was corrupt?

 

[AVBunyan]

OK, so far, so good; although I don't see where you are coming from with your remark about Origen's texts.
Further, what makes you think Origen's texts would be corrupt? Do you mean that someone corrupted them, or that Origen was corrupt?

Origen's text were corrupt - just google "origen corrupt texts" for starters.

Or...

http://www.biblebelievers.com/jmelton/fables.html
http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/sbs777/vit ... vbook.html
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/defens.htm
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/fight.html

God bless

 

[kwag_myers]

Up until the mid-20th century, literacy was limited among the general population. Now, literacy is the norm.

The point I'm making is the AV1611 was well-recieved by the common folks and they had no issues with the language and there were incredible and world-wide miraculous results with the the KJV among all folks.

The reason (I believe) that they had no issue with the language is because the priest told them what it meant.

If the results were there with the KJV then why do we think by updating we can get better results? :o

We haven't gotten better results with all our "education" and 100 or so "updated" versions.

Results come by the Holy Spirit. The Book of Acts testifies to this. Personally, I don't like having someone else tell me what the Bible says when I am perfectly capable of making that determination on my own (with the help of the Holy Spirit, naturally).

And by the way - I believe we have been sold a bill of goods in believing those folsk were mostly illiterate. I've read where this has been exaggerated so as to make our age look more "enlightened".

But they still didn't have the resources that we do today. How many Bibles were published in 1800? At what price? How many people could afford a copy? So maybe it's not a question of could they read, but did they read?