Thread: Archaic words in the NIV

I never noticed this before. Maybe the KJV isn't that hard to understand after all.

http://www.scionofzion.com/archaic.htm

I wasn't that convinced that many of the NIV words were more archaic, IMO. It's very subjective, and comes down to what you're used to, I think.

The thesis of this seminal work is that the Authorized Version is no more archaic than daily newspapers, current magazines, and modem Bible versions...

yeah...right.

That is an interesting and helpful article. Thank you for sharing it!

Of course, Mr. Vance is picking and choosing his verses. One could also compile a select list of verses which would be considered more "archaic" in the KJV. But in any case, he makes his point that the NIV is not a hands-down winner when it comes to clarity.


A bigger gripe with me, though, is the very fact that our modern culture is so allergic to "archaic language" at all . . . in fact, how did it get to be "archaic" in the first place? One part of the answer is that it got that way because of the decline of the modern vocabulary! If some "archaic" word is unclear to a reader, then let the reader pull out a dictionary! But who wants to do that anymore? This is yet another symptom of the rampant anti-intellectualism of this age.

People who choose not to read are no better off than those who are illiterate.

(By the way, my comments above are certainly not directed to anyone on this thread or on this forum. Your very participation on this forum is proof that you have a higher-than-average interest in the pursuit of truth.)

Originally posted by Reformingstudent
I never noticed this before. Maybe the KJV isn't that hard to understand after all.

http://www.scionofzion.com/archaic.htm

I have yet to meet a KJV only type that could tell me what the "superfluity of naughtiness" is.

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Reformingstudent
I never noticed this before. Maybe the KJV isn't that hard to understand after all.

http://www.scionofzion.com/archaic.htm

I have yet to meet a KJV only type that could tell me what the "superfluity of naughtiness" is.

It's so funny that you posted this, because I was just about to list that verse, but decided against it at the last moment!

Originally posted by Rick Larson

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Reformingstudent
I never noticed this before. Maybe the KJV isn't that hard to understand after all.

http://www.scionofzion.com/archaic.htm

I have yet to meet a KJV only type that could tell me what the "superfluity of naughtiness" is.

It's so funny that you posted this, because I was just about to list that verse, but decided against it at the last moment!

I have yet to meet a KJV only type that could tell me what the "superfluity of naughtiness" is.

That goes back to the other posters remark about picking up a dictionary.

superfluity - Overabundance; excess
naughtiness - Wicked; immoral

Archaic wording = intelligient speech

Those with degrees use archaic wording everyday (Drs, professors, etc). The honest truth was...I was raised on archaic wording. I had no idea as a child that "gay" was related to homosexuality. I knew the more precise definition of the term...not it's associated meaning. Personally...I think the educated person needs to know these words and their meanings...and not just the modern associations either. Otherwise, let's just throw out all the classical pieces of literature while we're at it. Oh, yeah...Shakespeare's in modern english now, isn't he? GAG! Now you've done lost all his prose and poetry and wonderful play on words. Gonna step down from the soapbox before I throw something...

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by LadyFlynt]

You kick the backsides of all those anti-intellectuals, Coleen!

They need to either or learn from a so they can get a little wisdom before they .

Why do we need an English translation at all? I mean, aren't there Greek/English dictionaries out there? Why make things so easy?

Originally posted by Rick Larson
Why do we need an English translation at all? I mean, aren't there Greek/English dictionaries out there? Why make things so easy?

Touche'

My point is the wording isn't archaic...we just have settled for being dumbed down instead of actually attempting to learn or understand. Really, if you think about the common language used today compare to 100 to 300 yrs ago...we really have suffered from stupidity. (and btw, back then many students did read works in their original languages...whether Latin, French, Greek or whatever...they learned by translating per your sarcastic suggestion above)

Originally posted by Reformingstudent
I never noticed this before. Maybe the KJV isn't that hard to understand after all.

http://www.scionofzion.com/archaic.htm

Big deal, I find understanding 'edit' ... Hebrew and Greek harder.

Lighten up and stop knocking evangelism.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by just_grace]

I think the term "archaic" is misleading as it relates to the kjv anyway. The kjv is actually written in modern English. I think it would be more accurate to label it as "Elizabethan English" than "archaic".

Does not matter what version of the Bible you have, when God calls, you hear, and say, YES, thank you. I think I had a copy of the Good news version given to me by some caring Christian a few weeks before I bowed the knee through Grace.

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by just_grace]

you're a calvinistic methodist...sorry but having been in the methodist church at one time...is THAT possible? Just curious...as I think I may have read your post as sounding a bit armenian...could be just me though.

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
you're a calvinistic methodist...sorry but having been in the methodist church at one time...is THAT possible? Just curious...as I think I may have read your post as sounding a bit armenian...could be just me though.

I have to admit I was taken aback at first too.

However, I quickly got over it . . . have you ever heard of George Whitfield? He was an effective Methodist preacher at the same time as John Wesley was around . . . but George was a staunch Calvinist.

George Whitfield gave Methodism a good name.

A very brief bio on Whitfield:

http://www.christianheroes.com/ev/ev013.asp

Originally posted by larryjf

I have yet to meet a KJV only type that could tell me what the "superfluity of naughtiness" is.

That goes back to the other posters remark about picking up a dictionary.

superfluity - Overabundance; excess
naughtiness - Wicked; immoral

In 38 years I have never once heard anyone use the word "superfluity" in casual conversation. Even the confessions acknowledge that the Bible ought to be in the "vulgar" tounge. Good News for 17th Century Man is no longer it (though, to be fair, it's a beautiful translation).

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
Archaic wording = intelligient speech

Those with degrees use archaic wording everyday (Drs, professors, etc). The honest truth was...I was raised on archaic wording. I had no idea as a child that "gay" was related to homosexuality. I knew the more precise definition of the term...not it's associated meaning. Personally...I think the educated person needs to know these words and their meanings...and not just the modern associations either. Otherwise, let's just throw out all the classical pieces of literature while we're at it. Oh, yeah...Shakespeare's in modern english now, isn't he? GAG! Now you've done lost all his prose and poetry and wonderful play on words. Gonna step down from the soapbox before I throw something...

[Edited on 7-6-2005 by LadyFlynt]

"Gay" is hardly archaic.... :P

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
In 38 years I have never once heard anyone use the word "superfluity" in casual conversation.

Funny, because in my meager 30yrs I have in conversation, literature, and informational books.



Joseph, yes, I've heard of Whitfield...didn't realize he was a calvinist. Oh, boy...you don't know what this will do to my SIL...hehe

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

"Gay" is hardly archaic.... :P

Well, it seems that most nowadays would consider it's "other" definitions so.

Archaic...why not just say 'old'?

In 38 years I have never once heard anyone use the word "superfluity" in casual conversation. Even the confessions acknowledge that the Bible ought to be in the "vulgar" tounge. Good News for 17th Century Man is no longer it (though, to be fair, it's a beautiful translation).

Yes, but you also do not hear those words found in the NIV that were posted originally in this thread being used in casual conversation. So that point would have to hold true for all versions that use "non-casual" language.

It's also interesting that the Confessions speak to the longer Lord's prayer with the ending something like...
For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever

I wonder, since the ESV does not have this ending to the Lord's prayer anywhere, and many reformed people are starting to use the ESV - will the confessions be edited to match up with scripture soon??

By the way, the ESV is one of my favorite translations.

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
you're a calvinistic methodist...sorry but having been in the methodist church at one time...is THAT possible? Just curious...as I think I may have read your post as sounding a bit armenian...could be just me though.

Don't know to be honest, just learning. Not fully settled about the unfaithful servant and a few other passages, but one thing I know is that I am a 100% born again Christian.

Romans 11:33
Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!

It's quite amazing how people ignore part of that verse...
How unsearchable are his judgments.

Do you know it all then?

You're a good man, David.

I never said I knew it all...in fact, I'm probably one of the more ignorant, theologically speaking, on this board. Was merely curious how and where you stood. It confuddled me, is all.

Originally posted by Rick Larson
You're a good man, David.

I would argue that.... Barnabas was for sure coz the Word of God says so, about me it says I am a sinner ( and he was too, before someone tries to correct me )...

I meant that only in the most "sinner redeemed by grace" kind of way.

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
I never said I knew it all...in fact, I'm probably one of the more ignorant, theologically speaking, on this board. Was merely curious how and where you stood. It confuddled me, is all.

No problem, do a google search on Welsh Calvinistic Methodism. I am looking for info on the 'Forward Movement' at the moment...Martin Lloyd Jones was very much involved with it but I do not know what happened to it?

I have been looking into the Welsh revival of 1904 specifically Evan Roberts and my views about it are changing all the time. Do you know Evan Roberts retired and lived just down the road from me and I never knew it. Mind you I was not a Christian at the time, but I cannot help but wonder if God's Spirit was at work in Llanishen where I got saved because of people like him, John Wesley also preached in the village too, a bit before 1904 though

Kind regards...

David