KJV Bible: How to overcome the language barrier?

[JBaldwin]

I find it interesting that you use the word "language barrier" when talking about the KJV. This topic came up at church yesterday in our study of the Westminister standards.

Westminister Standards Chapter 1 part 8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;a so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.b But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,c therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,d that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,e and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.f
a. Mat 5:18. • b. Isa 8:20; John 5:39, 46; Acts 15:15. • c. John 5:39. • d. 1 Cor 14:6, 9, 11-12, 24, 27-28. • e. Col 3:16. • f. Rom 15:4.

At what point does a language cease to be the "vulgar"?

To answer the question in the OP, I grew up on the KJV, and my pastor went through it verse by verse and explained difficult words in detail. However, I now use a variety of translations and find it difficult to go back to the KJV.

 

[TimV]

Dragon is the correct translation of the passage in Job. The word means a marine or land monster. Evolutionary mindset has made the 'dragon' a myth, whereas dinasaurs (dragons) probably existed in the middle ages.

And is this certainty you have because of your study of the particular word, or from your loyalty to the KJV? In other words, an act of faith? The same sort of faith that leads you to believe in dragons, unicorns and elves? I mean the exact same evidence for dinosaurs existing in the middle ages exists for elves and unicorns. Which is to say none.

If it is because of your study of the word translated as either dragons or jackals, why do you think Luther chose jackal?

And the same with Micah 1:8 in the KJV?

8Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.

I lived in Africa, and there were jackals, just like there were in Job's area. I can just see him in a desolate place where jackals howled. It really does sound like human wailing. Not that I'm claiming to understand enough language and contemporary literature to say for certain what the word means. It's just that you're so sure the KJV is the best translation of this word I'm wondering what other reasons you have than faith. There were big monitor lizards where I lived, and they are still in the Mideast. I had one 6 feet long as a pet. But they didn't wail at all; not more than a hissing sound when you grabbed them.

 

[Igor]

Greetings to everybody!
Since English is not my native language (and I have never been to an English-speaking country), this is a problem for me too. Though for myself on a daily basis I read the NIV, I have never completely given up the KJV, whish I like very much.
Here is what I used: The King James Bible Word Book The KJV Life Application Study Bible it has textual notes) - my favorite, Nelson's KJV/NKJV Parallel Bible - extremely useful, Concise King James Bible Dictionary by David W. Cloud, and, of course, a few books on the History of the English Language (first, I had to understand the Early English Grammar). The Defined King James Bible I also have but I do not like it.

 

[Grymir]

Dragon is the correct translation of the passage in Job. The word means a marine or land monster. Evolutionary mindset has made the 'dragon' a myth, whereas dinasaurs (dragons) probably existed in the middle ages.

And is this certainty you have because of your study of the particular word, or from your loyalty to the KJV? In other words, an act of faith? The same sort of faith that leads you to believe in dragons, unicorns and elves? I mean the exact same evidence for dinosaurs existing in the middle ages exists for elves and unicorns. Which is to say none.

Umm, Is this type of statement called for?

I looked up the Hebrew word and the translation stands. I've had too many people question the words, and looked up the Hebrew/Greek myself or asked Scholars the meaning, only to have the KJV words stand. That is why I stick with it.

 

[KMK]

the only recommendation to learning true KJV to be a handy, 22 volumed OED with you - or an online subscription!

I loooovvve my OED and not just for use with the KJV. However, one does not need the 22 vols or the online subscription. Do what I did and get the 2 vol. version on Ebay and then invest in a good reading magnifying glass. Works like a charm and it is inexpensive as well.

Happy reading!

 

[Thomas2007]

I find it interesting that you use the word "language barrier" when talking about the KJV. This topic came up at church yesterday in our study of the Westminister standards.

Westminister Standards Chapter 1 part 8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;a so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.b But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,c therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,d that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner,e and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.f
a. Mat 5:18. • b. Isa 8:20; John 5:39, 46; Acts 15:15. • c. John 5:39. • d. 1 Cor 14:6, 9, 11-12, 24, 27-28. • e. Col 3:16. • f. Rom 15:4.

At what point does a language cease to be the "vulgar"?

To answer the question in the OP, I grew up on the KJV, and my pastor went through it verse by verse and explained difficult words in detail. However, I now use a variety of translations and find it difficult to go back to the KJV.

Mrs Baldwin,

The focus of historic Protestantism's intent on translation as outlined in the WCF was directed toward translating God's word from the Greek and Hebrew tongues into the native tongue, such as English. Linguistic continuity was as important in the work of translation as it was in the work of identifying the authentic Greek and Hebrew texts that they translated. While vulgar means common, we can understand how the Divines intended that to be understood by their actions regulating translations and printing of the Scriptures in the years following its enactment. You can learn more about that in "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611) by Frederick Scrivener"

That is to say the Reformers work was dedicated to bringing God's word to the people in their native tongue so that the people could relate to God, and learn of His Law and Grace and conform their lives to it. Indeed, conform their entire society to it. In contrast, the modern principle is to relate God's word to the people in their peculiar idiom (not native tongue) in order to relate God to the people. These are two diametrically opposite principles with completely different presuppositions. It is fundamentally very similar to the Protestant principle of the priesthood of every believer vs the Roman Catholic notion of a Priest that mediates God to you. Same language, same subject matter - but completely different concepts.

The Authorized Version is the Protestant Bible in English, just as the Dutch Staten Version is the Protestant Bible in Dutch - it's the only consistently Protestant Bible we have in our native tongue from it's source documents to its translation.

 

[SolaGratia]

To English Speaking Folks,

Tyndale Did Not Died In VAIN

 

[Tim]

The KJV is biblical english, not the common english of the day, even in 1611.

Grymir, could you please expand on what you mean by "Biblical English"? Do you mean that the "style" of English used is more able to capture the sense of the Hebrew and Greek?

 

[Pergamum]

I have folks asking me all the time if the folks here read the King James Bible - an almost laughable question, since the Bible is not in English here.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Did someone say unicorns? Check this informative article by Will Kinney: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unicorn.html

Elves?

Tim Keller gave a lecture for the International Arts Movement (IAM), The Significance of J.R.R. Tolkien, which posits an unusual point of view. He explores the philological basis upon which Tolkien built his story (Lord of the Rings), his delving into the etymological similarities in ancient European tongues, deriving from them — these ancient words and the beings depicted by them — a linguistic reconstruction of ancient imaginary worlds and the beings which inhabited them. Tolkien started first with the meanings of certain names in these old north European languages, names depicting elves and dwarves and wizards, not as we perceive them today, but, as with the elves, creatures of unimaginable beauty, names which eventually became characters in the story. Likewise he explored the names of malign beings — orcs, for instance, referring to a kind of “dark elves.” The story was built first upon the old names, and the characters they suggested. Was this reconstruction of a pre-Christian or mixed Christian/pagan apprehension of the spirit worlds? Keller notes that in an interview filmmaker Peter Jackson opined that Tolkien was creating, for the first time in many centuries, not fantasy, but mythology, according to an ancient, and in essence timeless, worldview.

We have, Keller asserts, ancient worldviews from many peoples — Asians, Hebrews, Africans, Greeks and Romans, Persians, etc; but of ancient northern Europeans very little, as their books and stories have largely been destroyed and lost, save some scant stories, and a few fairy tales and nursery rhymes. The power of LOTR then, is from the potency of a mythic world brought to life again, a myth not an escape from reality, but a window into it. Dr. Keller also shows the profoundly complex view of good and evil Tolkien wove into the story (despite the critics ignoring these moral depths), a view only derivable from the gospel of Christ and its profundity.

 

[FenderPriest]

On another note ---------------------

The KJV is biblical english, not the common english of the day, even in 1611.

Eh, I'd disagree. "Thee" and "thou" were passing out of high society in the time of the KJV translation, and were generally used only by commoners, while the upper class used more formal (a.k.a. French) "ye", which became our "you". I'm a little fuzzy on the particulars - I'll go check it out at home when I get the chance in the next couple days - but wiki's article is generally helpful: here. One of the brilliant things of the KJV (for it's time) is it's use of thee and thou, aiming the translation directly at the "common" person. Anyhow, I could be wrong on that, but that's my understanding from the study I've done around the time period.

 

[Davidius]

Hast thou a language problem? Wherefore dost thou partake in such a calumnity?

We actually find that the language issue is a means of teaching the children more thoroughly. You don't just rattle off a chapter and be done with it. Instead, we get through a few verses, stop to explain and dissect (and if need be I will open up Matthew Poole on the subject) and then discuss. It moves along more slowly, but the depth is unmatched (we use the Geneva, not the KJV, but same issue).

I would read a "looser" version for getting bigger chunks of Scripture down at once and seeing the "big picture" - and then go back and go verse by verse with the KJV.

I like to read the Bible in several version at once anyway (i.e. have KJV, ESV, NIV and The Message, and Living Bible all out in front of me opened to the same book).

This works particularly well with a Greek NT.

On another note ---------------------

The KJV is biblical english, not the common english of the day, even in 1611.

Eh, I'd disagree. "Thee" and "thou" were passing out of high society in the time of the KJV translation, and were generally used only by commoners, while the upper class used more formal (a.k.a. French) "ye", which became our "you". I'm a little fuzzy on the particulars - I'll go check it out at home when I get the chance in the next couple days - but wiki's article is generally helpful: here. One of the brilliant things of the KJV (for it's time) is it's use of thee and thou, aiming the translation directly at the "common" person. Anyhow, I could be wrong on that, but that's my understanding from the study I've done around the time period.

"Thou" and "ye" are technically part of the same system, being the nominative singular and plural forms of the 2nd person pronoun. The accusative form of "thou" was "thee," and "you" was the accusative of "ye." In courtly culture, it was commonplace to address a noble person with the second person plural instead of the second person singular, which may account for the upper class beginning to use "ye" all the time. For whatever reason, the accusative form "you" stuck and we now use it for every case.

 

[FenderPriest]

On another note ---------------------

The KJV is biblical english, not the common english of the day, even in 1611.

Eh, I'd disagree. "Thee" and "thou" were passing out of high society in the time of the KJV translation, and were generally used only by commoners, while the upper class used more formal (a.k.a. French) "ye", which became our "you". I'm a little fuzzy on the particulars - I'll go check it out at home when I get the chance in the next couple days - but wiki's article is generally helpful: here. One of the brilliant things of the KJV (for it's time) is it's use of thee and thou, aiming the translation directly at the "common" person. Anyhow, I could be wrong on that, but that's my understanding from the study I've done around the time period.

"Thou" and "ye" are technically part of the same system, being the nominative singular and plural forms of the 2nd person pronoun. The accusative form of "thou" was "thee," and "you" was the accusative of "ye." In courtly culture, it was commonplace to address a noble person with the second person plural instead of the second person singular, which may account for the upper class beginning to use "ye" all the time. For whatever reason, the accusative form "you" stuck and we now use it for every case.

Quite true! It's because we think we're more important than we are. Thank ye kind sir!

 

[JBaldwin]

That is to say the Reformers work was dedicated to bringing God's word to the people in their native tongue so that the people could relate to God, and learn of His Law and Grace and conform their lives to it. Indeed, conform their entire society to it. In contrast, the modern principle is to relate God's word to the people in their peculiar idiom (not native tongue) in order to relate God to the people. These are two diametrically opposite principles with completely different presuppositions. It is fundamentally very similar to the Protestant principle of the priesthood of every believer vs the Roman Catholic notion of a Priest that mediates God to you. Same language, same subject matter - but completely different concepts.

We are not talking about the "Good News Bible" paraphrase which IS an attempt to explain God to the people, but rather translations like the ESV and NASB which attempt to translate the Scriptures from the Hebrew and Greek as accurately as possible in modern English.

In an early post you stated that an 1828 Webster's Dictionary would be useful for greater insight. If someone with a command of the English language has to dig out an 1828 Webster's Dictionary in order to understand the Scriptures, then I seriously question whether the KJV English could be considered "common" or in the "native tongue". English from 1611 is much different from the common English we speak today.

The only reason I am even slightly comfortable with KJV English is because someone stood up in the pulpit and spent a great deal of preaching time (years) explaining it to me. Time, I might add, that could have been spent explaining what the Scripture said rather than defining old English words. I did not have an 1828 Dictionary to help me with the difficult words. How much different is having to rely on a pastor to explain the Scriptures to me than having a priest be the only person who can interpret the Scriptures for the people? While I admit this is a huge stretch, it is heading in that direction.

The reformers were not just interested in accurate translation as you stated, but that the common folk could understand. Most of the people in my community cannot understand KJV English, neither do many adult converts in my church. Again, I ask, at what point does the KJV cease to be "common" English?

 

[kvanlaan]

I like to read the Bible in several version at once anyway (i.e. have KJV, ESV, NIV and The Message, and Living Bible all out in front of me opened to the same book).

Just a technical (and highly point), but those aren't actually bibles...

(You're not the only pot stirrer, my friend!)

 

[E Nomine]

The KJV is the version I tried, and failed, to read and understand on my own before being saved.

As a new believer, I started the NIV, then "graduated" to the NKJV after several years.

I don't see the "Sword Bible" mentioned on this thread. The publisher brands it the KJVER (Easy Reading). It's a "minimal" revision of the KJV which replaces (and identifies when doing so) clearly archaic words. It seems to me like a reasonable compromise to overcome the language barrier.

King James Bibles

I have a Sword Bible. I like the feature of printing the words of God in red in the OT. After reading a few chapters of the KJVER, however, I shelved it and returned to my favored NKJV.

 

[Jon Lake]

The KJV was what I grew up hearing my "Gran" use, I would hear Bible stories aloud, somehow that helped me understand, I still use the KJV a lot and I enjoy hearing a good narration from it, Scourby is a classic.

 

[LawrenceU]

Just go ask the man on the street. Even one with a couple of advanced degrees who teaches English at a conservative university what 'conversation' means. He will in no way define it as it was used in 1611.

Hey, I like and use the AV1611 / KJV but it does not communicate the word of God accurately to the majority of educated people today, let alone the 'commoner'. The Geneva actually does a better job of it even though it is older.

(I won't go into how I preached from the Geneva at a KJVO congregation )

 

[TimV]

I won't go into how I preached from the Geneva at a KJVO congregation

If they would have complained you could have pointed out that the KJV was banned on the Mayflower so you were just being patriotic ;-)

 

[GTMOPC]

This thread has caused me to focus some introspective thought on myself. There has been a lot of talk about struggling with the KJV language, having to look up archaic words, and the KJV just not relating to the common person today.

I have never had a difficult time with the KJV. Sometimes I look up words or consult other translations but for the most part work from the KJV. Is my ability to work with the KJV just based on the fact I grew up with that translation? I never was much of a reader till I became a Christian so I didn't have any literary knowledge. I Just picked up the KJV and started reading. Could it be that I'm interpreting the KJV language wrong much of the time? Many of you in this thread have made it seem very difficult to understand the English used. I just wonder if I am arrogantly claiming to grasp the KJV when maybe I don't know what I think I know. The only proof that I know I'm comprehending is that my understanding generally agrees with the commentaries, doctrine, etc that I consult.

This is an honest question. Is the KJV that hard to grasp? Is it that difficult for a person who can comprehend the WCF, systematic theology, the Institutes, to work with the KJV?

 

[Thomas2007]

We are not talking about the "Good News Bible" paraphrase which IS an attempt to explain God to the people, but rather translations like the ESV and NASB which attempt to translate the Scriptures from the Hebrew and Greek as accurately as possible in modern English.

I understand, I was precisely referring to translations like the ESV and NASB, not paraphrases, when I said: "In contrast, the modern principle is to relate God's word to the people in their peculiar idiom (not native tongue) in order to relate God to the people. These are two diametrically opposite principles with completely different presuppositions."

Let me ask you this, what exactly is "modern english" that everyone keeps talking about? When did it become "modern" and when does it cease being "modern?" Also, am I correct in understanding that you correlate the term concept of vulgar tongue, or common, with modern as synonyms?

In an early post you stated that an 1828 Webster's Dictionary would be useful for greater insight. If someone with a command of the English language has to dig out an 1828 Webster's Dictionary in order to understand the Scriptures, then I seriously question whether the KJV English could be considered "common" or in the "native tongue". English from 1611 is much different from the common English we speak today.

Apparently people don't have a command of the English language, in fact, I would venture to say that the majority are apparently illiterate.

I don't know why using a dictionary is difficult, especially one that defines its terms in concert with Scripture. I've seen lots of threads on PB asking people how they study the Bible and I'm amazed that most will respond they use numerous different versions with often references to various Greek texts that differ from one another, but no one complains about that. Yet, if a dictionary is necessary, then that is completely unacceptable. Very strange.

If I were to switch to the ESV or its contemporaries then I would need a whole library of books to refer to, and then I could not be certain what I've read and trusted is the word of God or not, because it's perpetually subjective to change, alteration, or a new discovery that a particular part maybe never was the word of God at all. I could never be sure.

How can you prefer having a Bible that you can never trust or believe, over one you can, but might need a dictionary to understand from time to time? Also, why is learning the definition of a word an insurmountable difficulty for people when it comes to Scripture, but not any other area of study?

Second, the english of the Authorized Version is also quite different from the "common" English of the 17th century - it is not the language of Shakespeare.

Third, consider 1 Corinthians 10:25: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:" That word shambles is a word we don't "commonly" use anymore, but Webster's says it comes from the Latin "scamnuma" and means: "The place where butcher's meat is sold; a flesh-market." We may call that a butcher shop.


Why is it unacceptable to "modern" Christians to have a footnote that explains an english word, that we no longer commonly use, but it is acceptable to not merely retranslate Scripture, but engage in an entire overhall and redefinition of the underlying textual foundation and then have hundreds of footnotes that cast doubt upon the veracity of Scripture?

For example, my NASB has these peculiar notes "some mss. add "and was carried up into heaven" as footnote 44 for Luke 24 verse 51 and "Some mss insert "worshipped Him, and" as footnote 45 for Luke 24 verse 52. These Scriptures then become:

"And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven." Authorized Version, Luke 24:51

"And it came about that while He was blessing them, He parted from them (44)", NASB, Luke 24:51

and

"And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy:" Authorized Version, Luke 24:52

"And they (45) returned to Jerusalem with great joy," NASB, Luke 24:52

The only reason I am even slightly comfortable with KJV English is because someone stood up in the pulpit and spent a great deal of preaching time (years) explaining it to me. Time, I might add, that could have been spent explaining what the Scripture said rather than defining old English words. I did not have an 1828 Dictionary to help me with the difficult words. How much different is having to rely on a pastor to explain the Scriptures to me than having a priest be the only person who can interpret the Scriptures for the people? While I admit this is a huge stretch, it is heading in that direction.

No, it's not heading in that direction at all. You just need to consider the possibility that your linguistic axioms are presuppositionally humanistic and need to work on Reforming your understanding.

The reformers were not just interested in accurate translation as you stated, but that the common folk could understand. Most of the people in my community cannot understand KJV English, neither do many adult converts in my church. Again, I ask, at what point does the KJV cease to be "common" English?

Common or modern? You seem to hold these two words as synonyms, where I referenced common to native, most certainly not modern as the Authorized Version wasn't modern in 1611, but rather archaic.

This perpetual demand to maintain linguistic adolescence as a societal norm is what is wrong, even though it is quite common and the modern concept.

Consider for a moment that great missionary to the American Indians, John Eliot. When he came into Massachusetts, he was faced with the problem of a foreign tongue, but not only that - no written alphabet or forms of written communication for it. He created an alphabet and writing for their language and then translated Scripture into it. That was the first book published on this continent and those people not only had to learn the Scriptures, they had to learn how to read and write their own language. Yet he accomplished that and formed them into fourteen self governing Christian communities based upon Biblical precepts. Yet, "modern" Christians can't be troubled with a dictionary to find out what "shambles" means, it's just too difficult for them. I digress.

Cordially,

Thomas

 

[Grymir]

This thread has caused me to focus some introspective thought on myself. There has been a lot of talk about struggling with the KJV language, having to look up archaic words, and the KJV just not relating to the common person today.

I have never had a difficult time with the KJV. Sometimes I look up words or consult other translations but for the most part work from the KJV. Is my ability to work with the KJV just based on the fact I grew up with that translation? I never was much of a reader till I became a Christian so I didn't have any literary knowledge. I Just picked up the KJV and started reading. Could it be that I'm interpreting the KJV language wrong much of the time? Many of you in this thread have made it seem very difficult to understand the English used. I just wonder if I am arrogantly claiming to grasp the KJV when maybe I don't know what I think I know. The only proof that I know I'm comprehending is that my understanding generally agrees with the commentaries, doctrine, etc that I consult.

This is an honest question. Is the KJV that hard to grasp? Is it that difficult for a person who can comprehend the WCF, systematic theology, the Institutes, to work with the KJV?

No, the KJV is not hard to grasp at all. And yes, it relates very well to us common folk. I'm not a college educated person. Maybe that's it. hmmm. Most of the bad stuff about the KJV was pushed by the NIV people when it came out, and persist to this very day. Just take the criticisms with a grain of salt.

I too, picked up the KJV one day and started reading it. It converted me from my pagan ways before I finished Deuteronomy. And no, you are not interpreting it wrong much of the time.

 

[KMK]

Great post as usual, Mr. Weddle!

Let me ask you this, what exactly is "modern english" that everyone keeps talking about? When did it become "modern" and when does it cease being "modern?"

Exactly! Can we be expected to retranslate the Bible every time the idiom changes? Are we to have Ebonics Bibles and Spanglish Bibles? Its Babel all over again.

I don't know why using a dictionary is difficult, especially one that defines its terms in concert with Scripture. I've seen lots of threads on PB asking people how they study the Bible and I'm amazed that most will respond they use numerous different versions with often references to various Greek texts that differ from one another, but no one complains about that. Yet, if a dictionary is necessary, then that is completely unacceptable. Very strange.

I agree. In past threads I have provided research done by the CU and CSU University systems that demonstrate one of the major reasons university stundents are not prepared for college level reading and writing is that they lack 'self-advocacy'. Modern Californian youth have no desire, compared to previous generations, to seek out answers for themselves. The proper use of dictionaries is not being taught at the HS level and is being left to University professors to teach!

If I were to switch to the ESV or its contemporaries then I would need a whole library of books to refer to, and then I could not be certain what I've read and trusted is the word of God or not, because it's perpetually subjective to change, alteration, or a new discovery that a particular part maybe never was the word of God at all. I could never be sure.

I agree. How many times are Textual Critics, Christian and otherwise, going to tell us that the Word of God needs to be updated and revised?

Why is it unacceptable to "modern" Christians to have a footnote that explains an english word, that we no longer commonly use, but it is acceptable to not merely retranslate Scripture, but engage in an entire overhall and redefinition of the underlying textual foundation and then have hundreds of footnotes that cast doubt upon the veracity of Scripture?

Excellent question and I am eager to hear people's answers!

 

[Pergamum]

Just go ask the man on the street. Even one with a couple of advanced degrees who teaches English at a conservative university what 'conversation' means. He will in no way define it as it was used in 1611.

Hey, I like and use the AV1611 / KJV but it does not communicate the word of God accurately to the majority of educated people today, let alone the 'commoner'. The Geneva actually does a better job of it even though it is older.

(I won't go into how I preached from the Geneva at a KJVO congregation )

When you go ask the man on the street, peradventure you might need to "fetch a compass" around the block to get to him?




Here's a list of archaisms in the KJV that most "moderns" do not normally use. Any good and fitting translation must communicate the Scripture in the heart-language of the people:


o“chambering” (Rom. 13:13), “champaign” (Deut. 11:30), “charger” (Matt. 14:8—it is not a horse), “churl” (Isa. 32:7), “cieled” (Hag. 1:4), “circumspect” (Exod. 23:13), “clouted upon their feet” (Josh. 9:5), “cockatrice” (Isa. 11:8), “collops” (Job 15:27), “confection” (Exod. 30:35—it has nothing to do with sugar), “cotes” (2 Chron. 32:28), “covert” (2 Kings 16:18), “hoised” (Acts 27:40), “wimples” (Isa. 3:22), “stomacher” (Isa. 3:24), “wot” (Rom. 11:2), “wist” (Acts 12:9), “withs” (Judg. 16:7), “wont” (Dan. 3:19), “suretiship” (Prov. 11:15), “sackbut” (Dan. 3:5), “the scall” (Lev. 13:30), “scrabbled” (1 Sam. 21:13), “roller” (Ezek. 30:21—i.e., a splint), “muffler” (Isa. 3:19), “froward” (1 Peter 2:18), “brigadine” (Jer. 46:4), “amerce” (Deut. 22:19), “blains” (Exod. 9:9), “crookbackt” (Lev. 21:20), “descry” (Judg. 1:23), “fanners” (Jer. 51:2), “felloes” (1 Kings 7:33), “glede” (Deut. 14:13), “glistering” (Luke 9:29), “habergeon” (Job 41:26), “implead” (Acts 19:38), “neesing” (Job 41:18), “nitre” (Prov. 25:20), “tabret” (Gen. 31:27), “wen” (Lev. 22:22)?


What does this prove? That there IS, in fact, a language barrier and a college education may help on some of these words, but more than that these words are not understand (not due to lack of education) but simply because they are archaic and belong to another age and even in educated journals these words are not used.


I believe that we should avoid as much as possible a "holy lingo" and that our Bibles and our prayers should, as much as possible, reflect the language that is spoken in the time and place where we live.

 

[MW]

A "charger" is archaic? No one has heard of "wont and custom?"

The problem with making lists of archaic words is the fact that while there is a Bible which contains them they are obviously not redundant but have a continuing linguistic context in which they are employed. One only needs to notice how a newspaper column can use the phrase "love thy neighbour" for literary effect in order to show how shallow is this idea that the AV uses outdated English.

 

[LawrenceU]

I seriously doubt that anyone uses the word 'charger' in their kitchen anymore unless it is related to a cordless appliance.

 

[MW]

So if it's not used in the kitchen then it's not relevant? That is a very narrow view of language. What about if it is used in the catering industry? Is the Bible allowed to use terms that are not spoken by Mr. Everyman?

 

[LawrenceU]

I'm not trying to be nitpicky here, nor am I trying to say that Scripture in the KJV cannot be used by God to reach a man's soul. What I am saying is that to say that the very vocabulary of the KJV or any other translation is necessary to the accurate communication of God's word is very suspect. Surely we don't believe that the word as 'received' in the KJV is plenary and verbally accurate do we? I know there are some that believe that. A whole nest of them live about an hour east of me.

Communication is not about relevancy, it is about accuracy. The cognitive definitions of words change over time. That is a given. Accurate communication of thought and principle requires that we use language in such a manner that the audience can comprehend it. Telling the man that in order to understand the basics of the word of God he must be reeducated is almost as sensible as speaking louder English to a man who does not understand the language well so that he can better 'hear' us. I find that no where in Scripture.

 

[Pergamum]

Armourbearer: I know I will never convince you, but there ARE archaic words in the KJV.

We also use Latinisms, but when getting the Bible into the lanuguage of the people a better choice of words would be "Our Father" rather than Pater Noster, even though that phrase, too, has been preserved in our print and our cultural knowledge.

In like manner, wot, wimples and Sakbut have exited our language, as well as a host of other words in the KJV. I can make a list 5 times as long if you would like.

I prefer the KJV in reading, with ESV a close number 2.

A Bible should be clear to the host audience even while being true to the Word of God. The KJV accomplishes the latter very well, but as English changes, the KJV does not accomplish the first as well as it used to.

 

[MW]

Armourbearer: I know I will never convince you, but there ARE archaic words in the KJV.

I don't doubt there are archaisms in the AV; the point I am making is that archaisms can be used to literary effect. They were used in the Greek translation of the OT. They very reason they are recorded in the dictionaries is because they still continue in use. To criticise the AV because it contains archaisms, as if archaisms make it outdated, is to "bewray" a lack of linguistic sophistication.

-----Added 12/2/2008 at 09:38:35 EST-----

Communication is not about relevancy, it is about accuracy.

Nonsense. Communication in the form of instruction challenges the mind to reach higher and broader and deeper and longer.