???
I have a KJV, it is not written in "16th-century English".
The word of God is not a secret code that needs unlocked.
- Thread starter Brasspen
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I have a KJV, it is not written in "16th-century English".
True. But only "some things", and very few things. But the words of Christ are easy to be understood. He always spoke plainly, directly, and without wasting words. He knew He was addressing simple folks.
As to parables, they were given to hide spiritual truths from His enemies. But we have been shown what they mean. And parables are just that. Earthly stories with heavenly meanings. Doctrine cannot be based exclusively on parables.
Except when God confused the languages of the people at the tower of Babel. The word itself means 'confusion'.
This is true. Glad to have you join in on the on-going, in-depth conversations. Welcome to CC.
Now you are the confused one. This has nothing to do with the plainness of Scripture (no hidden codes). That was all about stopping united idolatry.
You probably have the King James 2000 Bible. Which effectively destroys the narrative about 17th century English (which is not that quaint at all). Thousands still us the standard KJV without any problem. And all Christians should be using it.
The KJV is the English translation. It's language is precise. No need to water it down to the American language of today...slang.
Millions...just saying.
When you picture a country family in the hills of West Virginia, kids playing in the yard, mom and dad sipping tea, not much education...what bible do you think is on their mantle? The KJV.
And that's all? That's your take on how many Christians use it? Go to Amazon and see how many different kinds of King James Bibles are being offered. If there was no wide market for them, do you think the publishers would keep printing them? Pastor John Hagee has more than 22,000 members in his church and he uses the KJV exclusively. Don't you think all those members would also be using them?
Yes, it is. Why do you think it contains words strange to modern readers like "wimples", "beesom", and "thou"? It was penned by scholars who were already adults by the time the 16th century turned into the 17th, so their language was from the previous.
If you think otherwise, I welcome you to present your argument, "No, it's not" doesn't qualify.
That is quite simple. When you disregard some of the spellings (like "hast" for "has", "doest" for "does") and accept the fact that when one person is addressed the KJV uses "thou", and when there are many it is "you" (like in German) what do you have?Define: "without any problem"
Plain English (no hidden codes) as see here in John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth [shines] in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. Just one word that goes by the older spelling. Of course a child would need the explanation for "comprehended". So would any adult.
Could a child read this and understand as in the KJV 2000?: And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness overcame it not. But even "overcame" is not entirely correct. The meaning of katalambano is "to lay hold of" or "to seize" or "to capture". So here is where anyone would need to use proper Bible study tools. That should be SOP for anyone studying the Bible.
So you pick the very few ancient words, but "thou" is not ancient and it is more accurate (explained above). And why do you think you have a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance along with Thayer's Greek Lexicon and Vine's Expository Dictionary?
Words such as "wimple" etc may be a couple of dozen. Not a big deal as you would have people believe.
I am not in need of explanations, thanks. I am also well aware of the reference material. The fact remains that the KJV was written in 16th-century English. That some and even most words have not changed is irrelevant. Many modern readers find it sufficiently incomprehensible as to reject it in favour of a modern translation.
The men who penned the KJV were all mature adults by 1600, which is the beginning of the 17th century. They would have learned English during their formative years... in the 16th century. I'm confident they did not pander to linguistic fads only a decade old or less.
You make a very good point! .The men who penned the KJV were all mature adults by 1600, which is the beginning of the 17th century. They would have learned English during their formative years... in the 16th century. I'm confident they did not pander to linguistic fads only a decade old or less.
