Obsolete and archaic words

[Bro Blue]

There are many such words in the KJB. A lot of newer translations claim to be easier to understand because of updated language. A word in its beginning had a specific meaning attached to it. Popular usage of a word contrary to its original meaning changes the way subsequent generations perceive that word. With that being said, does one do themselves a disservice by not putting a little effort into finding out what words really mean? If one goes into a highly technical field with a textbook full of difficult words, he does not demand an updated version in todays modern lingo, he studies the definitions. So if the bible has words that have become obsolete or has come to mean something else in modern times, why demand an updated bible just because one may be too lazy to study a little bit?

 

[JamesTucker]

There are many such words in the KJB. A lot of newer translations claim to be easier to understand because of updated language. A word in its beginning had a specific meaning attached to it. Popular usage of a word contrary to its original meaning changes the way subsequent generations perceive that word. With that being said, does one do themselves a disservice by not putting a little effort into finding out what words really mean? If one goes into a highly technical field with a textbook full of difficult words, he does not demand an updated version in todays modern lingo, he studies the definitions. So if the bible has words that have become obsolete or has come to mean something else in modern times, why demand an updated bible just because one may be too lazy to study a little bit?

And this would be why having a lexicon or even learning the original languages is beneficial.

 

[Bro Blue]

That would actually involve studying. A lot of this generation just want everything handed to them on a silver platter. We're entitled you know.....

 

[Ransom]

Bro Blue, today:

So if the bible has words that have become obsolete or has come to mean something else in modern times, why demand an updated bible just because one may be too lazy to study a little bit?

Bro Blue, previously:

Being as God knew that there was going to be this super cool language called english, why would He want english speaking people to delve into the greek? I know a lot of people say that it sheds light on various matters, but we do have a complete bible. Why would we need to depart from our native tongue to understand something God has preserved for us in our own language?

So you disparage learning Hebrew and Greek as unnecessary, but you're all for encouraging people to learn another dialect of English?

 

[Bro Blue]

English is still english. It's still our native tongue here in the states. Just because a word gets used in a manner opposite its meaning does not change does not change what it actually means.

 

[FSSL]

English is still english. It's still our native tongue here in the states. Just because a word gets used in a manner opposite its meaning does not change does not change what it actually means.

LOL!!! It looks like you need to learn 2012 English first! Besides your gaff, your point does not make any coherent sense.

The difference is that you want people to learn what 1611 English means while you do not want them to learn what the Greek/Hebrew means.

 

[Izdaari]

English is still english. It's still our native tongue here in the states. Just because a word gets used in a manner opposite its meaning does not change does not change what it actually means.

Actually, over time, it does. That's reflected in the dictionary. Early Modern English (the language of King James) is not our native tongue.

 

[Winston]

English is still english. It's still our native tongue here in the states. Just because a word gets used in a manner opposite its meaning does not change does not change what it actually means.

You are misunderstanding the nature of language.  Meaning is not inherent in words. Meaning comes from usage.  And meaning changes over time. Suffer meant one thing in 1611. Now it means another.  I could explain much more, but for the sake of time, I think you get it.

 

[Bro Blue]

Sorry about the above gaff. I won't waste time with an excuse . I acknowledge the points made above. I realize I am swimming in waters over my head on some of this stuff, but that is exactly why I am posting this stuff. I admit that any preconceived notion that is not biblical or valid deserves to be dropped. I appreciate the input guys.

 

[SAWBONES]

You are misunderstanding the nature of language.  Meaning is not inherent in words. Meaning comes from usage.  And meaning changes over time. Suffer meant one thing in 1611. Now it means another.  I could explain much more, but for the sake of time, I think you get it.

For those who by education or long experience and study are thoroughly conversant with both the archaic words, and in some cases, the alternative meanings of certain words in the Early Modern English of the KJV, there's no difficulty with comprehending that version; it's rather similar to learning the peculiarities of a dialect, though one might quite reasonably ask why those not familiar with a given dialect should go to the trouble to learn it when the desired reference work is accurately available in the standard language form!

There are other potential issues with the KJV, though, depending upon ones' understanding or perception of its underlying textual basis for both OT and NT (which, in specific detail for any given variant case, we simply do not know, even though in broad terms we have knowledge of the major sources used by the KJV translators for the HOT & GNT) compared to the evidence of more modern Biblical Hebrew and Greek TC scholarship, and also depending upon our best modern understanding of the principles of translation (cf., the main Granville Sharp rule, which concept was apparently unknown to the learned men who worked on KJV) compared to the state of such knowledge in the early 17th century.

Then there's the additional point (read somewhere, but can't locate a reference, yet it seems to be experientially true) that the quality and clarity of the KJV translation in the NT was notably better for the Gospels and Acts in particular, than for the Epistles.

 

[redgreen5]

So if the bible has words that have become obsolete or has come to mean something else in modern times, why demand an updated bible just because one may be too lazy to study a little bit?

By that argument, we should all be using Tyndale or Wycliffe. And I don't want to hear any whining about how the text is hard; just get off your lazy backside and study, and you won't have that problem.

Here's Tyndale. You don't even want to see what Wycliffe looks like:

John 2
And the thryde daye was ther a mariage in Cana a cite of Galile: and the mother of Iesus was there. 2 And Iesus was called also and his disciples vnto the mariage. 3 And when the wyne fayled the mother of Iesus sayde vnto him: they have no wyne. 4 Iesus sayde vnto her: woman what have I to do with the? myne houre is not yet come. 5 His mother sayde vnto the ministres: whatsoever he sayeth vnto you do it. 6 And therwere stondynge theare sixe water pottes of stone after ye maner of the purifyinge of ye Iewes contaynynge two or thre fyrkins a pece. 7 And Iesus sayde vnto them: fyll the water pottes with water. And they fylled them vp to the brym. 8 And he sayde vnto them: drawe out now and beare vnto the governer of the feaste. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was turned vnto wyne and knewe not whence it was (but the ministres which drue the water knew). He called the brydegrome 10 and sayde vnto him. All men at the beginnynge set forth good wyne and when men be dronke then that which is worsse. But thou hast kept backe the good wyne vntyll now. 11 This beginnynge of miracles dyd Iesus in Cana of Galile and shewed his glory and his disciples beleved on him.

Here's a more important question for you: 
why should we deliberately make it hard for ordinary people to understand the Bible, just to satisfy someone's else's misplaced sense of tradition and nostalgia?

 

[redgreen5]

edit - nvm

 

[Bro Blue]

That is a case of spelling, and not changing the way it is said.

 

[redgreen5]

That is a case of spelling, and not changing the way it is said.

Nooooo.....the words were also pronounced differently.  English spoken in Wycliffe and Shakespeare's day was not only spelled differently, but the day-to-day sounds of the words were different.

Here is some Chaucer - words look familiar:

Here bygynneth the Book of the tales of Caunterbury.
1  Whan that Aprille, with hise shoures soote,
2  The droghte of March hath perced to the roote
3  And bathed every veyne in swich licour,
4  Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
5  Whan Zephirus eek with his swete breeth

6  Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
7  The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
8  Hath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,
9  And smale foweles maken melodye,
10  That slepen al the nyght with open eye-

11  So priketh hem Nature in hir corages-
12  Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages
13  And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes
14  To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
15  And specially, from every shires ende

But here is the Youtube video showing the Chaucerian pronounciation:
The Canterbury Tales Prologue in Middle English

 

[Baptist4Life]

John 2
And the thryde daye was ther a mariage in Cana a cite of Galile: and the mother of Iesus was there. 2 And Iesus was called also and his disciples vnto the mariage. 3 And when the wyne fayled the mother of Iesus sayde vnto him: they have no wyne. 4 Iesus sayde vnto her: woman what have I to do with the? myne houre is not yet come. 5 His mother sayde vnto the ministres: whatsoever he sayeth vnto you do it. 6 And therwere stondynge theare sixe water pottes of stone after ye maner of the purifyinge of ye Iewes contaynynge two or thre fyrkins a pece. 7 And Iesus sayde vnto them: fyll the water pottes with water. And they fylled them vp to the brym. 8 And he sayde vnto them: drawe out now and beare vnto the governer of the feaste. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was turned vnto wyne and knewe not whence it was (but the ministres which drue the water knew). He called the brydegrome 10 and sayde vnto him. All men at the beginnynge set forth good wyne and when men be dronke then that which is worsse. But thou hast kept backe the good wyne vntyll now. 11 This beginnynge of miracles dyd Iesus in Cana of Galile and shewed his glory and his disciples beleved on him.

I had absolutely zero problems reading and understanding that.

 

[redgreen5]

I had absolutely zero problems reading and understanding that.

That's because you already knew the story and have grown up in "church language".  That allowed your mind to "see" the words and fill in the blanks. Do you think that applies to everyone, though?

The question still remains:
why should we deliberately make it hard for ordinary people to understand the Bible, just to satisfy someone's else's misplaced sense of tradition and nostalgia?

 

[Bro Blue]

I didn't have a problem reading it either. That Chaucer stuff on the other hand.....

 

[JamesTucker]

John 2
And the thryde daye was ther a mariage in Cana a cite of Galile: and the mother of Iesus was there. 2 And Iesus was called also and his disciples vnto the mariage. 3 And when the wyne fayled the mother of Iesus sayde vnto him: they have no wyne. 4 Iesus sayde vnto her: woman what have I to do with the? myne houre is not yet come. 5 His mother sayde vnto the ministres: whatsoever he sayeth vnto you do it. 6 And therwere stondynge theare sixe water pottes of stone after ye maner of the purifyinge of ye Iewes contaynynge two or thre fyrkins a pece. 7 And Iesus sayde vnto them: fyll the water pottes with water. And they fylled them vp to the brym. 8 And he sayde vnto them: drawe out now and beare vnto the governer of the feaste. And they bare it. 9 When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was turned vnto wyne and knewe not whence it was (but the ministres which drue the water knew). He called the brydegrome 10 and sayde vnto him. All men at the beginnynge set forth good wyne and when men be dronke then that which is worsse. But thou hast kept backe the good wyne vntyll now. 11 This beginnynge of miracles dyd Iesus in Cana of Galile and shewed his glory and his disciples beleved on him.

I had absolutely zero problems reading and understanding that.

I don't see anything difficult either. Let's move along now...

 

[Ransom]

Bro Blue said:

I didn't have a problem reading it either. That Chaucer stuff on the other hand.....

If you weren't lazy, Middle English and Wycliffe's Bible wouldn't cause you any trouble reading them.

 

[Thomas Cassidy]

Nooooo.....the words were also pronounced differently.  English spoken in Wycliffe and Shakespeare's day was not only spelled differently, but the day-to-day sounds of the words were different.

Uh, Wycliffe lived in the 1300s and spoke and wrote in Middle English.

Shakespeare, on the other hand, lived in the 1500/1600s and spoke and wrote in Modern English. In fact Shakespeare may have been a style consultant on the KJV book of Psalms.

There is a huge difference between:

"But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief
That thou, her maid, art far more fair than she."

And:

"PSALM 1
1 Blessid is the man, that yede not in the councel of wickid men; and stood not in the weie of synneris, and sat not in the chaier of pestilence.
2 But his wille is in the lawe of the Lord; and he schal bithenke in the lawe of hym dai and nyyt.
3 And he schal be as a tree, which is plauntid bisidis the rennyngis of watris; which tre schal yyue his fruyt in his tyme. And his leef schal not falle doun; and alle thingis which euere he schal do schulen haue prosperite.
4 Not so wickid men, not so; but thei ben as dust, which the wynd castith awei fro the face of erthe.
5 Therfor wickid men risen not ayen in doom; nethir synneres in the councel of iust men.
6 For the Lord knowith the weie of iust men; and the weie of wickid men schal perische."

Or, perhaps more on point look at this comparison between the English of Wycliffe and the English of Shakespeare:

Wycliffe: And God seide, Be maad liȝt; and maad is liȝt

King James: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light

It has been said that Shakespeare (or others working on the translation committees) worked his name into the King James Version of the bible. At the time Psalm 46 was translated, Shakespeare was 46 years old. The forty-sixth word in the King James Version of Psalm 46 is "shake," while the word that is forty-sixth from the end is "spear." The words "shake" and "spear" appear in earlier versions but the word order of the KJV may have been manipulated for the purpose.