Understanding The KJV

Major said:
Someone who is impolite....mean spirited.
Click to expand...
That is indeed possible and it does fit in a broad sense, however, there is another archaic meaning that may fit the context litter better.
"selfish person who is unwilling to give or spend, miser"

The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. (Isaiah 32:5)

"The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right." (Isaiah 32:7)

In both verses wealth seem to be the key point.
 
Origen said:
Hi Prim90

I would ask you to help keep this thread on topic. I understand that you do not agree with Wallace, however, this thread is about understanding the English in the KJV.

Thank You
Origen
Click to expand...
I wasn’t the one that attacked the integrity of 1st John 5:7 from the video in post 42 saying it shouldn’t be in our bibles, when there be a wealth of evidence confirming the very matter going all the way back to the 2nd century AD. That 1st John 5:7 was always known to the Church contrary the the claim of Mr David Wallace that we have no evidence until the 16th century.. You say nothing about the Video of post 42 but you would rather take issue with me for questioning the accusations in post 42. Origin that’s rather hypocritical. But I’m all good with respecting your wishes. Just make sure it goes both ways.
 
Last edited:
Prim90 said:
I wasn’t the one that attacked the integrity of 1st John 5:7 from the video in post 42 saying it shouldn’t be in our bibles, when there be a wealth of evidence confirming the very matter going all the way back to 2nd century AD. That 1st John 5:7 was always known to the Church contrary the the claim of Mr David Wallace that we have no evidence until the 16th century.. You say nothing about the Video of post 42 but you would rather take issue with me for questioning the accusations in post 42. Origin that’s rather hypocritical. But I’m all good with respecting your wishes. Just make sure it goes both ways.
Click to expand...
Prim90 you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Please feel free to create a thread addressing that topic.

With Christian charity, thank you
 
Last edited:
Example 13: 1 Sam. 8:13

"And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers."
 
Origen said:
Prim90 you are certainly entitled to your to your opinion. Please feel free to create a thread addressing that topic. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I don’t see it being the matter of opinion. I only see that you did not pull up the matter of post 42 which was off topic and highly controversial in challenging one of the pivotal scriptures of the trinity But you were happy to only pull up my post in questioning the matter. Not so much a matter about my opinion it be more a matter about you continually playing judge and jury. At least try to be a honest a balanced one.
 
Prim90 said:
I don’t see it being the matter of opinion. I only see that you did not pull up the matter of post 42 which was off topic and highly controversial in challenging one of the pivotal scriptures of the trinity But you were happy to only pull up my post in questioning the matter. Not so much a matter about my opinion it be more a matter about you continually playing judge and jury. At least try to be a honest a balanced one.
Click to expand...
I would ask you politely not to derail this topic. Reasonable people can differ over the subject. Again feel free to create a thread addressing that topic. Thank you.
 
Origen said:
Again feel free to create a thread addressing that topic. I would ask you politely not to derail this topic. Thank you.
Click to expand...
wasn’t me that derailed your topic. You might just politely weigh up why you allowed the off topic post 42 to go unchecked. Than tell me to to desist and stay on topic for questioning it. Perhaps you should have politely reminded the off post 42 of the matter and not just me.
 
Prim90 said:
wasn’t me that derailed your topic. You might just politely weigh up why you allowed the off topic post 42 to go unchecked. Than tell me to to desist and stay on topic for questioning it. Perhaps you should have politely reminded the off post 42 of the matter and not just me.
Click to expand...
May the Lord Christ Jesus the Prince of peace bless you and watch over you.
 
ButterflyJones said:
Family church tradition held to the KJV. I enjoy it for the romance language it contains per that historic period. My other study go-to's are NET Bible and the NIV. This is a very good talk in my view, brief, regarding the KJV for study. Love Daniel Wallace.
Click to expand...
Prim90 said:
The English of the king James was the climax of the English language along with Shakespeare certainly very poetic in places. As to David Wallace’s claim that there was no evidence of 1st John 5:7 not being in the bible until the 16th century. That be incorrect I count at least 18 references going all the way back to 200 AD to Tertullian referencing 1st John 5:7 along with the Waldensain or Vaudois whose bible traces its roots from the missionaries of Antioch around 120AD who the Vaudois had translated into Latin by 150AD. That be what the Geneva Bible was based on. The verse was known well enough by most Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant faiths alike. To say that the Original language was the standard of what scripture was only accepted by the church as Holy Writ is just not true.. It be more a modernist concept and standard. You must also remember that there were many that denied the trinity from the Arians, Sabellianism all the way back into the history of early church. It wasn’t only over zealous monks adding and writing nice things about Jesus in Josephus but also heretics of every caliber adding or deleting scripture from the word of God sometimes even writing their own holy books when opportunity arose. .View attachment 8889View attachment 8890View attachment 8891
Click to expand...

Origen said:
Hi Prim90 I would ask you to help keep this thread on topic. I understand that you do not agree with Wallace, however, this thread is about understanding the English in the KJV. Thank You
Origen
Click to expand...

Hello Origen, Prim90 and ButterflyJones;

The Daniel Wallace video was brought up by ButterflyJones. Prim90 was merely posting her response and fact points to ButtlerflyJones.

Origen, I complimented this thread, Understanding the KJV. It is meant to be a fun time of learning but there may be thoughts posted aside as ButterflyJones shared which may encourage opinions and other facts to the subject as Prim90 and others pointed out. We need to be open to that.

Going forward, let's all get back to the heart of worship and keep in mind the room for civility in our Christian fellowship. The moderators will monitor the progress of this topic.

If anyone has a concern please pm the staff or myself.

God bless you all.

 
Prim90 said:
The English of the king James was the climax of the English language along with Shakespeare certainly very poetic in places. As to David Wallace’s claim that there was no evidence of 1st John 5:7 not being in the bible until the 16th century. That be incorrect I count at least 18 references going all the way back to 200 AD to Tertullian referencing 1st John 5:7 along with the Waldensain or Vaudois whose bible traces its roots from the missionaries of Antioch around 120AD who the Vaudois had translated into Latin by 150AD. That be what the Geneva Bible was based on. The verse was known well enough by most Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant faiths alike. To say that the Original language was the standard of what scripture was only accepted by the church as Holy Writ is just not true.. It be more a modernist concept and standard. You must also remember that there were many that denied the trinity from the Arians, Sabellianism all the way back into the history of early church. It wasn’t only over zealous monks adding and writing nice things about Jesus in Josephus but also heretics of every caliber adding or deleting scripture from the word of God sometimes even writing their own holy books when opportunity arose. .View attachment 8889View attachment 8890View attachment 8891
Click to expand...
Daniel Wallace, not David.

I appreciate your opinion regarding his video . However, I respectfully defer to the scholarship of Dr. Wallace.

Lastly, regarding Josephus. He was not born until after Jesus ascended. He had no first person experience of Jesus or his ministry.

In fact, there is evidence early Christians interpolated his writings to include information regarding Jesus 8n order that his reputation as a Jewish historian would sustain and afford credibility to their trespass upon his originals.
 
Origen said:
You may be right, but maybe if I am polite and ask nicely others with respond with Christian charity.
Click to expand...
Here is one for you........In Luke 16: 24.........KJV we see -
"And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame."

Meaning of the word "Tormented"?
 
Origen said:
That is indeed possible and it does fit in a broad sense, however, there is another archaic meaning that may fit the context litter better.
"selfish person who is unwilling to give or spend, miser"

The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful. (Isaiah 32:5)

"The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right." (Isaiah 32:7)

In both verses wealth seem to be the key point.
Click to expand...
A "churl" in that chapter seems to be a judger of the poor, or one who takes from the poor. The chapter poses a list of people who had been called the opposite of what they really were, but now they will not be called those things anymore. So they will not say a churl is to be bountiful, so the opposite would be desolate or not producing much of anything good. Even when the needy speaketh right, or tell the truth as in giving testimony, the churl uses lying words in a concocted story to destroy with evil intent. A churl seems to prey on the poor and needy.
 
As a retired English professor, I can tell you that you're spinning your wheels if you expect today's average English speaker to seriously try to learn obsolete English vocabulary such as that of Elizabethan English. It's not going to happen. According to reading guides, both Shakespeare and the KJV Bible are written at a 14th grade level; that's a college sophomore reading level.
 
I like learning obsolete/archaic words.
It's like when people back in the last century spoke about 'dudes' and always said 'groovy' lol. Who even says that these days. Nobody!

I learned Shakespeare from age 14 when we started reading the plays in school (year 9/10) Didn't get all the words but it was kind of fascinating to explore the English language that way. Romeo and Juliet, King Lear, Macbeth, Merchant of Venice...Othello

King James Bible is not quite Elizabethan, its Jacobian because it is King James, not Queen Elizabeth's Bible. I am not sure why they call it Jacobian though because the kings name was James so shouldn't it be 'Jamesian' but see the English language never made much sense. Apparently 'Jacob' is Latin for 'James' even though Jacob is a biblical name. But there is no King Jacob.

I am glad I learned English rather than Latin though, the only Latin I use is botanical names for plants and animals.
 
Might be cheating, but a good dictionary will give you 'etymology' which is the origins of words. English has borrowed a lot from other languages and become like this mongrel language that is spoken, written and read worldwide.

If you are a serious reader, you will read the dictionary!

A lot of people aren't bothered and will make up any old word. Shakespeare made up lots of words. When he couldn't find a word to describe something he just made it up. Roald Dahl did the same with words like 'gobblefunk' and 'scrumdiddlyumptious' in his famous children's book, the BFG. (Stands for Big Friendly Giant).

WWJD would not have been known prior to the 1980s I think.
Also many children don't know what LOL means. I have to say its not short for lolly it means Laugh Out Loud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top