Why is/isn't this wise advise?
 

If thou doth want to show how practical the King James Bible is in high school, thou shalt practice its language. Thou shalt hand in reports to thy teachers as a witness to its beauty. When thou doth give reports in front of the class, thou shalt let your peers see your love of the King James Bible by thy words.

The King James Bible is Biblical English, not conversational English. Even when the King James Bible was published in 1611, some people even then criticized it for using "archaic" English. (See Vance's book King James, His Bible, and its Translators.)

I would no more speak with KJB English in typical conversation than I would speak the "Computer Tech English" in a conversation unrelated to computer tech stuff. And when I am speaking of Biblical matters, I will use Biblical words, like justification, sanctification, and other words from the Bible that do not have true "modern" equivalents.

Your mocking question is backwards anyway. The question you need to answer is why the Bible should be written like a paperback novel rather than a holy book.

Good Idea
 

Despite your apparent intention to mock the Word of God, gruvEdude, I agree with you to a certain degree.

If all Christians, not just those at school, made a small effort to study their own language, they would soon come to an understanding of how God used this particular "archaic" style of English to most perfectly and purely impart the meaning of his Word to us.

Then, pretty soon, no one would want to read any of the over 200 different per-versions, instead agreeing with each other as to the meaning of Gods Word.....Phi 2:2 Fulfill ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.

Isnt it amazing that I have more in common with the other Bible believers on this site, none of whom I have ever met, than I do with members of my own family?

I have noticed that I tend to be more like minded with Christians that prefer the KJB then other Christians that feel it isn't even an important topic to discuss. I have been told several times on other sites that it is just "silly" to discuss the version debate. They say read which ever version you are comfortable with. Which is true, I'm not going to argue with them that they should choose the KJV. I guess we just have different priorities. Their priority is to have a "Bible" in the modern language. My priority is sound manuscript evidence.

It's very strange, (in a good way) to come to this site and see others discussing the topics I also feel are important and to see that I agree with most of what is said after spending much time on other sites and being ridiculed for my positions. Thank you Brandon for starting this discussion forum. I pray it grows.

I tend to see like-mindedness with others that read the KJB in the fundamentals of Salvation and Christian living. Not only that but like-mindedness in topics that are highly fight provoking, such as Biblical separation, Eschatology, Charismatic topics, Calvinism, (refuting....at least I hope that's the case on this site), I'm sure I'm missing other topics and also acknowledge there will be some most likely minimal disagreement on some issues.

This makes sense when you compare the KJB to the modern versions and can see the gnostic influence of the modern versions. a kind of anything goes, or WHATEVER, mentality.

can't quote, maybe this reply works?
 

It seems to me that I read that the New Testament Greek that God chose was the koine Greek which I've seen referred to as "the language of the common people". Is this correct or in error?

It is correct that Greek was a "common language," but to assume the New Testament was written in "easy" Greek is 1. irrelevant and 2. speculation. Just ask Peter if the New Testament in Greek was easy to understand:

2 Peter 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Maybe Peter needed a new version?

Besides, what does this have to do with modern versions? We have a new one every six to twelve months, each one supposedly easier to understand and closer to the original. Does our language become obsolete every year?

Also tell me how changing "God" to "he who" (1Ti 3:16) or removing the Trinity from the Bible (1Jo 5:7) makes things "easier" to understand. If you think this issue is just about updating language, you clearly haven't seen Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge. Does deleting the equivalent of 1st and 2nd Peter from the Bible just make it "easier" to understand in modern English?

It was Paul that wrote things hard for some to understand: (pointed in a study Bible which I have) from Romans: Election, 9:10-13; Justification, 4:25, 5:18; Propitiation, 3:25; Redemption, 3:24, 8:23; Sanctification, 5:2, 15:16; Glorification, 8:18, 19, 30; these were : Crucial Concepts in Romans. In Ephesians, I recently studied about God's choosing the elect.

Update Bibles every year? It's not been just a year since children have called their father Thou (nor hath they spoken like unto this.)

Well, when I was in high school we did speak that way. Everyday during English class studying Billy Shakespeare and his very boring plays.
The English language in the 17th century was at it's peak of greatness and has fell steadily from that pinnacle to this day.
That's why God made the translation happen in the early 1600's.
Yet another reason to hold high the KJB.

I do agree with Brandon. If the new translations were just changing a word here and there to suit our modern day language, then why omit a verse that is vital to salvation?
I refer to the book of Acts 8:37 where Philip says to the Ethiopian eunuch , after the eunuch says " What doth hinder me to be baptized?" Then Philip says " If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD. " What a shame that the modern translations promoting about better reading and understanding of their bibles would omit such a verse. Of course there are many more that could be pointed out, but it is getting late and my bed is calling. So good night and God Bless. Thank you Brandon that you have set up this forum.

Imagine the short-shelf-life for a "modern edition" of Billy Shakespeare (assuming you could get it published) ????

That's one thing bible believers are doing when we turn our noses up at the
modern versions. I read that Shakespeare was consulted on occasion with questions of english style during the 1611 work of translation. Imagine that's true. Wouldn't be fun to find out those passages were never tampered with because the great Shakespeare had consulted on them. Wouldn't it be fun to point out some of those passages to the modern bible corrector and then let them know (horror of horrors!) modern man has dared to correct the great
Shakespeare!!??

Why would the KJV translators consult a moral pervert like Shakespeare?

Absolutely! The idea is total rubbish. But can't you just imagine the reaction from these same bible correctors if you and I tried to release a modernized version of Shakespeare????? It would range from avoidance to outcry. . . the very response they are getting from us for their modernizations of the Lord's word.

Many times those who attempt to utilise (usually to mock) Bible English fail on all sorts of levels. This is because they have no actual understanding of the complex rules of Biblical English. And they have very little idea about meter and other such factors: they are almost wholly ignorant of the Biblical use of punctuation. I am certain that only the Bible is in Biblical English, and that if we unconsciously or consciously follow it, we are merely following what is good literary style. But there is a whole gulf fixed between this and the actual wording of Scripture.

Isn't it true that Shakespeare and King James were friends?

If they were, what would that have to do with the King James Bible? His writings or style of writing had nothing to do with the translating of the KJV.

I know it wouldn't have anything to do with the KJV, but it would prove that the KJV was translated when the English language was at it's best state. If anything the English language today is degrading, not getting better. All the mvs out there if anything contain a form of the English language that is worse than the KJV.

I agree - the KJV was translated at the height of the English language.

I believe that's the reason that when the Bible was a (the?) staple of education people's language skills (and everything else) were greater. But now instead of trying to reach the standards of the Bible we're trying to "dumb down" the Bible to our standards, and our downward slide never seems to end.

I don't want to pick, but below is a more accurate rendering of your paragraph into King James English.

If thou dost desire to shew how practical the King James Bible is in high school, thou shalt practice the language thereof. Thou shalt hand in reports to thy teachers bearing witness to the beauty thereof. When thou dost give reports before the class, thou shalt suffer thy peers to see thy love toward the King James Bible by thy words.

Want means lack in Elizabethan, either desire or list is the word you are looking for, desirest is second person and desireth or listeth is 3rd person. Listest is not found in the KJV but I suppose is the proper second person of list. Doth is third person for does, but dost is second person. If you use doth or dost before another verb, the second verb needeth not be conjugated. Hence, you would say "dost desire" or "desirest" but not "dost desirest." So also hath is 3rd person and hast is second person. Shalt is 2nd person, shall is first and third. Art is second person, are is third.

Thou is singular nomative, thee is singular accusative. Ye is plural nominative, you is plural accusative (and nomative too it seems). Nomative simply refers to name and means that you use this form when addressing a person or persons as the case might be. Accusative means it is the object of the verb. So, you would say "Thou art my friend" and never "Thee art my friend." Also, you would never say "I will give this to thou" but rather "I will give this to thee." So also, "I will give this to you" and not "I will give this to ye." However, both "ye are the people" and "you are people" seem correct.

"you are people" would only be (hypothetically) correct grammar in the following way:

"and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6).

But I think that all attempts to utilise Bible grammar outside the Bible, or to try and "correct" it now is an exercise in futility, vanity and error.

1. The KJB was made a time when English was at its height.

2. The men who made the KJB were at the apotheosis of scholarship.

well, bro, that shur aint tha truth nowdays!