[PeterAV]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

Thou sayest it.

It looks like sincerity and ignorance are not good partners.
*******
Matthew, Where did you get this list from?
*******
Smith says that "-est" Used on verbs only to form Present indicative 2nd pers. sing. nom [used only with 'thou']. Eg. 'Camest', 'comest', 'eatest', 'gavest', 'meanest', 'standest' and 'wouldest'.

[bibleprotector]

Peter, that quote was out of Samuel Johnson's grammar, I think dated from 1755.

As you can see, the endings are used on verbs in connection with the pronoun, and with the tense. Every kind of different form here is rightly used in its right place. There is nothing random about it. And it is so particular, conveying so much information, far beyond the comparatively simplistic grammar of modern translations (where it is sometimes wrong, because of their misunderstanding of Greek grammar laws).

The rumor I was originally referring to is the idea that -eth/-est endings indicate an ongoing/continual action rather than a one-time event, and that therefore dropping these archaic endings result in loss of meaning in more modern English. For example, some KJV-only supporters I have met in the past argued that "believe" in the KJV means one-time belief, while "believeth" means ongoing belief. Since this is not true, simplifying the grammar by dropping these endings does not result in any loss of meaning. "God loves" does not have any less meaning than "God loveth".

[bibleprotector]

some KJV-only supporters I have met in the past argued

Maybe you have heard of this, I have not.

But on the other side, I have found that a number of charges are made against KJB-onlyism which are "strawman arguments", such as the accusation that KJB-onlyism promotes the inspiration of the translators from 1604 to 1611. Most KJBOs do not believe that. Yet this is used as a smear against all KJBOism.

"believe" in the KJV means one-time belief

Anyone who says that is mistaken.

Since this is not true, simplifying the grammar by dropping these endings does not result in any loss of meaning.

No, that is a false syllogism or faulty logic. (Some KJBOs have the wrong definition for -eth endings. Since they are wrong, there is no problem in changing -eth endings.) In reality, it still constitutes a change of meaning if you change "believeth" to "believes". (Some KJBOs have the wrong definition for -eth endings. However there is a correct usage for them, so there would be a problem with altering -eth endings today.)

What we find is that "believeth" is matched with second person he/she/whosoever. Fiddling around with the KJB grammar today always constitutes an error/loss of information.

"God loves" does not have any less meaning than "God loveth".

In the KJB, "loves" is the plural of love. While "loveth" is a verb form, I think, second person (object) loveth subject. Changing it means bad grammar. And God's Word should have correct and proper usage.

In reality, it still constitutes a change of meaning if you change "believeth" to "believes".

I disagree. What is the change of meaning? What does "God loves" mean that "God loveth" doesn't?

In the KJB, "loves" is the plural of love. While "loveth" is a verb form, I think, second person (object) loveth subject. Changing it means bad grammar.

It is not bad grammar. Grammar changes over time, and it is perfectly good grammar today. "love" can be both a noun or a verb, depending on context, and in today's grammar, "loves" as a verb is third person singular in the same way "loveth" was in the past. No meaning is changed or lost. It is exactly the same as in the past we would say "art" for second person singular, but "are" today. For third person singular, we didn't say "God iseth" even though we say "God is" today - the "eth" ending did not have a different meaning and it was not used on some verbs, which would not be the case if the meaning was different or the grammar was wrong.

Brian,
I fear you are beyond the slippery slope, you may have fallen off the deep end.
We understand you think changes and modernizations to our KJV Bibles are acceptable and even required. We understand you and other KJV-bashers don't accept the idea that our KJV Bibles are inerrant and perfect. We get it. But as you have been told many times, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT. We like the thee's and thou's, and all the other little things that make KJV-bashers bang their heads against the wall. We think God likes them too, since He has preserved them. The grammar of the preserved Word of God is perfect AS IS, and makes the Bible easier to memorize too.

Let's face it---while you and your ilk were creating a forum dedicated to bashing the KJV, we have been teaching it to our children, winning souls with it and honoring it as the absolute final authority on all matters of faith and doctrine and the most superior Bible available to man. Unfortunately for you, this sort of renders your entire quiver of arguments completely moot, so it has become nothing more than a silly show of smoke and mirrors.

You are still busy slopping paint on a trashed, wingless airplane that will never fly here. Let me know if any of this starts sinking in, until then I will keep reminding you.

[katie ha-lakh]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Brian,
We like the thee's and thou's, and all the other little things that make KJV-bashers bang their heads against the wall. We think God likes them too, since He has preserved them. The grammar of the preserved Word of God is perfect AS IS, and makes the Bible easier to memorize too.

Let's face it---while you and your ilk were creating a forum dedicated to bashing the KJV, we have been teaching it to our children, winning souls with it and honoring it as the absolute final authority on all matters of faith and doctrine and the most superior Bible available to man.

AMEN BROTHER PARRISH, Tell it like it is!

[Steve54]

I was pondering the other day after hearing yet another amazed person...amazed in the that the KJV even exists anymore. I believe that was how it was put. I shook my head, smiled, and said that I found it quite interesting that people could learn, understand, embrace, and use the slang of countless generations about and before them yet refuse to do the same with the Word of God. I always like to add that one verse makes it a no-brainer for me...

John 8:32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

Jesus has made me free...not set me free.

Thank you, Jesus.

[Jassy]

When I became Deaf and was studying American Sign Language (ASL), I realized that, in order to understand the rules of grammar in ASL, I first had to understand rules of grammar in English. If I didn't understand what "dangling participles," "imperatives," "split infinitives," "intransitive verbs" or "modifiers" meant in English grammar, how was I going to be able to understand the grammatical rules in ASL? And how was I going to explain such rules to my ASL students at university (I was an ASL professor for many years), if I couldn't understand the grammatical rules of the language that I and most Americans have grown-up speaking and writing?

However, a miraculous thing happened in reading the KJV Bible. I never had to study the grammatical rules of "old English." I never had to study what "thee", "thou", "thine" or "thy" meant. Do you know why? Because the Holy Spirit was at work in me and I had clarity! It was amazing to me the way that the KJV opened up to me. It was just NATURAL. I never had to struggle with grammar or a feeling of awkwardness. So many people have told me that they can't read the KJV because the stumble over all those "thee's" and "thou's" - well, all I can suggest is PRAYING and fully allowing the Holy Spirit to do a work in you to miraculously open your understanding. I believe that is better than undergoing a complex study of grammatical rules.

This is not HUMANLY-devised grammar. This is GODLY grammar - and we, therefore, need Godly assistance in growing in wisdom and understanding.

Jassy

[Brother Tim]

This is GODLY grammar

Well put, Jassy. I like to use the phrase "Biblical English". {not my invention}