View Single Post
  #12  
Old 04-29-2008, 10:41 PM
sophronismos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bibleprotector View Post
Since the KJB is exactly sense for sense conceptually correct, any change, so much as of "sith" to "since" now is an act of corruption and error.
I love the KJV, but you have got to be kidding. I would not call updating the spelling of a word a corruption. Sith is just another spelling of since, and since since is the more widely known one, what would be wrong with updating sith to since? Sith only occurs in one passage anyhow (Ezek 35:6) unless perhaps my KJV is already "corrupt." Dude, why aren't you insisting on a KJV 1611 Fascimile, if out of date spellings are so integral to inspiration? Does your KJV in Ezekiel 35:6 read exactly letter for letter "Therefore, as I liue, saith the Lord God, I will prepare thee vnto blood, and blood shall pursue thee: sith thou hast not hated blood, euen blood shall pursue thee"? What's that, "bibleprotector," your KJV have replaced the "u" in "euen" and "liue" with a "v" and the "v" in "vnto" with a "u"? Shame shame! (sarcasm)

Personally I have a major beef with pronouncing words as spelled in the KJV when reading aloud at church, whether it be a 1611 or a 1769 or whatever. If you think that funky spellings are somehow sacred, then fine go ahead and leave "divers" (or euen "diuers") in there, but please for the love of God pronounce it as "diverse." Leave "instant" in there, but pronounce it "insistent." Fact is, I doubt that half the people (shoot 99.9% of the people) reading the KJV realize that "instant" means "insistent" in the KJV, as in Luke 23:23 "And they were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified." I'll bet most people (including THOU, oh "bibleprotector") think that this means "And they jumped on the bang-waggon really fast and got real loud requiring that he might be crucified" when it actually means "And they were insIStent with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified." And do you see how a thing like that could be solved by pronouncing the words correctly as they are pronounced today when you read the text out loud? (Also, don't read "haling" in Acts 8:3 as "haIling"--there ain't no "I" in there. It should be pronounced as "haughling.") The "instant" thing is even worse in Luke 7:4 because the adverb form is used "And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:" because I never realized for 25 years that "instantly" there means insistently" but it does! Thou probably thoughtest up to this very moment that this verse said "They besought him immediately" but it didn't. But if your way too over the top KJVO self is still not convinced that "instantly" means "insistently" in the KJV, then read Acts 26:7 "Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." Were the 12 tribes of Israel immediately serving God or persistently, i.e. "instantly" in the modern sense or "instantly" in the Elizabethan sense of "insistently"? You will probably claim that this verse DOES mean the 12 tribes were immediately (rather than insistently) serving God, because that's the only thing that will let you keep your foolishness about the sacredness of spelling and pronouncing words in old spellings that even you don't understand anymore. Now, I do understand the old spellings! And yes, this is one of those internal dictionary things. If you read the KJV long enough you will figure out what these words mean even with the oddity of the spellings. You'll find that prevent means precede and all that via the internal dictionary capabilities. I'm not knocking the KJV at all, but only the ignorance of those who insist (even instantly! even euen instantly!) on mispronouncing these words (that is, on pronouncing them as they are written rather than in an understandable manner).

Now, bringing my rant to a close, here is my point. If there is a KJV out there (or if one can be made) that is exactly the same as the funky spellings KJV but that has proper modern spellings of words, if they are the same words but spelled to where modern people can understand them without having yet read the whole KJV a few times over, why is that bad and "corrupt"? You would rather them read an NIV, that's why! You have stock in Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, don't you? You're getting a kickback from the sales of the Holam CSB and the ESV, right? That's why you want to call a KJV with proper spellings corrupt, to turn away the kiddies from reading it so they'll read one of them other versions you are making your money off of. Say it ain't so "bibleprotector," say it ain't so!

Last edited by sophronismos; 04-29-2008 at 10:49 PM.