It's true that in the case of rye and paid, the 1611 KJV has the same spelling that is used now -- but there are instances of "payed" elsewhere in the 1611 KJV, and a look at the 1611 edition shows LOTS and lots of words that are no longer spelled as they were then: witnesse, worke, wordes, sinnes, iniquities, floore, mercie, knowen, alowd (for aloud), shewed, etc.
You do understand, I hope that the 1611, while excellent, was inconsistent in presentation, spelling, etc. Definitely the pure word of God, yet if somebody wants to say "this spelling is unusual" or inconsistent, we will agree 100%.
My quibbling is with the notion that there is "Biblical spelling" -- namely that however the KJV spelled something in 1611, that's the way it must be spelled today.
It would be at least as reasonable to argue that the spellings in Shakespear should be perpetuated.
Over the centuries various printings of the KJV silently modernized or regularized the spelling of many words. Editors of Shakespear have done the same. I have no complaint about that.
My quibbling is with the notion that there is "Biblical spelling" -- namely that however the KJV spelled something in 1611, that's the way it must be spelled today. ... Over the centuries various printings of the KJV silently modernized or regularized the spelling of many words. Editors of Shakespear have done the same.
Understood. However, I think you miss the simple fact that bibleprotector is affirming the PCE edition as having pure Biblical spelling, that the KJB 1611 helped bring this to the fore, and that updates and refinements and purification have taken place since that time.
Understood. However, I think you miss the simple fact that bibleprotector is affirming the PCE edition as having pure Biblical spelling, that the KJB 1611 helped bring this to the fore, and that updates and refinements and purification have taken place since that time.
It is not a fact. It may be Bibleprotector's opinion or speculation.
My quibbling is with the notion that there is "Biblical spelling" -- namely that however the KJV spelled something in 1611, that's the way it must be spelled today.
It would be misguided to try to conform to 1611 spellings today. The 1611 spellings are NOT standardised Bible English.
Quote:
It would be at least as reasonable to argue that the spellings in Shakespear should be perpetuated.
Bible spelling is unique to the Bible.
Quote:
Over the centuries various printings of the KJV silently modernized or regularized the spelling of many words. Editors of Shakespear have done the same. I have no complaint about that.
Standardising the spelling is different to changing one word to another. That is where modernist editors are mistaken. There has been a traditional improving on the presentation of the King James Bible, but it is not an ongoing process. The reason for this is that at some point of human history, the language of the Bible can be fixed, so that it will be conducive to all English speakers for all time. (Globalisation of English ensures that English cannot change away from being able to understand the King James Bible as it now stands.)
P.S. For all the differences in spelling in the above quotes, they are not enough to thwart commonality of English, i.e., “spelled” for “spelt”, “Shakespear” for “Shakespeare”, “modernized” for “modernised” and “regularized” for “regularised”.
It is not a fact. It may be Bibleprotector's opinion or speculation.
Literary incompetence yet again. Clearly the fact referred to was that bibleprotector was affirming the PCE edition, not the 1611 (the mistaken idea of Tamar, misunderstanding what had been written).
And that clearly is his opinion, view and conviction, and since you affirm not one verse of any English Bible as the pure word of God, your 'opinion', if you manage one, will surely be different.
KJV defender R. B. Ouellette wrote: “It is possible to update God’s Word without changing what God said. If it’s not possible now, it would not have been possible in 1611” (More Sure Word, p. 36).
KJV defender R. B. Ouellette wrote: “It is possible to update God’s Word without changing what God said. If it’s not possible now, it would not have been possible in 1611” (More Sure Word, p. 36).
People should not mix textual and translational issues with mere orthographical ones as Rick Norris seems to be doing.
The views and opinions expressed on this web site are not necessarily those of the Fighting Fundamental Forums management. This is an open and unmoderated forum. The content of each post is the sole responsibility of the poster. Participants are expected to follow the simple rules of the forum. Within these wide parameters various views are welcome to be expressed freely.
The college names used on the FundamentalForums.com web site are trademarks of their respective schools. The forums are not officially sanctioned by any of the institutions represented.
1611 spelling
Linear Mode
