KJV Older English Glorifies God & Boosts Study
by Dr. L. Bednar
Careful study will reveal that KJV older English has some very important purposes. It can magnify the glory of God, and can be part of the authentication of scripture as the Word of God. It can ensure maximal accuracy of language according to context, which can enable the reader to understand all that God teaches us about fruitful righteous living, and the need to understand applies to every reader. 2 Tim.2:15 says, Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth, which applies, not just to full-time ministers of the faith, but to all believers, who all have a role of some type in ministering to others.
KJV Older English magnifies God's glory:
The Dayspring from on High: In Luke 1:76-79 Zechariah speaks at the birth of his son John the Baptist in relation to Christ. John was a forerunner of Christ introducing Him to the world, and the introduction began with the miraculous birth of John by a woman too old to bear children, prefiguring the far-greater miraculous Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. Verses 78-79 of this passage present a unique magnificent KJV term, the dayspring from on high, and relates this to the knowledge of salvation by remission of sin in verse 77. The term has great depth of meaning that magnifies God's glory, and in the process is authenticated as part of the true Word of God in English-language form.
through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace.
In relation to the term dayspring, we consider the following verse:
For God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness (Let there be light in the creation), hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
While this verse has a spiritual significance, there is a reason why it relates the first light of creation to the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. In considering this matter, we note that the older-English Dayspring
reflects the concept of the spring (source) of day or light at
sunrise, the first light of day as symbolic of the glory of Christ
and relating His glory to the light of salvation. Use of dayspring
to signify first light of sunrise appears in the KJV Job 38:12 of the
Hebrew text. However, there's a far greater sense related to the fact that
the context of Luke 1:78 refers to Dayspring
in relation to the First Advent of Christ, which we normally think of
in regard to Christ's first coming to earth in human form.
Actually, the First Advent is introduced at
the creation since Rev.13:8 speaks of the Lamb
slain from the foundation of the world (at
the creation). Thus
Dayspring in regard to
the First Advent presents an added subtle reference to His first
appearance in the world as the eternal Christ, the one whose light of
glory shone upon the scene of creation in Genesis chapter 1. He is
the source of our light, the first light referred to as God
commanded, Let there be light
in Gen.1:3. A common sense of Let there be
is Let there appear,
and eternal Christ, who has no beginning of days, was commanded
by the Father to appear in order to begin creation; subsequent notations of Let there be/appear
refer to items not yet in existence, so these were commands
for Christ to create. Indeed, other commands of Let
there be in Gen.1:6-7 and Gen.1:14-16 are
followed by clear statements that they apply to creation, by the term made, while Let
there be light in Gen.1:3 has no such
Christ is the agent of creation, as revealed by Eph. 3:9 that says God, who created all things by Jesus Christ (by Jesus Christ is absent in the critical Greek texts of modern versions). The same teaching appears in Revelation 3:14 that speaks of Christ as the beginning of the creation of God, meaning Christ is the one beginning the creation as its authority by the power of His light of glory. This sense of meaning is uniquely in- dicated by the rendering dayspring at Luke 1:78 in the KJV since the context relates to the First Advent, while elsewhere in the New Testament, the Greek for Dayspring is rendered east, this aspect of sunrise being indicated by context.
Thus the magnificent term The
Dayspring from on high identifies Christ as
the light from heaven, from whom all light springs, or the one by whom all light began for
us, beginning with the first light that shone upon the scene in which
creation would begin, and extending to the glory of His appearance on earth for our
salvation. The sense of Dayspring as the first light that shone upon
the creation is noted in 2 Cor.4:6 where the first light of Gen.1:3
is linked to the glory of God in the face of
Jesus Christ. In 2 Pet. 1:19 Christ is the day
star (the Dayspring), and in Rev.22:16 He is the morning star, day &
morning referring to the dawn or morning of creation and the light of
interrelates the scriptures speaking of Christ as the source of the
light of creation and salvation, and it depicts the full sense of the
Greek, so this older-English term is authenticated as part of God's
inerrant Word in English. By contrast, the ESV, NASV, NIV &
other modern versions render sunrise/rising
sun in Luke 1:78, and thus omit the sense of
the true source and beginning of all light,
including the first light of creation, and the light of endless
trillions of created stars, and the light of the glory of salvation. That Dayspring
has unique significance is further indicated in that it's
an "archaic" word that is among those that have survived
much language up-dating in the KJV, and thus appears to be an object
of providential preservation. Actually, the term is anything but archaic, being absolutely irreplaceable.
There is a further sense of Christ as the light of Gen.1:3 in that Gen.1:4 speaks of God dividing light from darkness, to suggest Christ separating those who receive spiritual light from those choosing spiritual darkness. The identity of Christ as the light of Gen. 1:3 is finalized by John 1:1-10 that says, 1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... 3. All things were made by him... 4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not (could not overcome it)... 8. That was the true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 9. He (the light of verse 8) was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
There is scripture where the Savior is related to the sun. In Malachi 4:2 He is called the Sun of righteousness...with healing in his wings. Healing here refers to spiritual, phy-sical and mental healing that Christ would bring to mankind, so here the figurative use of Sun is appropriate since the role of Christ here relates only to our world lighted by the sun as enlightened by our Son.
Eph.3:9 tells us God created all things by Jesus Christ, but in the Creation account, as in all the Old Testament, Christ is veiled, yet visible subtly. 2 Cor.4:6 relates the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ to God who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, the Gen.1:3 Let there be light signifying Christ. The glory of God in Christ is eternal, so Let there be light isn’t a creation act. That the Gen.1:3 light signifies Christ is seen as God in Gen.1:4 calls the light good & divides it from darkness in a spiritual link to 1 Jn.1:5 God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. Gen.1:6 Let there be a firmament and Gen.1:14 Let there be lights in the firmament refer to things said to be made by God, but Let there be light has no reference to made, indicating introduction of Christ in His glory, by whom the Father created all things, as in Eph.3:9. Christ is the light of the world!
The Dayspring: Light as day in Gen.1:5 relates to Lk.1:78 where the Dayspring from on High is Christ from heaven, who is the source of all light by creation power, for all day, or light, springs from Him, extending from the first light of His glory in Gen.1:3, to the light of our sun and that of endless trillions of stars. Dayspring also refers to spiritual light in promises of God to the redeemed. In this latter sense, 1 Jn.3:2, we know that when he shall appear, (Christ) we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is, refers to the final estate of the redeemed as sinless & eternal from that point on. Also in the latter sense, Paul in 1 Cor.13:12 says of this final estate, then shall I know even as also I am known, referring to a fullness of the mind of Christ in the redeemed for inerrant knowledge of all things in God’s creation and kingdom, which is know- ledge fashioned after that of God! The Light of the world is Christ, in every possible way, and all throughout the universe!
Scholars say Dayspring is archaic, and would replace it with sunrise in Lk.1:78. The Greek here usually means sunrise/east, which is one sense of Dayspring, but is only the tiniest part of the meaning in Lk.1:78, and no other term can even begin to match Dayspring from on High. This magnificent name,-the only one truly describing the glory of Christ, was preserved up to & beyond the end of language-convention up- dating in the 1769 KJV edition, indicating God’s Hand on text history to ensure the retention of the name. God created all things by the Dayspring, not by the sunrise, and it's the Dayspring, not the sunrise, through which the redeemed are made sinless and eternal, and are given knowledge patterned after that of God. Dayspring alone, as a name for Christ, fully preserves all senses of Christ’s light in the Greek and the English of Lk.1:78 and in the related Hebrew, and it is inerrant since it cannot be replaced. Dayspring will become archaic only when eternity comes to an end!
We emphasize that Let there be has the sense of Let there appear, a valid common sense of the Hebrew, the one needed to see the true meaning of Gen.1:3 where Let there be light refers to an act of introduction of the eternally-existent Christ. While God as the Father and the Holy Spirit are directly noted in Genesis 1, Christ isn't noted this way since He is veiled in the Old Testament, and the only place in Genesis 1 that can signify His presence is verse 3, the light signifying His glory as the Dayspring. In accord with this concept, the Gen.1:3 light is a different word in the Hebrew from that for the Gen.1:14 lights, the latter referring to the sun & moon. In verse 14 the Hebrew word refers to luminous bodies, distinguishing it from the Hebrew for light in verse 3 that refers to light emitted by a body, and this latter would signify the glory of God in Christ the Dayspring from on high.*
In Einstein’s famous energy-mass
equivalence equation, E = mc2,
energy is made equivalent to matter (mass is the amount of matter and c squared is just a very
large number, the speed of light multiplied by itself), and this equation has withstood all tests & challenges in the world of science. The equation might well be interpreted to mean matter & energy are interchangeable, as seems to be the case since it is generally agreed that the energy of a nuclear explosion is associated with the destruction of a small amount of matter, and since light energy has been converted to particles of matter on the sub-atomic scale. Thus, matter solidity may be an effect of field energy related to particles of charged energy of the atom, and water & gaseous forms of matter would arise due to the weaker nature of interatomic attractive forces under the influence of temperature effects. Energy may very well be the building block of the universe.
The indication that energy and matter are equivalent correlates with the creation account of Genesis 1 by suggesting
that the energy of the light of God’s glory in Christ was the
source of matter creation. Perhaps the energy of the light of glory of God in
Christ provided motivation and power of creation, while the
Gen.1:2 moving of the Spirit, the One who is also the Spirit of
Christ, (Rom. 8:9 equates the Spirit of God and Spirit of
Christ) signifies Christ's regulation of the process of creation by His Spirit.
All this would be the basic reason why God said that the creation in its
initial form was good and very good.
Now we can see why angels radiate the glory of God (Luke 2:9), being created from that glory and radiating it in the absence of a material body (they are ministering spirits like a flame of fire - Hebrews 1:7). Further, the material body of Jesus Christ would be needed as a shield from the glory of God in Him that would be deadly to sinful mankind (Exod.33:20). It would necessarily be a vision of Him in His glory that was presented to His disciples on the Mount of Trans-figuration, and it it's said in scripture to be a vision of Him in His glory that confronted Saul (Paul) on the Damascus Road, a vision that blinded Saul (Acts 26:19).
Further, if we were created from the energy of the light of His glory, that would add a new dimension to our being made in the image of God (Gen.1:26) and to the concept of the earth in its fulness as being the Lord's (Ps.24:1). We were created in Trinitarian form, our soul, body and spirit reflecting the Father, the Son and the Spirit, and adding this to the glory of God in Christ as the source of the body, soul & spirit presents a combination placing mankind apart from the rest of creation, and requiring us to represent and glorify God in our lives, and be accountable to Him in all that we do. Thus the evil of sin is revealed as misrepresenting God and His creation, as if He were evil, and this would be a monstrous rejection of God and His righteousness, and a rebellion against all that we are created to be. If God's plan to correct us is ignored, the result can only be rejection by God and ultimate destruction, perhaps a type of destruction occurring in an energy state reminiscent of nuclear-energy heat.
On the other hand, those who are obedient to his plan for our correction have the image of God renewed in them, which is why they can be considered as brethren of Christ (Mat.12:50). This gives us some insight into 1 John 3:2 that says of the redeemed, when he shall appear, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is, indicating that all such persons shall be in the form of His glory, from which we were created, and like the angels, will be at home in the presence of His glory. Yet angels will be subject to the redeemed at that time (1 Cor.6:3), for the redeemed, unlike angels, will be in the perfected Trinitarian image of God, with eternal bodies like His eternal glorified resurrected body (He is the firstborn from the dead - Col.1:18). After His Resurrection, He could materialize out of nowhere, yet could eat earthly food, and be touched (Luke 24:36-43). In view of all this, we might indeed wonder what all God has in mind for the final estate of the redeemed when He says Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him (1 Cor.2:9 - see also Isaiah 64:4).
KJV Older English Promotes Study
A few examples illustrate the value of older English terms in achieving text accuracy.
1. The older-English astonied is often replaced by astonished in texts today, but that causes some error. Astonied can refer to a degree of astonishment that leaves a person unable to react, or stone-like, or it can refer to stone-like inactivity that is the result of being deep in thought, or in a state of deep remorse of the soul.
a. Ezek.4:16,17. Here in verse 16 of the KJV, people of Israel are astonished at limits of food and water placed upon them by God's judgment, and in verse 17, their lack of food and water has become so great they are astonied in their reaction to each other in the depths of their sorrow. The two different words are needed to differentiate two states of mind as their astonishment turns into a state of inactivity due to deep sorrow. The pertinent Hebrew word in 4:16 differs from, but is related to, that in 4:17; the term in verse 16 relates to horror, and is rightly rendered astonishment in the KJV.
The NIV, NASV, ESV & NKJV offer words like dismayed or appalled in lieu of astonied in verse 17, and some new "up-dated" KJV editions have astonished, but all of these miss the sense here. The Hebrew means desolate or deserted, in the sense of absence of activity in this context, so astonied is the correct rendering. Appalled or dismayed suggests only the disgust that accompanies a displeasing event, falling far short of the meaning of astonied or even astonished.
b. Jer.14:9. People of Judah are in a state of agony over God's judgment of them, and they speak to the Lord, saying, Why shouldest thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save? The word astonished is utilized in the NKJV & some KJV editions that have been "up-dated," but that's improper here since the Lord would not be seen as a man astonished at the judgment He has brought on the land. To the people, He seems astonied, or totally inactive in delivering them from the trouble afflicting them. He might seem to them like a man astonished to the point of being astonied, and unable to save them, but astonished or surprised never applies to God who has all things under His control, and His people know this. Again the Hebrew word has differ- ent senses, and the sense of astonied is the proper one in Jer.14:9.
NIV, NASV & ESV words like dismayed or appalled don't give the true sense here since God's people would never see Him that way, but would see Him as not reacting, or astonied. The Hebrew term here means bewildered, which can suggest dismayed or appalled, but being bewildered easily results in a state of total inactivity among men. While Hebrew readers know that only the state of inactivity applies to God, in English, astonied is the word that makes this distinction. Today English scholars seem to be so fixed on lexicon definitions, they fail to give proper attention to the effect of context.
c. Ezra 9:3-5. Ezra reacts to the sin of his people who defy God's law. Verse 3 says, And when I heard this thing, I rent my garment and my mantle, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down astonied. That astonished isn't the true sense here is seen in verse 4 where he says he, sat astonied until the evening sacrifice. He sat astonied in a state of inactivity for a long time, due to his sorrow over sins of the people, and any astonishment he felt would never last that long, but his sorrow could continue long past the time of the evening sacrifice. In verse 5 he says, at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness, which shows he was in a state of prolonged sorrow and inactivity, not prolonged astonishment. The Hebrew term is the same one that is noted in Ezekiel 4;17, and again the sense of astonied as a state of total inactivity is indicated by context.
The NIV, NASV & ESV utilize appalled here, while the NKJV & some "up-dated" modern KJV editions have astonished. Both terms clearly are incorrect in this context.
d. Dan.3:24. Nebuchadnezzar leaped up in amazement from a brief state of disbelief & inactivity, or a state in which he had been astonied, due to seeing three Hebrews not harmed by his fiery furnace, and seeing a fourth figure who miraculously appeared with them in the fire. He arose in haste to verify by his counselors that he had not taken leave of his senses. In this syntax there are two Hebrew verbs relating to his behavior, the first indicating his brief astonied condition of stupor, and the second his subse- quent amazement.
The first Hebrew verb means terrified or astonished out of one's senses to produce an astonied condition, and the second refers to a resultant active state of astonishment. The NIV, NASV, ESV & NKJV amazed, astounded & astonished all present part of the meaning, missing the astonied state; astonished is also utilized in some "up-dated" modern KJV editions.
e. Dan.4:19. Daniel, standing before king Nebuchadnezzar, was astonied for one hour, as his thoughts troubled (not astonished) him. He was very deep in troubled thought and unresponsive for an hour, due to the nature of interpretation of the king's dream that God gave Daniel, an interpretation speaking of the king's future in very negative tones. Daniel would be reluctant to bring such unhappy news to the king, who might display great displeasure. Further, Daniel has been honored by the king, which would likely instill a strong loyalty that would make it difficult to bring bad news of the king's future. Most modern versions offer alternatives to astonied, usually perplexed, which is only partly correct, not being as complete in the sense of meaning as astonied is.
The Hebrew verb utilized here is again the one in Ezekiel 4:17 , and again the sense is one of a state of total inactivity.
2. Older-English translate is at times rendered transfer today, but translate confers contextual sense properly where it appears in the text, which is in passages where transfer will not do so.
This says of God, Who hath delivered us from
the power of darkness and hath translated us into the kingdom of his
dear Son. Use in modern versions of terms like transfer
or brought us into would speak here only of movement from one realm to another, while
translate includes the
sense of changing from the physical earthly form of existence to a
heavenly one, which is somewhat similar to the case of language
trans-lation from one form to another. All men are sinners, and translation into the kingdom of God must include translation, or transformation, to a suitable form.
b. Heb.11:5. The same thing
applies here in that Enoch is said to have a testimony of pleasing
God, so he would not only be transferred from earth to heaven, but
would be translated in the sense of changing from the earthly form to
one suited for life with God in heaven. Modern versions offer terms like taken up or taken from this life, ignoring the need for a transformation before entering heaven, thus failing to offer a full sense of the Greek term.
c. 2 Sam.3:10. The text reads, To translate the kingdom (of earthly Israel) from the house of Saul, and to set up the throne of David over Israel and over Judah. In this case we must remember that Saul's rule of the nation was of a nature displeasing to God, due to Saul's disobedience, while that of David, a man after God's own heart, was usually pleasing to God. Thus there was not only a transfer of kingship, but a transla- tion to a different and superior type of kingdom. Here the Hebrew verb has the sense of get rid of, which is more specific than transfer, connoting the additional sense of re- moving an undesirable kingdom, in favor of a better one, and translate has this sense.
Older English enables readers to understand word sense in context,
in order to learn all that God teaches about fruitful righteous living
James 3:2. The topic here is effects of words, the tongue, on people. The clause we offend all in the KJV supposedly should be we all offend, but the KJV clause is just an older English way of saying we all offend, so the two are equivalent. The verb here is commonly viewed as intransitive, having no literal direct object since all is in the nom-inative case and can't be a direct object. But the verb can be viewed as transitive, having an implied direct object in the form of the many others affected by an evil tongue (use of implied direct objects is common in the Greek). That many others are in view in the overall passage is emphasized by the extensive metaphoric language, which includes danger in being many masters that influence many others, and the tongue as being like a small rudder determining the direction of a huge ship, and the tongue as a world of iniquity, and as a little member that kindles a great matter, and as a member that sets on fire the course of nature. In other words, one lie affects another, who passes it on to others, who each pass it on to many others, and eventually many persons are misled. Indeed, the reason offend is preferred in the KJV over the more common stumble to render the Greek here is that many others are offended by an evil tongue, while stumble favors the intransitive sense that limits the evil to the perpetrator(s) to produce, we all stumble.
The proper rendering indicated by the context is something like, we all offend many others, or we all cause many others to stumble, making the verb transitive by tying it to the implied direct object. Now languages differ notably in expression of concepts, and at times words must be added to the Greek/Hebrew to get the best English sense, which is why some words are italicized, but at times context is plain enough that added words don’t need to be italicized. We avoid adding words when possible to translate as literal-ly as possible, so we avoid adding many others in our subject clause. In the older poetic English we offend all, nothing is added to the clause, and location of all after the verb suggests a dual sense, and an implied direct object, even though all itself isn't a direct object. This poetic style leads us to look for an implied direct object, and we readily find it. We see that the major sense here is the influence of an evil tongue on many others, which correlates with selection of the verb offend in preference to stumble, and this selection, in conjunction with use of older English, emphasizes the major sense. And since older English, we offend all, is equivalent in meaning to, we all offend, the minor sense of the clause, we all stumble, is retained, letting the verb function secondarily as intransitive in recognition of all as nominative in case.
We find that older English has a depth of poetic expression lost in modern English, older KJV English emphasizing the main contextual sense on not harming others with our tongue. We have here an illustration of the depth of accuracy and the superiority of word choice in KJV older English. This illustrates why up-dating of language convent- ion in the KJV concluded in 1769, being necessary to preserve the great superiority of KJV crucial words in older English. It appears the 1769 edition was providentially ord- ained to provide the final estate of English in the sacred text, yet many modern scholars think that KJV older English often introduces error in the text. What a pity.
Implications of translating into increasingly-modernized language
There are good reasons why we should never bring Bible language down to the level of man, but should bring man up to the level of Bible language. Like other languages, the English keeps degenerating, and eventually reaches the point where it's unfit for the sacred text since the manner of expression becomes unfitting to display God's Word. Yet today a translation committee may go so far as to search out the street-language vernacular in the effort to communicate with everyone, reducing the language to the absurd. This is likely the very reason up-dating of the KJV ceased in 1769, suggesting a Providential intent to keep the language properly reverent and suitable.
Now one popular attitude of modern generations is the thought that they are here to be served, rather than to serve, and this has caused major problems in world economies, and has led to rampant crime & social unrest of various types. In regard to Bible trans-lation, many people feel translators must oblige their every whim to make the scripture as easily understood as possible, as if communication were the only important matter involved. It is important, but content & teachings are the most important matters, and Christians who get acclimated to having their whims satisfied will never be able to adapt themselves to righteousness stipulated by God in his Word, and never will be pleasing in His sight. Others may very well lose interest in teachings that seem like the mere works of men, and may come to prefer their own inventions on the requirement for salvation, and thus be lost for all eternity.
Today even the more serious readers of
scripture tend to read in a cursory fashion that often may not impart
any real sense of understanding of the context, and there is great
need to motivate readers to a serious study of context. What better
way could there be than to look up meanings of older English words in
a glossary or dictionary so that readers start thinking a whole lot
more about word meanings and their implications in context?
It's high time to return to the superiority of our 1769 language
standard to encourage serious study of the Word. The older KJV
English is just the tool needed to move readers out of bad habits of
laziness, and into serious study. Superficial reading never leads
people to understand fully what is taught in scripture, yet such
reading is all that even typical serious readers are inclined
to do today. We illustrate the value of learning for ourselves meanings of older English terms, rather than relying on render- ings of modern translators.
A. Isaiah 3:18. We consider a KJV verse that, at first might lead a reader to think the language & sense are too difficult to grasp. This verse is given as an example since the present writer has heard a seasoned older pastor, who preaches from the KJV, refer to the verse as one he couldn't fathom the meaning of. However, he was just giving an initial reaction without exploring the meaning of older English terms, the kind of first reaction most anyone is likely to have. We consider the various renderings of this verse in the KJV, NIV & NASV.
In the context of chapter 1-3 the Lord speaks of severe judgment He will bring upon the people of Judah for their error, and verses 16 & 17 speak of the Lord's
displeasure with, and future judgment of, the daughters of
Zion, Hebrew women who had turned away from following Him,
turning to false gods, as seen by the kind of attire that they
had adorned themselves with.
KJV: In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
NIV: In that day the Lord will snatch away their finery: the bangles and headbands and crescent necklaces,
NASV: In that day the Lord will take away the beauty of their anklets, headbands, crescent necklaces,
The KJV bravery doesn't have the usual sense of valor since God's harsh judgment is to fall upon the wandering women, as well as many others in the context. According to a dictionary, it can refer to a display (of worldly trinkets), which is a minor sense of the context related to the new poverty that would befall Israel, not dealing with the serious judgment involved. The proper definition is a boldness in the sense of defiance, which does indeed relate to the judgment. We can verify this as the true sense by consulting a bible dictionary or glossary (The Trinitarian Bible Society provides glossaries with the KJV) that also inform us of the meaning of another word in the verse, cauls, a light covering of the head in the form of a hairnet. The glossary & the Davis Bible dictionary tell us the word tires is associated with the word attire, or wardrobe, but specifically refers to a headdress, and these evidently were attached to the hairnet to secure them in place. A bible dictionary reveals that round like the moon, associated with a Hebrew term that can also mean crescents, refers to headdresses indicative of false gods that are represented by a crescent symbol (certain gods of Egypt & Syria). Various scripture passages indicate that Israel, in times of falling away into idolatry, worshiped false gods, including heavenly bodies, the moon & sun in particular (e.g. Jer.7:18, 8:2, 2 Kgs. 21:3, 23:4,5), and various crescent-shaped objects were involved. Such idolatrous behavior resulted in God's fierce judgment of the nation, as Isaiah chapter 1 indicates.
Ezek.24:23, speaks of tires as headdresses (of unspecified nature), and this is in a context expressing God's displeasure with, and judgment of, Judah that was Israel as a remnant nation. Verse 23 says, And your tires shall be upon your heads, and your shoes upon your feet: ye shall not mourn nor weep, but ye shall pine away for your iniquities. Related directly to chapter 24 is chapter 23 speaking of Judah's whoredom in the sense of idolatry (see 23:28-35).
Now we understand the reason for God's judgment of the women of Isa.3:18, for they wear the symbol of a false god, and the fact that this takes the form of a headdress indicates they have placed this false god as an authority over their heads, and are wor- shiping it. We see that the NIV finery & NASV beauty major on the minor sense of the Hebrew term that is correctly rendered bravery in the KJV, and these modern versions miss the major sense of idolatry involved with round (crescent-shaped) tires like the moon, as they deal only with the sense of crescent-shaped frivolous jewelry. Further, the NIV breaks the verse into two clauses, concluding its finery clause with a colon, as if the words following finery summarized all that the previous clause noted, but the Hebrew for finery exhibits the construct-noun form, meaning it is followed by the preposition of introducing the manner of behavior displayed by the women through finery (actually bold defiance, not finery).
We find that it's unwise to allow modern translators to interpret difficult verses for us, and are far better off staying with the KJV and seeking the meaning for ourselves, with the help of a pastor who is rightly trained in the finer points of hermeneutics, or who knows how to discover them. The basis of God's judgment for idolatry is too important a matter to entrust it to scholars, especially since idolatry in the form of humanism is so rampant in the modern world. Humanism like that involved in evolution theory is a bold defiant affront to the God of creation, and people need to grasp specific aspects of behavior of this type, and the severity of judgment invited by it.
B. Psalm 58:9. Another case of confusion by modern scholars
KJV: Before your pots can feel the thorns, he shall take them (evil people) away as with a whirlwind, both living, and in his wrath
NIV: Before your pots can feel the heat of the thorns - whether they be green or dry - the wicked will be swept away.
NASV: Before your pots can feel the fire of thorns, He will sweep them away with a whirlwind, the green and the burning alike.
ESV: Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away.
Translators are uncertain of the meaning of this verse, as noted in the ESV, NIV and the Kohlenberger interlinear, and the verse reads correctly in a fully literal sense only in the KJV. The Hebrew is indicative of an idiom illustrating personification of pots so that they feel heat, these being cooking pots unable to feel. Usual translation practice is to represent an idiom with a comparable one in the host language, but, as far as can be determined, this one is unique to the Hebrew, so it must be translated literally.
The passage speaks of God's judgment of evil-doers that will be so unexpected & swift that normal activities of life, like preparing for cooking in pots, will be interrupted. In this case, the language that speaks of pots not feeling the thorns refers to destruction coming even before the thorny bramble commonly used as fuel is placed under pots to permit ignition. Now the terms fire & heat in modern versions do relate indirectly to the correct sense, but are not in the Hebrew, and thus distort the idiom, and all three modern versions miss the sense that the fuel never is actually ignited since it is never under the pots. The NASV/ESV/NIV burning/ablaze/heat are inapplicable, and they offer nothing on how thorns can heat anything, which is by their presence in bramble used as a fuel. And the NASV/ESV them should apply to the evil-doers, according to context, but their language suggests it applies to thorns & pots.
Further, Hebrew words meaning life and burning anger (KJV living & wrath) are improperly rendered green or dry & green or ablaze & the green and the burning alike in modern versions, due to Hebrew syntax that places these terms after thorns, but this is just a variance in Hebrew and English syntax having no effect on passage sense. This is indicated in that the initial before and the note about pots & thorns that follows must be brief so that them clearly refers to people, not to pots & thorns. This need for brevity is why the NASV the green and the burning appears awkwardly at the end of the verse; NIV translators compensated for this problem, adding wicked to ensure a reference to persons, but this word isn't in the Hebrew and isn't contextually required; the problem is ignored in the ESV, placing them too distant from the persons so that the reference is ambiguous.
The term green in reference to thorns has no actual link to life, the lives of evil-doers being the sense, and dry/burning/ablaze are not even noted in the Hebrew, and thus don't link to God's burning anger. These modern-version terms overemphasize the fuel, missing or misrepresenting the main emphasis on God's judging of evil-doers. The fuel is noted only to illustrate the suddenness of judgment, and doesn't show a relation- ship to the burning nature of God's anger in judgment. Modern translators don't relate the language to context properly, and it's very unwise to let them interpret for us a scripture passage involving God's judgment of people.
Superiority of Various Older English Words
Older English represents a history period with a higher educational standard than that of today, and it is important to resist the unceasing downward trend in the language that renders it unfit for the text of God's Word. It is necessary to bring men up to the high standard of the language of God's Word. It's never appropriate to bring the Word down to the level of common language.
Some old English words are unknown to most folks today, but these can be included in a glossary, or can be found in a dictionary, and looking up the meanings is a good way to begin a scripture-study habit, as opposed to mere cursory reading so often practiced in our modern times. As we study KJV older English, we find many of the words have a sense of meaning that is superior to modern word alternatives.
KJB: Thou shalt not kill
NIV: You shall not murder
NASV: You shall not murder
NKJV: You shall not murder
Thou is a singular pronoun (the Hebrew is singular), so it refers to the individual. It tells him he can’t decide to end life since that is God’s prerogative. Ending life by a personal decision includes an act like abortion, but murder doesn’t include abortion. The KJV tells us no one has a right to abortion anymore than to murder, yet many vio- late this law, not even knowing it’s a sin if they use only a modern version.
God permits government to kill in just warfare or punishment of capital crime (Rom. 13:1-5). If thou in the correct KJV reading were replaced by singular or plural you, that applies corporately or individually, it would forbid government to do its duty. Now there is an exception in the case of rogue governments under the control of one evil individual, and war waged in this circumstance amounts to the act of an individual being guilty of unlawful killing.
2. Ye is plural, and this distinction is lost in the modern you.
3. Ensample refers to a sample of the real thing, while example is usually just an approximation of the real thing.
4. Outlandish literally identifies that which originates from outside the borders of our behavior, or the borders of a land, while foreign often signifies that which is simply strange. Today the two terms are often reversed in sense in common usage.
5. Throughly refers to through and through, a maximal degree of thoroughness, while thoroughly can be of a lesser degree.
6. Trespass confers a dreaded sense of being off-limits in God’s sovereign domain, as well as the sense of breaking God's law by sin.
7. Husbandman conveys the image of a man who takes care of the land, rather than just using it to his purposes, though in scripture the term can apply in an ironic sense.
8. Lowring reflects the true human state of mind when circumstances are gloomy.
9. Apparently, meaning openly, has deteriorated to seemingly.
10. Quick means alive or activity vs. deadness, a sense broader than that of swift.
11. Carefulness means full of cares, and being free of this is more basic to the faith than the modern sense of caution.
12. Prevent means go before, relating to our faith in God who goes before us on our way, a sense more important than stop.
13. Mansion, a dwelling place that is often large, offers differentiation from room that can signify a small seating place.
14. Reins (lit. kidneys) emphasizes crucial control, while mind can be less emphatic.
15. Vanities reveals vanity as the source of deceit.
16. Wrest for twist includes a sense of wrestling with conscience.
17. Veil includes the purpose, as well as the form, of curtain.
18. Strait adds to narrow (obedience or doctrine), a true sense of restricted direction,
as well as restricted breadth, as in a seawater strait.
19. Charity refers to divine sacrificial love and covers all aspects of it, which is far more important than love, which can be as insignificant as love of sports or foods.
20. Base is more precise than lowly, referring to the most basic or foundational aspect of something that is of low character.
21. Beggarly is more intensive in sense than worthless, suggesting an ultimate end of dependence on others for basic needs.
22. Castaway reflects the emotional grievous result of rejected.
23. Chambering reflects the common locale of sensual living, and emphasizes the error of such matters.
is better suited to the sacred text than sewer or toilet, and more succinct than extracted quantity.
25. Conversant, the sense of at home with, is still widely used, as in the case of being conversant with technical matters.
26. Cubit, the distance from elbow to finger-tip, is a convenient rough measure of length that anyone can employ when a measuring device is unavailable, and it helps us to put size quickly into perspective as we read, so familiarity with the term is useful.
27. Diviner, imitator of God’s power, reveals the depth of error.
28. Earnest rightly signifies the certainty of the nature of true security.
29. Horn, as a mountain or tusk, is an emphatic power symbol
30. Instant conveys the best sense of our reaction to what is urgent
31. Latchet conveys the image of latching, fastening of a thong.
32. Listeth conveys an image of listing to one side in choosing
33. Tell speaks of what counting accomplishes, knowledge of the end result.
34. Eschew adds emphasis, a spitting out of unhealthy things we should avoid.
35. Enlargement adds dimension, indicating the extent of freedom.
36.Traffic adds the sense of the activity of people involved in trade
37. Without adds the sense of loss of benefit related to outside.
38. Waymarks amplifies the sense of our way, or path, as safeguarded by directional markers, rather than just posted at places by guideposts.
39. Shamefacedness emphasizes the visible result of one's shame.
40. Travail imparts a sense of struggle, in pertinent contexts, better than labor does.
In the KJV we find older English words no longer in common use, but are in glossaries & dictionaries, words that take a reader back to days more characteristic of those of the scripture text. For example, the terms habergeon (protective coat of mail) and buckler (small shield ) take a reader back to times when conflicts involved emphasis on skills of individual soldiers, giving us a realistic view of early conflict that scripture speaks of, one more realistic than that seen in modern days. Terms like cruse (small jar), fetters (shackles) or eschew (shun) speak of lifestyles & human interaction much more char- acteristic of the times when scripture was endowed.
Regarding older KJV terms on bodily functions, considered vulgar by modern parties, there is no reason to object to scriptural language that refers to bodily functions given to us by our Creator who made us what we are in His infinite wisdom and knowledge. Such language seems meant to remind us that our bodily estate is earthy, nothing that should ever preoccupy anyone, and it is one of the ways that scripture leads us away from unhealthy thinking on unlawful activities of the body in regard to sex. Indeed, so-called vulgar language on bodily functions in the KJV is likely an important reason why immorality was under far better control in earlier times than it is today, this lang- uage reminding folks of God's disapproval of carnality. Let's remember that any sense of vulgarity in scriptural language relates to unhealthy preoccupation of many modern folks with the anatomy of the human body in regard to emphasis on sex and carnality so prominent in the modern era. That preoccupation, and its ramifications, should never influence our view of scripture, and must never lead to misrepresenting the text by un- necessarily departing from literality in translation. Why make scripture conform to changing human whims in modern generations? All generations living in the period of KJV dominance had no problems with language that people today think of as vulgar, likely because they were mature enough to accept the realities of bodily life, and did not mind being taught such matters by holy scripture. Many today need to be reminded that they're not really as glamorous as they have come to think they are due to modern influences of sports-figures, hollywood or liberals.
This language is likely also meant to remind us that the future estate of God's people is that of a vast superiority of the body, as well as the soul & spirit. Indeed, in that estate our bodies will have an ultimate redeemed nature in that we'll be sinless and eternal, and, though never divine, will be in nature like Christ Himself since we shall see Him as He is in His divine glory (1 Jn.3:2), the glory that would destroy a sinner standing in His presence, which will happen on the judgment day. In the case of God's people, all will have bodies no longer subject to the laws of nature since in our resurrected form, we will be like Him, and after His resurrection He appeared to his disciples out of nowhere, as if He were a spirit, yet He could be handled and could eat like anyone who has flesh and bones (Luke 24:36-43).
It's truly-vulgar people of modern times who create problem language departing from proper English, and this takes a form that is increasingly degenerate and unsuited for the text of holy scripture. This writer has illustrated the superiority of 1769 scriptural language to make the point that an English-speaking nation that is actually Christian, and awakens to the loss of the best scriptural language, would be obedient to God and bring the language back to its state in 1769. Such a nation would teach this language in all schools in order to be obedient to God, but nations today just pursue what people prefer according to their natural bent, insisting that all language, even that of holy scripture, must conform to a steady downward spiral that so clearly marks the modern age, and is preferred by so many people today.