|
Post by beverlya on Oct 6, 2011 15:27:51 GMT -5
I forgot to add this. Bro. Sam Gipp has written a high school curriculum about the King James Bible. It is in workbook style and is written for 11th and 12th grade, but could be used with younger high school grades as well and adult studies if you are just learning about the KJV. www.daystarpublishing.org/students-defense/There is a sample you can download.
|
|
|
Post by rachel on Oct 9, 2011 6:36:31 GMT -5
Of course, bro. Ben, I realise this. But I have a fascination with languages and I find I pay more attention to what I'm reading when I'm translating it.
Although, I don't doubt that the KJV is an exceedingly accurate translation - the process used to translate was painstaking and there were something in the vacinity of 50 scholars translating each passage before they chose the most accurate translation.
It's interesting what people are saying about the KJV being written for the people; part of what King James said when he was commissioning the people to translate the Bible was that he wanted it 'in language which could be understood by even the vulgar', meaning that he wanted EVERYONE to be able to read it, not just scholars.
As to my use of more archaic vocabulary (I just noticed that the word 'archaic' in itself could be considered this!), I think it has more to do with the fact that quite a few of my relatives do speak this way as their ordinary speech! It's interesting to note that some classes of English society have hung onto these odd words and turns of phrase that the rest of us would find more than slightly odd and old.
Apart from that, I agree, I've also read a lot of older literature. I was told I had 'exceptionally high reading comprehension skills' in primary school because I read 'Oliver Twist' and then sat a quiz on the content and got a perfect score! I was about 8 or 9 at the time. One of my favourite books is 'Children of the New Forest' which was written in the 19th century, and uses language very similar to that of the KJV, aside from the fact that it's set in 1647.
Anyway, I seem to have veered vastly off-track here. I seem to missay something every time I speak as what I said seems to be taken the wrong way quite often. Perhaps I should think through what I say more.
From Rachel.
|
|