The Foursquare Blog

I had little interest in the King James Version until I understood some of the following points. It was only then that the peculiarities started to make sense to me, and even started to be useful. The light first started to dawn when I read Berend de Boer's article on the King James Version.

So for those who are interested, here is a list of helpful facts that I have learned over time, which may be enlightening to the new reader.

• Thee, Thy, Thou, Thine - These are the singular forms of personal pronouns. For example, if I were talking directly to my friend, in modern English I might say: "I think I have your magazine." But in reality, I am only talking to one person, so the use of your is somewhat ambiguous. I could be more specific by saying: "I think I have thy magazine." This extra care to separate singular pronouns from plural is important, because the original languages that the Bible is translated from have these same distinctions.

• Ye, Your, You - These are the plural forms of the same pronouns. If I were talking to an angry mob outside my barn, I might say: "I am hoarding my grain, and you can't have any!" In modern English, it is unclear whether I am talking to a single person or a mob. But in King James English, it is obvious I am talking to a group, because you is plural.

• Thy, Thine, and My, Mine - When used in connection with another noun to show possessive, these are similar to the articles a and an. For example: "a tree" and "an apple." You will often see things like: "thy land" or "thine eye"; or "my land" and "mine eye." This rule doesn't always hold true, such as in Genesis 16:11 where you read "thy affliction." But it mostly holds, and gives the wording a more flowing rhythm when read out loud.

Here's a brief summary of the above pronouns, and how they relate to each other. You can see another table on Wikipedia.

• -eth, -est - In modern English, when using a singular pronoun, the verb will end with an s to match in number. For example, "He receives the payment daily" vs. "They receive the payment daily." In KJV English, there are now two forms of singular pronouns: Second Person and Third Person. Modern English only has Singular Third Person. So in KJV English, the endings of the verb now also must match the person of the subject. For example, instead of the modern style of "He speaks loudly," the KJV would say "He speaketh loudly" in order to match the third person. But if I were speaking directly to the man, using the singular second person, I would say: "Thou speakest loudly." This holds true for many verbs that are used in connection with "Thou." For example, "Thou art," or "Thou hast" or "Thou receivest," or in the past tense "Thou receivedst." These all end with a t or st, because they are being used with the subject Thou. Likewise, when used with singular third person pronouns, you will see examples like: "He is," or "He hath," or "He receiveth," or the past tense: "He received."

• Imperitive commands - In modern English, I could give you a command by saying, "Go into the store and buy me a loaf of bread." The subject you is implied, and not written. This is the case in KJV as well, but sometimes you will see a pronoun right after the verb, similar to the "buy me" above. For example, "Go thou into the store and buy me a loaf of bread."

• Punctuation - Pay special attention to punctuation in the KJV. Sentences tend to be longer in KJV than other translations, and the punctuation is more important than the verse markers. Much more important, since a single sentence, and therefore a complete thought, often spans multiple verses. Also, take note that the colon is used liberally in the KJV, not in the usual way that we are accustomed to today, to present a list of items, but very often to explain the section that came before. For an example of colon usage, read the 10 Commandments in Exodus 20 and pay special note to how the sections before and after the colons explain each other. In my reading and understanding, I have also found that the colon seems to take precedence over the comma and semicolon. For example, see verses 4, 5, and 6 of Exodus 20, where the final section of the sentence comes after the second colon and contains a semicolon of its own. There appear to be 3 main parts to the sentence: The details of forbidden graven images: the forbidden action with regard to graven images: and the reason why, which contains the two ways God treats those that love and hate Him.

• Extra words - Where the translators were unable to translate exactly word for word, or even word-into-many-words, sometimes an extra word needed to be inserted to retain the meaning in English. When this happened, the words are normally printed in italics, or sometimes put in square brackets. These words are not strictly in the original text, but can be faithfully implied by the context. In many cases, it is possible to read the sentence without the inserted word, and it still makes sense and has the same meaning.

You may wonder why so many pains were taken to translate so precisely. It depends on your view of God. If you believe that God's words are precise, and that every word and connotation and implication has meaning, then the more precise the translation, the more meaning you can gather from God's words.

I believe this was Jesus's perspective. (Matthew 4:4, and 5:18)

Yet even with this high level of care, it is hard to translate everything from the original texts into English. Take for example Numbers 25:

	1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit
	whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
   
	2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods:
	and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
	   Numbers 25

According to Nelson's King James Study Bible, the gender of the word they in verse 2 is feminine, although it is not possible to distinguish that from the English they. This gender implies that it was the women of Moab that lured the Israelites toward other gods. This is also clear from the context, but sometimes it takes an alert mind to see it, or (more likely) a helpful footnote.

Other translations, such as the NIV, may change the sentence structure in order to bring such points out more clearly in everyday English. And indeed, this is done in this passage. This is very useful. But in changing the sentence structure, sometimes the precise wording of the original is lost, and logical connections between passages are harder to see.

For example, the KJV may translate certain phrases directly, like "sons of Belial," while the NIV might translate the same phrase as "wicked men." Knowing both is helpful to understand what the phrase means, but seeing the KJV translation also allows you to make connections to Old Testament examples when reading Paul's question in 2 Corinthians 6:15: "And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" Suddenly now you have a few Old Testament examples to think back on.

In the end, it is helpful to compare multiple translations whenever you run into a difficult passage.

Now for some specific word differences:

• Meat and Flesh - In KJV English, the word meat is used to mean food in general. It can mean grain, bread, fruit, etc. If speaking specifically about the meat of an animal, the word flesh will be used. For example, in Leviticus, there is a particular offering described, where no flesh is given, but just grain in a certain prescribed manner. This is called a "meat offering" in the KJV, but does not actually contain any flesh. Also, you may read things like "when you sit down to meat," which is referring to sitting down to eat a meal.

• That and What - The KJV uses the word that rather heavily, compared to modern English. Many places we might use the words what, or which or even who where the KJV uses that. This can be confusing until you get used to it.

• Would and Want To - The KJV uses the older meaning of the word would which means want to, intend to, desire to, etc. The clearest example of this is to compare Romans 7 with the KJV and the NIV.

Here's the NIV:

	19 For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil
	I do not want to do -- this I keep on doing.
   
	20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I
	who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
	   Romans 7 (NIV)

Here's the KJV, which shows the older usage of both the words would and that:

	19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I
	would not, that I do.
   
	20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it,
	but sin that dwelleth in me.
	   Romans 7 (KJV)

• Wherefore and Why - The KJV often uses wherefore where we would use why. In almost all cases that wherefore is used as a question, you can read why instead. (For example, Genesis 26:27: "And Isaac said unto them, Wherefore come ye to me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you?") In other cases, such as in explanations, it is similar to therefore but with a more explanatory connotation.

• Conversation - Note that this word is very often used with the old meaning of "conduct or behaviour," not as two people talking. For example, 1 Timothy 4:12: "Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity." Here, "word" covers the speaking, and "conversation" covers the behaviour, that Timothy was to show as an example.

I hope this HowTo has been of help. Just writing it down has been a learning experience for me! If you have any questions, please feel free to email me, and perhaps I can update this document at a future date.

Edit #1: - added "conversation" section

Except for an odd illness. Strangely, the people of this town tended to get severe lung illnesses, which would kill them within 12 to 18 months. Nobody knew why the number of cases were higher there, or what caused the illness.

Then one day a doctor, about 50 years old, came to town and started to investigate. He studied the evidence. He compared it to known diseases. He figured out why tuberculosis treatments weren't working.

The answer? It was the land and the rock itself. There was a mineral in the rock that, when inhaled, became worse than asbestos. The only solution was to leave town.

At such news, the housing prices took a bit of a hit. Tourism started to decline a little as it became known as a 'cancer town'. Some people didn't believe him, and wanted him to go away. Why let him affect their livelihoods with his theories?

Thirty years passed by, and the rates of illness remained as high as they ever were. Some people wanted to leave, but they were poor, and believed that they were trapped by economic circumstances.

What if you were stuck in such a town? Would you leave everything and start fresh, without any money or home, in a new town, based on one doctor's evidence? Would you wait 30 years, and raise a family first, and hope that perhaps a government program would come along to help?

I don't know what I'd do, but in retrospect, it would seem like a tragedy if there were people who got sick needlessly just because they felt trapped.

As you might have guessed, this is a true story. I heard it on CBC radio on my way home from work. What a story: good and bad news all wrapped into one. Finally, the answer why people were dying, but that answer basically took away everything they had. And such consequences for disbelief.

You can read more about this town here.

The Bible is right when it tells us to "Prove all things" (1 Thes. 5:21). I'm sure the doctor would have been happy to show people the scientific evidence and prove that it really was the rock dust that was killing them. According to the CBC radio report, he's in his 80's now, and he's still trying to get people to move and leave the town deserted.