Is the KJB really out of date?

[bibleprotector]

IS IT SUPERSTITION TO KEEP THE “-ETH” ENDINGS?

It seems like superstition to those who do not know how intricate and exact Bible English really is. Unless one accepts and sees that it is final, rather than have all sorts of thoughts as to its "old fashioned" (perhaps even "inappropriate") "obscurities", then one will not really be fixed in their heart as to the fixedness of the Bible as it is.

The truth is that updated language will not make the King James Bible more acceptable, certainly not more acceptable to God, and neither to the spirit of antichrist who wants more changes/confusion.

If it is God's Word, God's Spirit will give the understanding of it, even to the simple. It is not a stumblingblock to have a hard and dark Word, because the Spirit of Truth is present to bring illumination.

Even Edward Hills realised that if the King James Bible were "updated" for supposed changes in the language, the same update would be equally out of date when further supposed changes occurred. The reality is that there is a fixed, unaltering core English language which is always existing now throughout the world, which is always going to be conversent with the Bible English. Therefore, there is no reason to ever change the King James Bible as it now is.

Moreover, just as it has been shown that there are seven major English Bibles, so are there seven major editions of the King James Bible. This accords with the prophecy of Psalm 12, which shows that the Word would undergo a process of seven purifications. This has happened within the internal history of the King James Bible. We have the Pure Cambridge Edition. That is "very pure". There is no need, nor precedent for an eight working, because, God has been able to get it right already, despite darkness, deception and ignorance.

IS THE KING JAMES BIBLE REALLY IN THE "COMMON" (EVERY DAY) LANGUAGE OF 1611?

"God forbid" or "God speed" are not "English additions", these wordings are the sense for sense portrayal of the originals, and therefore the correct English terminology in the presentation of God's exact message in English.

Some seem to think that the King James Bible is just religious form of Shakespearian or Elizabethan English. Nothing could be further from the facts. The style, grammar, vocabulary and rhythms are vastly different to anything else to be found in historical English literature. The Bible did not follow conventions, that is to say, was not merely the "common language on the street", but was the high form: it created the trends, it was the touchstone, it was Biblical English, pure, undefiled and unmixed.

It is a mistake to think that "common" or the old meaning of "vulgar" means that it should be on the lowest common denominator. It is incorrect. Bible English is conversant to all forms of English "dialects" spoken today, in that there is one English language, and that the King James Bible is comprehensible to anyone, but for their heart being open to the Spirit of God.

When the translators made a comment about the market-place, they were not meaning gutter talk or small talk of stall holders or something, they were talking about the public accessibility. There is a vast difference between "market-place language" and "market-place accessibility". English is the world's market-place language, but the King James Bible is (via the internet) in full market-place accessibility.

"Therefore the word of God being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house; or like a proclamation sounded forth in the market-place, which most men presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the Gospel to appeal unto for witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by."

To attempt to argue that the King James Bible is not "today's language" is both unfactual and not backed up by the own translators' words.