Jeff wrote:
It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went
out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known Middle
English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer.

In what English is the King James version of the
Bible written?
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Jeff wrote:
It is highly unlikely that Newton would have known Old English which went
out of use in the 12th Century, he probably would not have even known
Middle
English, unless he was a avid reader of Chaucer.

In what English is the King James version of the
Bible written?

If you can understand it, it's Modern English.
Here's an example of Anglo Saxon English (Olde English for
Art): "Se halige Andreas him to cwaeth: 'Thine stefne ic gehiere, ac
ic ne wat hwaer thu art.'" Since Art knows "Olde English" he can
translate it for you.
Here's an example of Middle English from Robert Manning of Brunne's,
_Handlyng Synne_: "Ther were twey men of holy wyl That levyd togedyr
withouten yl, Alone in an ermytage, And as meke as bryd in kage; The
toon men call Eutycyus, The touther hyght Florentius."
(In both examples I substituted 'th' for the old thorn character.)
Hope this helps.
73,
Tom Donaly, KA6RUH

Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:43:23 -0500, Cecil Moore
wrote:

I have re-translated "The Bible".

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

If you write like you are stoned, does that make you an adulterer?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?


No!

King's (Queen's) English is used to describe 'correct' English, as opposed
to slang or poor grammar etc..

The English in the King James Bible is correctly described as Early Modern
(or Renaissance) English.

73
Jeff

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer
is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as
slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him
drunk and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer is
anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as
slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him drunk
and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?
B

Brian Oakley wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an
adulterer is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take
the women as slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters
to get him drunk and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
Brian Oakley wrote:

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...

Many adulterers are stoned already...

Of course it is a little difficult to figure out just what an adulterer
is anyhow. If you raid a neighboring village, you can take the women as
slaves and wives, somehow it was okay for Job's daughters to get him
drunk and boink him. Go figure...

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Just what makes you think its supposed to be ok?


It wasn't exactly condemned now was it?

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Uh, if you read closely, thats a narrative of what took place. Life
happens, good and bad. This is what the Bible is about, the good, the bad,
and the ugly. It has nothing to hide about people and they wrong they do. If
God doesnt jump in and throw down a thunderbolt or two, you think that means
He thinks its ok? Im sorry, but you really dont understand much about God
or the Bible by showing that kind of thinking. Surely youre not that naive.
I think youre just biased, which is ok, but at least admit it.
B

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Tom Donaly wrote:
If you can understand it, it's Modern English.

Well, I've never been able to understand "The Bible"
so it must not be Modern English. :-) I've heard
that particular English called the "King's English".
Is that an accurate description?

I have re-translated "The Bible". It starts out:
"In the beginning, God created the Big Bang, which
caused time to stand relatively still because all
particles were moving at nearly the speed of light."

Off-topic question: Should we stone adulterers or
not? :-)
--
73, Cecil, IEEE, OOTC, http://www.w5dxp.com

You can't translate something you don't read or understand. The media often
does something like that, it is called "commentary" or roughly translated:
"subterfuge", "lying" or "manipulation" depending on the intent.

BTW look to John Chapter 8. Seemingly the law is clear but condemnation
isn't required.