Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

genuineoriginal

New member
(Previous)

First post in Round 4

Unofficial analysis of brandplucked's response to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy's third round questions.

Your results may vary.


BWQ1, “Is God able to produce a robust message that could remain effective even as reproduced by mere men (i.e., without the need for divine intervention)?”. That question requires a yes or no answer, and any clarification would be happily considered. If the answer is No, then God would have to provide miracles on demand (an idea which disgusted Jesus, as we explain for anyone who Googles: miracle dynamics).”
- answer: Whatchu talkin' bout, Willis? There are many "printer" errors in the KJV
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

BWQ19: “Will Kinney, will you dispel the myth believed among many KJO advocates that the KJB was only being perfected from 1611 to 1769, by affirming that in reality, there are many instances where the text incorporated additional errors?”
- answer: "Printer" errors don't count
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

BWQ20: “Will Kinney, will you take our offer and specifically identify two or three King James Bibles, by publisher and year, that meets your standard? And if you do, we will specifically identify a Bible currently available that meets the standard that we’ve been proclaiming.”
- answer: Cambridge KJV Bible that can't get a date
Points go to brandplucked

BWQ21: “Will Kinney, you have been referring to the complete, perfect and inerrant word of God. Is the 1769 Oxford edition complete?”
- answer: Cambridge has better printers than Oxford
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

BWQ22: “Will Kinney, how did you come to the conclusion that it was the Cambridge edition of the KJB, and not the Oxford, London or Edinburgh editions, for example, that are free of error?”
- answer: "the Hebrew texts that underlie the King James Bible the Cambridge editions seem to be the most consistent"
Points go to Bob Enyart & Will Duffy

BWQ23: “Will Kinney, like Bibles published in England in the 16th and 17th centuries, did the printed 1611 King James Bible say anywhere on it that it had the designation of being “Authorized”?”
- answer: "No. So what?"
Points go to brandplucked

tally for first half of the fourth round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 4
brandplucked - 2

Running total at middle of fourth round:
Bob Enyart & Will Duffy - 22
brandplucked - 15

Your results may vary.
_____
Note, since the questions and answers only comprise part of the debate posts, the scores given for questions and answers does not necessarily indicate who is ahead in the debate.
The opening statements of the posts will be given points in a wrap up analysis of the entire debate where I will announce my opinion on who won the debate and why they won.
_____


(Next)
 
Last edited:

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Just a few things:
I agree that 'You (thou) shall not kill' is a correct translation of the original Hebrew in the 10 commandments.

I used to think that it must be murder and not kill because kill has a wide variety of meanings such as killing animals, killing in war, etc., which are clearly not wrong.

However, I corrected myself at an early point over this because our job as translators is to translate what is there, not to import our presuppositions into the translation.

But the explanation of the apparent discrepancy is easily resolved: The 10 commandments, like everything in the Bible, is to be understood contextually. For example, one could consider the fact that these commandments are addressed in the second person singular, thus implying that they are to be understood in the arena of personal relationships. And if you want a definition of murder, it is killing that is unlawful. In that case, the translation 'You shall not murder' would mean that the text of the Bible was circular, which it of course isn't.

But all the above is just background. What I find amazing is when Will Kinney says,

The Hebrew word 'harag' # 2026, is translated by all these versions as both to kill and to murder, showing them to be synonymous terms. Notice these few examples of the many that could be given.
because he is effectively using these other translations, which he himself considers to be unspiritual, lacking in inspiration and authority, as his authority to prove that the KJB is not wrong. This must surely be viewed as not only an own goal in the debate in question but a resignation from the entire match. An utter capitulation, an abandonment of KJVOnlyism.

But he is also confusing the Hebrew text. Since the word 'harag' is not used in the 10 commandments. It is a different word 'lo tirtzach' (You shall not kill). So even though I agree with the result that kill is the right translation, his argument in support of this is completely false. (Yet another charlatan who does not even have schoolboy French and thinks he can run with native speakers... and by the way, I am not afraid of accusing him over this because I am only imitating his own ad hominem method of attack he used against Shasta, accusing him of using schoolboy Greek, even though Shasta was perfectly correct and had researched the subject well.) It seems to me rather that he needs to compare translations because he has no ability to deal with the root Hebrew through pure lack of knowledge of any Hebrew! Now, I would not make a debate point purely out of the fact of a person's ignorance of some other language or field of expertise but WK does seem to have boxed himself in here: either he acknowledges the other translations as an authority (which seems to be his preferred alternative) or he has to admit that a knowledge of the original languages is necessary as a criterion to evaluate the divine inspiration of the KJB. And as he well knows, this would open him up to a whole new area of critique which he cannot defend.

In this context, notice how he is extremely careful when dealing with the original language texts:

The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts that make up the King James Bible have never changed. Not a single word. And now we have better and improved means to print our Bibles and so hardly any of these printing errors are going to slip through.
And this is coming from a man who continually says to his critics 'Show me this 'original Greek', show me this 'original Hebrew'!'

He can't say 'The [unqualified] underlying Hebrew and Greek texts'. But he must add 'that make up the King James Bible'. So not only is his entire argument circular, but he is unable to show us any version of the Bible which is free of error. He claims that you can pick up an inerrant Bible from any bookshop, but then wait - there may be printing errors in it! Yeah, right on, I get you Will! But let's not worry, people, because these days, there are fewer printing errors due to better technology! Is this an admission that there never was and still does not exist anywhere this 100% infallible version of the Bible at our disposal? Will, do you think anyone cares a pig's ear whether an error is due to the translator or the printer? You have admitted here that there is no such thing as a 100% inerrant Bible! Case closed right there in my view.


BWQ23: “Will Kinney, like Bibles published in England in the 16th and 17th centuries, did the printed 1611 King James Bible say anywhere on it that it had the designation of being “Authorized”?”
- answer: "No. So what?"
Points go to brandplucked

I don't understand your logic here. Surely the obvious point, which, by answering 'no', Will Kinney has conceded, is that the KJB does not, nor ever did have the authority it was supposed to have, that the church leaders and the monarch himself had less confidence in this work than in the Bishops Bible that preceded it and that therefore Will Kinney and the KJVO camp are attributing more authority to it than even its own promoters did. It may not be the most important issue in the debate, but it is an issue that BE/WD have raised and that they have won. Points to them.
 
Last edited:

brandplucked

New member
Shasta's Santa Claus "bible"

Shasta's Santa Claus "bible"

That is at least something we can discuss. There is a big difference between saying the KJB is the better or even best translation and saying it is the ONLY inerrant translation in the English language. We should not make any translation equal to the words God-breathed in the Greek language of the NT.

Uh...Shasta, care to share with the rest of us a copy of this alluded to, mystical and non-existent "the words God-breathed in the Greek language of the NT."

Still hanging on to that Santa Clause "bible" of yours, I see.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
It is not possible to rightfully accuse Mr. Kinney of capitulation based on his right to point to disagreements in the opposition's testimony. The fact that many other translations disagree with each other is a valid point of defense.

If 3 people accuse Johnny of stealing 1 chocolate bar and they each give differing testimony, the testimony is basically worthless. In this case the testimony to disagreement is in the form of translations which exist.

The opposition, of course, would love to deny him this ability but it is, nevertheless, a legitimate form of reasoning to point out the discord that exists in the various translations used by the opposition.
 

Shasta

Well-known member
Uh...Shasta, care to share with the rest of us a copy of this alluded to, mystical and non-existent "the words God-breathed in the Greek language of the NT."

Still hanging on to that Santa Clause "bible" of yours, I see.

One day Santa's helpers brought a brand new translation to the King. It was later claimed that even though it was derived from Hebrew and Greek sources it was even more reliable than them because those texts were mystical or even non-existent. Nevertheless the Bible taken from these "ghost texts" would be the infallible Word of God in English that would supersede all other versions in accuracy and clarity. It would even said (much later) that this translation was inerrant. But wonder of wonders the original KJB turned out not to be perfect, so it had to be taken back to Santa's workshop and fixed...a few times.

If God's hand was so much in the production of the KJB why God had to be given several chances to make it perfect? Did the prophets have to re-write God's words? Did John have to revise his revelation? I do not think so, but the KJB which is known by secret gnosis to be inerrant had to be.

I wrote this like a story because that is what the tale of how we got the inerrant KJB is, an extra-Biblical narrative, a myth which has is known through divine revelation. Because of this, it must be received by faith. If you thought (based upon comparisons to the underlying texts) that it is merely the best translation it would be easier to discuss it for then there would be an objective criteria we could agree on. When it is a matter of revelation it becomes a contest between those who have "gnosis" and those who do not, the spiritual against the carnal precisely as you have said.

The King James Translation is only as reliable as the texts it is derived from. If we cannot consult them and find (or confirm) the Truth then we cannot find it in a derivative translation either. When I addressed your critiques of the modern versions I made sure to check the Greek Texts in the Receptus and in the Majority Text. Despite what you say I think you understand that these still exist and that they are, in fact, the same texts used by the translator's of the KJB. At least, if you do not believe it, then you have never said so. As it happened in all the verses I addressed the wording of all the Greek texts were identical.

You approach, on the other hand, was to amass English translations as proof, I suppose to convey the idea that "all those authorities cannot be wrong." However, I could have amassed other translations too as well as well as the writings of commentators. However, my purpose was to examine the underlying Greek text to show instances where the KJB contained mistranlations which led to alterations in the original meaning of those texts. Because of your rigid devotion to one translation you accepted these mutations as authentic. However, if there are any mistakes in the KJB whatsoever then your belief about its infallibility will be shown to be false. As I have said before, your doctrine is fortified in a glass house.
 

Desert Reign

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
It is not possible to rightfully accuse Mr. Kinney of capitulation based on his right to point to disagreements in the opposition's testimony. The fact that many other translations disagree with each other is a valid point of defense.

If 3 people accuse Johnny of stealing 1 chocolate bar and they each give differing testimony, the testimony is basically worthless. In this case the testimony to disagreement is in the form of translations which exist.

The opposition, of course, would love to deny him this ability but it is, nevertheless, a legitimate form of reasoning to point out the discord that exists in the various translations used by the opposition.

You misunderstood his point.
 

George Affleck

TOL Subscriber
Ok. What about the Hebrew?

The etymology of yam suph is not certain. Suph could be derived from suphah meaning storm wind. If this is the case, it was the strong wind of the Lord that originated the name. All English speaking people refer to yam suph as the Red Sea. The KJV is a translation for English speaking people.


The KJB says to do it. Did you read the opening posts in the debate? You shall commit adultery.

Printing error. We call this a "typo" and forgive it when corrected. You should do the same.

"His Majesties Printers, at or about this time, had committed a scandalous mistake in our English Bibles, by leaving out the word Not in the Seventh Commandment. His Majesty being made acquainted with it by the Bishop of London, Order was given for calling the Printers into the High-Commission, whereupon Evidence of the Fact, the whole Impression was called in, and the Printers deeply fined, as they justly merited."
 

Right Divider

Body part
It is not possible to rightfully accuse Mr. Kinney of capitulation based on his right to point to disagreements in the opposition's testimony. The fact that many other translations disagree with each other is a valid point of defense.

If 3 people accuse Johnny of stealing 1 chocolate bar and they each give differing testimony, the testimony is basically worthless. In this case the testimony to disagreement is in the form of translations which exist.

The opposition, of course, would love to deny him this ability but it is, nevertheless, a legitimate form of reasoning to point out the discord that exists in the various translations used by the opposition.
That is simply not true. Differing testimony is completely normal. It is contradictory testimony that is a problem.
 

Nick M

Plymouth Colonist
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The etymology of yam suph is not certain.

And the Miami player might not have been down. Sea of reeds into Red Sea was in fact, a mistake.

Suph could be derived from suphah meaning storm wind.

Only because you want it to be that way.

Printing error. We call this a "typo" and forgive it when corrected. You should do the same.

So then it was not divine and made the same mistakes as anybody else who wasn't actually named Moses, Isaiah, Daniel....
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Will Kinney,

Do you think the KJV could possibly be improved upon for English speaking folks?
 

brandplucked

New member
Can we improve the KJB?

Can we improve the KJB?

Will Kinney,

Do you think the KJV could possibly be improved upon for English speaking folks?

Hi Tambora. This is a good question. I don't always follow along in the Grandstands posts so I don't always know what others are saying or asking about the debate.

But I did happen to see this question and I think it is a good one.
I used to think that maybe we should "update" a few of the more "archaic" words or ones that people may not be familiar with. Words like "let" (when it means "to hinder) or "conversation" (when it means "manner of life") but I no longer see it this way.

Here is why. First, when the Bible critics complain about the handful of words that they think need to be updated, they themselves already know what these words mean. So obviously a new meaning of a word can be learned.

I think the main reason they think the King James Bible should be "updated and modernized" is because they themselves really don't believe there IS such a thing as an inerrant Bible - in ANY language - including their never identified "the" Greek and Hebrew.

If a person really believes that God is still alive and He works in time and history, and that He really has given us an inerrant Bible, then I don't want to be the one who attempts to "change", alter or "correct" this Book.

All bible translations like the NIV, NKJV, NASB, ESV, etc. have lots of words in them that most high school students do not know the meaning of. I will show you a list from the NIV and the NKJV.

If you go into any field of study, music, art, science, medicine, automobile maintenance, forestry, animal husbandry, or just about any thing, you are going to need to learn the meaning of some unfamiliar words.

We shouldn't expect these fields of knowledge to "dumb down" their vocabulary because we don't know what the words mean. We are expected to learn something we did not know before. This is called education.

Lots of words in the King James Bible that some people think are "archaic" are not. They are perfectly good and accurate English words. We have just been dumbed down as a society.

Some people complain about the use of all those pronouns like "Thou", thee, thy, thine, and "ye", but the fact is, these have very distinct and specific meanings that are also seen in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.

Most people today do not know this. Do you know the difference between "thou" and "ye"? It is really quite simple. If a word starts with a "t", like "thou, thee, thy" then it is the singular you. God is speaking to one individual. But if we see the words that start with a "y", like "ye", your, and "you", then it is the plural form of "you" and He is speaking to more than one person.

We see this in hundreds of verses in the KJB and it often makes a big difference in meaning. These "archaic" forms are far more accurate than the generic "you".

"thou" is the subject. "thee" is the direct or indirect object and "thy" or "thine" is the possessive form. It is impossible to have a really accurate translation in English without using these words.

Most foreign languages like Spanish, French, Italian, Russian etc. have ways of distinguishing between "you" singular and "you" plural. The only way we can do this in English is through the use of "thou" and "ye". So I most definitely would not change these words at all.

Here is more on the difference between "thou" and "ye"

Why all those "thee"s and "ye"s are more accurate.

http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/theeandye.htm

It makes a HUGE difference in how one looks at and what a person really believes about The Bible. Most Christians today do NOT really believe that any Bible in any language (including the never identified "the" Greek and Hebrew) really is the complete and inerrant words of God. They don't. And this is an easily proven fact.

Just ask most Christians, and especially the leaders of churches, if they really believe the Bible is the inerrant words of God or not. Most will give the knee jerk response of "Well, Yes, of course I do." But when you begin to question them about different verses, or texts or words and meanings, the vast majority will then begin to backtrack and give us the same old song and dance routine about "only the originals are/were inspired and inerrant".

They really don't believe there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible NOW.

I and many thousands of other blood bought, redeemed children of God DO believe God has worked in time and history to give us a real Book, in print between two covers that we can hold in our hands, read and believe every word is the inspired and inerrant words of the living God, and I would not change a single word of it.

So much or our attitude and approach to the King James Bible depends on what we really believe about it. If I honestly believe that I hold in my hands the inspired, complete and infallible words of the living God, then I would not want to take it upon myself to change it in any way.

If it has words in it that I am unfamiliar with, then I will want to simply learn the meaning of those words. And it really is not that hard to do.

It is far easier to learn the meanings of 10 or 20 English words that I may not be familiar with, than it would be to try to learn two completely new and "archaic" languages like biblical Hebrew and Greek (those forms are not spoken today in Israel or Greece)

And not one of today's Bible critics or "modern version" promoters will EVER come right out and tell you WHICH "the" Greek and Hebrew (they all believe the Hebrew texts are wrong in many places) you should be learning anyway. Why? Because they don't really believe that either "the" Greek or the Hebrew are God's inerrant words either. They will never show you a copy of what any of them really believes IS the complete and inerrant words of God.

So, to simply answer your question, NO, I would not change a single word of the English text of the King James Bible.

Here are those Vocabulary Tests you can try that are taken from the NIV and the NKJV. See how many you really know the definition of, even with the "helpful hints" I give for the NKJV.

There is much more to my article that just the Vocabulary Test. You might want to read the rest of it too for more of an explanation.

God bless.


The "Old fashioned language" of the King James Bible -

"Archaic and Inerrant" beats "Modernized and Wrong" Any Day of the Week
http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/archaickjbship.htm

The "easy to read NIV" Vocabulary Test


abashed, abominable, abutted, acclaim, adder, adhere, admonishing, advocate, alcove, algum, allocate, allots, ally, aloes, appease, ardent, armlets, arrayed, astir, atonement, awl, banishment, battlements, behemoth, belial, bereaves, betrothed, bier, blighted, booty, brayed, breaching, breakers, buffeted, burnished, calamus, capital (not a city), carnelian, carrion, centurions, chasm, chronic, chrysolite, cistern, citadel, citron, clefts, cohorts, colonnades, complacency, coney, concession, congealed, conjure, contrite, convocations, crest, cors, curds, dandled, dappled, debauchery, decimated, deluged, denarii, depose, derides, despoil, dire, dispossess, disrepute, dissipation, distill, dissuade, divination, dragnet, dropsy, duplicity, earthenware, ebbed, ebony, emasculate, emission, encroach, enmity, enthralled, entreaty, ephod, epicurean, ewe, excrement, exodus, factions, felled, festal, fettered, figurehead, filigree, flagstaff, fomenting, forded, fowler, gadfly, galled, gird, gauntness, gecko, gloating, goiim, harrowing, haunt, hearld, henna, homers, hoopoe, ignoble, impaled, implore, incur, indignant, insatiable, insolence, intact, invoked, jambs, joists, jowls, lairs, lamentation, leviathan, libations, loins, magi, manifold, maritime, mattocks, maxims, mina, misdemeanor, mother-of-pearl, mustering, myrtles, naive, naught, Negev, Nephilim, nettles, nocturnal, nomad, notorious, Nubians, oblivion, obsolete, odious, offal, omer, oracles, overweening, parapet, parchments, pavilion, peals (noun, not the verb), perjurers, perpetuate, pestilence, pinions, phylacteries, plumage, pomp, porphyry, portent, potsherd, proconsul, propriety, poultice, Praetorium, pretext, profligate, promiscuity, provincial, providence, qualm, quarries, quivers (noun, not verb), ramparts, ransacked, ratified, ravish, rabble, rawboned, relish (not for hot dogs), recoils, recount, refrain, relent, rend, reposes, reprimanded, reputed, retinue, retorted, retribution, rifts, roebucks, rue, sachet, satraps, sated, shipwrights, siegeworks, sinews, sistrums, sledges, smelted, somber, soothsayer, sovereignty, spelt, stadia, stench, stipulation, sullen, tamarisk, tanner, temperate, tether, tetrarch, terebinth, thresher, throes, thronged, tiaras, tinder, tracts, transcends, tresses, turbulent, tyrannical, unscathed, unrelenting, usury, vassal, vaunts, vehemently, verdant, vexed, wadi, wanton, warranted, wield, winnowing and wrenched.

There are many cases where the NIV uses a harder word than the KJB. Compare the following: The NIV has “abasement” in Ezra 9:5 whereas the KJB has “heaviness.” Isaiah 24:23: “abashed” (NIV) = “confounded” (KJB). Ezekiel 40:18: “abutted” (NIV) = “over against” (KJB). 2 Chronicles 15:14: “acclamation” (NIV) = “voice” (KJB). Isaiah 13:8: “aghast” (NIV) = “amazed” (KJB) Psalm 107:5 "ebbed away" (NIV) = "fainted" (KJB). A personal favorite is “squall” (NIV) instead of “storm” (KJB) in Mark 4:37.

It is funny that I can put together the phrase from the KJB which says; "The very sad green giant was hungry” and in the NIV it would be: “The overweening dejected verdant Nephilim was famished."

Well, how about the New KJV? Can you pass this vocabulary test even with a few of my "helpful hints"? Let's see.



The vocabulary of the New King James Version, along with some "helpful hints".

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling, buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede), burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city), carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion (not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money), commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede , compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed, contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers (not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill), cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses (not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up), dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower), docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut), envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal, fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head), filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller (not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool), immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?), jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden, lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug), moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff), omnipotent, onager (Job 39:5 - you won't believe this one!) oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet(not a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot), pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray), prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck), ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled (does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute ( does not have to do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks, sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer, spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield, winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.
 

JonahofAkron

New member
Brandplucked, while I agree that using the remnants of the systematic English language can provide clarity for those that understand, I see a large portion of youth struggling with that meaning in a way that could hinder growth. We are four centuries removed. That's a lot.
 
Top