What are some English words that have changed in meaning since the translation of the KJV?

To change Old English words whose meaning was formerly different from what it now is. The old word now misleads. For instance, "leasing" (Ps. 4:2, Ps. 5:6) is not gleaning, but "lying;" "discomfit" (Ps. 18:14) for "discomfort." So "prevent" (Ps. 21:3; Ps. 59:10; Ps. 79:8; Ps. 88:13; Ps. 119:147-148) is equivalent to our modern word "anticipate." So Ps. 29:9, "discover" for "uncover, lay bare." So "quick" (Ps. 55:15; Ps. 124:3) is "alive" (and not quickly), etc.

What crowns the character of the present assault is the fact that, in a recent version of the New Testament by a learned and able Unitarian (Mr. S. Sharpe), pr. is habitually, indeed invariably, translated "worship," applied to God, our Lord, and the creature, whether in civil reverence or in religious worship. On the other hand I am not aware of a single orthodox Christian of competent biblical knowledge who would not in the main support the discriminating value given to pr. in J. N. D.'s version as against either the Authorized Version or Mr. Sharpe. We might generally translate proskuneo as "doing homage;" because this would embrace reverence both civil and religious. But it is an error in the present usage of the English language to translate it always as "worship," because in perhaps a majority of its occurrences in the New Testament this is not the true sense. The principle therefore on which Mr. D.'s version goes is undoubtedly sound, whereas the Authorized Version (perhaps through some change in the use of the verb "worship" as compared with its wider bearing two or three hundred years ago) is incorrect. The substantive and adjective are still applied as a title of respect to certain authorities. But the usage of the verb, as it often occurs in the New Testament, is now obsolete.

131 As to "damnation," the English word was used more loosely when the Bible was translated than it is now. In 1 Corinthians 11:29, it is used in contrast with final condemnation. The translators, where one word was used in Greek, took pains to use several in English, and thereby disfigured the sense of many passages, or at least obscured the connection. Thus in John 5 we have "judgment," "condemnation," "damnation," all used for krisis, where "judgment" is the only true translation; but this does not affect the substance of Canon Farrar's assertion. He speaks of the word in its ordinary modern acceptation. "Damnation" is used frequently in the English New Testament for judgment, as in Matthew 23:14; Mark 12:40; Luke 20:47; Romans 3:8; chap. 13:2; 1 Timothy 5:12; and this is the sense of 1 Corinthians 11:29, in contrast with condemnation with the world. Now, even if this "judgment" be everlasting condemnation, still the word means judgment.

None whatever. In the first place the meaning of a word is to be decided not by its derivation but by its use; and the use of the word in Scripture is with the meaning of making satisfaction for sin by enduring the penalty, and therefore expiating, and not with the meaning of reconciling. For instance, the word prevent, according to its derivation, would mean to come before or anticipate. When the Authorized Version was made in 1604 A.D. its use agreed with its derivation, and hence the translators inserted it in Matthew 17:25 and 1 Thessalonians 4:15. Today it is never used in its derived sense but always as meaning to hinder. If we always insist on taking words according to their derivation we shall have some strange misunderstandings before we are done!

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent [shall in no wise anticipate] them which are asleep." If they had remained alive, no difficulty had been felt in the case. Some in our day seem to feel a good deal surprised at such a difficulty as this; but the truth is that the sorrow of the Thessalonians arose from the simplicity of their faith, and men's feeling no difficulty now is partly owing to their lack of any genuine faith in it. Had they more faith, they might have their perplexities too, not at the end, but, as usual, at the beginning. It was certainly so with the Thessalonians at this time. It is always the effect of faith at first. Newly-entered light gives occasion to the perception of much which we cannot solve at once. But God comes in to the aid of the believer, and in His own grace and time solves one difficulty after another. Then the apostle clears it up thus: "We which are alive and remain unto the coming [or presence] of the Lord," etc. The word "coming" means the fact of being present in contrast with absence. "We which are alive and remain unto the presence of the Lord shall not precede them which are asleep." I take the liberty of changing the word "prevent," which is old English, into a phrase which gives the same meaning as "prevent" when the translation was made.

It is very noticeable how Peter refers constantly to our conversation. In his 1st Epistle he tells us we have been redeemed from "vain conversation" (1 Peter 1:18), i.e., religiousness which has its spring in flesh, and its attempted satisfaction in forms. Then he bids us have our "conversation honest among the Gentiles" (1 Peter 2:12). All is to be above board, and fair in our dealings with men of the world. Thereafter he directs the wives to win their unconverted husbands by "chaste conversation" (1 Peter 3:2). Following on this he enjoins on us all that our "good conversation in Christ" (1 Peter 3:16) should put to shame, and silence all false accusers. Coming now to the 2nd Epistle, he holds up Lot as a warning not to mix with the world, as its "filthy conversation" (2 Peter 2:7) vexed him, and must assuredly act similarly on us. In contrast with this he urges, in the verse under contemplation, that which is to mark the child of God, viz., "holy conversation."

In each of these scriptures the word rendered "conversation" is different. The apostle Paul uses (if we ascribe the Epistle to the Hebrews to him) three words which are so rendered in our translation. The apostle Peter employs the same word in each case, and James has the same word, where it is so translated, as Peter. Paul likewise has this word some five or six times in different epistles; in Philippians (chaps. 1:27, 3:20) it is another word altogether, while in Hebrews 13:7 it is the general word; but in verse 5 it is a word found nowhere else (though often used) with this meaning. It should be understood that in no case does "conversation" in Scripture mean talking with another according to its present significance. Generally speaking, it imports mode of life or conduct - as may be at once perceived if the place be examined where it occurs. For example, Paul says, "Among whom also [the children of disobedience] we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh," etc. (Eph. 2:3); that is, that we all had lived in the same manner as the children of disobedience were living. Peter also says, "But as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation" - in all your life and conduct. The word in Philippians is very interesting, and one which (it need hardly be said) is suited to the character of the epistle. "Our conversation is in heaven." This is sometimes explained as commonwealth or citizenship; but neither of these words would seem to convey the thought of the original, as what Paul brings before us is the fact that, though down here upon the earth, he was a heavenly man (as indeed all Christians are), and already lived in heaven. This has led to the suggestion of the word "life-associations," as expressing that all that which concerns the true life of the Christian - his objects and interests - are in heaven, because the Lord Jesus Christ, for whom he is waiting to come from thence as Saviour, is there. In other words, the Christian belongs to heaven, and his affections, if walking in the power of the Spirit, are necessarily there where his treasure (Christ) is; and all the more so, in that he is waiting for the moment when his body of humiliation will be fashioned like the glorified body of Christ, according to the working whereby He is able to subdue all things unto Himself. It is another form of the same word in chap. 1:27; and it will therefore mean, "Conduct yourselves as heavenly men, or as belonging to heaven, as it becometh the gospel of Christ." The careful reader will be much interested in tracing out the various bearings of the word which has occupied our attention.

VII. The archaic "which" might well yield to "who" or "that," "be" to "are" in the pr. ind.; "wot" and "wist" to "know" and "knew," "hale" to "drag."

There is a very old mistake in this verse (30); that word "island" is all wrong. The same word in Hebrew means "island" and also "not." To give you an instance — take "Ichabod," there you get the "I" (ee) — used adverbially, meaning "not," for "Ichabod" means "not glory," or "inglorious" — "the glory is departed." This was the name that the poor wife of Phinehas gave, in her dying moments, to the son that was born to her — "Not glory." Well now, that is the word here; and if you translate it as a negative particle you get the true sense of it — "him that is not innocent." "Island" only makes nonsense. Nobody could explain it as given in our A.V.; no person has ever done it nor approached it, and it is an astonishing thing that it remains. I believe it is all right in the Revised Version; but it is well worth knowing, because I daresay you have been puzzled to find where "the island of the innocent" came in. You know there is a proud little corner of Europe that calls itself "the Isle of Saints," but the isle of the innocent is still more extraordinary. There has never been such a thing. Man lost his innocence, and has never recovered it. Man gains holiness by the faith of Christ, but no recovery of innocence; that could not be. "He shall deliver [him, or] those that are not innocent" — that is the point of it.

† Hence the fallacy of reasoning upon such words as "Pagan," "Knave," etc., which are known to have shifted their meaning. This cannot he assumed as to yayin. Besides, the alleged parallel does not hold good. When "Pagan" was first used, it had not the sense of "idolator;" whereas, when yayin is first used in Scripture it has the sense of "fermented grape-liquor." (See Gen. 9:21; Gen. 19:32 35.)