When you use "archaic" in reference any word in the KJV it shows you've already drunk the modernist cool aid and believe in their errant reasoning. I don't say that to be harsh but rather to ask that you reconsider that concept in reference to the words of the KJV. Every trade, and even sub cultures, has words that are more common among that trade than the general populace. The translators used a unique English format so that it could be cross cultural with minimal effort. The problem with modernist logic is that now they must make a separate "simple" U.S. update, a separate "simple" U.K. upda
I think you came here with your mind made up already!
Can you give examples of words you consider to be archaic, and the words you think may be an appropriate 'modern' replacement? I'm very curious as to whether your suggested updates would be appropriate replacements. Examples of grammar would be welcome as well.
Also, how do you purport to appropriately replace the oft-maligned thee's and thou's without losing the distinguishing of singular and plural pronouns that is lost with the common modern usage (i.e. using 'you' for both singular & plural situations)?
The word 'a
Thank you for your comments everyone. In my opinion, the KJV is a wonderful but archaic 400 year-old translation. Couldn't updating it for the modern English speaker help people better learn God's Word compared to using a version with archaic English? Many words in the KJV are generally unknown today. And the grammar is at times very different than what is used in English today. Is this really necessary or best? Do you all share the KJV with non-Christians who are not familiar with KJV English? Wouldn't that make it difficult for non-Christians to read and understand God's Word? If som
I would add that I extremely doubt we have any scholars nowadays with the breadth of expertise in the original languages to retranslate at the same level of depth and accuracy. We have also lost manuscripts (both Biblical and otherwise) in the intermediary years that would prevent any new translators from having access to the same breadth of knowledge as the KJV translators.
The problem here is, the language actually isn't 400 years old. The fact is, the language of the King James Bible really never existed in time, it is a mish-mash of styles, many much older than the KJV, used because it was more precise in its interpretation of some of the Greek and Hebrew; it is literally a language style specifically created for the KJV-if you read the introduction written by the translators, you'll notice it is very different from the text of the Bible-this is why I would really not be in favor of it.
Personally I see no use. I was not raised KJV but am now convicted in its usage as the purist translation. I enjoy the older english, it feels set apart from the modern way of thinking, of Acadamia never not changing. Which provides the text an etheral feel of being unaffected by time. Which should be true to God's words, unaffected by time.
Its translation is so much more perfect as an experience of God, and by simply downgrading it to just a text or just another rendition of the bible, really is a disgrace. Where all other bibles are fitted to this world, we are fitted to this One.
Hi Alan, thank you very much for the time you took to respond and your heart for God's word. I agree with you that the KJV is accurate. I think it would help if I clarify the meaning of the poll because I think there has been a misunderstanding. The title is "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?" The simple and accurate is referring to the update, not the KJV. My meaning is: "Would you use a KJV update that is simple and accurately updates the KJV?" This is not at all meaning that the KJV is not accurate, as I certainly believe it is. Next time it may help you to be sure you are
In my estimation the poll title is misleading and should not be used on this forum.
The poll title is: "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?
The poll title insinuates that the KJV is not simple and is not accurate.
And, the poll title insinuates that that those who disagree are not willing to use an accurate version of the Bible.
Furthermore, since the poll is public on a KJV forum, the poll, due to its misleading title will be sending the wrong message to the reading public.
Besides being an inaccurate poll title, those individuals, such as 115 Timothy, here on
Pro.30:5a Every word of God is pure: even those in italics. When I get to the words in italics in the bible, I make an emphasis on that word; that's what italics is used for, for example: Ex.20:2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. The word am is in italics. Decades ago a seminary student once told me "that anytime you see a word in italics it is not in the original Greek and/or Hebrew." I did not fall for it then, and I am not going to fall for it this time. Every time a new version comes out it is an attack on the word of God,