Thoughts about an update to the KJV?

[BibleBeliever5]

Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version.  I love the KJV.  But the language is basically 400 year-old English.  So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it?  What would be your thoughts generally about such an update?  Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV?  It would be great to hear what you all think.  May God be glorified.

 

In Christ,

Joseph

[1Timothy115]

I hear preachers and evangelists on the radio using the MEVs* frequently--BUT, when they quote, they fall back on the kJV language they memorized and understand.

So, you're saying for 400 years folks had no trouble understanding the language of the KJV, correct? So, now I'll ask you a question or two.

Have people dumbed down that they don't understand what people have understood for 400 years? Or, sadly, is it possible preachers and evangelists are dumbing down?

No, I didn't take your poll.

*Modern English Versions.

Edited January 23, 2021 by 1Timothy115

[Salyan]

Why would you need to update anything? The ‘old language’ is still perfectly good English.The fact that modern folks are too lazy to learn the meanings of words is no reason to change the Bible. Save your trouble and buy a dictionary.
 

You’ve hit a bone of contention for me - not so much in defense of the KJV, but in defense of good English.  You can’t really ‘simplify’ something without removing the depths of the meaning of the larger words. I think such an attempt, if made honestly to retain the true meaning, would result in unnecessary wordiness and a more confusing text.
Also, modern English has lost nuances — such as the difference between me and thee — an important difference in meaning that would be lost if the text was updated. 

[Doc Flay]

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, its like Satan asking Eve, "Hath God said..."

[robycop3]

 I thought the MEV was such a version.

[Alan]

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 Online Baptist who are KJV, and will not vote due to the inaccurate poll title and its insinuations, will not reflect accurate results. By the way, as with 115 Timothy, I will not vote as no matter how I vote the poll will not reflect my thoughts as the title is misleading.

The poll is a perfect tool for those who despise the KJV to openly discredit, on a KJV only forum nonetheless, those who believe that the KJV is the only, repeat only, accurate English translation available. If the majority votes that that will not probably not use a "simple and accurate KJV update?" they will be made to appear to be dunces and idiots.

In my estimation, this poll does not glorify God, nor the written word of God, in any manner.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Alan
deleted a doubled sentence.

[BibleBeliever5]

9 hours ago, Alan said:

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 Online Baptist who are KJV, and will not vote due to the inaccurate poll title and its insinuations, will not reflect accurate results. By the way, as with 115 Timothy, I will not vote as no matter how I vote the poll will not reflect my thoughts as the title is misleading.

The poll is a perfect tool for those who despise the KJV to openly discredit, on a KJV only forum nonetheless, those who believe that the KJV is the only, repeat only, accurate English translation available. If the majority votes that that will not probably not use a "simple and accurate KJV update?" they will be made to appear to be dunces and idiots.

In my estimation, this poll does not glorify God, nor the written word of God, in any manner.

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 correctly understanding the meaning of a post.

11 hours ago, robycop3 said:

 I thought the MEV was such a version.

Hi, thank you for your reply.  I am aware of the Modern English Version. It is a completely new translation that many people do not know or trust. It differs a lot from the KJV. I am wondering if people would want to use an exact KJV that has updated modern language.

14 hours ago, Doc Flay said:

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, its like Satan asking Eve, "Hath God said..."

Hi, thanks for the reply.  I agree that the italics are important in the KJV.  So I think any modern update to the KJV should keep them.

[Hugh_Flower]

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. 

 

 

[Ukulelemike]

On 1/23/2021 at 8:41 AM, BibleBeliever5 said:

Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version.  I love the KJV.  But the language is basically 400 year-old English.  So if there were a simple and accurate update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it?  What would be your thoughts generally about such an update?  Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV?  It would be great to hear what you all think.  May God be glorified.

 

In Christ,

Joseph

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.

[Salyan]

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. 

[BibleBeliever5]

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 someone has any additional thoughts on the topic, I am glad to hear it.  It has been great to hear your opinions so far.  And please give your answer in the poll so we can see what more people think (right now only 5 have voted).

[Salyan]

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 'archaic', btw, means 'old-fashioned', and is neither a censure nor necessarily a reason for replacement.  (Yes, I am using as many big words as possible to illustrate the precision of language that is gained by their inclusion.) 

 

24 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

 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?

In answer to this, yes, of course - I want to give them the most reliable translation. I trust them, as adults, to look up any words they don't understand. Remember, too, that the difficulty for non-believers in understanding God's Word is not in the text itself - it's in that the Scripture must be spiritually discerned, and they are spiritually dead. Changing the text will not improve that situation. The Holy Spirit must explain it to them.

[John Young]

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. update, one for Australians, one for teen boys, one for pregnant moms, one for milk men, one for steel worker, etc.

Its much simpler to take the time to update yourself and learn the biblical words and grammar that all English speaking people have used for over 400 years than to turn the bible into a Dick and Jane story book that must be updated ever few years to accommodate every generation and subculture's unique quirks. A person who will not learn a few uncommon words nor slightly expand his grammar and reading style will never take the time and effort to grow spiritually either. 

As far as simple and accurate updates, publishers have already done as much as they can without making a new translation. Its been found that whenever they attempt to change the words, the "modern equivalent" is lacking in substance and in accuracy and typically would need additional words and a whole new sentence structure. In other words, it would become a different translation and not an update. So, what you are purposing would be neither simple or accurate. 

Edited January 25, 2021 by John Young

[Pastor Scott Markle]

From the answers that have been given thus far, it appears (in answer to your original question) that various of the members on this sight would NOT use such an "update" as you propose.

[Jordan Kurecki]

23 hours ago, Salyan said:

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. 

What about all the people translating the received texts into foreign languages? Are all these new language translations doomed to lacking depth and accuracy? 

Edited January 26, 2021 by Jordan Kurecki

[Jordan Kurecki]

I would like to give my opinion here as a King James Bible believer and defender, but also as one with a background in Linguistics, training in Bible Translation and as someone who has deeply studied the Bible both in English and in Greek and Hebrew.

First of all, many Modern Translations are rightly criticized for their corrupt source texts and bad translation methodology. However, what you largely see here is a superstitious commitment to the particular word choices of the KJV translators that even they would not have agreed with. Even in the preface to the KJV they talked about how they were purposely NOT consistent in translating a particular Hebrew or Greek word consistently and they basically admitted to doing it for stylistic reasonings. They acknowledged that there is a certain measure of liberty in Bible translation, which if you study Hebrew and Greek this is absolutely true. There really is such a thing as saying things multiple different ways.

English as a language is a hodge-podge of many other languages, there is latin, greek, old english, and old germanic influence. It’s very common in English to have one word meaning something with its root in say latin, and then to have synonym words from the other languages like greek and germanic. I can’t think of any specific examples but to give you somewhat of an idea “Father” comes from Old Germanic, while words like “paternal” “patriarchy” come from Greek. Because of English being a hodge podge of other languages it tends to have a very large vocabularly and we often have multiple synonyms for a particular word or concept.

Another thing about Language is it is constantly changing and evolving, this happens less with languages that are written (like English) but it does still happen. Most people assume language always tends to dumb down, but this not true, sometimes it tends to become more succinct, sometimes things just simply change. 

There are several advantages to the English found in the KJV, I particularly like the precision of the distinctions found between thee, thou and you/ye. I would never want these distinctions to be eliminated in a translation. In fact I am in favor of keeping all things in the translation that give more precise accuracy.

However there is definitely archaic language in the KJV that is not absolutely necesary and I find to be frustrating. For example “fetch a compass” is quite an old english idiom meaning “to go around”, in Hebrew there is nothing about an actual compass, the KJV translators just used one of their idioms of the day. It is not necessary for us to retain this idiom.

I suspect that the original readers of the KJV probably had a much easier time with the words, phrases, and grammar of the translation than even I do having read it every day for almost 10 years, having a bible college degree, and having a background in linguistics. And this is simply due to the fact that the English that we speak today is much different than the English from the time the KJV was translated. First of all, the KJV is Anglican English, and we speak American English, and secondly It's a older style of English. 

I think there is a serious downplay and underestimating of just how different the English of the KJV is to today's English. When I go to Uganda, they speak "English". "English" is the official language of Uganda. But their English is an English they picked up from being a British Colony, and furthermore they speak their English with a lot of African influence. Some words mean completely different things. For example "pants", in Uganda means "underwear". Their idioms are completely different, they don't say "pick me up at 10Am" tomorrow, they say "pick me", they don't say "I will call you on the phone" they say "I will flash you with the phone". It just goes to show how much difference two different forms of "English" can be. The point I am making is that languages can change significantly over time and geographic location. 

Now, that's not to say that every single subset of American culture needs their own translation as someone else mentioned. We do have more of a formal style in America that we universally tend to us in more formal, professional, or academic settings. I do think it could be helpful and beneficial to have the King James put into a modern American formal style. 

The Bible does take study to understand, I will agree as someone having put in uncounted hours into. But personally I find it frustrating how frequently I have to look words up in the Bible due to archaic language and idioms. There is no reason to force someone to have to run to a dictionary to define a word like “besom” when a word like “broom” would be accurate, sufficient and easier to understand. Just because some word or phrase is archaic does not necessarily mean that it is “more accurate” or “better” or that it “has more depth”.

Contrary to some of the opinions and feelings of other, it is actually possible to take the KJV and put it into modern english without changing or losing meaning. 

Personally I would be in favor of an update as long as it truly stuck to updating things without changing or losing meaning. The NKJV and MEV have gone beyond that and I reject them. 

I think the KJV is a masterpiece and an excellent translation, I have found no errors in it, but because of it’s age, in some places it is unnecessarily difficult to understand. Again, the key word is unnecssarily. Some people simply resort to the talking point of “well you just need to stop being lazy and study”, I personally don’t want people to have to continually run to dictionaries if they don’t have to. Now if the archaic word or reading is somehow more acccurate and give's more distinction, then I am in favor of keeping it. But there is a lot of archaic stuff in the KJV that is NOT necessary in that regard. 

You know it’s funny and this might be off topic, but some of the same people I know who tell you to run to a dictionary if you don’t understand an English word, are the same people that reject, or mock the studying of Hebrew or Greek using Hebrew or Greek dictionaries. I have never understood how some of the people out there that mock things like "scholarship" want you to turn around and run to an English Dictionary that is the work of an English scholar. In my opinion, the goal of Bible translation should be to eliminate as much "scholarship" between the Word of God and the Reader while still being faithful to what God said and not adding or removing anything that God has said.

If the goal of the word of God is for people to understand it, then shouldn't we remove as many barriers as possible to the understanding as long as we are not changing anything of substance or meaning? I am NOT saying to dumb down the translation to the point of losing meaning. I believe it is a false dichotomy to say that you either have to dumb down the Bible or that you have to retain every archaism found in the KJV. 

What I see a lot of nowadays is “practical Ruckmanism”, Ruckman taught that the KJV itself as a translation was given by inspiration and that the KJV translators were inspired like the original writers of the OT and NT. Out of this Theological doctrine flows practices like holding to the archaic language of the KJV and rejecting and concept of modernizing and updating the English Translation. I’ve even seen it gone so far as to cling to archaic spelling (think british Saviour vs American Savior or British Shew vs American Show)

What you see often are many people who would claim to reject Ruckmans doctrine, behaving as if they believed it. The archaic language of the English from the time of KJV is not some holy elevated language.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Jordan Kurecki

[BibleBeliever5]

Thank you for all the comments and feedback!  For those of you who have indicated that you are positive towards a KJV update, what do you think about having a parallel Bible with the current KJV compared to a standalone update?  (Please take the poll if you have not yet so we can see what lots of people think.)

[Jordan Kurecki]

1 minute ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Thank you for all the comments and feedback!  For those of you who have indicated that you are positive towards a KJV update, what do you think about having a parallel Bible with the current KJV compared to a standalone update?  (Please take the poll if you have not yet so we can see what lots of people think.)

I would refuse to use a new update without first having it next the KJV. I would want to diligently check it against the KJV while reading through it. 

[BibleBeliever5]

On 1/25/2021 at 11:28 PM, Ukulelemike said:

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.

Hi, in what ways do you think that the English of the introduction is very different than the text of the KJV?

[Ukulelemike]

2 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Hi, in what ways do you think that the English of the introduction is very different than the text of the KJV?

TO THE MOST
HIGH AND MIGHTY
PRINCE, JAMES
by the Grace of God,
King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland
Defender of the Faith, &c.
The Translators of the Bible
wish Grace, Mercy, and Peace through Jesus
CHRIST our LORD

[What follows is the Dedicatory Epistle of the King James translators to King James I who commissioned the translation of the Kimg James Bible.  It is included here that the reader might have a basis of comparison between the language and style of the 1611 Authorized King James Version and the language and style this Dedicatory Epistle.  Note the sharp contrast between this epistle and the KJV. This dedicatory epistle is not included in most King James Bibles published today]

Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well upon our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquility at home and abroad.
But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God’s sacred Word among us; which is that inestimable treasure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time pent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven.
Then not to suffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it up, and to continue it in that state, wherein the famous Predecessor of Your Highness did leave it: nay, to go forward with the confidence and resolution of a Man in maintaining the truth about Christ, and propagating it far and near, is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all Your Majesty’s loyal and religious people unto You, that Your very name is precious among them: their eye doth behold You with comfort,and they bless You in their hearts,as that sanctified Person who, under God, is the immediate author of their true happiness. And this their contentment doth not diminish or decay, but every day increaseth and taketh strength, when they observe, that the zeal of Your Majesty toward the house of God doth not slack or go backward, but is more and more kindled, manifesting itself abroad in the farthest parts of Christendom, by writing in defence of the truth, (which hath given such a blow unto that man of sin, as will not be healed), and every day at home, by religious and learned discourse, by frequenting the house of God, by hearing the Word preached, by cherishing the Teachers thereof, by caring for the Church, as a most tender and loving nursing Father.
There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in Your Majesty but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this work, which now with all humility we present unto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once out of deep judgment apprehended how convenient it was, that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our own, and other foreign Languages of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.
And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labors, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby; we hold it our duty to offer it to Your Majesty, not only as to our King and Sovereign, but as to the principal Mover and Author of the work: humbly craving of Your most Sacred Majesty, that since things of this quality have ever been subject to the censures of ill meaning and discontented persons, it may receive approbation and patronage from so learned and judicious a Prince as Your Highness is, whose allowance and acceptance of our labors shall more honor and encourage us, than all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men shall dismay us. So that if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad, who therefore will malign us, because we are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people, whom they desire still to keep in ignorance and darkness; or if, on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren, who run their own ways, and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves, and hammered on their anvil; we may rest secure, supported within by the truth and innocency of a good conscience, having walked the ways of simplicity and integrity, as before the Lord; and sustained without, by the powerful protection of Your Majesty’s grace and favor, which will ever give countenance to honest and Christian endeavours against bitter censures and uncharitable imputations.
    The Lord of Heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honor that Great God, and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour.

The above, you might recognize. One main thing I would mention is the complete lack of 'Ye', 'thee', 'thy' or various other forms of how today we just say 'you' or 'your', which is how it is written herein. Those forms, however, were put into the KJV because they are more precise in meaning, in that Ye and You and your are all plural, (directed to many), which Thy, and Thine are singular.  The general entire style of writing is very different too, overall.