Members BibleBeliever5 Posted January 23, 2021 Members Share Posted January 23, 2021 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 1Timothy115 Posted January 23, 2021 Members Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) 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 WellWithMySoul, Jordan Kurecki, Alan and 2 others 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Popular Post Salyan Posted January 24, 2021 Moderators Popular Post Share Posted January 24, 2021 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. OLD fashioned preacher, Doc Flay, HappyChristian and 7 others 8 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Doc Flay Posted January 24, 2021 Members Share Posted January 24, 2021 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..." Jim_Alaska, Jordan Kurecki and WellWithMySoul 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members robycop3 Posted January 24, 2021 Members Share Posted January 24, 2021 I thought the MEV was such a version. Jordan Kurecki 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alan Posted January 24, 2021 Members Share Posted January 24, 2021 (edited) 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. John Young, Doc Flay, WellWithMySoul and 3 others 3 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BibleBeliever5 Posted January 25, 2021 Author Members Share Posted January 25, 2021 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. Doc Flay 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Hugh_Flower Posted January 25, 2021 Members Share Posted January 25, 2021 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. Alan and 1Timothy115 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Ukulelemike Posted January 25, 2021 Moderators Share Posted January 25, 2021 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. Alan and HappyChristian 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Salyan Posted January 25, 2021 Moderators Share Posted January 25, 2021 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. HappyChristian and Alan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members BibleBeliever5 Posted January 25, 2021 Author Members Share Posted January 25, 2021 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). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Popular Post Salyan Posted January 25, 2021 Moderators Popular Post Share Posted January 25, 2021 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. HappyChristian, wretched, WellWithMySoul and 2 others 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Popular Post John Young Posted January 25, 2021 Members Popular Post Share Posted January 25, 2021 (edited) 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 Jim_Alaska, Salyan, Alan and 2 others 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Pastor Scott Markle Posted January 26, 2021 Members Share Posted January 26, 2021 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jordan Kurecki Posted January 26, 2021 Members Share Posted January 26, 2021 (edited) 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 BibleBeliever5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.