Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?


Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Members
47 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

IF one is the ONLY available translator (as per God's providence) in a particular case, and IF that one has no ability whatsoever with Hebrew and/or Greek, then the best available option would be to translate from the best language translation that IS known.  IF that is the ONLY manner wherein a people group might acquire a translation in their language at a given time, then they should not be left in the dark; but the very best that could be done should be done.  However, it certainly would be better to translate from the Hebrew and Greek, if any person with such ability can be made available (again as per God's providence).  

True - There are a number of organizations that are doing these translations.

My point is that We have no issue translating from the Greek and Hebrew to a language that does not have a Bible, but we are not willing to translate it from the original languages into a modern English. The KJV is awesome, but people today do not speak in the Kings English and the language of the KJV is not the language of America. I see no issue with translating from the original to English.

With that said, it won't happen because of the previously stated reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
3 hours ago, Pastorj said:

True - There are a number of organizations that are doing these translations.

My point is that We have no issue translating from the Greek and Hebrew to a language that does not have a Bible, but we are not willing to translate it from the original languages into a modern English. The KJV is awesome, but people today do not speak in the Kings English and the language of the KJV is not the language of America. I see no issue with translating from the original to English.

With that said, it won't happen because of the previously stated reasons.

People can read the King's English. That's what counts. 

15 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Not true.

[Jhn 20:31 KJV] 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Yes, the gospel. As I said previously the gospel is all that God has to say to the lost.

8 hours ago, WellWithMySoul said:

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

I've read this is quite common these days to translate from the KJV itself..

In China there also is a movement among Christians who only preach and teach from the KJV believing it is the pure words of God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

A good translation from english speaking breathern can come from the KJV into a any native language but a refined accurate and precise translation most likely will have to come from the work of the native breathern themselves. Unless the native Christian equips themselves for the task, they will not have a perfect translation in their own language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
14 hours ago, John Young said:

A good translation from english speaking breathern can come from the KJV into a any native language but a refined accurate and precise translation most likely will have to come from the work of the native breathern themselves. Unless the native Christian equips themselves for the task, they will not have a perfect translation in their own language.

That translation though should not be from the KJV. It should be from the original languages. The KJV is a translation. When you translate, you never translate from a translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

An updated modern KJV has already been done, in 1994. It's called the 21st Century King James Bible if you want to check it out and compare it to the 1769 KJV. I've never read it so I don't know what differences are in it, however it was supposedly only changing some 'archaic' vocabulary words, not grammar or the thee's and thou's. So if the Bible scholars in this thread want to check it out, feel free and maybe give us a good review on a separate thread and tell us what you think. 

Edited by Rebecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Rebecca said:

An updated modern KJV has already been done, in 1994. It's called the 21st Century King James Bible if you want to check it out and compare it to the 1769 KJV. I've never read it so I don't know what differences are in it, however it was supposedly only changing some 'archaic' vocabulary words, not grammar or the thee's and thou's. So if the Bible scholars in this thread want to check it out, feel free and maybe give us a good review on a separate thread and tell us what you think. 

1994? That would be archaic by now. We need at least 10 updates every year to keep things updated among the updates or all the college graduates who've dumped 200 grand into their educations won't be able to understand the bible they don't even read. 

You really never hear a Kentucky hillbilly complaining the"archaic language of the antiquated Authorized Version". It's usually some bible scholar looking to pump out a new translation, or apparently now that many Christians have figured out the con job, a new update of the KJV. $$$$

Every Christian I've heard complain about the "thee's and thou's" never read the bible. Period. In any version or edition. It's just an excuse to avoid reading it.

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, Rebecca said:

An updated modern KJV has already been done, in 1994. It's called the 21st Century King James Bible if you want to check it out and compare it to the 1769 KJV. I've never read it so I don't know what differences are in it, however it was supposedly only changing some 'archaic' vocabulary words, not grammar or the thee's and thou's. So if the Bible scholars in this thread want to check it out, feel free and maybe give us a good review on a separate thread and tell us what you think. 

The 21st Century KJV (KJ21) is inadequate.  It still keeps archaic English like thee, thou, ye, and cometh, as well as archaic grammar.  So the "eth" endings are unnecessarily kept.  Also, it has very strange formatting different than the KJV with larger italic font for words of Christ and then removing the important italics of the KJV.  This is unacceptable.  It also uses bold lettering for famous passages.  So some verses are completely bolded.  One quote from the Father was put in all caps and italics.  It also capitalizes divine pronouns, which means they have to interpret which pronouns are referring to God, and they could have made mistakes.  I think the KJV is much better by not doing that.  So the KJ21 does not fulfill the need for a KJV update.  It introduces poor changes to the KJV.  The Third Millennium Bible, which is also called the New Authorized Version, is the same as the KJ21 but includes Apocrypha and no formatting changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

The 21st Century KJV (KJ21) is inadequate.  It still keeps archaic English like thee, thou, ye, and cometh, as well as archaic grammar.  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Do you understand the grammatical significance of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"?  If so, what do you understand that grammatical significance to be?

In your opening question for this thread discussion, you ask about "a simple, ACCURATE KJV update."  Understanding the grammatical significance for the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye," I would contend that they are included in the King James translation for precise accuracy.  Furthermore, I would contend that arguing for them to be removed is demonstrating an interest in "simplicity" AT THE EXPENSE of accuracy.  No King James translation supporter that I know would EVER support that, nor would they EVER use such a product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Just now, BibleBeliever5 said:

Yes I do.  And it's archaic English.

Yes, it IS "archaic" English, specifically for the sake of ACCURACY.  So, you have now revealed what many have suspected.  Removing that which you perceive as "archaic" is more important to you than retaining that which is important for ACCURACY.  I must contend that such an attitude/philosophy of "updating" is an error.  I will have nothing whatsoever at all to do with such an attitude/philosophy of "updating."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, it IS "archaic" English, specifically for the sake of ACCURACY.  So, you have now revealed what many have suspected.  Removing that which you perceive as "archaic" is more important to you than retaining that which is important for ACCURACY.  I must contend that such an attitude/philosophy of "updating" is an error.  I will have nothing whatsoever at all to do with such an attitude/philosophy of "updating."

Let me put it this way.  I do not support any inaccuracy in the Bible.  I believe that a Bible should be 100% accurate.  I do not support updating anything in the KJV that makes the text inaccurate.  If you think the only way to have an accurate Bible is to have ye and thee, I would disagree with you.  Please think more about that.  ?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
29 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Let me put it this way.  I do not support any inaccuracy in the Bible.  I believe that a Bible should be 100% accurate.  I do not support updating anything in the KJV that makes the text inaccurate.  If you think the only way to have an accurate Bible is to have ye and thee, I would disagree with you.  Please think more about that.  ?   

Here is the problem in our discussion concerning the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye" -- I cannot discuss their importance for precise accuracy with you if you do not actually know what they mean grammatically.  For that reason, I asked you above to provide your own understanding concerning their grammatical significance/meaning.  You have not done so.  Even so, you have proceeded to express disagreement; but you have NOT provided any evidence to support your disagreement.  Let me ask you again -- What do you understand the grammatical significance/meaning of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye" to be?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...