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
1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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?  

Let's skip to the bigger question.  Can God give us the Holy Scriptures in our language that we use today?  With God, all things are possible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Can God give us the Holy Scriptures in our language that we use today?

You could always do what the kings did and write your own updated copy.... That way it can be in your very own version of the English language.

Deuteronomy 17:18-20 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19 and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Let's skip to the bigger question.  Can God give us the Holy Scriptures in our language that we use today?  With God, all things are possible.  

And there it is -- Avoid the question of ACCURACY in order to push your agenda of updating.  You have again revealed your priorities.  

By the way, concerning the matter of accuracy and the "archaic" pronouns, with God indeed all things are possible; and God has already provided an answer -- Bible teachers who teach others the importance and meaning of those pronouns for the sake of accuracy.  (Note: I myself did not know the grammatical significance of ANY pronouns, except that someone first taught me English grammar, so the need to be taught  is NOT an argument against this provision.)  This is the manner by which God made it possible for me to learn their importance and meaning.  This is the manner by which God has made it possible for me to teach others concerning their importance and meaning.

You, on the other hand, do not seem to care, but only seem to want to avoid the subject of their accuracy.  (Note: At this point I remain very uncertain that you even know the grammatical significance/meaning of those pronouns.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

By the way, if a word is a more "archaic" English word, but is still retained in a modern English dictionary, then that word is STILL a part of the language that we use today, even it is only on a rare (or specialized) occasion.  That word (whatever word it may be) has NOT yet been lost from the language altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 2/5/2021 at 2:26 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Since an answer does not seem forthcoming, allow me to provide the grammatical facts concerning the meaning and significance of the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye."
 

Concerning PERSONAL PRONOUNS in English

1st person personal pronouns are those referring to one's self.
2nd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken to directly.
3rd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken about indirectly.

Personal pronouns contain both singular and plural forms for the sake of accuracy, EXCEPT in the case of the 2nd person personal pronouns for present-day English:

                                                           Singular                                                                       Plural

1st person --               I (nominative case), me (objective case)               we (nominative case), us (objective case)

2nd person --            you (nominative case), you (objective case)         you (nominative case), you (objective case)

3rd person --              he, she (nominative), him, her (objective)        they (nominative case), them (objective case)

(Note: For present-day English usage, the pronoun "you" serves both for the singular and plural, as well as both for the nominative and objective cases in both the singular and plural.  As such, some element of confusion is possible; and since both the Hebrew and Greek possess distinct forms for the singular and plural 2nd person personal pronouns, some aspect of accuracy would be lost.)

However, personal pronouns contain both singular and plural forms for the sake of accuracy WITHOUT exception if we use the more "archaic" English forms:

                                                             Singular                                                                       Plural

1st person --               I (nominative case), me (objective case)               we (nominative case), us (objective case)

2nd person --            thou (nominative case), thee (objective case)         ye (nominative case), you (objective case)

3rd person --              he, she (nominative), him, her (objective)        they (nominative case), them (objective case)

(Note: When using the more "archaic" English personal pronoun forms, the pronouns "thou," "thee," "ye," and "you" each serve in a distinct manner to accurately distinguish the singular and plural, as well as to distinguish the nominative and objective cases in both the singular and plural.  As such, these more "archaic" English personal pronouns in the King James translation retain the precise accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek from which they are translated.) 

This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
On 2/3/2021 at 11:16 PM, 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.

WellWithMySoul,

Thank you for your observation and thoughts. 

You are correct. The KJV is just fine, accurate, simple, loyal to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and adequate to use in translating into foreign languages. 

Alan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.

I agree that the singular/plural information of the second person pronouns should be retained in an update to the KJV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 hour ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I agree that the singular/plural information of the second person pronouns should be retained in an update to the KJV.  

So, as another has already asked earlier - How would you propose to retain that information if you chose not to use the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This thread shows exactly what I was referring to earlier. The KJV is beloved.

I understand the accuracy of "Thee" and "Thou". When one talks today, do you use Thee and Thou? I highly doubt it. However, you are still able to convey the accuracy of what you are speaking of. Thee and Thou is far simpler to use, but there are ways to convey it.

This is also why you can't "Update" the KJV, which is what the Modern KJV, 21st Century KJV, NKJV and a number of other updates did. Notice, I called them updates. A translation cannot come from a translation. A modern translation would require people who are qualified to translate from the original languages into modern English.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 hours ago, Pastorj said:

I understand the accuracy of "Thee" and "Thou". When one talks today, do you use Thee and Thou? I highly doubt it.

No, we do not use "thee" and "thou" in common communication today, which is the reason that I acknowledged those pronouns as "archaic" elements of the language.  However . . .

2 hours ago, Pastorj said:

However, you are still able to convey the accuracy of what you are speaking of. Thee and Thou is far simpler to use, but there are ways to convey it.

Actually, I would contend that we are NOT able to convey the distinction between singular and plural with as much precise accuracy in the common usage of today simply through the pronoun "you" (sing.) and "you" (pl.).  In fact, this is part of the reason why in various areas of the country we find phrases like - "you all," "yous," "yous guys," etc.  All of those phrases serve as an attempt (although not grammatically correct) to bring back into the common language a precision that was lost.  So then . . .

2 hours ago, Pastorj said:

This thread shows exactly what I was referring to earlier. The KJV is beloved.

So then, it is not that I hold to the King James translation simply because it itself per se is so "beloved" in my heart.  Rather, that which is "beloved" in my heart is precision of accuracy.  I firmly desire whatever translation will provide the best precision of accuracy (even if that requires some "archaic" elements that I am required to "learn"); and thus far I have found that the King James translation serves best in that manner.  Now, for me precision of accuracy first requires that the translation textually follows the "received" tradition of Scripture texts.  For me any translation that goes contrary to that textual priority is already on the path of inaccuracy.  In addition, for me precision of accuracy requires that the translation follows (as much as is possible) a "verbal equivalence" philosophy of translation.  As such, I am willing to "suffer" some "archaic" elements in the translation if those "archaic" elements are the best manner to maintain precision of accuracy.  Finally, I recognize the importance of "readability" in a translation, but only as long as that "readability" stays within the boundaries of the previous two points.  Even so, I can "theoretically" consider the question of a grammatical, spelling, punctuation, etc. update to the King James translation (which historically has happened already before, and which was the original assignment for the committee of the mid to late 1800s, an assignment which they did NOT follow).

However, I recognize that there is another set of factors in our time concerning the issue of an "update."  Those factors involve the realities of the controversy over translations (which has extended now for 100+ years, and is quite intense), the proliferation of translations (the great majority of which are from a textual tradition that I would consider false), the deceptions of falsehood (whether in philosophy of textual criticism, in philosophy of translational accuracy, or in systems of doctrinal priorities), and the marketability of an "updated" King James translation (which seems quite lacking, since the non-KJV crowd would not care and since the KJV crowd would not trust).  (Now, I believe that these are the factors which PastorJ has acknowledged earlier as reasons why such a project cannot work in the present day.)  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Now, for me precision of accuracy first requires that the translation textually follows the "received" tradition of Scripture texts. 

A KJV update should definitely use the same Scripture texts as the KJV, the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
23 hours ago, Pastorj said:

This thread shows exactly what I was referring to earlier. The KJV is beloved.

 

Yes, besides being simple enough for the average person to understand it, simple enough for the common child, man or woman, simple enough that the "archaic"words can be found in almost any modern dictionary, far more accurate and true to the biblical texts than any other translation, the King James Version is, "beloved."

Edited by Alan
capitalization
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
  • Members
On 2/5/2021 at 1:09 AM, 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. 

Hi, Rebecca; it's such a light update that they didn't even call the KJ21 a version.

I have a copy; and one of the features is clear print.

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...