Jump to content
Online Baptist

Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

12 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      2


Recommended Posts

  • Members

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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

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 PER

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 by 1Timothy115
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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..."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 by Alan
deleted a doubled sentence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

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. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

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).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

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.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Mine is a personal opinion only. I do not consider any update of the KJV necessary or even possible, without errors of omission or commission. I suspect that in today's world there are no Bible scholars that are on a  par with the original translators.

Of first and foremost importance is the verifiable fact that the manuscripts they worked from are no longer in existence; therefore, any update can only be from using the existing KJV, complete with its language and grammar.

As for the ability, or lack of it for the average person to understand, I have heard it said that our KJV is understandable to all who have even an eighth grade level of schooling. I, myself only have a sixth grade education. It (the KJV) is perfectly understandable to me; and even more important, it was understandable for me, when the sermon that saved my soul was preached from it.

Ecclesiastes 7:25 (KJV) I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

 for the ability, or lack of it for the average person to understand, I have heard it said that our KJV is understandable to all who have even an eighth grade level of schooling. I, myself only have a sixth grade education. It (the KJV) is perfectly understandable to me; and even more important, it was understandable for me, when the sermon that saved my soul was preached from it.

This is based on the Flesch Kincaid evaluation which is really flawed. That method mainly focuses on syllable length and sentence length. 

it does not take into account difficult/archaic grammatical structure nor does it take into account archaic word difficulty or archaic idioms. 

As for perfectly understanding the KJV, you might think you perfectly understand it but I highly doubt that. Even if you perfectly understand it now, I highly doubt you always have. 

I am constantly finding things in the KJV that I have misunderstood and have to had to refine in my own understanding. My Bible is full of synonyms  I have written in the margins and explanations of certain idioms and such as a fruit of my own studying of the word of God. 

The first time I read Psalm 23:1 Years ago I had no idea “want” did not mean desire but instead meant “to lack”. I have heard some refer to words like these as “false friends”, meaning they are words that you think you know the meaning, but because you are unaware that it has an archaic meaning and has changed meaning you won’t be as likely to look the word up in a dictionary. The whole “look things up in a dictionary” is hard to do if you don’t even realize a word you are reading has changed meaning. 

Jim, I sincerely doubt you have not had many occasions through your Christian life where you did not have similar things happen with words. 

It’s one thing to have a more mature understanding of the KJV after having had years of reading, studying, and hearing it preached. It’s quite another to pick it up and read it not having gone through all that. Learning the King James English is almost like learning a new way of speaking and reading. 

When I first started reading the KJV 10 years ago I was frequently frustrated with some of the archaic words and there were many times where I assumed a word or phrase meant one thing and then later learned it meant something else. I have a hard time believing that anyone else’s experience has not been the same. 

Let’s not pretend like the KJV is just like the normal or even formal English that we use today. There is a huge learning curve to being able to read, understand, and handle the KJV skillfully. 

Edited by Jordan Kurecki
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The problem with modernist philosophy is not just using corrupt texts but also the lack of care toward word accuracy which historically brought about those corruptions in the first place. They always go hand in hand. Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. (ie. Easter and Passover are the same Greek word equivalents but carry separate English meanings, drawn from historical and biblical context in order to convey more than the original Greek word itself ever could. Additionally things like Author vs starter, beginner, or orchestrator, writer, etc as in Hebrews 12:2). Chalking up word accuracy to mere Superstitions or archaism does injustice to the importance of precise accuracy and stability of one's language.

In addition to this they disregard the historic stability which the scripture always brings to any language it has been translated into and then used faithfully. Rather than follow pioneers who created and stabilized whole languages for the scriptures to prosper in, they have almost an eagerness to constantly change the word to suit their culture's tastes and flairs and flings rather than change their culture to suit the word. In rejecting the rock of historic stability they seek the ever shifting winds and raging waves of cultural, idiomatic, and doctrinal change to carry their language.

I'm sorry Bro. Jordan Kurecki but your stories of always being frustrated at finding a word you didn't understand and wishing a simpler or more common word was in it's place, rather than having the joy of learning a new timeless word and the nuanced meaning it brings to bare, does not endear me to your efforts of scripture translation. Rather, it bothers me whenever a biblical linguist seems to have a distain for learning his own historic language, and the stability it brings, in deference for something that will change within a few years and from region to region.

Because of this the "better English translations" and "KJV word updates" you seek are a fleeting dream that you will never obtain. You may not believe it now and it will take you a long time and much effort to understand that they are diametrically opposed philosophies of biblical translation but if you are honest with yourself you will see that what I said is true. The ability to properly translate and update must come from a place of desiring biblical and logistical accuracy and historic stability first and foremost or your self desire of fickle cultural pandering will lead only to corruption of the text.

Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:

James 1:5-7 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Ephesians 4:14 ...henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:
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. 

Hi!  Thanks for the response.  I think the reason there is no thee or thou when writing to the King is because the respectful form at the time was to use the plural "you" for those of higher social status, even if it were a single individual.  Have you read the Preface to the KJV 1611?  The Preface to the Reader does use thee, ye, thou, thy, and thine.  That indicates that this form of English was still in regular use at the time.  According to my research outside the Bible, these singular and plural forms of pronouns were still in use in 1611. 

So is there any other feature of the English in the KJV that you think was very different than the English of that time and place?  Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

John 14:26 (KJV) But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1 Corinthians 14:7-9 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, John Young said:

The problem with modernist philosophy is not just using corrupt texts but also the lack of care toward word accuracy which historically brought about those corruptions in the first place. They always go hand in hand. Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. (ie. Easter and Passover are the same Greek word equivalents but carry separate English meanings, drawn from historical and biblical context in order to convey more than the original Greek word itself ever could. Additionally things like Author vs starter, beginner, or orchestrator, writer, etc as in Hebrews 12:2). Chalking up word accuracy to mere Superstitions or archaism does injustice to the importance of precise accuracy and stability of one's language.

In addition to this they disregard the historic stability which the scripture always brings to any language it has been translated into and then used faithfully. Rather than follow pioneers who created and stabilized whole languages for the scriptures to prosper in, they have almost an eagerness to constantly change the word to suit their culture's tastes and flairs and flings rather than change their culture to suit the word. In rejecting the rock of historic stability they seek the ever shifting winds and raging waves of cultural, idiomatic, and doctrinal change to carry their language.

I'm sorry Bro. Jordan Kurecki but your stories of always being frustrated at finding a word you didn't understand and wishing a simpler or more common word was in it's place, rather than having the joy of learning a new timeless word and the nuanced meaning it brings to bare, does not endear me to your efforts of scripture translation. Rather, it bothers me whenever a biblical linguist seems to have a distain for learning his own historic language, and the stability it brings, in deference for something that will change within a few years and from region to region.

Because of this the "better English translations" and "KJV word updates" you seek are a fleeting dream that you will never obtain. You may not believe it now and it will take you a long time and much effort to understand that they are diametrically opposed philosophies of biblical translation but if you are honest with yourself you will see that what I said is true. The ability to properly translate and update must come from a place of desiring biblical and logistical accuracy and historic stability first and foremost or your self desire of fickle cultural pandering will lead only to corruption of the text.

Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear thou the Lord and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change:

James 1:5-7 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. 6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 7 For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord.

Ephesians 4:14 ...henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Well John. 

The fact that you accuse me of a lack of care about word accuracy tell me you know very little about my actual position. As I stated repeatedly over and over again that I was not for making any changes that caused a loss in meaning.

Secondly, you stated "Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. "

This is ironic to me, you seem to assume that because two words are different that it ALWAYS means there is a distinction in the meaning. John, you need to go and read the KJV translators to the readers because they themselves would disagree with you on the point you are making. In their preface they talk about how others were criticizing them for not translating a particular Hebrew word consistently but how they chose to use SYNONYMS for various reasons. You can find numerous places in the KJV where the translators used a variety of synonyms to translate one particular word and in some of those cases it would simply a stylistic choice or a choice based on any of the various reasons they stated in their preface for doing so. 

"Chalking up word accuracy to mere Superstitions or archaism " John that is an extremely gross misrepresentation of my position and I don't see how you could possibly conclude again that I have no care for word accuracy. I am flabbergasted that you would make such an accusation.

you said "just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning." John, you have an assumption that different word choices ALWAYS mean a difference in precise meaning, which is NOT the case. Sometimes yes there are some "synonyms" that have slightly difference nuances and connotative meanings. But that is NOT always the case. And you are in error to make that assumption. 

you said "t
hey have almost an eagerness to constantly change the word to suit their culture's tastes and flairs and flings rather than change their culture to suit the word. In rejecting the rock of historic stability they seek the ever shifting winds and raging waves of cultural, idiomatic, and doctrinal change to carry their language."

This is NONSENSICAL John, you are trying to equate people wanting to having the Bible in modern vernacular and using language that makes it sound like they are no better than someone who literally changes the meaning of the word of God to fit the culture.  I have zero desire to change the meaning of God's word to fit our corrupt culture. Wanting to put the King James Bible into modern english is not in the same category as something like the "Queen James Bible" that was put out which removed all reference to sodomy. The fact that you would try to act like anyone trying to take the bible and put it into modern vernacular is in the same category as something like that is mind boggling to me. 


again you stated " The ability to properly translate and update must come from a place of desiring biblical and logistical accuracy and historic stability first and foremost or your self desire of fickle cultural pandering will lead only to corruption of the text." 

These accusations are ridiculous John. If you actually read what I said carefully, you would realize that I place a premium on "logistical accuracy". My guess is that you place anyone who disagrees with you into the category of not caring about "logistical accuracy". 

The cultural pandering accusation is insane John. John, when you speak to people and preach your sermons, do you say every word or phrase in King James style English? No you do not. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of "cultural pandering"? Is speaking in a style that is close to your audience cultural pandering John? You and I know it isn't. You apply one standard to one area, and another standard to another. 

Why is it ok for a preacher to get up and spend time explaining the meanings of archaic words, but it wouldn't be ok to just put that better understood word the preacher used into the text instead. Tell me John, What meaning has one lost if one says "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not lack" rather than "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want". You can argue about style and whatever all day, but what MEANING has been lost. What NUANCE has been lost John? 

Your argument rests on the simple accusation that anyone who wants to update words is going to eventually lose meaning and nuance. And your accusation is simply false. 

Also your verses that your quote are completely out of context. I hope this is not how to teach people to handle and use the word of God. 

First of all, If the passage in Proverbs mean what you actually says it does, then you better stop using the KJV and go back to one of the Older English Bibles, because the KJV certainly was a change.

Ephesians 4:14 has nothing to with taking the bible and putting it into an accurate modern vernacular. 

Maybe we should all go back to using Wycliffe's old english translation, after all we should not meddle with those given to change right? and if we just ask God for wisdom he will help us understand Wycliffe, and if you disagree with me it's just because you are tossed about with the wind. 

Come on John, Don't use the Bible as your bludgeoning board to attack anyone who disagrees with you. 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
15 hours ago, John Young said:

You may not believe it now and it will take you a long time and much effort to understand that they are diametrically opposed philosophies of biblical translation but if you are honest with yourself you will see that what I said is true.

Take it as you will. Just trying to help save you a lot of time and effort.

9 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Also your verses that your quote are completely out of context. I hope this is not how to teach people to handle and use the word of God. 

First of all, If the passage in Proverbs mean what you actually says it does, then you better stop using the KJV and go back to one of the Older English Bibles, because the KJV certainly was a change.

Ephesians 4:14 has nothing to with taking the bible and putting it into an accurate modern vernacular. 

They were in the context of trying to encourage you to ensure you focus on things of God when translating and that you do not change anything based on modernist methods of looking at men and whims of culture. Not as proof text for not translating or updating. If you keep trying to nitpick small points of argument then you will miss the main point entirely.

I do not have a problem with bible translation or using the best synonym for a word but rather, the philosophy and mindset of translation you use is key to proper translation and in my opinion, by using words like archaic and superstition, and frustration, in regard to word accuracy, its clear philosophically you are already leaning towards modernist thinking rather than historic biblical translation methods.

9 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

In their preface they talk about how others were criticizing them for not translating a particular Hebrew word consistently but how they chose to use SYNONYMS for various reasons.

I have no problem with using a variety of English words for a singular Greek or Hebrew word (even conversely one English word for several Greek or Hebrew words to show unity of meaning), however, as a mode to convey precision and style, with the particular passage to be translated in mind and with specific intent to convey scriptural meaning. Not simply for variety, popularity or culture preference and whims at the time of writing. Though those things can be considered for certain aspects, they should never be the driving factor of biblical translation.

Your philosophy drives your translation. Even though you claim an allegiance to the "correct manuscripts" that matters not if you yourself are still translating them with modernist methods over that of biblical methods. I have no interest in condemning you for it but rather to encourage you to move away from that mindset. 

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I don't mean to get in the middle of this debacle between you two. But John I do believe you have misinterpreted the spirit of Jordan's support of a new updated translation. 

Jordan isn't talking about updating words willy nilly for the simpler pallet of the modern tongue. But more about updating actual words that are archaic. Yes are archaic. Using the example above, the word 'besom' changed to 'broom' would not endanger the spirit of the kjv. Honestly I think changes like that may be in the best interest, there would be very few changes. 

Now I don't see this as a necesarry update, but yeah if the money got put in place to where it need be, then I would fully support it. 

Infact a good publicly moderated, (ie. Wikipedia style moderation) rendition online would allow everyone to supervise such a thing and make sure that it is fully compatible with the KJV. Of course every change would be discussed, and debated upon like in the original foundation of the KJV

I see no issue with that idea, but I may be flawed in my thinking. What do you think? 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My contention is not about word choice but on the philosophy that determines what words are chosen and why. Take "besom" for instance, which is a TYPE of broom. The considerations for changing even this word will be different based on translation philosophy.

The Biblicist asks: "What will best convey the meaning into English?" 

Modernist asks: "What will my reader understand with minimal effort?" 

On the surface or in the rushed opinion, one might think they can be held in harmony or that the ease of the reader should be the upmost concern but that is not the case. Which philosophy keeps these command of Deuteronomy 4:2 and comes from a true heart for God's word as expressed in all of Psalm 119?

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Psalm119: 38 Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.


Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

These aught to be at the forefront of our mind and not the frustration of words we do no yet know and wishing those "old" ancient people could have used a more "modern" word and style which we do know. 

The Word must be conveyed in such a way that it lifts the hearer up to it rather than diminishes it to the minimal understandings of the lost man or those unwilling to learn.

Edited by John Young
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I am simply amazed that there are people that find it so incredibly difficult to add looking up a word to their Bible study habits. It should be a crucial part of good study habits.

After all, if you come upon a word like the one posted below; "besom" and you look and see that it means "broom", is it still not understandable the next time you see it?

No, it is still understandable; simply because you have studied correctly and actually learned something.  :4_12_2:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I'm trying not to be an advocate but those objections hardly seem argue worthy. Not everyone has a dictionary handy, nor are even in the practice of looking up words. ( I agree they should be, it would be unwise for them not to be) Besom was the word for broom back then, as that was what the broom was.

Maybe something between our wants are not being communicated well enough for an image board. Anyways this is going to my last post in this thread, I see no edification in this any longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
55 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I am simply amazed that there are people that find it so incredibly difficult to add looking up a word to their Bible study habits. It should be a crucial part of good study habits.

After all, if you come upon a word like the one posted below; "besom" and you look and see that it means "broom", is it still not understandable the next time you see it?

No, it is still understandable; simply because you have studied correctly and actually learned something.  :4_12_2:

What if someone is in church and just listening to the reading of God's word (without explanation)?  What if he is unable to understand some things due to archaic or obsolete words and can't check everything in a dictionary?  Shouldn't we be able to have understandable words in such a scenario?  Would it not be better for God's word to be read in modern words that people actually use today?  The KJV was written in Early Modern English, which is a different stage of the English language than exists today.  Can't we update the KJV to today's stage of English to help people understand?

Link to post
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.

  • Similar Content

    • By Alan
      Brethren,
      One of the main reasons why I joined OnLineBaptist was its adherence to the  King James Version of the Bible as the only version in the English language to be used as a scripture reference.
      Most of the folks here on OnLineBaptist know my stand for the KJV and my revulsion (yes, you read that correctly: revulsion), for any of the new versions (including the NKJV).
      After a thorough study of the issue (privately and up to a PhD in education), of the different versions of the Bible, I have long ago came to the conclusion that since the Revised Version (RV), of 1881 until the New King James Version (NKJV), all of these versions are corrupt in manuscript evidence, scholarship, integrity, and honestly.
      The current trend of folks using the newer versions on OnLineBaptist without the common courtesy to even mention which version they used, in my eyes, is deceitful. When a person signs on onto OnLineBaptist they know the rules concerning quoting from any version other than the KJV. So, in my eyes, the non-mentioning of which version they used is deliberate.
      Furthermore, intellectual honesty, a prerequisite for any serious Bible discussion, demands that the user of another person's material that is copyrighted to make known the material that they use. In the case of Bible versions, the abbreviated letters are enough; NIV, RV, RSV, NKJV, etc... This practice is well known, so, the usage of a non-KJV scripture passage, and not mentioning the version, in my eyes, is intellectually dis-honest. 
      Forgive me for being so blunt. To me this is a cardinal issue of extreme importance.
      Lastly, when an author makes a mistake, he should go back and correct that mistake. In the current case in point, the individuals who used a non-King James Version, needs to go back to every time they used the non-King James Version and either delete the reference, strike out the offending passage, or delete the entire passage.
      Regards,
      Alan
    • By Roselove
      I was wondering, does anyone know of a Bible translation, that is as accurate as the KJV, but has more modern writing? 
       
    • By fastjav390
      If you have Amazon Prime there's a few free videos about the King James bible that are worth the watch. One is entitled, "A Lamp in a Dark Place" and another is its sequel entitled, "Tares Among the Wheat". Both are pretty good. There's also one entitle, "KJV-The Making of the King James Bible". Finally, there's one entitled, "KJV- The Book that Changed the World" but that one you have to rent. The latter focuses a lot on King James himself, the translators and the socio-political environment of the time. Check them out if you can.
    • By birdlover99
      So I need help selecting the perfect bible. I've been looking but haven't found my one yet. I want it to be sturdy, large, normal sized print. Not the really tiny print. Words of god in red. I would really like to have the reference topics in the back but I would be ok if someone knew of a bible topics book separate I'd really appreaciate it, please when you reply send link too. 
    • By Jordan Kurecki
      Why are you King James only? or if you aren't why not?
       
      I found that many people from both sides of the debate are ignorant about a lot of things, many often parrot what they have heard from others, and many have not done critical thinking on these issues.
       
      I would say that my main reasons is that I absolutely do not believe that the textual theories of Wescott and Hort are valid, and I believe the critical text is based on minority manuscripts because of the cultic following and unquestioning loyalty to their textual theories (Oldest and Best Manuscripts blah blah blah).
       
      on the flip side I have seen many King James Only people with some pretty lacking defenses of the King James Only position.
       
      What is your position and why do you hold to it?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 25 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

×
×
  • Create New...