Thoughts about an update to the KJV?

[BibleBeliever5]

Would anyone have a problem updating a word like bruit?

[BibleBeliever5]

I think some words could still be kept in English (for example in literature), even if they were updated in the KJV.  Words would not automatically disappear from English just because the KJV updated them.  Some words are now classified as "literary."  The problem with having those kinds of words in Scripture, is that Scripture is often used orally.  So while certain words may be in usage in literature, having them used orally can sound very odd, formal, and antiquated when they aren't meant to sound that way.  And I think many of those words are not well known and would not be well understood orally, even if they are "literary" words.  Why make everyone look up many words in the dictionary when modern equivalents could be used instead?  Do we really need to be whipping out smartphones to use dictionaries during church to understand God's Word?  I know that even after I do look up and understand an archaic word, I can easily forget it because the KJV may be the only place I ever see it.  And it may be more than a year before I see it again.

[Salyan]

12 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I think some words could still be kept in English (for example in literature), even if they were updated in the KJV.  Words would not automatically disappear from English just because the KJV updated them.  Some words are now classified as "literary."  The problem with having those kinds of words in Scripture, is that Scripture is often used orally.  So while certain words may be in usage in literature, having them used orally can sound very odd, formal, and antiquated when they aren't meant to sound that way.  And I think many of those words are not well known and would not be well understood orally, even if they are "literary" words.  Why make everyone look up many words in the dictionary when modern equivalents could be used instead?  Do we really need to be whipping out smartphones to use dictionaries during church to understand God's Word?  I know that even after I do look up and understand an archaic word, I can easily forget it because the KJV may be the only place I ever see it.  And it may be more than a year before I see it again.

I'm sorry, but that's just not a good enough reason to mess with a Bible translation. And your reasoning is just so... modern. If a word seems odd to you because you don't hear it used regularly, then start using it regularly, and it'll soon stop sounding odd.  And if you want to remember words better, then you could write the definition in the margin for next time (it's probably not a great argument to suggest you're reading your Bible through so irregularly - not that I can judge!). All the objections above are easily remedied by people simply expanding their vocabulary - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect adults (and children) to do. 

32 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Would anyone have a problem updating a word like bruit?

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

[BibleBeliever5]

16 minutes ago, Salyan said:

I'm sorry, but that's just not a good enough reason to mess with a Bible translation. And your reasoning is just so... modern. If a word seems odd to you because you don't hear it used regularly, then start using it regularly, and it'll soon stop sounding odd.  And if you want to remember words better, then you could write the definition in the margin for next time (it's probably not a great argument to suggest you're reading your Bible through so irregularly - not that I can judge!). All the objections above are easily remedied by people simply expanding their vocabulary - which is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect adults (and children) to do. 

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

Who can tell us what bruit means in Nahum 3:19?

[1Timothy115]

9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I agree it is so valuable to go witnessing, but does that mean there is nothing else worthy of our time?  Shouldn't a discussion take place about so many of God's people using a Bible with antiquated language throughout the entire Scriptures?  Isn't it good and worthwhile for God's people to spend time discussing having the Holy Scriptures in language that people in their day actually use (for the believer and the non-believer)?  Do you think the archaic language of the KJV has no disadvantage?  And is it true that the best Bible we can have today is one that generally uses archaic language?

Nothing 'archaic" for me I've read and memorized it much of my life. I had to LEARN and STUDY (caps for emphasis) but other than that it's fine. So, I don't imagine you go quoting the NLT when you witness either. So, what good does any change do for youor  for the individual you witness to?

The first time I needed clarification I had to actually ask someone about it, imagine that; setting aside pride long enough to admit ignorance. It was Matthew 24:7 "For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places." As a pre-teen I had nothing to worry about because my home was an enormous distance from a sea or an ocean. Have you allowed yourself to confront someone over your own lack of understanding?

Edited January 29, 2021 by 1Timothy115

[1Timothy115]

9 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I have studied it.  I don't think there was much updating of the grammar and vocabulary.  The 1769 is still very close to the 1611 other than spelling changes.  

Did you use the microwave oven method of study? Add a few more seconds next time.

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

www.truth.sg/Which%20KJV,%201611%20Or%201769,%20Do%20You%20Use.pdf

[1Timothy115]

On 1/28/2021 at 1:57 PM, Salyan said:

This. Soooooo much this. There are plenty of words still reasonably commonly used in the English language that any one given person may not know... but that doesn't mean it is archaic!  Cue rant on the dumbing down of modern society...

I think "rant" should be removed from present use and substituted with "wild vehement action." Of course someone will come along and ruin it by making their own language changes. Then I'll have to declaim them violently. Couldn't resist .

[Alan]

1Timothy115,

Thank you for the, "Which KJV 1611 or 1769, Do You Use.pdf." link.

Alan

[Pastor Scott Markle]

1 hour ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

www.truth.sg/Which%20KJV,%201611%20Or%201769,%20Do%20You%20Use.pdf

And these are more of the FACTS that should be considered in the discussion; for whenever we disregard or distort the facts of truth, we always end up going astray in some manner or fashion.

[HappyChristian]

5 hours ago, Salyan said:

 

Wow - I had to look that one up! That doesn't happen very often! Now that I've looked it up, I know it so no need to change. (kidding.. kinda)

The definition of that word is BRUIT, n. Report; rumor; fame. BRUIT, v.t. To report; to noise abroad

Which specific word would you suggest changing it to? Let's see if there is a precise equivalent.

I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

A bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)

I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 

JMO. 

There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."

[Jordan Kurecki]

1 hour ago, HappyChristian said:

I haven't commented on here so far...folks are doing a well enough job without my input. lol  However, I had to comment on this one...

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

A bruit is a noise...hmmm...fits the definition you gave, Salyan. It is a noise heard through a stethoscope which can indicate a clogged artery. It can also indicate an imminent stroke (something that I actually learned about 25 years ago).  So, in effect, it is a report that is noised abroad to the listener with a stethoscope that sounds a warning. (It's from the Old French bruire which means "to roar." It is my understanding that it sounds very like a roar via the stethoscope.)

I am not one in favor of "updating" the KJV. I don't believe there is an actual need to do that. I agree with those who've stated simple things like: ask, study. LEARN what the words we don't know mean.  Years ago, the KJV was classed as 3rd grade reading comprehension, but then after other versions began being used, it was bumped up to 6th grade reading comprehension (and that would be for the "slower" readers).  Now we have adults that complain about not understanding it. Again: ask, study, learn. 

JMO. 

There was a group who worked to "make the Bible more understandable to the reader." They came to the "Lamb of God..." Uh-oh...problem, they thought. This particular culture DID NOT KNOW what sheep were, as none lived anywhere near them. We would say it's easy to explain, right? Pictures, etc? No, no...they had to make it modern and understandable. EVERYWHERE that the word "lamb" was used, they instead used an animal with which these people were very familiar: PIG. Put that together, folks...they had people reading "Pig of God." Not at all blasphemous, right? But, you know, it was in words the people "understood."

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

[HappyChristian]

12 minutes ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

I don’t believe anyone who has participated in this thread would for those kind of changes. 

I don't think so, either - although that is where things head when one decides to "make it more understandable.' If it ain't broke (and it ain't) don't "fix" it. 

[BibleBeliever5]

17 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Nothing 'archaic" for me I've read and memorized it much of my life. I had to LEARN and STUDY (caps for emphasis) but other than that it's fine. So, I don't imagine you go quoting the NLT when you witness either. So, what good does any change do for youor  for the individual you witness to?

You may feel comfortable with the antiquated language of the KJV, but that does mean it isn't archaic for the general population.  The definition of archaic fits exactly what you describe:  "no longer in ordinary use though retained by individuals" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself, just your explanation.  That's a problem.

16 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

The American Bible Society, which publishes the KJV, documented about 24,000 revisional changes from 1611 to 1769, mostly spelling but also additions and deletions of phrases, changes of word meanings, grammatical forms, tenses, gender, numbers and capitalizations!

I agree, it's mostly spelling changes.  It was not a general update of the grammar and vocabulary.  The grammar and vocabulary of the 1769 is still basically the same as the 1611.  So let's be clear-eyed about this.  We are still using a version basically 400 years old.  It is obviously and factually antiquated.

[BibleBeliever5]

14 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Bruit is still in use today. Oh, maybe not in everyday speak, but it is used.  Anyone who has had things done to/with their veins, heart/ or has had stroke issues would likely know this word. 

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, bruit is archaic.

[John Young]

29 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

[BibleBeliever5]

26 minutes ago, John Young said:

The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.

I'm actually amazed you think that.  You don't know God uses the Bible to speak to non-believers and convert sinners?  You don't use the Bible when you go witnessing?  Of course we should want non-believers to be able to understand the Bible.  Wouldn't you agree?

[John Young]

35 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

You don't know God uses the Bible to speak to non-believers and convert sinners? 

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[BibleBeliever5]

29 minutes ago, John Young said:

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

In verse 14, it does not say the "non-believer."  The Scripture specifically says the "natural man."  These are the secularists who reject everything spiritual.  But there are some non-believers who are spiritual and believe in spiritual things.  If you interpret the natural man to mean all non-believers, then how would a non-believer ever receive the gospel and convert?  Non-believers do receive the things of the Spirit of God when they hear the good news and believe.  No, the "natural man" in that text does not mean all non-believers.

The Bible was written for non-believers.  God speaks to non-believers and believers through it.  We should want them to have it in a language they can understand without putting in all the effort to learn archaic English.  And non-believers can certainly read and understand parts of the Bible on their own.  Some things are very obvious in the Bible.  Many non-believers do in fact read the Bible and understand some things on their own.  I heard of a non-believer who studied the Bible 10 years and then became a believer.  First you said it was not written for non-believers.  Now you say it was not written for non-believers to read and understand on their own.  So you're saying a non-believer can only read and understand it when someone explains it to them?  Only then they can receive the things of God?  But where do you get that?  How is that different than when they read it on their own.  I think your position is lost and very unhelpful for the lost.  Of course we should want non-believers to be able to understand the text of Scripture.  God can speak directly to them.

[BibleBeliever5]

1 hour ago, John Young said:

God tasked the church with converting the lost and edifying the saints through the geat commission but scripture was written to equip the church in that task. However, It was not written for the unbeliever /lost to read and understand on their own.

1 Corinthians 2:13-14 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Here is one verse that was written for and to the non-believer.

[Rom 2:5 KJV] 5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

That is archaic English and would sound very strange for a non-believer not familiar with KJV English.  Do we need to give non-believers that kind of hurdle to understand God's word?

[HappyChristian]

3 hours ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, bruit is archaic.

Well, I guess the medical world doesn't realize that. Imagine that...an archaic word being used in modern times. Unprecedented. lol