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

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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

Edited by Rebecca
Link to 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

  • Members
5 hours ago, Rebecca said:

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

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

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

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

Edited by SureWord
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
10 hours ago, Rebecca said:

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
9 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

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

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Just now, BibleBeliever5 said:

Yes I do.  And it's archaic English.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
32 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

If you think the only way to have an accurate Bible is to have ye and thee, I would disagree with you.

What would be your alternative solution to update these while retaining their accuracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
29 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

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

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

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

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
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 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   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 35 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...