Thoughts about an update to the KJV?

[Pastor Scott Markle]

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.)  

 

[BibleBeliever5]

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.  

 

[Alan]

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 February 9, 2021 by Alan
capitalization

[farouk]

On 2/5/2021 at 1:09 AM, Rebecca said:

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

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

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