Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By 1Timothy115 in Devotionals
      Psalms 119:1-8                                         Sep. 5 - Oct. 2, 2019
      1 ALEPH. Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
      2 Blessed are they that keep his testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.
      3 They also do no iniquity: they walk in his ways.
      4 Thou hast commanded us to keep thy precepts diligently.
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      6 Then shall I not be ashamed, when I have respect unto all thy commandments.
      7 I will praise thee with uprightness of heart, when I shall have learned thy righteous judgments.
      8 I will keep thy statutes: O forsake me not utterly.
      The following verse stood out to me...
      5 O that my ways were directed to keep thy statutes!
      At first glance it seemed to me this person’s soul is poured out with intense desire to have God’s direction in keeping His Word.
      I made a small wood fire in our backyard for my granddaughter, Julia, since she would be staying overnight with us. My wife and Julia stayed outside at the fire for about half an hour. Then, I found myself alone to watch the fire die out on a particularly lovely evening. So I took my verse from above and began to repeat it for memorization. As I repeated the verse, I tried to contemplate the words and apply them to what I was seeing around me. 
      The moon and stars were out now peering through the scattered clouds above.
      [Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. Genesis 1:17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, Genesis 1:18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.]
      Thought 1         
      The moon has stayed his course since the day God created him, also the stars, obeying the statutes directed by God from the first day they were created. Can you imagine God’s direction to the Moon and stars, “moon you will have a path through the sky above the earth, stars you will occupy the firmament above the moon and be clearly visible in the cloudless night sky.”
      Then, the trees, grass, even the air we breathe obey the statues God gave them from the beginning. None of these creations have souls, none have hearts, none have intelligence, but they all observe God’s statutes, His instructions for their limited time on earth.
      Thought 2
      What if we were like the moon, stars, trees, grass, or the other creations which have no soul? We would be directed to keep God’s statutes without choosing to keep them. This is not the image of God, there would be no dominion over other creatures, or over the earth. We would not be capable of experiencing the joy and peace of learning the love of God
      Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
      Philippians 4:7 And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.
      Thought 3 (October 2, 2019)
      Is the psalmist pleading God to force God’s statutes to become the man’s ways? No, he is speaking of his own failure in keeping God’s statutes and his desire to keep them, very much like Paul in Romans 7:14-25.
      God doesn’t work through force to turn men from their ways that they would desire His statutes or desire God Himself. Men must reject (repent) put aside his own ways and voluntarily seek God and His statutes.

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?

Rate this topic

Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

13 members have voted

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

    • Yes
    • No
    • Not Sure
    • Probably
    • Probably Not

Recommended Posts

  • 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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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

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


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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
      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.
    • 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   3 Members, 0 Anonymous, 7 Guests (See full list)

  • Create New...