KJV-ER: Thoughts and Opinions

[Kenny5682]

Greetings,

I wanted a "little Bible" to take to work with me and carry around in my tool box. So I bought a KJV-ER at a local Christian bookstore. If you're not familiar with the version, all it does is change some of the Old English words to modern English.

For example, "Thou shalt not kill" would be "You shall not kill" and "Loveth" would be "Loves."

I do know there are certain benefits to the "Thees, Thous, and Ye's" but would you consider these simple changes harmful in any way?

[Jerry]

In the examples you gave I can see one major change: you cannot tell whether God is addressing an individual or everyone in "you shall not kill." In the KJV, thee, thy, and thou, etc. always refer to individuals - in modern English, you can either be plural or singular. There are a multitude of passages where this distinction is crucial to the understanding of the passage.

Another point: have you read through all of it, comparing every verse with your KJV? They say nothing is changed - but have you personally proven that yourself? I certainly wouldn't accept some Bible publishers claims of that nature without proving it - as we have seen so many of them lying over time.

[John81]

In the examples you gave I can see one major change: you cannot tell whether God is addressing an individual or everyone in "you shall not kill." In the KJV, thee, thy, and thou, etc. always refer to individuals - in modern English, you can either be plural or singular. There are a multitude of passages where this distinction is crucial to the understanding of the passage.

Another point: have you read through all of it, comparing every verse with your KJV? They say nothing is changed - but have you personally proven that yourself? I certainly wouldn't accept some Bible publishers claims of that nature without proving it - as we have seen so many of them lying over time.

Excellent points Jerry! I can still remember when the New King James Version came forth proclaimed as having only modernized some of the words. We all know now that was an outright lie.

[282Mikado]

I don't trust anything that changes one jot ot tittle of God's inspired word. If there is a change in just one sentance, than it is not quite as inspired as it was before, is it.

Had a good message last night. "Satan knows religion". You think you have a good handle on religion and what God requires or desires. Satan has it down better. He lived with God. He was one of God's most powerful angels. He deceived 1/3 of the angels that were actually in God's presence to follow him. Do you think he doesn't know how to corrupt your religion? Nope, anything that modifies what I believe is God's perfect and wholly inspired word (KJV) in just the smallent sense, to me is an attack by Satan to corrupt God's word. He knows religion. He knows how to corrupt.

[John81]

I have read parts of two different "easier to read" versions of the KJB and while I didn't find any changes other than wording, neither of them "felt" right nor did either of them seem to "speak" to me in the same manner as does the KJB.

[kevinmiller]

I don't know, "you shall not kill" sounds pretty straight forward to me. I think somebody nowadays would better understand me saying "you shall not kill" than if I said "thou shalt not kill." I don't believe God's Word froze in 1611 so I don't see a problem with an updated KJV. If anything, it could make it more applicable to speakers of modern English. Eventually, it will have to be updated, anyway. As English evolves, there will come a time where there are too many archaic words in it for people to use it practically.

[dwayner79]

I don't trust anything that changes one jot ot tittle of God's inspired word.

Please show me where a jot or a tittle is found in the KJV. Thanks.

[edit: this is tongue in cheek... lets not get too excited]

[282Mikado]

As English evolves' date=' there will come a time where there are too many archaic words in it for people to use it practically.[/quote']

You mean as English DEvolves. Everything, including English seems bound by the Law of Entropy. In Shakespeare's time the English language consisted of approx. 35,000 commonly spoken words. Today we are down to 9,000. Which is better for conveying meaning?

It's the same with all the other standards that are being discussed on other threads, they all seem to be shifting to the left, becoming more slack, falling to Satan's subtle attacks.

Change for the sake of change, or change to accomodate a fallen standard, is not necessarily good.

[282Mikado]

Please show me where a jot or a tittle is found in the KJV. Thanks.

[edit: this is tongue in cheek... lets not get too excited]

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Mat 5:18

SEE :Green Could you imagine if this was changed to "one spot or one spittle"? Changes the meaning entirely. :smug:

[kevinmiller]

Actually, English HAS evolved. English came from a combination of German dialects and was influenced by Saxon writings and French. English has progressed through many stages throughout it's relatively short history from around the fifth century until now.

I'm not sure where you get your figures from, but the English language is at its most powerful communicative ability today. Did you know that there are more than 250,000 words used in English today? 9,000? No, 250,000. The second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary contains more than 600,000 definitions. That's why learning English is so difficult for foreigners. We have 10 ways of saying one word and we have borrowed words and language influences from Spanish, French, German, even a few words from India.

[Pastorj]

Couple thoughts,

1. Could a new version that comes from the received text be equal to the KJV? Yes, just as translations in Spanish, French and other languages that come from the received text are the Word of God just as the KJV is.

2. Will a new translation in English occur? Unfortunately no. Those that are producing the modern versions are liberal, and those conservatives who have the ability to make a new translation have no desire to do so. I don't believe we will see a modern translation that is accepted by the majority (non ruckmanites) KJV supporters. (Ruckmanites will never support anything because they believe the KJV translators were inspired).

3. Would a new translation be allowed - The one jot and one tittle are hebrew, not english. By producing a modern version, you are not violating this phrase, just as you are not violating it when you translate into French or Spanish.

[chev1958]

Actually, English HAS evolved. English came from a combination of German dialects and was influenced by Saxon writings and French. English has progressed through many stages throughout it's relatively short history from around the fifth century until now.

The point is that while English may have 250,000 words with 600,000 definitions, the actual everyday usage is roughly 9,000 words. The perfect example is the word "you." At its heyday (Shakespearan era), English speakers used "thee," "thou," etc., that delineated specific meanings. Nowadays, we simply use the word "you." The reason foreigners have such a difficult time learning English is because English grammar does not follow any grammar rules of most languages. We tend to make it up on our own. You could argue that English is simpler nowadays, but it's less precise while other languages are more precise.

We've gotten lazy -- instead of learning more appropriate words to express our thoughts, we use lots of little words. And I can pretty much guarantee that my 6th grade English teacher is rolling over in her grave at just how the English has devolved in the last 30 years, especially with text messaging. And one of the things I've noticed recently is how a mistake gets made and then perpetuates itself. For example, many people don't seem to know the difference between its and it's. But the most recent error that's occurring more and more is when using then and than. Why those two words are being misused is beyond me (and those guilty OLB members know who they are)!

I taught journalism to military officers for four years. You'd be amazed at how often I would have to teach basic English grammar to these so-called "cream of the crop" college graduates, many with advanced degrees, who couldn't put a simply subject-verb-object sentence together.

Sure, we've had to add words to the language. Words like computer, telephone, television, etc., weren't needed back in 1611. But, I have seen the devolution of the English language is my short 45 years on this Earth.

Mitch

[kevinmiller]

who couldn't put a simply subject-verb-object sentence together.

Uh oh... :lol

[John81]

Howdy Mitch I've missed you around here.

I was thinking about this recently when I watched an old 1950s era western. There was a school teacher on that episode and she kept correcting one of the charactors atrocious manner of speaking. Several times she corrected him for saying "ain't". As a child in school I remember several teachers who would pounce anytime they heard "ain't" and give a short grammar lesson. Today, teachers say "ain't" and accept its usage without question.

I worked in a university for several years and it was unbelievable the number of students that required remedial classes in basic English. How did they manage to pass high school?

Speaking for myself, I know since moving back to this area the vocabulary I use has greatly diminished because I got tired of everyone saying, "Stop using them ten dollar words and speak English".

[speerjp1]

Look at comments on the internet posted by "average" folks and you'll be able to see the devolution of our language. I can't wait to see the TXT version of the Bible. :loco

Precision in communication should of utmost importance to us, especially since we have such an important message to communicate to a lost and dying world. The KJV is precise. MVs are mush that leave far too much wiggle room for "interpretation."