Can we bring the KJV into 21st century English?

[Guest Guest]

The thees and thous are there for a reason. We should not try to update the KJV into modern language. Read this:

http://www.wayoflife.org/KJV/singular.htm

[brother_mike]

I am just going to play the parrot:

We have God's preserved word, in English. The AV1611

[Psalms18_28]

concordance.

The concordance is very good for people who have trouble remembering new words

(the reason they can remember modern words better than archaic words because archaic words are not used in everyday languages. How many people do you know say thee's and thou's everyday? My brother have severe learning disability, and he can't hardly read. But the words we use everyday to communicate are the words he can read. but he can't read big modern words that is rarely use. archaic would be one of the word he will not be able to read and understand. You can teach him what it means, but by the next day, he will forget all over again. He is smart and creative though (he does alot of drawing). It is just reading that becomes a problem.

[kevinmiller]

Personally, I'm not sure how I would feel about it. It depends on how it was "updated." I wouldn't mind words like "hath" or "doeth" or "thou" being changed to "has" or "does" or "you," just because it would make it a little bit easier to read. As far as changing the version completely, I don't know. I would prefer an updated version of the KJV rather than a new version altogether. Though, I do think that the KJV is very poetic in language as it is now.

[LindaR]

I don't know if anyone has suggested purchasing a copy of the Defined King James Bible published by Bible For Today.org.
http://www.biblefortoday.org/dKJB_contents.htm
If not, I would suggest you taking a look at one---I have a copy and it is extremely helpful in defining some of the "archaic" words and other Bible helps. It does not come with Red Letter and has no concordance. I bought my copy in 2003, but Bible For Today may have updated it since then. I also use David Cloud's Concise King James Bible Dictionary, which is available from
http://www.wayoflife.org/catalog/catalog.htm

[kevinmiller]

I got a DKJV a few years ago from Donald Waite, Jr. himself. :thumb

[dwayner79]

I am sure you have great intentions, but I would caution two things:

1. Any work that is one man's will not fly. By having multiple people work together, you minimize errors.

2. You will not be able to translate every word into English. Those have been done. They are called interlinear Bibles. They are nearly worthless as it simply makes no sense. Now if you are simply updating the word in KJV English to the word in 21st century English, then you are not translating.

[dwayner79]

Woops I missed page two.

Are you a professional linguist? Are you certain that you can make every word carry over the same meaning? Your use of the term transliteration tells me that you are incorrect in your use of that term. How do you propose you will avoid such errors in your update to the KJV. I am not trying to be harsh, and I appreciate your passion. I knew a man in Delaware that was doing the same thing (only his was an actual translation), and I had the same concerns with him. A one man show from a non-linguist will not be done properly. I would use your work as a help, but I would not tell people to use it exclusively.

[chev1958]

The exhortation you posted is good preaching, but still doesn't require an "updated" version of Scripture. Since you're from England, would you use British English or American English? Then what about the different dialects of English in America? What modern word would you use for "sodomite" - homosexual, gay, lesbian, pervert, etc.? And how would you differentiate between the different "wines"? How about "tongues"? Then, whatever words you decide to use, you'll have to change them in a few years, because English is such a fluid language, new words come into play, and today's words develop new meanings.

If your goal in updating the KJV to modern English is to win the lost, consider this passage: 1 Corinthians 2:14 - 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.

The Romans Road has no archaic words in it. I believe God did it that way so that the "natural man" could understand its simplicity. Once a lost person gets saved, then we Christians teach and disciple in the higher doctrines. And the best way to understand those doctrines is in the more exact prose of "old" English. You know, maybe if we studied the Bible more ourselves, we'd begin to speak in the language of the KJV again. We could start a revolution in the language! (or would that be a devolution?)

I'm not trying to be discouraging, because I think I'd like to see an updated version. However, my choice of words probably won't match your choice of words, and where would we be then? I think it's better to stick with the tried and true authorized version of the King James Bible and use the English words God chose.

Mitch

[Samer]

I think this would cause more confusion and division. I'll stick with one Authorized Version.

[Guest Guest]

I think this would cause more confusion and division. I'll stick with one Authorized Version.

I agree Samer. I'll also stick with the Authorized Version.

[pneu-engine]

I love the KJV.

I am evangelist who works among young people who are not very literate.

When I studied theology at a liberal college I realised how the devil has attacked the inerrancy of the Received Text by bringing out heretical modern versions based on the gnostic/papist Westcott Hort edition.

So I am working currently on a KJV version true to the Received Text, a true transliteration of the Word of God, not a free translation. I am looking for people, even those who would disagree with putting the KJV into current English, to peer-review my work. If you would like to peer-review what I am doing, my email address is nigelthomasvibartdixon@hotmail.co.uk. Please contact me, and I will send you what I have done so far.

I am a teachable man, so I am open to any criticism, no matter how hostile.

I dare not compromise God's Word.

Nigel Dixon

I would advise against this.

This very same scenario was proposed to a groiup of students at Millersville University regarding the works of Shakespeare. They were asked if those works should be re-written to make them easier to read. The class gave a united and resounding NO!!!!!!! Their argument was that the literary beauty and accuracy would suffer severe loss.

What I find so tragic is that we are so careful to retain the authenticity and literary beauty of Bill Shakespeare's writings, but will throw it out of the Word of God for the sake of easy reading.

[HappyChristian]

I would advise against this.

This very same scenario was proposed to a groiup of students at Millersville University regarding the works of Shakespeare. They were asked if those works should be re-written to make them easier to read. The class gave a united and resounding NO!!!!!!! Their argument was that the literary beauty and accuracy would suffer severe loss.

What I find so tragic is that we are so careful to retain the authenticity and literary beauty of Bill Shakespeare's writings, but will throw it out of the Word of God for the sake of easy reading.

Too true, PE. And yet there are some modern rendtions of Shakespeare. I know a lot of his stuff is bawdy, but some of it is good, and to hear it in modern english just ruins it for me. I think it would be the same with the Bible. I love the poetic sound to the old english!

[Guest Guest]

I think this would cause more confusion and division. I'll stick with one Authorized Version.

Right on!

I agree with whoever said we should just learn to read and understand the KJV as it is. It really IS an amazing Book, if you take the time to study it! (even doing a little study on something in the Bible... it's incredible what you can learn... God really HAD to be involved in the translation of the AV 1611, there's no other explanation to how that Book is so deep!)

[John81]

Right on!

I agree with whoever said we should just learn to read and understand the KJV as it is. It really IS an amazing Book, if you take the time to study it! (even doing a little study on something in the Bible... it's incredible what you can learn... God really HAD to be involved in the translation of the AV 1611, there's no other explanation to how that Book is so deep!)

I can honestly say that no other translation I've read, either before or after I switched to the KJB, is as clear to me. Also, I've never experienced the insights and growth using any other translation that I have with the KJB.

I'll sometimes read Christian books by authors who don't exclusively use the KJB but I have to have my KJB handy to check the verses used in the book that I may not have in memory in order for me to get the full meaning of what they are trying to say.