Can we bring the KJV into 21st century English?

[Guest Guest]

After looking at the proposed word changes I can't say that I think they all mean exactly the same as the original words just "updated". While it seems you have good intentions I don't think it is necessary. I have never seen someone that was ready to be saved stumble over the KJV's wording so that they didn't understand it. We need to be SCARED TO DEATH to alter one jot or tidle unless we are absolutely certain the meaning will not change even slightly. Any way you look at it, the bible is a spiritually discerned book, I haven't seen new Christians trying to grow in the Lord stumble at the wording of the KJV to any great degree, if they don't understand a word they simply look it up. :Green Most of those that I see struggling greatly with it are those that have a spiritual problem. They tend to "wrest" scripture as II Peter 3:16 says regardless. :2cents

[John81]

I've actually encountered many who had trouble trying to read and understand the KJB. However, the KJB wasn't the problem, it was their poor public school "education".

In prison ministry, doing tutoring, Bible studies, etc., I've encountered many folks the public school system passed through even though some could barely read at what is considered a 2nd grade level!

In many cases with folks who claim the KJB is "too hard to read", I think the problem is actually with their reading skills (or lack thereof) that's the root problem.

[Kubel]

Wow

I am amazed at the response.

To answer a question from someone about 'transliteration' - what I mean is a translation that actually translates every word present in the Authorised Version of the Bible (I was brought up to call the KJB the Authroised Version, and I happen to think that the Lord agrees).

So, instead of translating a phrase in the Authorised Version into something that sounds easy to read in current English, each word is specifically translated.

Nigel Dixon

nigelthomasvibartdixon@hotmail.co.uk

As dwayner79 touched on, I'm still a little bit confused about your process. Is it your intent to make a revision? Or are you starting from scratch from the MT and TR and making a translation? Translating each word as you suggest would lead to a very mechanical sounding work. As I understand, these are more of a tool for in-depth study and learning of Biblical languages, not for casual reading in ones own language structure, syntax, etc...

Now if you are making a revision (basing changes on modern English equivalents), revising the words, instead of entire phrases, this is entirely different- and I understand why you would want to translate words, not phrases.

Also, dwayner79 touched on credentials, experience, and some sort of accountability/peer review to minimize error and personal bias. The KJV, for example, originally had 54 scholars set to work on the project. They were split into committees, and each committee reviewed each others drafts. Then the final drafts were sent to a review committee before they were handed off to the printer.

Even if you are doing a simple revision, I still feel it is necessary to have many properly educated and experienced people working under a review committee.

[Ande]

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.

:goodpost:

[Psalms18_28]

I've actually encountered many who had trouble trying to read and understand the KJB. However, the KJB wasn't the problem, it was their poor public school "education".

In prison ministry, doing tutoring, Bible studies, etc., I've encountered many folks the public school system passed through even though some could barely read at what is considered a 2nd grade level!

In many cases with folks who claim the KJB is "too hard to read", I think the problem is actually with their reading skills (or lack thereof) that's the root problem.

Which is exactly why Bush created the No Child left behind.

It actually force teachers to teach her students to read even if they have learning disability. Alot of them don't like NCLB, because they don't think children is capable of learning to read at the government pace...that they should learn at their own pace. Well, if that happened, their brain becomes less "spongy" and won't absorbs much informations as they grow older. Then it gets harder and harder to learn to read. (I know this because of my hearing loss and learning to speak. people who learned to speak and hear when they are young are more likely to speak clearer and better than deaf people. No matter how hard deaf people try, they just can't speak as clear as hearing people, even with their new cochlear implant... but those who did hear and lost their hearing when they were young can speak well too).

It starts when a child is young. When you teach them to read, it gets less frustrating for them as they get older.

I am a big supporter for NCLB for math and reading in elementary schools ... because I have personally seen how teachers neglected to teach me from K-2 and let me pass every year anyway.. I learned most of my reading skills from my speech therapy when she held those flash cards. once a child can get hang of it, he can pretty much succeed in other areas..

[John81]

[quote="pneu-engine"]
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.[/quote]

Agreed!

Try reading Pilgrim's Progress as originally written and then read a modernized version of the book and it's almost like two different stories.

A great deal of nuance, flair, and various other factors are lost when one changes works in these manners.

[bibletotingunslinger]

I'd rather take the world back a couple three hundred years.

[Alimantado]

I've actually encountered many who had trouble trying to read and understand the KJB. However' date=' the KJB wasn't the problem, it was their poor public school "education".[/quote']

At the age of 26, having never really read any of the Bible before, I am now doing so for the first time using an AV with no accompanying books, Bible study classes or Pastors to explain stuff to me, and I have to admit there are a fair few lines that I have trouble understanding. It's not that I don't have any idea, it is just that I am unfamiliar with the early modern English sentence constructions and that this sometimes makes their meaning ambiguous to me; I am not sure whether they mean this or that. Once I've looked up the meaning on the net, the text makes perfect sense, but if I didn't or couldn't look up the meanings...

Perhaps it is indeed because I don't even have the reading skills of an 8-year-old, and need to come back when I've got an education. But even if people reject the need for a modern English translation now, the question has to be asked, when will one be due? Languages change, and in time more and more of the words and grammar in the AV will become unfamiliar especially to the less proficient English reader. Let's imagine that the AV was actually produced in Chaucer's time, or even in Old English; would people still be saying now, 'no need for an update- they ought to be able to understand it'?

[DaveW]

I was going to be trite and say that I brought my KJV with me into the 21stC!


But.....

I appreciate the intent - a good intention for sure.

However, I think your list of words is not great - I can't think of a particular one after reading the whole thread :roll but there were some there that I thought - "missing the boat" - hardly surprising with such a huge list that there would some that others don't agree with.
And there are some words there that I would think it unecessary - the words like "Dress" which you wanted to change to butcher - I wouldn't have thought that necessary, and "butcher" nowadays has connotations that I wouldn't think were appropriate.


Most of it has been said already.... my kids have no problem, and the KJV actually encourages people to increase their literary abilities which can only be a good thing.
Most concordances can give enough direction, and along with an understanding of context and what it does, many words can be worked out.
And then there are the issues with local differences, and having to update every few years to keep pace - otherwise the language will become out of date and we are back to square one.

And there are others trying to do the same, so I am not sure of the point of going it alone.

However, someone mentioned the point of "independent work" - he specifically posted here in an attempt to get "Peer review" which is commendable - but this is not the right place for it.
I consider myself to be reasonably knowledgable but would not consider myself to be of such calibre to "Peer review" a work such as this - and no offense to anyone here - but my impression is that there would not be many here who would confidently jump into that role.

Shoot down and criticise, yes (joke) but not properly Peer review.

As a slight aside - it is not quite as simple as changing the "thees and thous" as the various forms have subtle differences that are important, but that english doesn't the have simple shades of meaning carried by the old english.
Same goes for other phrases and words.

(And I agree with others - to me transliteration has always had a different meaning to what I think you are talking about )

However - I think for your particular situation you may have some usefulness for your project as an assist.

[Bakershalfdozen]

Yes, if the Lord tarries, there will eventually come a time when an update is necessary. After all, the very reason for translating the Bible into other languages was because no one but the priests could read the Bible since it was in Latin. If no one but language scholars can read the Bible, then there is a serious problem.

[pneu-engine]

It would be a good idea for you to improve on your reading skills for many reasons, IMHO, not the least of which is that it will help you in the job marketplace. Suggesting that you get your reading level up to 8th grade is not asking too much. With the Holy Spirit to help you it can be a worthwhile and rewarding challenge. :smile

[Guest Guest]

It's not that I don't have any idea, it is just that I am unfamiliar with the early modern English sentence constructions and that this sometimes makes their meaning ambiguous to me; I am not sure whether they mean this or that. Once I've looked up the meaning on the net, the text makes perfect sense, but if I didn't or couldn't look up the meanings...

If there was a version in "up to date" English and without errors I doubt many would quibble. The problem with the MV's is the dilution of the truth or out and out errors. Updating the language without changing meaning at all is a difficult thing. If English does eventually progress to where the KJV really isn't readable, God will send us a new version. The English language is still quite a long way from that however. :Green

[matie-k]

Exactly what I've been thinking.

[bzmomo7]

I understand your point, but do you really think there is going to come a time when ONLY the scholars can read the Bible? I mean, I understand that a language can add and change a few words over time, but we do not have just a spoken language, and being that we formally teach our children in our schools "proper" English (right down to how to diagram that proper sentence structure) I would think that it would be unlikely that we would ever see a time when only the scholars can read the Bible. IMHO, I think we need to be super careful about trying to modernize the Bible into a language "relevent" to today's society because we think either they are too ignorant to comprehend it, or to bored by it because it is outdated etc. That is precisely what many of the churches across America have done today with their church services etc.----and look at where it has gotten them........rock concerts and movies and violent video games held at church buildings, watering down of the Word and preaching. The church doesn't need to become more like the world, the WORLD needs to become more like the church.

[Bakershalfdozen]

Well, I did say, "If the Lord tarries" and "eventually". That doesn't mean next week or even next year.

At one time everyone could read Latin. Then there eventually came a time when no one but a certain hierarchy could read it. Why? Because languages change.