Leaderboard

I would like to give my opinion here as a King James Bible believer and defender, but also as one with a background in Linguistics, training in Bible Translation and as someone who has deeply studied the Bible both in English and in Greek and Hebrew. First of all, many Modern Translations are rightly criticized for their corrupt source texts and bad translation methodology. However, what you largely see here is a superstitious commitment to the particular word choices of the KJV translators that even they would not have agreed with. Even in the preface to the KJV they talked about how the

What about all the people translating the received texts into foreign languages? Are all these new language translations doomed to lacking depth and accuracy?

When you use "archaic" in reference any word in the KJV it shows you've already drunk the modernist cool aid and believe in their errant reasoning. I don't say that to be harsh but rather to ask that you reconsider that concept in reference to the words of the KJV. Every trade, and even sub cultures, has words that are more common among that trade than the general populace. The translators used a unique English format so that it could be cross cultural with minimal effort. The problem with modernist logic is that now they must make a separate "simple" U.S. update, a separate "simple" U.K. upda

I hear preachers and evangelists on the radio using the MEVs* frequently--BUT, when they quote, they fall back on the kJV language they memorized and understand. So, you're saying for 400 years folks had no trouble understanding the language of the KJV, correct? So, now I'll ask you a question or two. Have people dumbed down that they don't understand what people have understood for 400 years? Or, sadly, is it possible preachers and evangelists are dumbing down? No, I didn't take your poll. *Modern English Versions.

Why would you need to update anything? The ‘old language’ is still perfectly good English.The fact that modern folks are too lazy to learn the meanings of words is no reason to change the Bible. Save your trouble and buy a dictionary. You’ve hit a bone of contention for me - not so much in defense of the KJV, but in defense of good English. You can’t really ‘simplify’ something without removing the depths of the meaning of the larger words. I think such an attempt, if made honestly to retain the true meaning, would result in unnecessary wordiness and a more confusing text. Also,

Pro.30:5a Every word of God is pure: even those in italics. When I get to the words in italics in the bible, I make an emphasis on that word; that's what italics is used for, for example: Ex.20:2 I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. The word am is in italics. Decades ago a seminary student once told me "that anytime you see a word in italics it is not in the original Greek and/or Hebrew." I did not fall for it then, and I am not going to fall for it this time. Every time a new version comes out it is an attack on the word of God,

I thought the MEV was such a version.

In my estimation the poll title is misleading and should not be used on this forum. The poll title is: "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update? The poll title insinuates that the KJV is not simple and is not accurate. And, the poll title insinuates that that those who disagree are not willing to use an accurate version of the Bible. Furthermore, since the poll is public on a KJV forum, the poll, due to its misleading title will be sending the wrong message to the reading public. Besides being an inaccurate poll title, those individuals, such as 115 Timothy, here on