Jump to content
Online Baptist


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    BibleBeliever5 got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    A KJV update should definitely use the same Scripture texts as the KJV, the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus.  
  2. Like
    BibleBeliever5 got a reaction from Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I agree that the singular/plural information of the second person pronouns should be retained in an update to the KJV.  
  3. Strongly Disagree
    BibleBeliever5 got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    You may feel comfortable with the antiquated language of the KJV, but that does mean it isn't archaic for the general population.  The definition of archaic fits exactly what you describe:  "no longer in ordinary use though retained by individuals" (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary).  So while you may be comfortable with archaic language, that doesn't mean the non-believer that you meet on the street will be.  We need to be thinking about them.  Even if you explain all the archaic language, they still may not be able to actually understand the language of Scripture itself, just your explanation.  That's a problem.
    I agree, it's mostly spelling changes.  It was not a general update of the grammar and vocabulary.  The grammar and vocabulary of the 1769 is still basically the same as the 1611.  So let's be clear-eyed about this.  We are still using a version basically 400 years old.  It is obviously and factually antiquated.
  4. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    That’s not what the Gospel of John says 
    John 20:30-31 KJV
    [30] And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: [31] But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
  5. Strongly Disagree
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to John Young in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    The bible wasn't written for unbelievers. It was written for the church to use.
  6. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Well, in my post above I was talking to you, Brother John Young, and asking you, Brother John Young, a question.
    On the other hand, if someone is talking to me, Pastor Scott Markle, and asking me that same question, I would be compelled to answer that yes indeed there are archaisms in the 1769 edition of the King James translation.  An "archaism" is defined as "an archaic word, usage, style, practice, etc."  The word "archaic" is defined as "belonging to an earlier period, ancient; antiquated, old-fashioned; that has ceased to be used except for specific purposes, as in poetry, church ritual, etc."  Now, my admission above does NOT mean that I am arguing that "archaisms" are either good or bad to retain or remove.  Rather, I believe that when considering a subject, it is best to consider ALL of the relevant facts in relation to that subject; and from my own perspective the factual existence of "archaisms" (in word usage, spelling, grammatical construction, punctuation, etc.) is a relevant fact in relation to this subject.
  7. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Pastor Scott Markle in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Brother Young,
    Without seeking to answer whether an "archaism" is either good or bad, I simply would ask -- Based upon the definition of an "archaism," does the 1769 edition (which is the one that we actually use) of the King James translation actually contain any "archaisms"?
  8. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    I have no interest in discussing something with someone who wants to keep caricaturing my position as being more concerned with catering to the reader than accuracy of word choice. You keep asserting this false either or fallacy and It’s quite annoying.
    The whole point of Bible Translation in the first place is to put the words of God from Hebrew and Greek into language understood by the reader. 
    Not one single person in this thread has advocated for making any changes that would diminish meaning, yet you keep making unfounded accusations that those in favor of any kind of update simply don’t care about accuracy. Just because you keep repeating this over and over again doesn’t make it true.
  9. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Well John. 

    The fact that you accuse me of a lack of care about word accuracy tell me you know very little about my actual position. As I stated repeatedly over and over again that I was not for making any changes that caused a loss in meaning.

    Secondly, you stated "Just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning. "

    This is ironic to me, you seem to assume that because two words are different that it ALWAYS means there is a distinction in the meaning. John, you need to go and read the KJV translators to the readers because they themselves would disagree with you on the point you are making. In their preface they talk about how others were criticizing them for not translating a particular Hebrew word consistently but how they chose to use SYNONYMS for various reasons. You can find numerous places in the KJV where the translators used a variety of synonyms to translate one particular word and in some of those cases it would simply a stylistic choice or a choice based on any of the various reasons they stated in their preface for doing so. 

    "Chalking up word accuracy to mere Superstitions or archaism " John that is an extremely gross misrepresentation of my position and I don't see how you could possibly conclude again that I have no care for word accuracy. I am flabbergasted that you would make such an accusation.

    you said "just because something is a synonym and similar in meaning does not mean it is an precise equivalent word or equal in meaning." John, you have an assumption that different word choices ALWAYS mean a difference in precise meaning, which is NOT the case. Sometimes yes there are some "synonyms" that have slightly difference nuances and connotative meanings. But that is NOT always the case. And you are in error to make that assumption. 

    you said "they have almost an eagerness to constantly change the word to suit their culture's tastes and flairs and flings rather than change their culture to suit the word. In rejecting the rock of historic stability they seek the ever shifting winds and raging waves of cultural, idiomatic, and doctrinal change to carry their language."

    This is NONSENSICAL John, you are trying to equate people wanting to having the Bible in modern vernacular and using language that makes it sound like they are no better than someone who literally changes the meaning of the word of God to fit the culture.  I have zero desire to change the meaning of God's word to fit our corrupt culture. Wanting to put the King James Bible into modern english is not in the same category as something like the "Queen James Bible" that was put out which removed all reference to sodomy. The fact that you would try to act like anyone trying to take the bible and put it into modern vernacular is in the same category as something like that is mind boggling to me. 

    again you stated " The ability to properly translate and update must come from a place of desiring biblical and logistical accuracy and historic stability first and foremost or your self desire of fickle cultural pandering will lead only to corruption of the text." 

    These accusations are ridiculous John. If you actually read what I said carefully, you would realize that I place a premium on "logistical accuracy". My guess is that you place anyone who disagrees with you into the category of not caring about "logistical accuracy". 

    The cultural pandering accusation is insane John. John, when you speak to people and preach your sermons, do you say every word or phrase in King James style English? No you do not. Would it be fair for me to accuse you of "cultural pandering"? Is speaking in a style that is close to your audience cultural pandering John? You and I know it isn't. You apply one standard to one area, and another standard to another. 

    Why is it ok for a preacher to get up and spend time explaining the meanings of archaic words, but it wouldn't be ok to just put that better understood word the preacher used into the text instead. Tell me John, What meaning has one lost if one says "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not lack" rather than "The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want". You can argue about style and whatever all day, but what MEANING has been lost. What NUANCE has been lost John? 

    Your argument rests on the simple accusation that anyone who wants to update words is going to eventually lose meaning and nuance. And your accusation is simply false. 

    Also your verses that your quote are completely out of context. I hope this is not how to teach people to handle and use the word of God. 
    First of all, If the passage in Proverbs mean what you actually says it does, then you better stop using the KJV and go back to one of the Older English Bibles, because the KJV certainly was a change.

    Ephesians 4:14 has nothing to with taking the bible and putting it into an accurate modern vernacular. 

    Maybe we should all go back to using Wycliffe's old english translation, after all we should not meddle with those given to change right? and if we just ask God for wisdom he will help us understand Wycliffe, and if you disagree with me it's just because you are tossed about with the wind. 

    Come on John, Don't use the Bible as your bludgeoning board to attack anyone who disagrees with you. 

  10. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    1 Corinthians 14:7-9 And even things without life giving sound, whether pipe or harp, except they give a distinction in the sounds, how shall it be known what is piped or harped. For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air.
  11. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    This is based on the Flesch Kincaid evaluation which is really flawed. That method mainly focuses on syllable length and sentence length. 
    it does not take into account difficult/archaic grammatical structure nor does it take into account archaic word difficulty or archaic idioms. 
    As for perfectly understanding the KJV, you might think you perfectly understand it but I highly doubt that. Even if you perfectly understand it now, I highly doubt you always have. 
    I am constantly finding things in the KJV that I have misunderstood and have to had to refine in my own understanding. My Bible is full of synonyms  I have written in the margins and explanations of certain idioms and such as a fruit of my own studying of the word of God. 
    The first time I read Psalm 23:1 Years ago I had no idea “want” did not mean desire but instead meant “to lack”. I have heard some refer to words like these as “false friends”, meaning they are words that you think you know the meaning, but because you are unaware that it has an archaic meaning and has changed meaning you won’t be as likely to look the word up in a dictionary. The whole “look things up in a dictionary” is hard to do if you don’t even realize a word you are reading has changed meaning. 
    Jim, I sincerely doubt you have not had many occasions through your Christian life where you did not have similar things happen with words. 
    It’s one thing to have a more mature understanding of the KJV after having had years of reading, studying, and hearing it preached. It’s quite another to pick it up and read it not having gone through all that. Learning the King James English is almost like learning a new way of speaking and reading. 
    When I first started reading the KJV 10 years ago I was frequently frustrated with some of the archaic words and there were many times where I assumed a word or phrase meant one thing and then later learned it meant something else. I have a hard time believing that anyone else’s experience has not been the same. 
    Let’s not pretend like the KJV is just like the normal or even formal English that we use today. There is a huge learning curve to being able to read, understand, and handle the KJV skillfully. 
  12. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    What about all the people translating the received texts into foreign languages? Are all these new language translations doomed to lacking depth and accuracy? 
  13. Like
    BibleBeliever5 reacted to Jordan Kurecki in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    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 they were purposely NOT consistent in translating a particular Hebrew or Greek word consistently and they basically admitted to doing it for stylistic reasonings. They acknowledged that there is a certain measure of liberty in Bible translation, which if you study Hebrew and Greek this is absolutely true. There really is such a thing as saying things multiple different ways.
    English as a language is a hodge-podge of many other languages, there is latin, greek, old english, and old germanic influence. It’s very common in English to have one word meaning something with its root in say latin, and then to have synonym words from the other languages like greek and germanic. I can’t think of any specific examples but to give you somewhat of an idea “Father” comes from Old Germanic, while words like “paternal” “patriarchy” come from Greek. Because of English being a hodge podge of other languages it tends to have a very large vocabularly and we often have multiple synonyms for a particular word or concept.
    Another thing about Language is it is constantly changing and evolving, this happens less with languages that are written (like English) but it does still happen. Most people assume language always tends to dumb down, but this not true, sometimes it tends to become more succinct, sometimes things just simply change. 
    There are several advantages to the English found in the KJV, I particularly like the precision of the distinctions found between thee, thou and you/ye. I would never want these distinctions to be eliminated in a translation. In fact I am in favor of keeping all things in the translation that give more precise accuracy.
    However there is definitely archaic language in the KJV that is not absolutely necesary and I find to be frustrating. For example “fetch a compass” is quite an old english idiom meaning “to go around”, in Hebrew there is nothing about an actual compass, the KJV translators just used one of their idioms of the day. It is not necessary for us to retain this idiom.

    I suspect that the original readers of the KJV probably had a much easier time with the words, phrases, and grammar of the translation than even I do having read it every day for almost 10 years, having a bible college degree, and having a background in linguistics. And this is simply due to the fact that the English that we speak today is much different than the English from the time the KJV was translated. First of all, the KJV is Anglican English, and we speak American English, and secondly It's a older style of English. 

    I think there is a serious downplay and underestimating of just how different the English of the KJV is to today's English. When I go to Uganda, they speak "English". "English" is the official language of Uganda. But their English is an English they picked up from being a British Colony, and furthermore they speak their English with a lot of African influence. Some words mean completely different things. For example "pants", in Uganda means "underwear". Their idioms are completely different, they don't say "pick me up at 10Am" tomorrow, they say "pick me", they don't say "I will call you on the phone" they say "I will flash you with the phone". It just goes to show how much difference two different forms of "English" can be. The point I am making is that languages can change significantly over time and geographic location. 

    Now, that's not to say that every single subset of American culture needs their own translation as someone else mentioned. We do have more of a formal style in America that we universally tend to us in more formal, professional, or academic settings. I do think it could be helpful and beneficial to have the King James put into a modern American formal style. 
    The Bible does take study to understand, I will agree as someone having put in uncounted hours into. But personally I find it frustrating how frequently I have to look words up in the Bible due to archaic language and idioms. There is no reason to force someone to have to run to a dictionary to define a word like “besom” when a word like “broom” would be accurate, sufficient and easier to understand. Just because some word or phrase is archaic does not necessarily mean that it is “more accurate” or “better” or that it “has more depth”.
    Contrary to some of the opinions and feelings of other, it is actually possible to take the KJV and put it into modern english without changing or losing meaning. 
    Personally I would be in favor of an update as long as it truly stuck to updating things without changing or losing meaning. The NKJV and MEV have gone beyond that and I reject them. 
    I think the KJV is a masterpiece and an excellent translation, I have found no errors in it, but because of it’s age, in some places it is unnecessarily difficult to understand. Again, the key word is unnecssarily. Some people simply resort to the talking point of “well you just need to stop being lazy and study”, I personally don’t want people to have to continually run to dictionaries if they don’t have to. Now if the archaic word or reading is somehow more acccurate and give's more distinction, then I am in favor of keeping it. But there is a lot of archaic stuff in the KJV that is NOT necessary in that regard. 
    You know it’s funny and this might be off topic, but some of the same people I know who tell you to run to a dictionary if you don’t understand an English word, are the same people that reject, or mock the studying of Hebrew or Greek using Hebrew or Greek dictionaries. I have never understood how some of the people out there that mock things like "scholarship" want you to turn around and run to an English Dictionary that is the work of an English scholar. In my opinion, the goal of Bible translation should be to eliminate as much "scholarship" between the Word of God and the Reader while still being faithful to what God said and not adding or removing anything that God has said.

    If the goal of the word of God is for people to understand it, then shouldn't we remove as many barriers as possible to the understanding as long as we are not changing anything of substance or meaning? I am NOT saying to dumb down the translation to the point of losing meaning. I believe it is a false dichotomy to say that you either have to dumb down the Bible or that you have to retain every archaism found in the KJV. 
    What I see a lot of nowadays is “practical Ruckmanism”, Ruckman taught that the KJV itself as a translation was given by inspiration and that the KJV translators were inspired like the original writers of the OT and NT. Out of this Theological doctrine flows practices like holding to the archaic language of the KJV and rejecting and concept of modernizing and updating the English Translation. I’ve even seen it gone so far as to cling to archaic spelling (think british Saviour vs American Savior or British Shew vs American Show)
    What you see often are many people who would claim to reject Ruckmans doctrine, behaving as if they believed it. The archaic language of the English from the time of KJV is not some holy elevated language.
  14. Thanks
    BibleBeliever5 got a reaction from Doc Flay in Thoughts about an update to the KJV?   
    Hi Alan, thank you very much for the time you took to respond and your heart for God's word.  I agree with you that the KJV is accurate.  I think it would help if I clarify the meaning of the poll because I think there has been a misunderstanding.  The title is "Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?"  The simple and accurate is referring to the update, not the KJV.  My meaning is: "Would you use a KJV update that is simple and accurately updates the KJV?"  This is not at all meaning that the KJV is not accurate, as I certainly believe it is.  Next time it may help you to be sure you are correctly understanding the meaning of a post.
    Hi, thank you for your reply.  I am aware of the Modern English Version. It is a completely new translation that many people do not know or trust. It differs a lot from the KJV. I am wondering if people would want to use an exact KJV that has updated modern language.
    Hi, thanks for the reply.  I agree that the italics are important in the KJV.  So I think any modern update to the KJV should keep them.
  • Create New...