Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?


Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?  

13 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you use a simple accurate KJV update?

    • Yes
      4
    • No
      5
    • Not Sure
      0
    • Probably
      1
    • Probably Not
      3


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I don't mean to get in the middle of this debacle between you two. But John I do believe you have misinterpreted the spirit of Jordan's support of a new updated translation. 

Jordan isn't talking about updating words willy nilly for the simpler pallet of the modern tongue. But more about updating actual words that are archaic. Yes are archaic. Using the example above, the word 'besom' changed to 'broom' would not endanger the spirit of the kjv. Honestly I think changes like that may be in the best interest, there would be very few changes. 

Now I don't see this as a necesarry update, but yeah if the money got put in place to where it need be, then I would fully support it. 

Infact a good publicly moderated, (ie. Wikipedia style moderation) rendition online would allow everyone to supervise such a thing and make sure that it is fully compatible with the KJV. Of course every change would be discussed, and debated upon like in the original foundation of the KJV

I see no issue with that idea, but I may be flawed in my thinking. What do you think? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My contention is not about word choice but on the philosophy that determines what words are chosen and why. Take "besom" for instance, which is a TYPE of broom. The considerations for changing even this word will be different based on translation philosophy.

The Biblicist asks: "What will best convey the meaning into English?" 

Modernist asks: "What will my reader understand with minimal effort?" 

On the surface or in the rushed opinion, one might think they can be held in harmony or that the ease of the reader should be the upmost concern but that is not the case. Which philosophy keeps these command of Deuteronomy 4:2 and comes from a true heart for God's word as expressed in all of Psalm 119?

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Psalm119: 38 Stablish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear.


Psalm 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

These aught to be at the forefront of our mind and not the frustration of words we do no yet know and wishing those "old" ancient people could have used a more "modern" word and style which we do know. 

The Word must be conveyed in such a way that it lifts the hearer up to it rather than diminishes it to the minimal understandings of the lost man or those unwilling to learn.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

I am simply amazed that there are people that find it so incredibly difficult to add looking up a word to their Bible study habits. It should be a crucial part of good study habits.

After all, if you come upon a word like the one posted below; "besom" and you look and see that it means "broom", is it still not understandable the next time you see it?

No, it is still understandable; simply because you have studied correctly and actually learned something.  :4_12_2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm trying not to be an advocate but those objections hardly seem argue worthy. Not everyone has a dictionary handy, nor are even in the practice of looking up words. ( I agree they should be, it would be unwise for them not to be) Besom was the word for broom back then, as that was what the broom was.

Maybe something between our wants are not being communicated well enough for an image board. Anyways this is going to my last post in this thread, I see no edification in this any longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
55 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

I am simply amazed that there are people that find it so incredibly difficult to add looking up a word to their Bible study habits. It should be a crucial part of good study habits.

After all, if you come upon a word like the one posted below; "besom" and you look and see that it means "broom", is it still not understandable the next time you see it?

No, it is still understandable; simply because you have studied correctly and actually learned something.  :4_12_2:

What if someone is in church and just listening to the reading of God's word (without explanation)?  What if he is unable to understand some things due to archaic or obsolete words and can't check everything in a dictionary?  Shouldn't we be able to have understandable words in such a scenario?  Would it not be better for God's word to be read in modern words that people actually use today?  The KJV was written in Early Modern English, which is a different stage of the English language than exists today.  Can't we update the KJV to today's stage of English to help people understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
28 minutes ago, Hugh_Flower said:

I see no edification in this any longer.

Not all edifying conversations are agreeable in nature and at times will reveal an area of disagreement between those engaged in it but its still an edifying conversation because the intent is still, as Webster's 1828 says, "To instruct and improve the mind in knowledge generally, and particularly in moral and religious knowledge, in faith and holiness."

I don't have any malicious intent in dealing with this matter here but am simply trying to help and show the reason for the greater conflict among translators. The only way we (modernist, Biblicists, and those who try to mix the two systems) will ever come to any sort of consensus is if we have the hard conversations about our innate philosophies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
9 hours ago, 1Timothy115 said:

Anyway the version I use is modern enough. Since most of use the 1769 KJV (often referred to as the authorized version).

Other than spelling, were there any substantial updates in the language of the KJV from 1611 to 1769?  1769 is still about 250 years ago....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
38 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

What if someone is in church and just listening to the reading of God's word (without explanation)?  What if he is unable to understand some things due to archaic or obsolete words and can't check everything in a dictionary? 

ASK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
40 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Would it not be better for God's word to be read in modern words that people actually use today?  The KJV was written in Early Modern English, which is a different stage of the English language than exists today.  Can't we update the KJV to today's stage of English to help people understand?

This is the excuse that has generated numerous modern perversions of God's word. You are certainly free to use any or all of them; or update the KJV as you see fit. 

I am no Bible scholar, but I believe that God is perfectly able to not only preserve His word as He has promised, but use it as He has to save the souls of a lost and dying world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

ASK

The best ways to solve an issue is often the simplest.

Practically all modern versions were made to solve the problem of "archaism" yet many still want to make another and another. I'm beginning to think our problem is not a lack of updates but rather that too many people refuse to give up the KJV for updates, so they keep offering us more.

They ask: "How much change will you accept to move from the archaic version?"

Here is my answer: Until the conversation stops being about the "archaism" in scripture and returns to the "purity" of God's word, I won't even consider your new updates, much less collaborate with you to make a single change.

If you came to me and asked if I would have an interest in purifying and helping to convey scripture to a people who did not have a pure, accurate and precise bible in their language then I would perhaps consider the project. But I have no interest in the fools errand of changing the scripture from a pure, accurate and precise language into something less in the name of ever changing "archaism".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, John Young said:

Here is my answer: Until the conversation stops being about the "archaism" in scripture and returns to the "purity" of God's word, I won't even consider your new updates, much less collaborate with you to make a single change.

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"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
4 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

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"?

4 hours ago, John Young said:

It really depends on who you talk to. Its a very subject specific concept. 

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...