Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Thoughts about an update to the KJV?


BibleBeliever5
 Share

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

  • IFB

An updated modern KJV has already been done, in 1994. It's called the 21st Century King James Bible if you want to check it out and compare it to the 1769 KJV. I've never read it so I don't know what differences are in it, however it was supposedly only changing some 'archaic' vocabulary words, not grammar or the thee's and thou's. So if the Bible scholars in this thread want to check it out, feel free and maybe give us a good review on a separate thread and tell us what you think. 

Edited by Rebecca
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
5 hours ago, Rebecca said:

An updated modern KJV has already been done, in 1994. It's called the 21st Century King James Bible if you want to check it out and compare it to the 1769 KJV. I've never read it so I don't know what differences are in it, however it was supposedly only changing some 'archaic' vocabulary words, not grammar or the thee's and thou's. So if the Bible scholars in this thread want to check it out, feel free and maybe give us a good review on a separate thread and tell us what you think. 

1994? That would be archaic by now. We need at least 10 updates every year to keep things updated among the updates or all the college graduates who've dumped 200 grand into their educations won't be able to understand the bible they don't even read. 

You really never hear a Kentucky hillbilly complaining the"archaic language of the antiquated Authorized Version". It's usually some bible scholar looking to pump out a new translation, or apparently now that many Christians have figured out the con job, a new update of the KJV. $$$$

Every Christian I've heard complain about the "thee's and thou's" never read the bible. Period. In any version or edition. It's just an excuse to avoid reading it.

Edited by SureWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, Rebecca said:

An updated modern KJV has already been done, in 1994. It's called the 21st Century King James Bible if you want to check it out and compare it to the 1769 KJV. I've never read it so I don't know what differences are in it, however it was supposedly only changing some 'archaic' vocabulary words, not grammar or the thee's and thou's. So if the Bible scholars in this thread want to check it out, feel free and maybe give us a good review on a separate thread and tell us what you think. 

The 21st Century KJV (KJ21) is inadequate.  It still keeps archaic English like thee, thou, ye, and cometh, as well as archaic grammar.  So the "eth" endings are unnecessarily kept.  Also, it has very strange formatting different than the KJV with larger italic font for words of Christ and then removing the important italics of the KJV.  This is unacceptable.  It also uses bold lettering for famous passages.  So some verses are completely bolded.  One quote from the Father was put in all caps and italics.  It also capitalizes divine pronouns, which means they have to interpret which pronouns are referring to God, and they could have made mistakes.  I think the KJV is much better by not doing that.  So the KJ21 does not fulfill the need for a KJV update.  It introduces poor changes to the KJV.  The Third Millennium Bible, which is also called the New Authorized Version, is the same as the KJ21 but includes Apocrypha and no formatting changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
9 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

The 21st Century KJV (KJ21) is inadequate.  It still keeps archaic English like thee, thou, ye, and cometh, as well as archaic grammar.  (emboldening added by Pastor Scott Markle)

Brother "BibleBeliever,"

Do you understand the grammatical significance of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"?  If so, what do you understand that grammatical significance to be?

In your opening question for this thread discussion, you ask about "a simple, ACCURATE KJV update."  Understanding the grammatical significance for the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye," I would contend that they are included in the King James translation for precise accuracy.  Furthermore, I would contend that arguing for them to be removed is demonstrating an interest in "simplicity" AT THE EXPENSE of accuracy.  No King James translation supporter that I know would EVER support that, nor would they EVER use such a product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
Just now, BibleBeliever5 said:

Yes I do.  And it's archaic English.

Yes, it IS "archaic" English, specifically for the sake of ACCURACY.  So, you have now revealed what many have suspected.  Removing that which you perceive as "archaic" is more important to you than retaining that which is important for ACCURACY.  I must contend that such an attitude/philosophy of "updating" is an error.  I will have nothing whatsoever at all to do with such an attitude/philosophy of "updating."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
2 minutes ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Yes, it IS "archaic" English, specifically for the sake of ACCURACY.  So, you have now revealed what many have suspected.  Removing that which you perceive as "archaic" is more important to you than retaining that which is important for ACCURACY.  I must contend that such an attitude/philosophy of "updating" is an error.  I will have nothing whatsoever at all to do with such an attitude/philosophy of "updating."

Let me put it this way.  I do not support any inaccuracy in the Bible.  I believe that a Bible should be 100% accurate.  I do not support updating anything in the KJV that makes the text inaccurate.  If you think the only way to have an accurate Bible is to have ye and thee, I would disagree with you.  Please think more about that.  🙂   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
29 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Let me put it this way.  I do not support any inaccuracy in the Bible.  I believe that a Bible should be 100% accurate.  I do not support updating anything in the KJV that makes the text inaccurate.  If you think the only way to have an accurate Bible is to have ye and thee, I would disagree with you.  Please think more about that.  🙂   

Here is the problem in our discussion concerning the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye" -- I cannot discuss their importance for precise accuracy with you if you do not actually know what they mean grammatically.  For that reason, I asked you above to provide your own understanding concerning their grammatical significance/meaning.  You have not done so.  Even so, you have proceeded to express disagreement; but you have NOT provided any evidence to support your disagreement.  Let me ask you again -- What do you understand the grammatical significance/meaning of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye" to be?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
1 minute ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Here is the problem in our discussion concerning the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye" -- I cannot discuss their importance for precise accuracy with you if you do not actually know what they mean grammatically.  For that reason, I asked you above to provide your own understanding concerning their grammatical significance/meaning.  You have not done so.  Even so, you have proceeded to express disagreement; but you have NOT provided any evidence to support your disagreement.  Let me ask you again -- What do you understand the grammatical significance/meaning of the pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye" to be?  

Let's skip to the bigger question.  Can God give us the Holy Scriptures in our language that we use today?  With God, all things are possible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
10 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Can God give us the Holy Scriptures in our language that we use today?

You could always do what the kings did and write your own updated copy.... That way it can be in your very own version of the English language.

Deuteronomy 17:18-20 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19 and it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them: 20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left: to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel.

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
5 minutes ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

Let's skip to the bigger question.  Can God give us the Holy Scriptures in our language that we use today?  With God, all things are possible.  

And there it is -- Avoid the question of ACCURACY in order to push your agenda of updating.  You have again revealed your priorities.  

By the way, concerning the matter of accuracy and the "archaic" pronouns, with God indeed all things are possible; and God has already provided an answer -- Bible teachers who teach others the importance and meaning of those pronouns for the sake of accuracy.  (Note: I myself did not know the grammatical significance of ANY pronouns, except that someone first taught me English grammar, so the need to be taught  is NOT an argument against this provision.)  This is the manner by which God made it possible for me to learn their importance and meaning.  This is the manner by which God has made it possible for me to teach others concerning their importance and meaning.

You, on the other hand, do not seem to care, but only seem to want to avoid the subject of their accuracy.  (Note: At this point I remain very uncertain that you even know the grammatical significance/meaning of those pronouns.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

By the way, if a word is a more "archaic" English word, but is still retained in a modern English dictionary, then that word is STILL a part of the language that we use today, even it is only on a rare (or specialized) occasion.  That word (whatever word it may be) has NOT yet been lost from the language altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
On 2/5/2021 at 2:26 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Since an answer does not seem forthcoming, allow me to provide the grammatical facts concerning the meaning and significance of the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye."
 

Concerning PERSONAL PRONOUNS in English

1st person personal pronouns are those referring to one's self.
2nd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken to directly.
3rd person personal pronouns are those referring to another or others spoken about indirectly.

Personal pronouns contain both singular and plural forms for the sake of accuracy, EXCEPT in the case of the 2nd person personal pronouns for present-day English:

                                                           Singular                                                                       Plural

1st person --               I (nominative case), me (objective case)               we (nominative case), us (objective case)

2nd person --            you (nominative case), you (objective case)         you (nominative case), you (objective case)

3rd person --              he, she (nominative), him, her (objective)        they (nominative case), them (objective case)

(Note: For present-day English usage, the pronoun "you" serves both for the singular and plural, as well as both for the nominative and objective cases in both the singular and plural.  As such, some element of confusion is possible; and since both the Hebrew and Greek possess distinct forms for the singular and plural 2nd person personal pronouns, some aspect of accuracy would be lost.)

However, personal pronouns contain both singular and plural forms for the sake of accuracy WITHOUT exception if we use the more "archaic" English forms:

                                                             Singular                                                                       Plural

1st person --               I (nominative case), me (objective case)               we (nominative case), us (objective case)

2nd person --            thou (nominative case), thee (objective case)         ye (nominative case), you (objective case)

3rd person --              he, she (nominative), him, her (objective)        they (nominative case), them (objective case)

(Note: When using the more "archaic" English personal pronoun forms, the pronouns "thou," "thee," "ye," and "you" each serve in a distinct manner to accurately distinguish the singular and plural, as well as to distinguish the nominative and objective cases in both the singular and plural.  As such, these more "archaic" English personal pronouns in the King James translation retain the precise accuracy of the Hebrew and Greek from which they are translated.) 

This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
On 2/3/2021 at 11:16 PM, WellWithMySoul said:

I was responding to the OP, but it still stands for me that though I am not a linguist, I would still use a KJV (not "updated") to translate to the foreign language.

WellWithMySoul,

Thank you for your observation and thoughts. 

You are correct. The KJV is just fine, accurate, simple, loyal to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, and adequate to use in translating into foreign languages. 

Alan 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
13 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

This is why I favor the retention of the thees and thous. At the very least an update would have to have subscripts above the 2nd person pronouns with say an "s" or "p" above or in a margin. But I still would lean towards retaining them in the text. I would require something indicating this ifnormation. I have no interest in a update that reduces the amount of grammatical precision of the translation of the KJV.

I agree that the singular/plural information of the second person pronouns should be retained in an update to the KJV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB
1 hour ago, BibleBeliever5 said:

I agree that the singular/plural information of the second person pronouns should be retained in an update to the KJV.  

So, as another has already asked earlier - How would you propose to retain that information if you chose not to use the "archaic" pronouns "thee," "thou," and "ye"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • IFB

This thread shows exactly what I was referring to earlier. The KJV is beloved.

I understand the accuracy of "Thee" and "Thou". When one talks today, do you use Thee and Thou? I highly doubt it. However, you are still able to convey the accuracy of what you are speaking of. Thee and Thou is far simpler to use, but there are ways to convey it.

This is also why you can't "Update" the KJV, which is what the Modern KJV, 21st Century KJV, NKJV and a number of other updates did. Notice, I called them updates. A translation cannot come from a translation. A modern translation would require people who are qualified to translate from the original languages into modern English.

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.

 Share



  • Recent Achievements

    • couple earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • couple earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Napsterdad earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Rando went up a rank
      Rookie
    • TheGloryLand went up a rank
      Experienced
  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...