Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[farouk]

I see no need (personally) for an update of the KJV.

Hi @Deborah_ Even if one update of the KJV were issued, it would not become the one widely used one.

 

[The Disciple John]

Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version. I love the KJV. But the translation is in the main about 400 years old (spelling changes were made in 1769). So if there were an update that simply and accurately updated the KJV, making no changes except updating the archaic language, would you want to use it? What would be your thoughts generally about such an update? It would be great to hear what you all think. May God be glorified.

*Update April 17, 2022: There is a project going on to update the KJV. www.kjvupdate.com

I read your link, and based on that, would it not be the same thing as using an already existing modern translation, which is accurate?
The New King James Version is not a strict update of the KJV, for it was re-translated from the original languages and differs from the KJV in places.

 

[Jay Ross]

The Bible of course said enough on it Jay Jn 21:25. It was prophesied that the older would serve the younger Gen 25:23. That is not to say God caused it, however He knew it Isa 46:10. That wasn't the topic anyway sir, the thread is about thoughts on a KJV update.

I fully agree with you that all, yes all versions have mistakes, like you said many the same mistakes, a great example being Jn 1:1 which was no mistaken reality, rather it was a deliberate manipulation. By examining multiple versions, and prayer, and honest research, one can definitely get accurate understanding today. Isa 2:2-4; Dan 12:4

In my opinion, Robert, you are not qualified to speak on whether or not there are errors since you believe in the errors of the JW's theological understanding of the modified translation that you use as your biblical reference.

The problems are the mistaken interpretations that have been written into the various translations that we have today. Interpretations that are out, IMHO, by around 130 years. Interpretations that suggest that their religious "cult" is the only true church, and there are many even on this forum that present this delusion in their posts.

In our zeal for God's truth, we can all be lead astray, and end up far from God in our own understanding. It is a scary place to find oneself.

Now for modernisation of the original KJV's language into the present day idioms is a good thing, however, if the existing errors already existing in the the original KJV are also not addressed, then the updated language version of the KJV will not have progressed our understanding since the time of Henry VIII of God and the language modernisation of the authorised KJV will have been a waste of effort. Know what I mean.

 

[Happy Trails]

Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version. I love the KJV. But the translation is in the main about 400 years old (spelling changes were made in 1769). So if there were an update that simply and accurately updated the KJV, making no changes except updating the archaic language, would you want to use it? What would be your thoughts generally about such an update? It would be great to hear what you all think. May God be glorified.

*Update April 17, 2022: There is a project going on to update the KJV. www.kjvupdate.com

The biggest advantage in using the KJV these days is that every word is numbered and cataloged. It's a great reference tool. As translations go, it's really not that good. Several concessions resulted in questionable word choices. Having said that, I use it more than any other version. I use several translations to gain ideas about the text. However, my preference is to use an interlinear as the basis for any serious study.

 

[Robert Gwin]

In my opinion, Robert, you are not qualified to speak on whether or not there are errors since you believe in the errors of the JW's theological understanding of the modified translation that you use as your biblical reference.

The problems are the mistaken interpretations that have been written into the various translations that we have today. Interpretations that are out, IMHO, by around 130 years. Interpretations that suggest that their religious "cult" is the only true church, and there are many even on this forum that present this delusion in their posts.

In our zeal for God's truth, we can all be lead astray, and end up far from God in our own understanding. It is a scary place to find oneself.

Now for modernisation of the original KJV's language into the present day idioms is a good thing, however, if the existing errors already existing in the the original KJV are also not addressed, then the updated language version of the KJV will not have progressed our understanding since the time of Henry VIII of God and the language modernisation of the authorised KJV will have been a waste of effort. Know what I mean.

Some things are simply easy to see J, doesn't take much skill today since we live in the age of information. It is extremely easy to see that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible went to great lengths to remove God's name from their version, but because God never leaves Himself without witness, prevented them to do so.

An easy to understand example that I regularly use is Psalms 110:1, The LORD said to my Lord, don't make sense correct? However, with a simple interlinear Bible, Hebrew to English, one is able to see that God's name is the first Lord, and not Adonai at all. So the proper rendering is Jehovah said to my Lord, easy right? Some versions who have done the same sometimes include in their forward that everywhere the Lord is all capitalized, that was where the Divine name was.

I agree the NWT has deliberate alterations, and I know why, and I don't agree with altering what is said, for instance the way we render Jn 3:16 using exercising faith instead of believes in is not right, but it is true, just because one believes in Jesus, that will not gain them life James 2:19, you have to live the faith sir. Obedience is the key Mat 7:21

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Only to those who are ignorant on the subject. It's not a con.

“Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” (1 Corinthians 8:1-2)

 

[Truther]

Yes sir Truth, although the Bible was finished by the year 100, understanding is released progressively Pro 4:18. As you know Daniel was a very favored friend of God who was privileged to pen prophecy in the Bible, yet he didn't understand what he had written Dan 12:4. After the period of apostasy, in those end times Daniel referred to, God began to gather the sheep back together in His house to be instructed in His ways and to walk in His paths, being spiritually fed not new passages of Bible, but understanding of what is written through a faithful slave that Jesus assigned to feed the sheep in the last days before his coming Mat 24:45-47. They are made up of born again Christians Truth.

I just don't think we need to redefine the Bible to current language changes or woke lifestyles.

 

[Davy]

Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version. I love the KJV. But the translation is in the main about 400 years old (spelling changes were made in 1769). So if there were an update that simply and accurately updated the KJV, making no changes except updating the archaic language, would you want to use it? What would be your thoughts generally about such an update? It would be great to hear what you all think. May God be glorified.

*Update April 17, 2022: There is a project going on to update the KJV. www.kjvupdate.com

They already tried it with the New King James Version (NKJV), and they 'secretly' also used different readings from other Greek texts instead of primarily the Textus Receptus, though its scholars and even Nelson publisher's claim... the Textus Receptus was used for the New Testament. This is why the NKJV reads differently in many spots than the 1611 KJV. There are omissions in it too.

So best to stay with the existing King James Version, which has already... been updated to remove most of the Old English terms anyway. Thus saying today's 1611 KJV is still in Old English shows ignorance...

Genesis 1 in Old English:
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.


Already Updated 1611 KJV Bible, in Genesis 1:
Gen 1:1-4
1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
KJV

So those who like to claim the 1611 KJV we have today is still... in the Old English are actually showing IMMEDIATE BIAS against the KJV Bible. It's one of the ways one can know those have probably already made their decision to quit the KJV Bible.

 

[reformed1689]

They already tried it with the New King James Version (NKJV), and they 'secretly' also used different readings from other Greek texts instead of primarily the Textus Receptus, though its scholars and even Nelson publisher's claim... the Textus Receptus was used for the New Testament. This is why the NKJV reads differently is many spots than the 1611 KJV. There are omissions in it.

So best to stay with the existing King James Version, which has already... been updated to remove most of the Old English terms anyway. Thus saying today's 1611 KJV is still in Old English shows ignorance...

Genesis 1 in Old English:
In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.

2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.


Already Update 1611 KJV Bible, in Genesis 1:
Gen 1:1-4
1 In the beginning God created the Heaven and the earth.

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
KJV

Even the "updated" KJV is outdated and obsolete with modern English, and it doesn't use the best manuscripts and still includes passages that we know were not original to the text.

 

[Davy]

Even the "updated" KJV is outdated and obsolete with modern English, and it doesn't use the best manuscripts and still includes passages that we know were not original to the text.

Bogus argument.

The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus are NOT the "best manuscripts", but are CORRUPT manuscripts which charlatans against the Protestant Faith like British 19th century scholars Wescott and Hort pushed, and were used for most modern Bible translations. The 1611 KJV is still... the most accurate English translation to date. If someone wants an easy language Bible to read because they're too lazy to learn to read the KJV with study tools created for it, they can use one of the many paraphrase Bibles already out there, like The Living Bible.

This is why your argument is BOGUS. Because you're not in reality suggesting an easier to read Bible, because those are already out there. What those like you are suggesting is the desire to do away with the 1611 KJV Bible altogether and supplant it with a corrupt English version based on that corrupt manuscripts you claim are "best manuscripts".

 

[Michiah-Imla]

the best manuscripts

Another one who drank the cool aid…

 

[Davy]

I suggest that anyone who wants to learn how the charlatan scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's pushed corrupt manuscripts for a new Greek New Testament translation which modern corrupt Bible versions were based on, like the NIV, that they watch the documentary called Bridge To Babylon.

Wescott and Hort, in their personal letters written to each other, revealed their hatred of the Textus Receptus Greek texts used in the 1611 KJV, and how they sought to overthrow the KJV. The Bridge To Babylon documentary also reveals the corruptions in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus Greek manuscripts which even the claim by modern textual critics that it is the 'oldest' Greek manuscript has NOT actually been proven.

 

[reformed1689]

Another one who drank the cool aid…

Or one who isn't brainwashed. See how that works?

 

[reformed1689]

Bogus argument.

The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus are NOT the "best manuscripts", but are CORRUPT manuscripts which charlatans against the Protestant Faith like British 19th century scholars Wescott and Hort pushed, and were used for most modern Bible translations. The 1611 KJV is still... the most accurate English translation to date. If someone wants an easy language Bible to read because they're too lazy to learn to read the KJV with study tools created for it, they can use one of the many paraphrase Bibles already out there, like The Living Bible.

This is why your argument is BOGUS. Because you're not in reality suggesting an easier to read Bible, because those are already out there. What those like you are suggesting is the desire to do away with the 1611 KJV Bible altogether and supplant it with a corrupt English version based on that corrupt manuscripts you claim are "best manuscripts".

If you think Modern translations use only Vaticanus and Alexandrinus then you are sorely mistaken and woefully ignorant of textual criticism. But thanks for playing the game. And no, the KJV is not the "most accurate translation to date." Do you even know what manuscripts the KJV used?

And the 1611 was done away with years ago. I doubt you actually read a 1611.

 

[Davy]

It's easy to know that Wescott and Hort's theories were false and had no historical foundation.

Hort 'theorized' that between 250 - 350 A.D, the original Bible texts were deliberately altered by Church leaders at Antioch in Syria. Hort claimed this was followed by a second revision later on. And those revisions supposedly added words to The Bible which the result was longer readings found in the Greek Textus Receptus manuscripts (the texts used for the 1611 KJV Bible).

Hort then claimed that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus contained readings that were shorter because they had not been corrupted by any such revisions. The scholar F. Scrivener in his A Plain Introduction to the Text of the New Testament, he said, "Of this two-fold authoritive revision of the Greek text, not one trace remains in the history of Christian antiquity" (p.533).

If that had actually happened back sometime between 250 and 350 A.D. like Hort theorized, then there would be historical writings showing such changes going on back then. There is none. Hort simply theorized and claimed it to be true with no historical evidence to back up his theory at all! So what nut would just take his word for it?

Scholars of Wescott and Hort's day, like Dean John Burgon, said because of the lack of historical evidence for Wescott and Hort's revision, Burgon said they had actually created a new Greek text (The Revision Revised, by Dean John Burgon, p.xii). F.H.A. Scrivener who served on the same committe as Wescott and Hort, objected to their theory and conclusions, saying, "Dr. Hort's system... is entirely destitute of historical foundation." (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, by F.H.A. Scrivener, p.537, 542).

 

[reformed1689]

It's easy to know that Wescott and Hort's theories were false and had no historical foundation.

Hort 'theorized' that between 250 - 350 A.D, the original Bible texts were deliberately altered by Church leaders at Antioch in Syria. Hort claimed this was followed by a second revision later on. And those revisions supposedly added words to The Bible which the result was longer readings found in the Greek Textus Receptus manuscripts (the texts used for the 1611 KJV Bible).

Hort then claimed that Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus contained readings that were shorter because they had not been corrupted any such revisions. The scholar F. Scrivener in his A Plain Introduction to the Text of the New Testament, he said, "Of this two-fold authoritive revision of the Greek text, not one trace remains in the history of Christian antiquity" (p.533).

If that had actually happened back sometime between 250 and 350 A.D. like Hort theorized, then there would be historical writings showing such changes going on back then. There is none. Hort simply theorized and claimed it to be true with no historical evidence to back up his theory at all! So what nut would just take his word for it? Many scholars of Wescott and Hort's day, like Dean John Burgon, said because of the lack of historical evidence for Wescott and Hort's revision, Burgon said they had actually created a new Greek text (The Revision Revised, by Dean John Burgon, p.xii). F.H.A. Scrivener who served on the same committed as Wescott and Hort, objected to their theory and conclusions, saying, "Dr. Hort's system... is entirely destitute of historical foundation." (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, by F.H.A. Scrivener, p.537, 542).

And none of this has anything to do with modern textual criticism.

 

[Davy]

What Hort and Wescott proposed with their theory against the Greek Textus Receptus, and instead trying to supplant it with the corrupt Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus Greek texts has everything... to do with modern textual criticism. Wescott and Hort followed Griesbach's Unitarian text also. Griesbach, a 19th century German scholar, is considered the father of 'modern' textual criticism. Wescott and Hort said they venerated Griesbach above any other textual critic of the New Testament (The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction by Wescott and Hort, p.185).

 

[Cassandra]

I suggest that anyone who wants to learn how the charlatan scholars Wescott and Hort in the 1880's pushed corrupt manuscripts for a new Greek New Testament translation which modern corrupt Bible versions were based on, like the NIV, that they watch the documentary called Bridge To Babylon.

Wescott and Hort, in their personal letters written to each other, revealed their hatred of the Textus Receptus Greek texts used in the 1611 KJV, and how they sought to overthrow the KJV. The Bridge To Babylon documentary also reveals the corruptions in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus Greek manuscripts which even the claim by modern textual critics that it is the 'oldest' Greek manuscript has NOT actually been proven.

Oh, ok!!! I saw this on You tube and was gonna watch it but I wasn't sure if it was pro or con W&H.
I really don't know much about the subject, but def will watch it now!!!

 

[Davy]

Oh, ok!!! I saw this on You tube and was gonna watch it but I wasn't sure if it was pro or con W&H.
I really don't know much about the subject, but def will watch it now!!!

Hort actually favored Catholic doctrine, but minus some of the most basic Biblical doctrines, like Substitution (i.e., that Christ's death on the cross served as a substitution for sins). In reality, both Wescott and Hort, per their letters to each other, revealed not only were they against the Protestant Church, but also favored Darwinism. That documentary documents where they showed those ideas in their letters.

My having studied about secret societies when I was young, that is what the working of Wescott and Hort appears like on the surface, even by their connections with the "Oxford Movement" and its 'Tractarian' publications about their attempts to bring the Anglican Church tied back to the Roman Church authority. They favored John Newman who began as a Protestant Anglican but then later converted to Catholicism. The University of Oxford was involved in this Jesuit attempt to take over the Church of England. Wescott and Hort opposed the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone), and also refuted The written Bible as absolute authority (which is a Catholic doctrine). Hort's statement about Darwin's Origin of Species that Darwin's theories were irrefutable reveals border atheism. The deeper one looks at Wescott and Hort's letters, the more it looks like they existed for the purpose of overthrowing The Word of God.

 

[Jim B]

Hort actually favored Catholic doctrine, but minus some of the most basic Biblical doctrines, like Substitution (i.e., that Christ's death on the cross served as a substitution for sins). In reality, both Wescott and Hort, per their letters to each other, revealed not only were they against the Protestant Church, but also favored Darwinism. That documentary documents where they showed those ideas in their letters.

My having studied about secret societies when I was young, that is what the working of Wescott and Hort appears like on the surface, even by their connections with the "Oxford Movement" and its 'Tractarian' publications about their attempts to bring the Anglican Church tied back to the Roman Church authority. They favored John Newman who began as a Protestant Anglican but then later converted to Catholicism. The University of Oxford was involved in this Jesuit attempt to take over the Church of England. Wescott and Hort opposed the doctrine of sola scriptura (Scripture alone), and also refuted The written Bible as absolute authority (which is a Catholic doctrine). Hort's statement about Darwin's Origin of Species that Darwin's theories were irrefutable reveals border atheism. The deeper one looks at Wescott and Hort's letters, the more it looks like they existed for the purpose of overthrowing The Word of God.

Interesting, but what does this have to do with using a KJV update?