Where the King James needs updating ...

[ItinerantPreacher]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

It is also the argument used by many to produce new Bibles. Enough so that we now have versions from The Message to The LOLCat Bible, and The Manga Bible.

The language of the KJV is less difficult that one might think.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/language-of-the-kjv

Decent article there for someone who is willing to read it. Don't know everything about the authour, but good article nonetheless.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

It is also the argument used by many to produce new Bibles. Enough so that we now have versions from The Message to The LOLCat Bible, and The Manga Bible.

The language of the KJV is less difficult that one might think.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/language-of-the-kjv

Decent article there for someone who is willing to read it. Don't know everything about the authour, but good article nonetheless.

I, personally, am fairly familiar with Early Modern English.  But why would anyone want to learn it when they can read the Bible in a version of English they can understand? 

 

[ItinerantPreacher]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

It is also the argument used by many to produce new Bibles. Enough so that we now have versions from The Message to The LOLCat Bible, and The Manga Bible.

The language of the KJV is less difficult that one might think.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/language-of-the-kjv

Decent article there for someone who is willing to read it. Don't know everything about the authour, but good article nonetheless.

I, personally, am fairly familiar with Early Modern English.  But why would anyone want to learn it when they can read the Bible in a version of English they can understand?

Whats to learn? Thou has changed to you? Speaketh means speaks? Phew, that was tough. We wrongly assume people are stupid and the solution is to dumb down the Bible. How far?
The Ten Commandments In Ebonics

I be God. Don' be dissing me.
Don' be makin hood ornaments outa me or nothin in my crib.
Don' be callin me for no reason - homey don' play that.
Y'all betta be in church on Sundee.
Don' dis ya mama ... an if ya know who ya daddy is, don' dis him neither.
Don' ice ya bros.
Stick to ya own woman.
Don' be liftin no goods.
Don' be frontin like you all that an no snitchin on ya homies.
Don' be eyein' ya homie's crib, ride, or nothin.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Whats to learn? Thou has changed to you? Speaketh means speaks? Phew, that was tough. We wrongly assume people are stupid and the solution is to dumb down the Bible. How far?

Logical fallacy of slippery slope.  And the Ebonics is straw man. 

You may know Early Modern English, but you don't know much about the rules of debate. 

O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.

Why should someone have to learn how to unravel that when there are a handful of excellent translations that would be much more clear to them?

 

[Ransom]

It is also the argument used by many to produce new Bibles.

Yeah, and we can't have that, now, can we? LOL!

 

[bgwilkinson]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

It is also the argument used by many to produce new Bibles. Enough so that we now have versions from The Message to The LOLCat Bible, and The Manga Bible.

The language of the KJV is less difficult that one might think.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/language-of-the-kjv

Decent article there for someone who is willing to read it. Don't know everything about the authour, but good article nonetheless.

Condemning those that produce new Bible translations is nothing new. The King James Translators were under heavy criticism and opposition because of their new translation.

We still hear the same arguments used against those who translate modern versions today.

"The best things have been calumniated." This is how the translators start their preface.

The word calumniated is from the Latin meaning, "to utter maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about".

Well this is just what KJVOs are saying about modern versions today. Lies and maliciously false statements.

If KJVOs were living in 1611 they would have been the ones referred too by Miles Smith as calumniating their work, The New Modern King James Version of 1611.

See translators to the reader an original unbiased source.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

No matter how much things seem to change they are still the same.

 

[prophet]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

It is also the argument used by many to produce new Bibles. Enough so that we now have versions from The Message to The LOLCat Bible, and The Manga Bible.

The language of the KJV is less difficult that one might think.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/language-of-the-kjv

Decent article there for someone who is willing to read it. Don't know everything about the authour, but good article nonetheless.

Condemning those that produce new Bible translations is nothing new. The King James Translators were under heavy criticism and opposition because of their new translation.

We still hear the same arguments used against those who translate modern versions today.

"The best things have been calumniated." This is how the translators start their preface.

The word calumniated is from the Latin meaning, "to utter maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about".

Well this is just what KJVOs are saying about modern versions today. Lies and maliciously false statements.

If KJVOs were living in 1611 they would have been the ones referred too by Miles Smith as calumniating their work, The New Modern King James Version of 1611.

See translators to the reader an original unbiased source.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

No matter how much things seem to change they are still the same.

How many translations do you need?  And, do you consider any translation to be inferior? 
For instance, the Evangelical Christian world ,across the board, rejected the NASB.

Anishinaabe

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

How many translations do you need?  And, do you consider any translation to be inferior? 
For instance, the Evangelical Christian world ,across the board, rejected the NASB.

Anishinaabe

Why?  Serious question - I don't use the NASB, so I don't know what's good or bad about it.

 

[Ransom]

How many translations do you need?

What business is it of yours?

For instance, the Evangelical Christian world ,across the board, rejected the NASB.

Demonstrably false.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

It is also the argument used by many to produce new Bibles. Enough so that we now have versions from The Message to The LOLCat Bible, and The Manga Bible.

The language of the KJV is less difficult that one might think.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/language-of-the-kjv

Decent article there for someone who is willing to read it. Don't know everything about the authour, but good article nonetheless.

Condemning those that produce new Bible translations is nothing new. The King James Translators were under heavy criticism and opposition because of their new translation.

We still hear the same arguments used against those who translate modern versions today.

"The best things have been calumniated." This is how the translators start their preface.

The word calumniated is from the Latin meaning, "to utter maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about".

Well this is just what KJVOs are saying about modern versions today. Lies and maliciously false statements.

If KJVOs were living in 1611 they would have been the ones referred too by Miles Smith as calumniating their work, The New Modern King James Version of 1611.

See translators to the reader an original unbiased source.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

No matter how much things seem to change they are still the same.

How many translations do you need?  And, do you consider any translation to be inferior? 
For instance, the Evangelical Christian world ,across the board, rejected the NASB.

Anishinaabe

How many translations do you need?

I would not be willing to give up any I list below.

My mom was Swedish and she used the Charles XII and the Gustav Vasa of 1541 and my dad used Luther's German Bible 1545 and for English they both preferred the ASV 1901, all of these Bibles agree in leaving out the Comma Johanneum, which they believed indicated a Catholic Bible. They were death on the King James they believed he was a closet Catholic. My mom taught Greek and Latin and she liked Erasmus 1519 for his Latin translation as well as his Greek critical text. Kind of ironic as Erasmus was a real Catholic priest. My mom died in the 60s.

In my study I use all of the English translations made before 1611 including Wycliffe's from the Vulgate.
As well as many others I will not list.

My favorite modern translations are the NASB, ESV, HCSB, NLT, NET and NKJV.

Because of my study I have adopted the translation philosophy outlined in Miles Smithe's Translators to the Reader, where he accepts all translations made by qualified translators as the Word of God.
The KJV translators used a very eclectic text critical method, which I prefer.

Miles Smithe accepted the Rheims translation and so do I.

My all time favorite copy of the Bible is my breathtakingly beautiful reproduction of the KJV 1611 supplied By Great Site.

http://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

https://www.icloud.com/journal/#1;CAEQARoQJ31tVqXuOJjzASJs8QD8gg;52C05053-5E5D-4223-B2F1-CC0170C14DD0

Exquisite Red Leather, very soft, the printing quality is very clear and defined, no broken letters at all as is so common in KJV 1611 reproductions. I highly recommend these people if you want the best KJV 1611.

When I do not have access to my leather wood and paper KJV 1611 I have access to the same book
thought not nearly as good a quality at the U of Penn web site.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

And, do you consider any translation to be inferior?

There are several that I consider inferior, though I would still consider them the Word of God. I would not dream of blaspheming the Holy Spirit by calling a translation a Devil's Bible.

The Douay-Rheims is slanted to present Catholic dogma in the best light, still the Word of God.

New World Translation. Well this one is dishonest in places and was made to support JW errors. I could not and would not recommend it. Ok to have for study though.

There are many levels of translation quality. It would take a book to cover it all.

For instance, the Evangelical Christian world ,across the board, rejected the NASB.

I am not aware of this at all. Many of my Evangelical friends use and recommend this version.
I think I got my first NASB in 1966, or so. It was very close to ASV and KJV.

 

[prophet]

Saying we speak Modern English and the KJV is in Modern English is technically true but deceptive, because Modern English is divided into periods and the KJV is in Early Modern English, not that familiar to today's speakers of Modern English.

It is also the argument used by many to produce new Bibles. Enough so that we now have versions from The Message to The LOLCat Bible, and The Manga Bible.

The language of the KJV is less difficult that one might think.
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/language-of-the-kjv

Decent article there for someone who is willing to read it. Don't know everything about the authour, but good article nonetheless.

Condemning those that produce new Bible translations is nothing new. The King James Translators were under heavy criticism and opposition because of their new translation.

We still hear the same arguments used against those who translate modern versions today.

"The best things have been calumniated." This is how the translators start their preface.

The word calumniated is from the Latin meaning, "to utter maliciously false statements, charges, or imputations about".

Well this is just what KJVOs are saying about modern versions today. Lies and maliciously false statements.

If KJVOs were living in 1611 they would have been the ones referred too by Miles Smith as calumniating their work, The New Modern King James Version of 1611.

See translators to the reader an original unbiased source.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=6

No matter how much things seem to change they are still the same.

How many translations do you need?  And, do you consider any translation to be inferior? 
For instance, the Evangelical Christian world ,across the board, rejected the NASB.

Anishinaabe

How many translations do you need?

I would not be willing to give up any I list below.

My mom was Swedish and she used the Charles XII and the Gustav Vasa of 1541 and my dad used Luther's German Bible 1545 and for English they both preferred the ASV 1901, all of these Bibles agree in leaving out the Comma Johanneum, which they believed indicated a Catholic Bible. They were death on the King James they believed he was a closet Catholic. My mom taught Greek and Latin and she liked Erasmus 1519 for his Latin translation as well as his Greek critical text. Kind of ironic as Erasmus was a real Catholic priest. My mom died in the 60s.

In my study I use all of the English translations made before 1611 including Wycliffe's from the Vulgate.
As well as many others I will not list.

My favorite modern translations are the NASB, ESV, HCSB, NLT, NET and NKJV.

Because of my study I have adopted the translation philosophy outlined in Miles Smithe's Translators to the Reader, where he accepts all translations made by qualified translators as the Word of God.
The KJV translators used a very eclectic text critical method, which I prefer.

Miles Smithe accepted the Rheims translation and so do I.

My all time favorite copy of the Bible is my breathtakingly beautiful reproduction of the KJV 1611 supplied By Great Site.

http://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

https://www.icloud.com/journal/#1;CAEQARoQJ31tVqXuOJjzASJs8QD8gg;52C05053-5E5D-4223-B2F1-CC0170C14DD0

Exquisite Red Leather, very soft, the printing quality is very clear and defined, no broken letters at all as is so common in KJV 1611 reproductions. I highly recommend these people if you want the best KJV 1611.

When I do not have access to my leather wood and paper KJV 1611 I have access to the same book
thought not nearly as good a quality at the U of Penn web site.

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1

And, do you consider any translation to be inferior?

There are several that I consider inferior, though I would still consider them the Word of God. I would not dream of blaspheming the Holy Spirit by calling a translation a Devil's Bible.

The Douay-Rheims is slanted to present Catholic dogma in the best light, still the Word of God.

New World Translation. Well this one is dishonest in places and was made to support JW errors. I could not and would not recommend it. Ok to have for study though.

There are many levels of translation quality. It would take a book to cover it all.

For instance, the Evangelical Christian world ,across the board, rejected the NASB.

I am not aware of this at all. Many of my Evangelical friends use and recommend this version.
I think I got my first NASB in 1966, or so. It was very close to ASV and KJV.

The ESV is a rehashed NASB, according to the editors.
Why was this necessary?

Anishinabe

 

[christundivided]

The ESV is a rehashed NASB, according to the editors.
Why was this necessary?

Anishinabe

You really shouldn't make things up as you go. The ESV is essentially a revision of the RSV with emphasis given to easier readability. There is great deal difference between a NASB and any RSV edition. The only thing they share is an emphasis on a word for word translation model. The NASB is a bit more rigid in a "word for word" reproduction of the source text. At the time the RSV was produced many considered it a much more liberal translation than the ASV.

 

[Ransom]

The ESV is a rehashed NASB, according to the editors.

It's a revision of the RSV, which goes to show that either you are illiterate or a liar.

Which is it?

Why was this necessary?

Why do they need to justify themselves to you?

 

[prophet]

The ESV is a rehashed NASB, according to the editors.

It's a revision of the RSV, which goes to show that either you are illiterate or a liar.

Which is it?

Why was this necessary?

Why do they need to justify themselves to you?

I was wrong.  I just reread the ESV intro, and it is the RSV that is the basis for the ESV.  I read it last year, and for some reason had NASB stuck in my head. 
  So I went back and looked.  The NASB  sacrifices the English, for the word for word  effect.  The ESV is supposed to be the word-for-word, but grammatically palatable alternative. 
Again, I apologize for not looking it up again, before I posted.

Anishinaabe

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

The ESV is a rehashed NASB, according to the editors.

It's a revision of the RSV, which goes to show that either you are illiterate or a liar.

Which is it?

Why was this necessary?

Why do they need to justify themselves to you?

I was wrong.  I just reread the ESV intro, and it is the RSV that is the basis for the ESV.  I read it last year, and for some reason had NASB stuck in my head. 
  So I went back and looked.  The NASB  sacrifices the English, for the word for word  effect.  The ESV is supposed to be the word-for-word, but grammatically palatable alternative. 
Again, I apologize for not looking it up again, before I posted.

Anishinaabe

Your punishment is three hail marys and wash your hands in the holy fountain.  Oh, wait, wrong denomination....

 

[prophet]

The ESV is a rehashed NASB, according to the editors.

It's a revision of the RSV, which goes to show that either you are illiterate or a liar.

Which is it?

Why was this necessary?

Why do they need to justify themselves to you?

I was wrong.  I just reread the ESV intro, and it is the RSV that is the basis for the ESV.  I read it last year, and for some reason had NASB stuck in my head. 
  So I went back and looked.  The NASB  sacrifices the English, for the word for word  effect.  The ESV is supposed to be the word-for-word, but grammatically palatable alternative. 
Again, I apologize for not looking it up again, before I posted.

Anishinaabe

Your punishment is three hail marys and wash your hands in the holy fountain.  Oh, wait, wrong denomination....

I'll take the Hail Mary's on the grid, tomorrow, thank you.  Go Bears!
Anishinaabe

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I think I got my first NASB in 1966, or so. It was very close to ASV and KJV.

It is impossible for any Received Text Bible, including the AV, to be close to any Critical Text version, such as the ASV or NASV.  Much less yet very close.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven 

 

[prophet]

Hi,

I think I got my first NASB in 1966, or so. It was very close to ASV and KJV.

It is impossible for any Received Text Bible, including the AV, to be close to any Critical Text version, such as the ASV or NASV.  Much less yet very close.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven 

He knows.  He has an agenda, he has been rolling out for weeks.  His work reminds me of the Jesuits.

Anishinaabe

 

[biscuit1953]

Um ....

Anyone have a passage that would create/imply false doctrine if not updated?

The King James attacks the deity of Christ by leaving out words (that is what KJV Onlyists say about any differences in their idol translation and modern versions).

(KJV)  Jude 25  To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

(HCSV)  Jude 25  To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord,  be glory, majesty, power, and authority before all time,  now and forever. * Amen.

(NIV)  Jude 25  To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.

The Jehovah Witnesses and the Kenneth Copeland group deny praying directly to Jesus so the King James translators attack Jesus deity by deleting "me" in John 14:14.  Of course the Jehovah Witnesses are King James Onlyists also.

(KJV)  John 14:14  If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.

(HCSB)  John 14:14  If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it.

(NIV)  John 14:14  You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
 
The KJV implies that Jesus is not God in Titus 2:13

(KJV)  Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

(HCSB)  Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

(NIV)  Titus 2:13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,

The KJV is politically correct by being gender inclusive (that is what the KJV Onlyists accuse the modern translations of).

(KJV)  Matt 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

(HCSB)  Matt 5:9 The peacemakers are blessed, for they will be called sons of God.

(NIV)  Matt 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.

The KJV attacks the Masoretic text by using the "corrupt" Septuagint (Sam Gipp and Peter Ruckman deny the Septuagint even existed).

(KJV)  Ps 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

Interestingly, the modern translations agree with the King James translators that the Septuagint should be used here. 

Let ,me clarify.  The founder of the Jehovah Witnesses used the KJV and it was the one use by JW's up until the 1950's.  The New World Translation came about as a result of "clarifying" archaic words and updating the name of God.  The Mormons still use the KJV beside their other inspired scripture.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The founder of the Jehovah Witnesses used the KJV

Charles Taze Russell (1852-1916) railed against the heavenly witnesses verse, calling it a "spurious interpolation", and recommended a number of other alternate versions.

He was like Daniel Wallace on the Mark ending, at a time when there not as many dupes.

"Elder Russell teaches that the last part of the sixteenth chapter of Mark is spurious"
http://books.google.com/books?id=hqzaBAKnk34C&pg=PA150

See also p. 179.  If Russell at times "used" the AV it was not with any more belief and respect for its majesty and authority and excellence than the modern versionists today who "use" the AV.

and it was the one use by JW's up until the 1950's.

Wrong.

"The ASV has been used for many years by the Jehovah's Witnesses."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Standard_Version#Usage_by_Jehovah.27s_Witnesses

The New World Translation came about as a result of "clarifying" archaic words and updating the name of God.

More nonsense.  They worked up a version from the Westcott-Hort recension.

An important example was their literal translation of John 1:18, along with the NASV and Emphasized, in order to support the concept of Jesus as a "begotten god", the Arian view.

the Jehovah Witnesses are King James Onlyists also.

 
This is either total ignorance or a bald-faced lie.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery