# KJV 2016 Version Published



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 13, 2016)

*Textus Receptus PTY. LTD. Publishes the King James Version 2016 (KJV 2016) New Testament*

Nick Sayers of Byron Bay, Australia, under the auspices of Textus Receptus PTY. LTD. has published the King James Version 2016 (KJV 2016) New Testament using the Textus Receptus Greek of the King James Version of 1611, *endeavouring to keep the words as close to the KJV 1611 as possible, but with corresponding modern words and grammar*.

The translators of the King James Version 2016 believe that the King James Version of 1611-1900 is an accurate translation of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and is thus by default, the words of God in English.

Unfortunately for the KJV, the English language is constantly developing and many word meanings today vastly differ from the English of the reformation era. Many people have preferred a more readable substitute, oftentimes at the expense of quality.

This version should not be recognized as a translational attempt to improve on the work of the original 1611 translators, but rather classified as a reluctant update to make more understandable the archaic and obsolete words and grammar, so that today's reader can understand and enjoy the word of God clearly and accurately in the English tongue, just as our forefathers once did.

We believe the KJV is the most superior of all English versions based upon the _Textus Receptus_ and _Masoretic Text_, and vastly advanced in comparison to corrupted versions based upon Westcott & Hort/Nestle-Aland/UBS, or Majority type texts.

We believe the New King James Version, Modern English Version, and other MT/TR bibles contain a mixture of good and bad readings. This version has been designed especially to address those concerns.

Link to NT doc:
http://textus-receptus.com/files/King James Version 2016 final.pdf

WiKi:
http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Main_Page


+ Textus Receptus PTY. LTD., Byron Bay, New South Wales, Australia,[email protected]


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 13, 2016)

Interesting.


----------



## Jake (Jan 13, 2016)

I'll be interested to see how this compares to other lighter revisions like Webster's Revision, AKJV, KJV 2000, and 21st century KJV.


----------



## Justified (Jan 13, 2016)

Sadly they removed the distinction between 2nd person singular and plural.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 13, 2016)

So it is NKJV 2016 basically...


----------



## Logan (Jan 13, 2016)

Justified said:


> Sadly they removed the distinction between 2nd person singular and plural.



Would you use it if they'd kept them? Seems to me that if a "modern version" keeps them, you might as well stick with the KJV anyway.

Thanks for sharing, it seems to be well done from the little I looked at.


----------



## Justified (Jan 13, 2016)

Logan said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly they removed the distinction between 2nd person singular and plural.
> ...


Not necessarily true. The above distinction takes two seconds to explain. They could easily replace some of the archaic language and then keep rest how it is.


----------



## Jake (Jan 13, 2016)

Logan said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly they removed the distinction between 2nd person singular and plural.
> ...



There have been some minor translations that found ways to keep the distinction noted consistently without using thee/thou. For example, the printed version I have of the Modern Young's Literal Translation New Testament has a superscript "P" or "S" by each "you" to denote plural or singular.


----------



## Vox Oculi (Jan 13, 2016)

sigh.


----------



## Logan (Jan 13, 2016)

Justified said:


> Not necessarily true. The above distinction takes two seconds to explain. They could easily replace some of the archaic language and then keep rest how it is.



What I mean is, ask yourself who the translation would be targeting if it appealed to people who both appreciated and wanted the thee/you distinction AND wanted something other than the KJV. That group, if existent, has got to be tiny and such a translation simply wouldn't stand a chance of ever being used broadly. Who would switch from the KJV to it? Who would switch from something else to it?

In my opinion, better to go the route they did: if you're going to modernize the language, be thorough.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 13, 2016)

Taking what Logan has said further, Why the KJV label at all? Why not the English-TR2016.


----------



## MW (Jan 13, 2016)

This version does not merely update the language of the AV to reflect modern usage (under the mistaken notion that modern usage doesn't allow for archaisms, or that all forms which are not commonly spoken are archaic). It is a new translation. In various places it falls on the different side of an interpretative issue. It changes words which are not archaic, and in some cases these changes are theologically defective or reflect poor English. It also makes cosmetic changes, like transposition of words, which alter the sense.

For a sample compare the different translations of Romans 4:1-5.

If one is going to attempt to improve on the AV it is to be expected at the very least that the same degree of labour, skill, and care would go into the work as was expended on the original translation.


----------



## MCM180 (Feb 2, 2016)

Logan said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > Sadly they removed the distinction between 2nd person singular and plural.
> ...



I'm still waiting for a translation that uses "you" and "y'all." (Or is it "y'all" and "all y'all?")

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 3, 2016)

MCM180 said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > Justified said:
> ...



At least in Texas, all ya'll refers to a crowd of people while y'all refers to a small group.


----------



## johnny (Feb 3, 2016)

I was interested in this because we only live 40 minutes from Byron Bay.

I dug around a little and discovered this article.

http://www.cwm.org.au/3/29-47/145-4

I don't agree with Mr Sayers position here, and it raises some alarm bells.
I like my intellectual tea with confessional sugar and this departs from it somewhat.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 3, 2016)

MW said:


> This version does not merely update the language of the AV to reflect modern usage (under the mistaken notion that modern usage doesn't allow for archaisms, or that all forms which are not commonly spoken are archaic). It is a new translation. In various places it falls on the different side of an interpretative issue. It changes words which are not archaic, and in some cases these changes are theologically defective or reflect poor English. It also makes cosmetic changes, like transposition of words, which alter the sense.
> 
> For a sample compare the different translations of Romans 4:1-5.
> 
> If one is going to attempt to improve on the AV it is to be expected at the very least that the same degree of labour, skill, and care would go into the work as was expended on the original translation.



That's inevitable. The thing I appreciated about learning another language and getting into the Greek of the NT was that it destroyed my illusion that translation was some sort of theologically neutral process. Whether it's the semantic domain of a word or something as seemingly harmless as deciding whether you're dealing with an object or subjective genetive, translation is a form of commentary on the Scriptures where you're saying: "This is what he's trying to communicate to you."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Feb 3, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> MCM180 said:
> 
> 
> > Logan said:
> ...



And in Mississippi, a "very" large group would be "all ya'll."


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 3, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> translation is a form of commentary on the Scriptures where you're saying: "This is what he's trying to communicate to you."


Per Mounce:

“As the Italian proverb says, '_Translators are traitors._' At some level we all are traitors to the text, saying a little less than the Greek says (thus leaving some meaning behind) or a little more (when trying to clarify). Under- and over-translation. A good reason to learn Greek and Hebrew, and an even better reason to read more than one translation.”​


----------



## MW (Feb 3, 2016)

Committees working over the years with numerous inter-disciplinary skills and a commanding knowledge of the languages into which the Scriptures have been translated in the universal Christian tradition, whilst checking and double-checking the work of each committee, and onerously pushing forward to produce something which will genuinely serve to build up people in the faith once for all delivered to the saints, has greater potential for good than what we see at work in most cases.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 3, 2016)

Does any one else find the red-letter thing to be an eyesore?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## repeater75 (Feb 9, 2016)

Logan said:


> Justified said:
> 
> 
> > Not necessarily true. The above distinction takes two seconds to explain. They could easily replace some of the archaic language and then keep rest how it is.
> ...



That is pretty much exactly what the KJ21 (21st Century KJV) is: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/21st-Century-King-James-Version-KJ21-Bible/


----------



## repeater75 (Feb 9, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Does any one else find the red-letter thing to be an eyesore?



Always hated it. Subjective aspects of picking which text are said by one person or another too.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 9, 2016)

TylerRay said:


> Does any one else find the red-letter thing to be an eyesore?



Yes. Quite literally. Theological objections aside, no matter what shade of red it is, I can no longer read more than a couple of verses without significant discomfort. I ended up abandoning the NKJV because of it, as almost all non-Study Bibles in the NKJV are red letter. By that point, I wasn't committed enough to that translation anymore to shell out over $100 for a Cambridge Clarion.


----------

