# For the English Protestant Church: Should there be an updated KJV/AV?



## SolaGratia (Dec 16, 2008)

I think the last time the KJV was updated was back in 1769. I think the English Church will benefit from an update to the KJV.

One thing that the Spanish Protestant Churches have that makes them strong and solid is there aherence to the Reina -Valera, a Reformation Bible, which has been updated several times and is recently in the process of being updated for 2009 version.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 16, 2008)

big questions for me would be ...
Who would update it?
Would it be an update of only the outdated English or also correct the few perceived problems in the version?
Would the "thee" be retained so that we could distinguish between the singular and plural form of "you?"

-----Added 12/16/2008 at 10:15:23 EST-----

Would be a good idea for the 400th anniversary


----------



## beej6 (Dec 16, 2008)

There are updates to the AV... ASV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, ESV...

(ducking)

Frankly, English doesn't need another translation. There are languages and people without a complete Bible who need that more than we need a MKJV.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 16, 2008)

beej6 said:


> There are updates to the AV... ASV, RSV, NRSV, NKJV, ESV...
> 
> (ducking)
> 
> Frankly, English doesn't need another translation. There are languages and people without a complete Bible who need that more than we need a MKJV.



There is a MKJV...literally. And you should duck *and hide*.


----------



## Grymir (Dec 16, 2008)

Actually, Scrivener did a update in 1873. Sola, I didn't know in the OP if you were refering to the English or the text itself, but the 1873 is considered by everybody in the world (O.k., some of us ) to be the most accurate english translation bar none. So it would be difficult to do. 

One theory I've held is that if they did a whole new TR translation at the 'high' English level instead of the dumbed down 'easy to read' level that most want today, the 'high' level translation would be scorned just like the KJV. Even if they used 'modern' English.


----------



## Igor (Dec 16, 2008)

I guess I have no place in this topic, still, since I only read the Biblle in English, here are my 
An updated KJV would be something different, not that good old KJV that is favored by many. It will be just another version. Perhaps more accurate from the point of view of the originals, no doubt much more readable - but different. And I am sure many people would use it - as well as they use the NKJV (and that can serve the purpose, BTW). But... I don't know, I may be wrong but there is something special for me about the Bible that goes unchallenged and unchanged for centuries, that was read and loved by generations past. You can successfully replace it with a modern translation, but you cannot make it "better". There are so many English translations that it has already become confusing for many. Another one, I am afraid, will just add to the confusion . Besides, the MKJV, that can be perceived as an update, as far as I know, has never become popular. 
Just my opinion.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Dec 16, 2008)

larryjf said:


> big questions for me would be ...
> Who would update it?
> Would it be an update of only the outdated English or also correct the few perceived problems in the version?
> Would the "thee" be retained so that we could distinguish between the singular and plural form of "you?"
> ...



Great questions...


----------



## tellville (Dec 17, 2008)

Question: Why did they stop updating the KJV? How do KJV people choose which update to use?


----------



## TsonMariytho (Dec 17, 2008)

larryjf said:


> Would the "thee" be retained so that we could distinguish between the singular and plural form of "you?"



Humph. Typical Yankee. So what's wrong with "y'all"?

(Though actually, I guess that demographic has already been covered in the Cotton Patch Version.)


But seriously -- why would you want a Bible to use English different than common people, or even academics, use everyday? There's frankly no segment of the population today who use the terms ye and thee outside of what I would consider a somewhat artificial "language of prayer". When people do use such language, they typically use it improperly. Better would be to use a special notation of some kind in the text to indicate plurality, and leave it as readable English.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 17, 2008)

TsonMariytho said:


> But seriously -- why would you want a Bible to use English different than common people, or even academics, use everyday? There's frankly no segment of the population today who use the terms ye and thee outside of what I would consider a somewhat artificial "language of prayer". When people do use such language, they typically use it improperly. Better would be to use a special notation of some kind in the text to indicate plurality, and leave it as readable English.



To remove the singular and plural distinction from the Scripture would be to lessen the clarity of it.

I'm not against something other than "thee"...but it should serve the same purpose.

Perhaps even putting an asterisk on the "you" that is singular...

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you*, that your* faith will not fail; and when you* art converted, strengthen your* brethren. 
(Luk 22:31-32)


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Dec 17, 2008)

This is the only worthy thing the Russelites did in their perversion of Scripture - "you" for singular and "YOU" for plural.

I'd love to see a group of solid Reformed scholars and churches get together and pick a "standard" translation or revise the KJV/GB or something or other. Unlikely to happen, however.


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 17, 2008)

The Spanish Church has done it, why can't the English Church do it?

The Spanish Protestant Church has, as off lately, done it in 1909, 1960, and soon to be (in the works) 2009. I can't wait for it to come out.


----------



## Prufrock (Dec 18, 2008)

SolaGratia said:


> The Spanish Church has done it, why can't the English Church do it?
> 
> The Spanish Protestant Church has, as off lately, done it in 1909, 1960, and soon to be (in the works) 2009. I can't wait for it to come out.



Has the Reina-Valera been changed substantially in the updates, or are the changes merely language updates?


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 18, 2008)

Paul,

The only change has been mainly change of word usage, words do change in time. For example, the 1909 RV has the word Health for Saved. Also, the 2009 RV is actually going to be base strictly fom the TR and other old spanish bible translations, by popular demand. This means that to any spanish church one attends, most likely, one is going to find the same 2009 RV bible, Lord willing, that is the goal. So, the Baptist, Pentacostals, Arminians, Evangelicals, Fundies, Reformed/Presbyterian, any spanish bible reader, etc. will be using the same 2009 RV. 

TBS is actually the main organization behind this work.

I think that was the mistake of the KJV, the english church did not keep up with the updates to the KJV. Therefore, others came up with a new english bible translation in order to keep up with the change of language (i.e. the NIV) and, what do you think, they made money, this got the ball rolling, and soon there was business in coming up with new english translations.


----------



## historyb (Dec 18, 2008)

There's the KJV2000 which I like a lot and I think it could be considered an updated KJV. 

http://bibleleague.org/services/bookstore/kjv2000scriptures.php


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 18, 2008)

I think the Church needs to be behind any bible update so that the Church, in unity, can fully acept its changes.


----------



## historyb (Dec 18, 2008)

what church?


----------



## SolaGratia (Dec 18, 2008)

historyb said:


> what church?



First, the Church does not equal a denomination. By Church I mean, the Protestant Reformed Churches that make up the Church .


----------

