# Updating the KJV



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

I am desirous to update the KJV this year as a project, saving it all as a Word document. No changes will be made to the text, beyond 3 things:

- Archaic words are substituted with exact replacements ("thou" to you, "goest" to go, etc...)
- Subject/verb order is updated ("for strong is the Lord God" to "for the Lord God is strong)
- Spelling is updated ("honour" to "honor")

Every change is performed in "color-coded" type, so it can be examined and assessed by others alongside the actual KJV. Red, Blue, and Green colors are used to match the 3 categories above respectively, so the reader can know what type of change was made.

I began last week with it, to iron out the system. Where I'm unsure of what to do, I've left everything original and noted the footnotes with a question mark for now.


I'd appreciate your thoughts/suggestions regarding this. If you think I should drop it, and consider it an effort outside of my concern, I'd appreciate that too. My only hope would be to see it happen by somebody, and to see it done right, leaving the text alone execpt what is archaic.

Blessings!


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 31, 2010)

I would keep the "thee" and "thou" it makes the point of singular vs. plural. It helps in interpretation.


----------



## dudley (Dec 31, 2010)

Charles, Are you talking about the New King James Version commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers? It was done by 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James.


----------



## AThornquist (Dec 31, 2010)

I think that's a great cause, Charles. I _will not_ give a KJV to the people I come in contact with due to some of the current issues that you mentioned; often the people I witness to are only somewhat educated and have a hard enough time understanding the modern English. If you helped alleviate the difficulty of older English for this modern audience, the use of the KJV would be much more likely.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 31, 2010)

I love my KJV. I still use it primarily.


----------



## Ivan (Dec 31, 2010)

I have used the KJV in the past for devotions and preaching and that will be the case in 2011.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

dudley said:


> Charles, Are you talking about the New King James Version commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers? It was done by 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James.


 
Well, I thought that was an entire re-translation of the TR hebrew/greek. Aren't some of the words different, like "corrupt" became "peddling" in II Cor., and "heretic" became "divisive man" in Titus. I wasn't interested in any re-translation of the text.


----------



## baron (Dec 31, 2010)

I went back to the KJV, because I can not find the HCSB audio bible for free on the net. I listen to the KJV on my computer. Also I have KJV on my Kindle and 2011 is the 400 anniversary of the KJV.

I have known dropout's from high school who read the KJV and when they went to college they placed higher than high school graduates.


----------



## dudley (Dec 31, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> dudley said:
> 
> 
> > Charles, Are you talking about the New King James Version commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers? It was done by 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James.
> ...



Yes you are correct there. So I guess you would work with the original KJV.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

dudley said:


> Yes you are correct there. So I guess you would work with the original KJV.


 
Well, are you meaning the 1611 specifically? I was just going to use the common one of today.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 31, 2010)

Just a word of caution, Charles, regarding word order. It isn't always innocuous to replace "strong is the Lord God" with "The Lord God is strong". Word order in Greek (at least I know it's the case in Greek, but Hebrew also I think) is not an unimportant detail - and older translations like the KJV often actually retain the word order in their translation choices. Just because it sounds odd to the modern ear does not mean it's without consequence to make such replacements. The first word or phrase of a Greek sentence is often there in order to emphasize what is said first... so something that would appear in the Greek in word order such as "Mighty to save is the Lord" would be emphasizing the characteristic "mighty to save" as opposed to other characteristics, and be subtly different than the same sentence spoken as "The Lord is Mighty to save" (where the emphasis would be on the fact that it is the Lord, and not someone else, who is "mighty to save").

So, mucking with word order (unless you know the underlying Greek/Hebrew and can be certain that the word order is not important) is not a simple or innocuous change to be making. This is only one among other things already mentioned such as the singular/plural distinction that KJV english makes and is often VERY important and would be totally obscured by adopting the universal "you" we use today. This kind of thing makes me VERY leery of anyone saying they'll just "update" the KJV. It's not something to be done lightly at ALL.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

Thanks, Todd. I was aware that the Greek order is important, but I didn't know that the KJV retained this for the same reason. It is all blue color-type for where the order was adjusted, so perhaps detail work could be added in the footnotes later for where it should be retained.

For the universal "you" pronoun, I see the problem there. Perhaps a footnote system could be devised for that too.

I hear your concern also, Todd, and I'm on your side. I don't regard the scripture as a light thing either. Like I said, if wisdom leads to it best being left to others, then so be it. Maybe the basics that I do get accomplished can be built upon later by someone else.


----------



## Bradwardine (Dec 31, 2010)

Remember the KJV extensively used Tyndale's translation and when it changed it, it wasn't always for the better. For example in 1 Cor 13 Tyndale used 'love' whereas that became 'charity' in the KJV.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 31, 2010)

Besides the NKJV, haven't there been a number of other such revisions? Didn't Jay Green, for one, publish a modest revision?


----------



## KMK (Dec 31, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Archaic words are substituted with exact replacements ("thou" to you, "goest" to go, etc...)



These are not 'exact' replacements.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

Bradwardine said:


> Remember the KJV extensively used Tyndale's translation and when it changed it, it wasn't always for the better. For example in 1 Cor 13 Tyndale used 'love' whereas that became 'charity' in the KJV.


 
Thanks for this...point noted.


----------



## LeeJUk (Dec 31, 2010)

Aren't you doing what the NKJV and others already did?


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

KMK said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Archaic words are substituted with exact replacements ("thou" to you, "goest" to go, etc...)
> ...


 
You're right...I worded that wrong. Do you think there's a way around it, to convey the full meaning?

---------- Post added at 08:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:51 PM ----------




LeeJUk said:


> Aren't you doing what the NKJV and others already did?


 
If I am, I'd like to stop. I thought the NKJV was a re-translation of the TR, and had many variances somehow because of that.


----------



## StrictBaptist (Dec 31, 2010)

I love the KJV and believe that it is the most beautifle translation of the word, and I will use it until I die. Remember when you "update" some of the words and wordings that you carefully study the greek and hebrew because some of them are there for a reason. 
Back a few years ago I would disagree with any updating of the KJV, and I still believe that the KJV stands above the NKJV and other KJV updates.
Let me know how it turns out buddy, would love to read some of it when you are done.


----------



## nicnap (Dec 31, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Do you think there's a way around it, to convey the full meaning?



_You all_ for the plural, and _you _for the singular would be close.


----------



## JML (Dec 31, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> I wasn't interested in any re-translation of the text.



I agree...but you might want to make sure you correct Acts 12:4. AKA, the Easter verse.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

StrictBaptist said:


> I love the KJV and believe that it is the most beautifle translation of the word, and I will use it until I die. Remember when you "update" some of the words and wordings that you carefully study the greek and hebrew because some of them are there for a reason.
> Back a few years ago I would disagree with any updating of the KJV, and I still believe that the KJV stands above the NKJV and other KJV updates.
> Let me know how it turns out buddy, would love to read some of it when you are done.


 
Points noted, Ryan. I have no intention to change anything but what are typically viewed as "archaic words and spellings", and "subject/verb/object" order, as allowed. I love it very much too. If it can't be done properly, then I'll let it go.

---------- Post added at 09:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:38 PM ----------




John Lanier said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't interested in any re-translation of the text.
> ...


 
Thanks for that...it's been noted. Do you feel that there's basic universal consensus over the issue in reformed circles?

---------- Post added at 09:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------




nicnap said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think there's a way around it, to convey the full meaning?
> ...


 
Thanks for that...it seems like it might be the only route, unless some footnote system or accent mark is created.


----------



## JML (Dec 31, 2010)

moral necessity said:


> Thanks for that...it's been noted. Do you feel that there's basic universal consensus over the issue in reformed circles?



Even the Trinitarian Bible Society says it is wrongly translated. So if they, being very staunch KJVers, say that it is wrong, that is a telling sign. Here is a quote from their website:



> Passover is certainly to be preferred to Easter



The full article can be found on their website under articles:

Trinitarian Bible Society - The Word of God Among All Nations


----------



## LeeJUk (Dec 31, 2010)

Theres the KJV for the 21st century and also D.a. Waite I think made a version of the KJV just by doing what you are planning to do without reinterpreting the TR.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> Even the Trinitarian Bible Society says it is wrongly translated. So if they, being very staunch KJVers, say that it is wrong, that is a telling sign. Here is a quote from their website:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, that seems pretty telling. Thanks for the link!


----------



## StrictBaptist (Dec 31, 2010)

John Lanier said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't interested in any re-translation of the text.
> ...


 
The easter verse I believe to be correct. Peter Ruckman wrote a great comment in his book "errors" in the KJV showing why it is translated easter because it is in the context of a pagan celebration by herod I believe... I'm on my phone at wrk so I can't access it.


----------



## TimV (Dec 31, 2010)

> Peter Ruckman wrote a great comment in his book "errors" in the KJV showing why it is translated easter because it is in the context of a pagan celebration by herod I believe... I'm on my phone at wrk so I can't access it.



Easter is the old English word for Passover. There's no more heathen association in the KJV than we have in using the name of a Norse god for the fifth day of the week. It just means the fifth day of the week, and that's all.



> If I am, I'd like to stop. I thought the NKJV was a re-translation of the TR, and had many variances somehow because of that.



Which one? There have been about a hundred editions of the TR between 1611 and now, and they're all different.


----------



## JML (Dec 31, 2010)

TimV said:


> Easter is the old English word for Passover. There's no more heathen association in the KJV than we have in using the name of a Norse god for the fifth day of the week.



If that is the case, then it definitely should be updated because it doesn't mean that now.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 31, 2010)

LeeJUk said:


> Theres the KJV for the 21st century and also D.a. Waite I think made a version of the KJV just by doing what you are planning to do without reinterpreting the TR.


 
Thanks for this. I was not aware of it. It sounds like the main problem then with KJ21 could be the copyright and the typeface. My efforts are of no help with that. Do you think they did a sufficient job with text? 

I didn't know about the Defined KJV either. Nothing seems changed here, except the footnotes to explain antiquated terms.

---------- Post added at 11:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 PM ----------




TimV said:


> > If I am, I'd like to stop. I thought the NKJV was a re-translation of the TR, and had many variances somehow because of that.
> 
> 
> 
> Which one? There have been about a hundred editions of the TR between 1611 and now, and they're all different.


 
Good point...that probably explains why it varies from the KJV in certain places.


----------



## StrictBaptist (Dec 31, 2010)

TimV said:


> > Peter Ruckman wrote a great comment in his book "errors" in the KJV showing why it is translated easter because it is in the context of a pagan celebration by herod I believe... I'm on my phone at wrk so I can't access it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Gonna have to disagree. The greek word pasch is found 29 times in the NT and the KJV translates it as passover 28 times. Easter came from a pagan festival for the god Ishtar. And it was held in late april. 

Passover was in mid april, and in the ot after passover is the days of unlevened bread.
According to verse 3he wwas arrested during the days of unlevened bread, which would be after the jewish passover, so I believe herod killed him during the pagan festival of ishtar (easter)


----------



## interalia (Jan 1, 2011)

KMK said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Archaic words are substituted with exact replacements ("thou" to you, "goest" to go, etc...)
> ...


 
Just remember: "y'all" is singular, while "all y'all" is plural.

Sorry - that would make it "The Message - Southern KJV Edition"


----------



## Bradwardine (Jan 1, 2011)

Or in Scotland, youse can be used for you (plural) !! (when not using the Queen's english).

Remember also in the UK (at least, ? also in commonwealth), the Monarch holds copyright to the Authorised version under perpetual crown copyright and the right to publish the AV / KJV is granted by royal charter / letters patent.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 1, 2011)

It has already been done

21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21)

Excepting that they have retained 'thees and thous' etc


----------



## nicnap (Jan 1, 2011)

moral necessity said:


> Thanks for that...it seems like it might be the only route, unless some footnote system or accent mark is created.



I've seen one translation that added an extra space between the letters of the plural (so that it looked like y o u instead of you), and left the singular in normal font.


----------



## Galatians220 (Jan 1, 2011)

I don't think the NKJV was built mainly on the TR. I know that's the "line," but it's not so. If it were, the Reformed KJV-only churches we attend on the west side of MI would be using it, I'm sure. This link, The New King James Bible: Counterfeit, explains the inclusion of the higher critical text - albeit to a lesser extent than, say, the NIV - in the NKJV. I'm not sure about the pagan symbol about which an argument is mounted in the linked article; I like to avoid things like that and just stick to the Scriptural differences themselves. And there are plenty of them!

Happy New Year to all.

Margaret


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 1, 2011)

Bradwardine said:


> Or in Scotland, youse can be used for you (plural) !! (when not using the Queen's english).
> 
> Remember also in the UK (at least, ? also in commonwealth), the Monarch holds copyright to the Authorised version under perpetual crown copyright and the right to publish the AV / KJV is granted by royal charter / letters patent.


 
Good point...I wonder how difficult it was for the KJ21 to use it, or D.A. White?, or is that only an issue if you want to publish it in that area?

---------- Post added at 11:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:58 AM ----------




JonathanHunt said:


> It has already been done
> 
> 21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21)
> 
> Excepting that they have retained 'thees and thous' etc


 
Yeah, someone showed me this earlier. But, I was looking at it a little bit last night online. It seems like there are still many words and phrases that haven't been adapted. From just looking at Malichi and Matthew a little bit, it seems like they kept many words that aren't used today, like "saith", "yea", "doeth", "hast", "regardeth", "wherein", "wroth", and phrases like "think not to say to yourselves", "every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit", and "suffer it to be so now, for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness. Then John suffered him." Common people don't talk like that. Neither do kings or presidents. I just wonder if it could be done, while keeping the KJV translation in tact.


----------



## Gord (Jan 6, 2011)

The Flesch-Kincaid research company's Grade Level Indicator puts the KJV at an understanding grade level of 5.8. So the average 10-12 year old can understand the written words of KJV.

My question is, why do we need to go lower on the understanding scale?


----------



## KMK (Jan 6, 2011)

moral necessity said:


> it seems like they kept many words that aren't used today, like "saith", "yea", "doeth", "hast", "regardeth", "wherein", "wroth"



Who says these words aren't used today? They are used all the time at my church.


----------



## E Nomine (Jan 7, 2011)

The OP makes me think of the Sword "KJVER" (easy reading) Bible. The publishers of that version updtated the thees and thous and opted to color-code both the words of Jesus in the NT and the "words of God" in the OT in red.

King James Bibles


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 7, 2011)

E Nomine said:


> The publishers of that version updtated the thees and thous and opted to color-code both the words of Jesus in the NT and the "words of God" in the OT in red.



So then, I would assume the whole thing is in red?


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 26, 2011)

So far, it's going slow with Genesis. I've been swamped with teaching school. I have a lot of catching up to do this weekend. For now, I've placed an asterisk after the word "you" when it is plural. I was having a hard time with the word "firmament". Can anyone think of a word that would convey this adequately, or is it one that has to be left alone? Here's a little of what I found on it:

"firmament" - The firmament or expanse was a great tent-like (Isaiah 40:22) ceiling made of solid crystalline material (Job 37:18 and Ezekiel 1:22), which might be pierced by skyscraper and gimlet (3 Baruch 3:7–8). It had many windows, some of which opened and closed for the sun and moon to travel through (1 Enoch 72:2–5) or to let water, which was held above, fall through as rain (Genesis 7:11). On top there were also warehouses of snow and hail (Job 38:22). Stars were small objects that were attached tenuosly to its surface (Genesis 1:14–17, Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Mark 13:25, Revelation 6:13, 8:10, 9:1 and 12:4).

Blessings!

---------- Post added at 12:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:04 PM ----------




Gord said:


> The Flesch-Kincaid research company's Grade Level Indicator puts the KJV at an understanding grade level of 5.8. So the average 10-12 year old can understand the written words of KJV.
> 
> My question is, why do we need to go lower on the understanding scale?



Well, my intent was not to lower the reading of anything. It was only to substitute a word for another if it was archaic. Everything else was to remain exactly true to the translation, except the backwards way of saying things and any archaic spelling.

Blessings!


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 26, 2011)

> the "thee" and "thou" it makes the point of singular vs. plural. It helps in interpretation



In addition, it gives an intimacy since it was the common, not formal, form of you. While we use modern translations in our house, I read frequently to my kids from the KJV both for its language and to ensure they will be able to grasp a much larger (i.e. more historical) amount of English literature.

Also, why not use the more reformed Geneva translation?


----------



## Ulster Puritan (Jan 26, 2011)

Hello.

I think tampering with the KJV is a bad idea. If you aren't content with some of the language use etc. then use a more modern version like NKJV, which is a new version however, and not an update. The KJV has been updated since 1611, and I think another update would be profitable, but that is a big question for another time. 

Personally, I think it is admirable that you want to put all that time into making the Scripture more readable. However, I also believe that the points you are wanting to change are some of the lead reason's that I prefer and will always use the KJV. You also mention changing the British spelling (as it is in some cases) to the American spelling, which is already done by at least some American publishers.



> - Archaic words are substituted with exact replacements ("thou" to you, "goest" to go, etc...)
> - Subject/verb order is updated ("for strong is the Lord God" to "for the Lord God is strong)
> - Spelling is updated ("honour" to "honor")



I don't think 'thou' is essentially archaic, but a more descriptive use of the personal pronoun. I agree with another person who said that word order is an issue of the orginal text, so a full knowledge of both Greek and Hebrew, not to mention Aramaic, is absolutely necessary. Even as a personal endeavour, therefore, I think this isn't a great idea. 

It is the 400th anniversary of the A.V. this year and this is a blog post that might interest you!


----------



## moral necessity (Jan 26, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> > the "thee" and "thou" it makes the point of singular vs. plural. It helps in interpretation
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Good point about the formality and the way it helps to understand the vocabulary of historical literature!

I don't have a Geneva copy...how is it's translation of the TR compared to that of the KJV, I wonder? 

After reading a few chapters just now, it does read a lot smoother than the KJV! I'm impressed! 

Yet it still contains the archaic endings and the archaic words. I'm wanting the TR in english that is not archaic, and doesn't read backwards. I don't think it exists. If I want to hand someone a TR in english, their only choice is to read archaic, backwards sentences. Why are the only options to read english from 1599 and 1611? There could be three: two from the past, and one from today; entirely equal to them but not archaic.

Geneva - Genesis 2
"10 And out of Eden went a river to water the garden, and from thence it was divided, and became into four heads.
11 The name of one is Pishon; the same compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where is gold.
12 And the gold of that land is good; there is Bdellium, and the Onyx stone.
13 And the name of the second river is Gihon; the same compasseth the whole land of Cush.
14 The name also of the third river is Hiddekel; this goeth toward the Eastside of Asshur. And the fourth river is Perath.)"

I'm definitely going to save up for a copy of it. Does anyone know if it has some questionable areas that contain "bad translations" of phrases or words?

Thanks for the input...

Blessings!


----------

