Updating the KJV
- Thread starter moral necessity
- Start date
- Status
Bradwardine
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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
Puritan Board Senior
It has already been done
21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21)
Excepting that they have retained 'thees and thous' etc
21st Century King James Version of the Holy Bible (KJ21)
Excepting that they have retained 'thees and thous' etc
nicnap
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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
Inactive User
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
Happy New Year to all.
Margaret
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
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 ----------
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.
Last edited:
Who says these words aren't used today? They are used all the time at my church.
E Nomine
Puritan Board Freshman
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
King James Bibles
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
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 ----------
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!
"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 ----------
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!
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
Puritan Board Freshman
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.
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!
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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!
- Status
