Wgw
Pray For Brussels!
- May 24, 2015
- 4,304
- 2,074
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- UK-Conservative
The NKJV was originally planned to be nothing but the KJV with updated English. But, the people behind the NKJV found that they couldn't copyright the NKJV unless they made more changes than just that. And, so they did.
You really can't just update the KJV without changing it. The English language hasn't just changed, it has degraded. For example, those "thees" and "thous" carry meaning from the original Greek that modern English doesn't have. In this example, the KJV has four words where modern English uses just the one word "you": plural and singular subject, and plural and singular object. If Jesus said "you", in the KJV you'd know who he meant. In the modern English, you'd have to speculate and you might be wrong (unless the translator did some paraphrasing, which itself causes other problems).
There are a number of KJV variants with modern English. But, most of them, except the NKJV, are poorly done. And, they're hard to find.
The Holman Bible (HCSB) was originally planned to use the same manuscripts as the KJV, and to follow the KJV closely, except with modern English. But, the man in charge of the project died and his replacement had other ideas.
There likely won't be a good KJV in modern English. We are a post-Christian society and you're not going to be able to assemble a team of academics (those with the expertise) who have any use for the KJV.
It's not a big loss. The age of the KJV gives it benefits that can't be had in modern English (in addition the problem of modern English being less fit for a translation). Even if I produced a great KJV2015, ten years from now, I might feel the need to revise it. It would probably still be great, but it wouldn't be the same as what you've memorized. And, maybe it wouldn't be great (like the NIV 2011 is vastly inferior to the NIV 1984, or like George Lucas' later tweaks to the original Star Wars degraded the movie). The KJV is beautiful. The archaic language forces you to pay attention to what it's saying. When it's quoted, you know it's being quoted. There's no copyright on it. It unites conservative Christians with a common translation. Its idiosyncrasies are well known. I could go on all day praising the KJV, so don't fret over the lack of a modern English KJV. If you spend enough time with the KJV, its language will hardly seem archaic anymore.
I am a conservative Christian that cannot use the KJV because the Masoretic Text it relied on for the Old Testament causes it to lack LXX-compatible versifcation in the Psalter, which our liturgy requires; it lacks several important Christological prophecies as well. It does have the deuterocanonical works, in its original form, which is good, but on the whole the problems with the OT create an obstacle to relying on it exclusively. Also even the traditionalist Anglicans do not do that; the BCP has its own Psalter based on the Coverdale.
Upvote
0