The KJV is being updated

[AV1611VET]

Do you not understand the difference between speculation and seriousness?

Nevermind, chief.

I find you dishonest.

 

[pescador]

If you want to believe something like that, that's fine. I'm no one to tell you that wasn't the language because no one knows. My personal belief is that it was a form of Hebrew, but whatever.

What I'm still trying to get at, and what still needs to be explained to me is if the KJV is "the word of God" the very inspired word as you so claim. Then why has it needed revisions over the years? If it is "the word" it would be perfect from the start, needing no corrections or amendments. The KJV you have on your shelf is not the KJV that was translated back in 1611.

It saddens me that some people consider the King James translation to be the pure word of God. They cling to some false holiness, thinking that the loftier the translated language is the more it is like God's words. They forget that Jesus --- God in human form -- was a Galilean carpenter who spoke Aramaic, a dialogue of the common people.

 

[pescador]

Because God didn't guide their hands with surgical precision when they wrote it.

Spelling errors were made, and God corrected them over time.

Yes ... you're right ... that KJB on my shelf was written, I think, in 1759 or thereabouts.

But It's still the AV1611 King James Bible.

You own a Bible that is 263 years old? And the spelling errors were corrected by God?

 

[AV1611VET]

You own a Bible that is 263 years old? And the spelling errors were corrected by God?

I thought you said you had other things to do?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Because God didn't guide their hands with surgical precision when they wrote it.

Spelling errors were made, and God corrected them over time.

Yes ... you're right ... that KJB on my shelf was written, I think, in 1759 or thereabouts.

But It's still the AV1611 King James Bible.

I mean, at least you are honest about it not being perfect. I'll give you that. I just find it more odd now that even with the acknowledgement that the KJV wasn't made perfect, it's the word. Like God couldn't have got it right the first time, ya know?

I can hear it now... "O ye Jacobe, ye spelt thine verbagese wronge! Mohst trustworthe Henree, fixeth Jacobe's errors One-Hundred and Twenty years thus!"

 

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON

Friendly reminder, KJV Only promotion is not allowed on the site per the site rules.
​

ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[tampasteve]

There is a project happening to modernize the old language of the King James Version without changing the meaning (unlike the NKJV). The project website is as follows. www.kjvupdate.com What do you all think?

I think it is a scam. The Holy Scriptures Bible Society seems to be behind the project, and there is basically no information about them other than the "President" is Joseph Johnson, who also does not have any information about him, who he is, or what his qualifications may be.

It reminds me of the "New Messianic Bible" translation that has been in development for years and years, taking donations and not actually putting out a Bible.

 

[pescador]

I thought you said you had other things to do?

I do different things at different times. I don't have to answer to you about how I spend my time. What is the matter with you?

 

[pescador]

You own a Bible that is 263 years old? And the spelling errors were corrected by God?

Why don't you try answering my question? Or are you unable to, so you choose personal attacks instead.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I think it is a scam. The Holy Scriptures Bible Society seems to be behind the project, and there is basically no information about them other than the "President" is Joseph Johnson, who also does not have any information about him, who he is, or what his qualifications may be.

It reminds me of the "New Messianic Bible" translation that has been in development for years and years, taking donations and not actually putting out a Bible.

I was thinking the same thing about this. It did seem to lack information, but my reasoning was more that there was just a modern KJV version released some 5 years ago or so. The Modern English Version is basically exactly what this new translation purports to be. I mean that doesn't stop people from doing new translations but it just seemed odd.

 

[pescador]

Nevermind, chief.

I find you dishonest.

So? That says nothing to me except that you're a poor judge of character.

Also, why do you call me "chief"? Are you native American? Am I really your chief? I don't even know you.

BTW, the only use of "chief" I find in Scripture is when it refers to the "chief priests".

 

[AV1611VET]

Friendly reminder, KJV Only promotion is not allowed on the site per site rules.

Oops! Sorry!

 

[James Macbeth]

It would be a total waste of time. I've tried it, and it has already been done by others a few times.
Textus Receptus Bibles
This website has one already, and I know I've seen a few others. The main problem is when your are updating it, and you are using modern texts, you get to certain points where you can clearly see improvements to be made, that go beyond just changing older English for modern. On top of that, updated Bibles already exist, so it would be very hard not to peek or borrow from those.

 

[pescador]

I thought you said you had other things to do?

I do other things. What is the point of this post?

 

[1watchman]

Instead of different ones putting down the choice of another Christian for one's Bible choice (as often happens herein), let us just speak of how we value the one we find most helpful and true to "all the counsel of God", and then there might not be dispute (hopefully). I have defended my choice, and then found opposition to my choice???
I have stated some reasons I do not read some other Bible versions, but I always uphold choices to read anything one choose to read: often saying: 'to each his own choice'. If one is convinced of their choice, let us 'go in peace' and avoid animosity --would you agree?

 

[pescador]

Instead of different ones putting down the choice of another Christian for one's Bible choice (as often happens herein), let us just speak of how we value the one we find most helpful and true to "all the counsel of God", and then there might not be dispute (hopefully). I have defended my choice, and then found opposition to my choice???
I have stated some reasons I do not read some other Bible versions, but I always uphold choices to read anything one choose to read: often saying: 'to each his own choice'. If one is convinced of their choice, let us 'go in peace' and avoid animosity --would you agree?

Yes, I agree. The problem is that some people, particularly KJVOs, insist that no other translation is a valid Word of God. They should agree with 'to each his own choice' instead of being so dogmatic.

 

[1watchman]

Yes, I agree. The problem is that some people, particularly KJVOs, insist that no other translation is a valid Word of God. They should agree with 'to each his own choice' instead of being so dogmatic.

Well, I do not 'insist' that no other version is valid ---only say that I hold to the Scofield KJV Study Bible,which has proven to me to be very reliable over all others I have reviewed, so quit challenging me over it, brother. Keep looking up!

 

[pescador]

Well, I do not 'insist' that no other version is valid ---only say that I hold to the Scofield KJV Study Bible,which has proven to me to be very reliable over all others I have reviewed, so quit challenging me over it, brother. Keep looking up!

What is it about "Yes, I agree" in my post that you don't understand? If you prefer the Scofield KJV Study Bible, fine. I'm not challenging you over it.

What I consistently challenge is the belief that one particular version is the Word of God and that others are not. This is most often the attitude of the KJVO crowd, although the Jehovah's Witnesses are also equally dogmatic.

Incidentally, I read a number of translations: the Geneva Bible, The King James Bible (KJV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), The Holman Christian Study Bible (HCSB), The English Standard Version (ESV), the Orthodox Study Bible, the New International Version (NIV), the New English Translation (NET), and The Message. My preferred translations are The New International Version (NIV) and the New English Translation (NET). In all, I own 22 hardcover Bibles and several digital Bibles.

I do not think that any of them are the Word of God; they are all translations. They all have their strengths and drawbacks.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

There is a project happening to modernize the old language of the King James Version without changing the meaning (unlike the NKJV). The project website is as follows. www.kjvupdate.com What do you all think?

There are so many bible translations into English already. The KJV is charming because of its antiquated English. An update that removed thee, thou, thine as singular forms replacing them with you may not be an improvement. The NKJV is good if one is looking for a "textus receptus" based Translation. What I'd rather see is an update of the Douay Rheims Bible.

 

[The Liturgist]

Will it be "Authorized"? If so, by who?

Surely not. The KjV was Authorized by the Church of England which is why it has the apocrypha. The KJV and NKJV New Testaments are also the most popular in Eastern Orthodox use, interestingly, although the Eastern Orthodox Bible did finish a New Testament as did Dr. David Bentley Hart. The NIV is extremely unpopular as a liturgical gospel in the Orthodox Church, especially since the Third Edition replaced the Second Edition. The Orthodox Study Bible, which I love, has an original translation of the Septuagint and an NKJV New Testament.