Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Update??? Is there something wrong with the original???
Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version. I love the KJV. But the language is basically 400 year-old English. So if there were a simple, accurate, and high quality update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it? What would be your thoughts generally about such an update? Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV? It would be great to hear what you all think. May God be glorified.
(I edited my post to clarify the issue based on replies by the community. Thanks!)
I hope this was written in sarcasm.But it's the KJV that was given directly by God to the Israelites as they wandered the wilderness after God saved them from slavery in Egypt. It came down from heaven with the quail and manna, and the Hebrew and Greek languages (as well as Aramaic) are obviously a deception from Satan to interfere with the true language of God....KJV English.
I wouldn't use an updated KJV, as the makers of the KJV are all dead, & their version is what it is, same as I wouldn't use updated versions of Shakespeare's works. When the last of those men died, their work was frozen in time.
However, I don't use the KJV hardly at all, anyway. Besides its outdated language, it's full of goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4 & the ADDITION of the words "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, words which are NOT found in that verse in any known ancient Scriptural manuscript.
The NKJV is a more-than-adequate replacement, even though it copies the KJV goof in this passage. But it corrects many of the KJV's goofs & booboos, including one in Job 17:6.
I hope this was written in sarcasm.
I hope this was written in sarcasm.
The NKJV is a corrupt version, leaves out whole verses that are in the original KJV. Doing that makes it a whole 'other' translation, and not just another 1611 KJV. Later Bible versions of the New Testament don't even use the same Greek manuscripts the KJV translators used. So the modern Bible versions can't even be equally compared to the KJV.
The NKJV is a corrupt version, leaves out whole verses that are in the original KJV. Doing that makes it a whole 'other' translation, and not just another 1611 KJV. Later Bible versions of the New Testament don't even use the same Greek manuscripts the KJV translators used. So the modern Bible versions can't even be equally compared to the KJV.
I love the fact that the KJV is Old English, cause so's our legal system: it seems very fitting that we have the laws of God in Old English and the laws of this land in the same.
It seems very profitable to seek to understand King James English, for both spiritual profit and secular.
Thus, I would object to using an updated version, even if every word would be left in it's place.
I think the Cambridge KJV Cameo Reference Edition with Apocrypha, is the best English bible in the world, today.Also, many (perhaps most?) of our modern English Bibles are either updates or part of a family of updates/revisions of the KJV. There are exceptions of course, such as the NIV, but everything from the ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV are all part of a tradition of revision and updating to the KJV.
As far as a purely linguistic update, my understanding is that the NKJV serves this role, and does so pretty well.
I think the KJV has some fundamental flaws, and so while I don't have a problem with the KJV (I think its prose is quite lovely), but a good translation should be more than a purely update to an older translation--it should seek to provide as faithful a translation as possible, and utilize the best readings from our manuscript sources. Though, of course, there will always be disputes over what readings are best.
-CryptoLutheran
Actually, the ESV (English Standard Version) is a pretty good solution to what you want.Hi, I would love to hear the community’s feedback about using an update to the King James Version. I love the KJV. But the language is basically 400 year-old English. So if there were a simple, accurate, and high quality update to the KJV that made no changes except updating the old language, would you want to use it? What would be your thoughts generally about such an update? Would you like it as a stand alone version, or as a parallel Bible with the current KJV? It would be great to hear what you all think. May God be glorified.
(I edited my post to clarify the issue based on replies by the community. Thanks!)
Actually, the ESV (English Standard Version) is a pretty good solution to what you want.
(I've read fully though the Bible in the KJV by the way, so I'm not just guessing)
The ESV is very accurate (considered by many to be the most accurate around), and keeps the wonderful transcendent quality of the word-for-word rendering of the sources, without being opaque.
Because of the wonderful transcendent quality of the original source wording, many paraphrasing versions, such as the NLT (new 'living' translation, which is oddly non-living actually), do very poorly (or even mangle the text at crucial moments). So you'd want to avoid most any modern paraphrase version.
All translations are paraphrases, including the KJV and the ESV. It is impossible to translate the ancient languages literally. The vocabulary, syntax, idioms, etc. of the ancient languages are very different than modern English (and other languages). Translators, many of whom have devoted their lives to the art/science of translation, must make informed choices about how to best render the Bible texts. Even the Septuagint, the Bible in use at the time of Jesus and the Apostles, was a translation.
The NLT that you criticize is intended to be a simple-to-read rendition of the Bible for those who aren't very fluent in English. It doesn't "mangle" the text any more than any other translation; it achieves the goal of being the easiest translation to understand. It was the first Bible that I ever used, and as a result I became a Christian. (And I have a Master's degree.)
I can criticize the ESV for its obvious translators' doctrinal bias, but I won't. It has its strong and weak points, just like every other translation.
The purpose of any translation is the comprehension of the Word of God by the reader. That is the reason that the KJV fails most modern readers and leads to serious misinterpretations. The great majority of modern translations are NOT paraphrases, they are the work of serious scholarship to give us the best understanding of God's word.
My suggestion is to read the variety of translations available at such sites as Bible Gateway (biblegateway.com) and choose the one that resonates with your understanding. With very, very few exceptions, all modern translations are excellent.
This may seem so in part perhaps from the effect that if you read 15 or 20 chapters in NLT you probably won't see a problem....The NLT that you criticize is intended to be a simple-to-read rendition of the Bible for those who aren't very fluent in English. It doesn't "mangle" the text any more than any other translation
This may seem so in part perhaps from the effect that if you read 15 or 20 chapters in NLT you probably won't see a problem....
Won't see any problem. It will be fine. You can tell it's a reasonably good translation. etc.
But if you happen on the other hand to read certain passages, then you may discover (I have) a whole new kind of serious problem (one that has nothing to do with churches or doctrines at all).
Here is one key example.
----------
My experience after reading a lot of different verses in multiple translations is that the NLT (New Living Translation) does fine...most of the time.
But...sometimes it removes something precious -- the above-us (above our level: Isaiah 55:8-9 ) wording from the Lord.
Look at one of the most deeply wonderful verses in all of Scripture:
New International Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
English Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Berean Literal Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New King James Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
New American Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NASB 1995
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
NASB 1977
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Amplified Bible
In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself.
Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
American Standard Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Contemporary English Version
In the beginning was the one who is called the Word. The Word was with God and was truly God.
Douay-Rheims Bible
IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
English Revised Version
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
....
Young's Literal Translation
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;
==================
Beautiful, and moving, and wonderful beyond measure, don't you agree? (though perhaps you noticed how the 'amplified' version lost some of the wonderful perfection of the wording).
So....
Imagine...what it would have been like to have missed that transcendent wording -- the holy wording that lifts us up above our mortal world....
To instead have something else less good, like this below, that has some of the transcendent quality, but not all -- because the wording has been mangled by addition of a superfluous (unnecessary, unneeded in the moment) doctrine.
-->
New Living Translation
In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
See what you lose there?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?