Featured Converting thy to your is really the only requirement to modernizing the entire KJV Bible

The part of Rheims in the making of the English Bible : Carleton, James G. (James George), 1848-1918 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
The part of the Rheims in the making of the English Bible

 

or simply that they cannot understand the English language all that well!

While I am not KJVO, nor do I use it as my main Bible version, I do believe that there was the hand of God on this translation, like no other. Sure it has its faults, but it is more "godly" than the greater majority of modern versions.

 

says you, and this is not correct!

 

I've been IFB all my life, and I have to say this is just as true with KJV churches. It's a thing about being human.... When I was a missionary, I preached in many churches of all kinds. They all have the danger of putting the pastor (or the missionary) on a pedestal.

I don't think it is profitable for your position to compare churches. That is a never-ending subject.

 

Except for the manuscript base in the Greek and the fact that it uses Dynamic Equivalency ( and not Forma Equivalency ) I would agree with you.

As @Scarlett O. seems to have pointed out, modernizing the KJV is a bit more complicated than simply changing "thy" and "your"...
For example, there are a great many words that today's English speakers do not use in the way that they were used in the late 1500's into the late 1600's in England and even in America.

I understand their meanings, but I discovered that there is a learning curve associated with studying from the AV;
While I love it and it is the only English translation that I use and will use for the rest of my life, if it were to be updated in another edition, there are a fair number of words that I think should be changed to be more recognizable for today's readers:

"Conversation" = "Manner of life"
"Meet" = "Suitable", "befitting", etc.
"Wot" / "Wot not" = "Know" / ""Know not".
"Listeth" = "Desires" / "Wants".
"Unicorn" = "Rhinoceros".
" Whither" = "Where"
"Thither" = "There"
"Hither" = "Here"

...and many others.

I would agree with keeping "thee", "thou", "ye", "you" and a few others for reasons of clarity.

 

According to KJV-only definitions and explanations of dynamic equivalency, the KJV could be said to have some dynamic equivalent renderings or paraphrases [non-literal, non-form equivalent renderings].

According to the marginal notes of the KJV translators themselves in the 1611, the KJV provides no English rendering for some original-language words in their underlying texts. [In some cases, it provided a rendering in its marginal note, but not in its text].

 

I'm a native Arabic speaker. English is my 3rd language. The pronouns and verb endings took me a little getting used to - it literally takes a few days- but "thy" sounding like "my" was never an issue for me.

Also - converting "thy" to "your" sometimes bemuddles the sense because "thy" is clearly singular whereas "your" is either singular or plural. It's similar to the distinction between "thou" and "you". Case in point:

Luk 22:31 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:

The "you" in the KJB is always plural. Satan did not only desire to have Peter, as is commonly understood of people who read a non-KJB, but all the disciples.

Luk 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

 

The actual picture of an unicorn in the 1611 edition of the KJV was not a picture of a rhinoceros.

In agreement with the rendering at some verses in editions of the Latin Vulgate, some may suggest that the reem could be the rhinoceros. Concerning Job 39:9-12 in his commentary on the book of Job, Peter Ruckman wrote: “Now the animal in question has a ‘single horn’ (unicorn, vs. 9) which is probably a reference to something like a rhinoceros” (p. 582). Ruckman wrote: “You don’t find many tame rhinoceroses eating out of a crib (vs. 9) after plowing a field (vs. 10)“ (p. 584). The 1610 Douay O. T. from the Latin Vulgate has “rhinoceros” in the text at Numbers 24:8. The 1611 KJV has the following marginal note from the likely if not certain influence of the Latin Vulgate at Isaiah 34:7: "or, rhinoceros." Is this marginal note presenting an alternative rendering or another possibility as to which animal the Hebrew word could refer? It is interesting that some KJV-only advocates may appeal to this one marginal note in the 1611 to try to defend a KJV rendering when usually they consider the marginal notes to have no weight at all.

John Kitto asserted that “people were driven to the rhinoceros by the unfounded notion that it was necessary to find a one-horned animal” (Daily Bible, p. 224). J. G. Wood claimed that “the unicorn has been erroneously supposed to be identical with the rhinoceros of India” (Story, p. 159). That identification may be based on its Latin name [Rhinoceros unicornis]. One very serious problem with the identification of the reem with the rhinoceros is that a rhinoceros was not an animal that was used as a sacrifice by the Jews in the O. T. times. Houghton noted that the rhinoceros “would have been forbidden to be sacrificed by the Law of Moses, whereas the reem is mentioned by Isaiah as coming down with bullocks and rams to the Lord’s sacrifice” (Hackett, Smith's Dictionary, p. 3351). Wiley maintained that the reem "were counted among animals fit for sacrifice and associated with bovines" (Bible Animals, pp. 431-432). Henry Hart also asserted that “in Isaiah 34:7, the reem is spoken of as suitable for sacrifice” (Animals, p. 214). John Worcester also claimed that “it was fit for sacrifice” (Animals, p. 22). The scriptural association and connection of the reem with domesticated work animals at Job 39:9-12 and with domesticated cattle and animals used for sacrifice at Isaiah 34:6-7 would conflict with the claim that the reem could be the rhinoceros. Thus, some of the various scriptural contexts where the Hebrew word reem is found provide the evidence that affirms that the reem was not a rhinoceros. The horns of the reem were indicated to be like the horns of a bullock or ox (Deut. 33:17). The horn of a rhinoceros is different. Although the reem was signified as being too strong (Job 39:11) to be used as a work animal, it was still clearly associated with this type of animal in the Bible. Concerning Job 39 in his 1816 Commentary, John Hewlett noted that the reem “is represented in our author’s description as qualified by its make and strength for the business of agriculture, like the tame ox” (Vol. 2, p. 397). Is there any evidence that shows that those who lived in the time of Job would have considered a rhinoceros as the type animal to be possibly put in a yoke and used to plow and that could eat from a crib? A Biblical Cyclopaedia edited by John Eadie noted that the reem “seems to have been reckoned as belonging to the bovine species, with the tame and domesticated members of which it is sometimes contrasted” (p. 654). McClintock maintained that "the skipping of the young reem (Ps. 29:6) is scarcely compatible with the habits of a rhinoceros" (Cyclopaedia, X, p. 638). When young, the reem was frisky like a calf. Even KJV-only author James Knox acknowledged that this animal “is connected with young calves that skip (Ps. 29:6) and with bulls and bullocks (Deut. 33:17, Isa. 34:7)“ (By Definition, p. 170). Houghton concluded: "Considering, therefore, that the reem is spoken of as a two-horned animal of great strength and ferocity, that it was evidently well known and often seen by the Jews, that it is mentioned as an animal fit for sacrificial purposes, and that it is frequently associated with bulls and oxen, we think there can be no doubt that some species of wild ox is intended" (Hackett, Smith's Dictionary, p. 3352). The Encyclopedia of Mammals asserted that “the fearsome appearance of the rhino masks a gentle, largely passive creature” (Vol. 13, p. 1934). While there are some varieties or species of the rhinoceros which have two horns, all the evidence considered together does not make a compelling case for the view that the reem was or could be a rhinoceros. All the description and character of the reem that is given in the Scriptures do not apply to the rhinoceros.

In addition, the historical evidence from the representations of an unicorn on a Scottish coin, in English heraldry, and in books including even in some KJV editions would seem to be another problem for this claim.

 

Good point.
The richest hypocrisy is that of those who mock the idea of learning English - an easy, modern, most-spoken, international language - to get a better sense of God's words, while simultaneously urging people to learn ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek - old, harder, quasi-dead languages - to the same end; despite no Biblical warrant for doing so, only a humanistic view of the Bible wherein the supernatural has no place and textual criticism reigns supreme.

 

Perhaps you make an invalid comparison or jump to an unproven conclusion.

There would be a valid comparison between the Latin Vulgate-only theory of some Roman Catholics in the 1500's and the modern KJV-only theory of some English-speaking believers since several of the arguments for the Latin Vulgate-only theory are also used for a modern, human KJV-only theory.

Preachers in the 1500's and 1600's were encouraged and sometimes required to learn Greek and Hebrew in order to help them interpret the Scriptures correctly. The KJV translators themselves encouraged the learning of Hebrew and Greek.

Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a leading KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds (1549-1607) "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84).

In a sermon on Roman 1:16, Miles Smith (?-1624) referred to “the fountain of the prophets and apostles, which are the only authentic pen-men, and registers of the Holy Ghost” (Sermons, p. 75). In the preface to the 1611 KJV entitled "The Translators to the Reader," Miles Smith favorably quoted Jerome as writing “that as the credit of the old books (he meaneth the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the New by the Greek tongue, he meaneth the original Greek. Then Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.”

 

Welcome to the BB.

I have to say, what is wrong with learning Greek and Hebrew? (Note: Bible colleges teach 2 years of Greek in undergrad, though advanced syntax is taught in seminary. Hebrew is usually taught only in seminary, though I have heard of such undergrad courses.) I am actually one of those undergrad Greek teachers you seem to oppose here, teaching both semesters of beginning New Testament Greek. So I'd be happy to discuss this with you.

Our Bible college only uses the KJV in classes, in chapel, and in the church services of our church. However, the Bible was originally written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. That makes those languages very important to any professional linguist or translator. Professionals in the field of translation studies will always--always--tell you that the authority for a translator resides in the original language, and faithfulness to that is required. (Oops, I forgot, there is a deconstructionists theory by postmodernist philosopher Jacques Derrida that says you can do whatever you want in the target language.)

Almost all of my Greek students love the class. In the last part of Greek 102, we divide into translation committees and simulate translating the book of 1 John on the mission field. Is that a bad thing to you?

 

Sorry, if you are referring to post #29 in this forum, I would prefer to hear from you. That poster is very insulting, which is being what the KJV calls a "railer," and we are to separate from such: "But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat" (1 Cor. 5:11)

And I don't know anything about "Haim Shore," and I have no idea what you are trying to say about Prov. 1.

Sorry, you are not making sense here. You have not referred to anything I've said. I'm not an atheist; I am a Bible translator (into Japanese from the TR); I don't reject the KJV but embrace it; I'm not a racist. So when you say you disagree with me, I have no idea what you are disagreeing with.

 

How about the He who letth, actual means he who prevents!

 

Think that the translators of versions such as Nkjv/Esv/Nas were just as "godly" , and in some areas actually knew the original languages better!

 

The Holy Spirit Inspired the scriptures in Hebrew and Koine Greek, so if one can learn those languages, would be a real benefit!

 

The Hebew and Greek texts correct translations, not the other way around!

 

This is oversimplified and you should really do a deeper study on the words used in the KJV that are either not in use today or have completely different meanings today.