Featured The KJV Update Project

Do you think that these words in the 1631 London edition of the KJV are inspired: "Thou shalt commit adultery"?

Do you think that the English words found in the 1611 edition of the KJV that are not found in typical post-1900 KJV editions are inspired even though now omitted?

Do you think that the over 180 whole words in a typical post-1900 KJV edition that are not found in the 1611 edition are inspired?

Do you think that all the original-language words of Scripture in the KJV's underlying texts are inspired even in those many cases where the KJV has no English word/rendering for them?

 

To return to the OP, rather than speak for KJVO folks, whose views are errant in my opinion, let me address my view of the project.

The idea seems to be to update archaic words without altering the meaning expressed in the KJV being updated. The assumption seems that the translators made no erroneous choices when choosing from possibly differing intended meanings.
Thus an update trying not to correct any possible errors of translation.

Sorry but no sale.

 

The KJV, even with archaic language is still one of the greatest translations of all time, being made up from William Tyndales pioneering translations, Coverdales, Matthews, Great Bible, Bishop's, Geneva's and Rheims NT.

Updating the archaic ness seems to be reasonable and helpful, and worthwhile endeavor.

By the way. There is an 2016 edition updating of the KJV at Textus Receptus Bibles. Textus Receptus Bibles

 

Yes, those that deny that any translation of meaning errors exist in the KJV, after the last update, the arbitrary line, of their choosing, might agree with the concept. However, the effort should be rebuked by those accurately handing" the word of truth.

How could fallible people translate every intended meaning of God's word without error, if they were not inspired? Since errors were found and updated before they drew their line, logical necessity requires acceptance that similar errors exist in their translation of choice, after the last accepted update.

 

"The opposition die-hard KJVO types is are uneducated, IMHO."

 

Yes, a kind and thoughtful illustration, as the error is objectively factual, Hebrew grammar transformation for apparently no reason, except boo-boo.

Here is another one, copied from another website:

Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” (1611) vs. “that ye may”(1769)

This is not to say the 1769 is perfect, only that the 1769 corrected some of the errors found in the 1611.

Here is an example of where the NKJV corrected a word meaning error in the KJV 1769:

Acts of the Apostles 7:45 - "brought in with Jesus" (1769) vs. "brought with Joshua into" (NKJV)

 

In the KJV the Greek for Joshua is transliterated as Jesus both in Acts of the Apostles 7:45 and in Hebrews 4:8.

 

The reference in both verses is the OT Joshua, not to the NT Jesus. The KJV is in error and the NKJV corrected it.

 

Consider Luke 3:29,

Son of Jesus - ASV, AMPC, DRA, and Phillips

Son of Jose - KJ21, BRG, DARBY, GNV, KJV, AKJV, NKJV, NMB, RGT, WEB, WE, WYC, and YLT.

Son of Joshua - At least most of the remaining translations, over 45 in number, including,
NASB, NET, LEB, CSB, ESV, MOUNCE, NIV, NLT, and NRSV.

This may be driven by a difference between the TR and MT with the CT.

 

The Anvil of God's Word
“Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith’s door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers, worn with beating years of time.

“‘How many anvils have you had,’ said I,
‘To wear and batter all these hammers so?’
‘Just one,’ said he, and then with twinkling eye,
‘The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.’

“And so, I thought, the Anvil of God’s Word
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon;
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The Anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone.”

—attributed to John Clifford

The modern attack on the purity of the word of God by denominational Christianity is something to behold. The best they can do is tell the world there is a message but each group has a different message. The only thing they agree on is that the words of God they have are not pure words and there are no pure words to be had if one believes pure means without corruption. Most of the men cannot defend their own expression of Christianity from any Bible translation. They only use what I call sound tracks when pressed that gender more questions than answers usually. Their defense comes from high profile teachers, usually ones who are favorable to their denominational heads.

God has warned men about trifling with his words but there is no fear of God in the churches.

Denominational Christianity is the work of the ignorant. The problem is usually that they are educated above their own intelligence. But they are charismatic and they can persuade the simple easily. As the harvest time of this age draws closer and closer, we note that preparation for it is already in full swing by God, if we can believe his prophesy in his parables. God is sending his angels to gather the tares in his field into bundles so they can be burned after he has gathered the good seed into his barn. This bundling of tares has been taking place for a good while now but the harvest is never so close as now.

Follow the logic of this age.

Mt 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

This is after the harvest of the previous age had failed in chapter 12 and passed because there were not enough laborers to gather it. So our Lord sows another crop. This is the beginning of the age.

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Tares and wheat - bundles and the barn.

34 All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.
36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world <165>; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world <165>.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

The tares are gathered and bundled but they are not burned until after the wheat is gathered into the barn.

The fire is the great tribulation of prophetic fame. I know this by many evidences but here is one.

Re 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.
25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
28 And I will give him the morning star.
29 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Most of you do not even believe in a great tribulation that is described as fire and vengeance, let alone the wheat being gathered into barns before it takes place.

One should read 2 Cor 11 in this context.

Having all these Bible translations that no one believes leaves the church without an absolute authority to stake ones life on as being true. It is a leaven that permeates the church.

 

It wasn't an error. And yes the NKJV updated it. See the 1901 ASV translation and it's Greek Jesus footnote.

 

Inconsistent, human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching attacks the purity of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as it denies that they are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. Perhaps modern, non-scriptural KJV-only teaching is a leaven.

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that they are bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England priests/critics in 1611.

 

Maybe. If so it is not working as planned because it is not this lump that is swelling up.

This is a constant refrain and it is as silly now as at the first. No one has made that argument. You are speaking to the hand.

 

What was not an error? The KJV rendering of Jesus rather than Joshua? You have got to be kidding.To use Jesus and not even footnote this is not Jesus of the NT but a Greek spelling of Joshua of the OT is a big egregious error. Full Stop

 

Again, the 1901 ASV translated Joshua both places, Acts of the Apostles 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8. The ASV has the footnote the Greek translation is Jesus.

 

When a word in the original text has more than one meaning, such a the same name for Jesus and Joshua in the Greek, the translators are obliged to study the context and choose to translated clearly what the contextual meaning is.

Yes, nearly all English translations, other than the KJV family of translations, render the Greek word Joshua. Do you actually believe these verses refers to Jesus of the NT?

 

The kjv was consistent in translating the Greek name 2424 as Jesus 975 times in the NT.

Col 4:11 And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me.

2424 Ἰησοῦς Iesous [ee-ay-sooce’]

of Hebrew origin 03091 יֵשׁוּעַ‎ Jeshua, later form of <03091> יְהוֹשׁוּעַ‎; n pr m; TDNT-3:284,360; [{See TDNT 326 }]

AV-Jesus 972, Jesus (Joshua) 2, Jesus (Justus) 1; 975

Jesus = "Jehovah is salvation"

1) Jesus, the Son of God, the Saviour of mankind, God incarnate
2) Jesus Barabbas was the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ
3) Joshua was the famous captain of the Israelites, Moses’ successor (Ac 7:45, Heb 4:8)
4) Jesus, son of Eliezer, one of the ancestors of Christ (Lu 3:29)
5) Jesus, surnamed Justus, a Jewish Christian, an associate with Paul in the preaching of the gospel (Col 4:11

 

The Scriptures do not state nor teach that they are bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of doctrinally-unsound Church of England priests/critics in 1611.

Any one who makes exclusive only claims for the KJV, claiming perfection for it, is in effect trying to make or imply that claim.

You try to dismiss the consistent, logical implications of your very own assertions. Your eyes may be closed to what your unproven KJV-only opinions suggest.