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

[Conan]

If you've ever been on a forum before it is very hard to state in words something without appearing or being condescending. This is not a hard and fast rule but many KJV churches tend to promote Bible reading more than non-KJV churches. Optimal is not perfection in every case. Should we not assume one version of the English Bible is perfect or atleast better than the others. Some People discriminate against the KJV because it was produced by semi-ancient old men.

I'm not opposed to the NLT but wouldn't you agree that these non-KJV churches tend to redirect us to someone who went to Seminary. That sounds alot like some Popish non-sense, wouldn't you agree?



This is not a hard an fast rule but KJV churches tend to be less top heavy due the fact that everyone has the same resources. We should be moving away from the 1st Beast not towards it. However the 2nd Beast will give honor to the 1st Beast.

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

 

[SavedByGrace]

Some People discriminate against the KJV because it was produced by semi-ancient old men.

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.

 

[SavedByGrace]

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

says you, and this is not correct!

 

[John of Japan]

Many non-KJV churches tend to be focused on the Pastor rather than the Bible. Do you need more details or can you figure it out from there?

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.

 

[Dave G]

Once you change the KJV a little as an english speaker there really is no rational reason not to jump to the NLT.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

and the fact that it uses Dynamic Equivalency ( and not Forma Equivalency)

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].

 

[George Antonios]

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

The only reason i say that is when you read the KJV Bible to yourself, we should be able to do the conversion in our head.

When reading the KJV Bible out loud to others "thy" sometimes in our own heads sounds like "my".

Thou isn't really an issue with most People who've have a middle school education.

I'm not going to go into why the KJV Bible is sufficient other than for a society that embraces Science (Solomon was a scientist "speak to the earth and it will teach you") our society should have the brain power to be able to read the KJV. Most Churches treat their congregation like they are idiots and in many ways many churches are very condescending to their congregation.

So if we want to update the KJV Bible the only requirement for reading it out-loud is to convert "thy" to your. When reading the KJV Bible to ourselves the normal KJV is sufficient.

The KJV should not seem like some white supremacist phenonmenon. I'm not about to tell a Swahili speaker or a Spanish speaker what Bible to read. English originated in a European state so its only natural that the historical source of the optimal (as opposed to sufficient) English Bible would have been translated by Europeans.

Just as the Roman Catholic church promoted latin, many modern preachers tell us to go to seminary and learn greek and hebrew to read the Bible correctly.

Much of what is said about theology in this modern age is driven by banal and narcissistic thinking.

I understand much or all of what i'm saying right now has been stated on this forum 10,000 times. My main point is converting "thy" to "your" is the only requirement for updating the KJV Bible and that is due to that "thy" rhymes with "my" when reading aloud.

I hope you all have a great day.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

"Unicorn" = "Rhinoceros".

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.

 

[George Antonios]

Just as the Roman Catholic church promoted latin, many modern preachers tell us to go to seminary and learn greek and hebrew to read the Bible correctly.

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.

 

[Logos1560]

Just as the Roman Catholic church promoted latin, many modern preachers tell us to go to seminary and learn greek and hebrew to read the Bible correctly.

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.”

 

[John of Japan]

Just as the Roman Catholic church promoted latin, many modern preachers tell us to go to seminary and learn greek and hebrew to read the Bible correctly.

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?

 

[IFB_123]

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.

What is wrong with "New Arabic Version"? I'm only familiar with Genesis chapter 1 and 2 in that version so i'm not going to make the statement it is a good version. However as far as those 2 chapters it does line up with the KJV and Hebrew. Haim Shore claims the Universe is 15 to 18 billion years old. The KJV and the New Arabic Version support this.

Most People are intelligent enough to turn "your" into singular or plural depending on the context. If i'm reading the Bible to a group "your" is plural. If i'm reading the Bible silently to myself "your" is singular. Even dumb People recognize polymorphism. People who desire to be intelligent which is most Baptists (including me) understand that Polymorphism is needed whether we are reading the Bible or any text.

"How long will we simple People lover our simplicity" and "we should try to understand dark sayings"

These are paraphrased from Proverbs chapter 1 KJV. I suggest you read it for yourself. The main reason i chose the KJV is for english speakers is that it is the only english version that promotes or atleast says it is not a sin to try to understand dark sayings.

Solomon made the claim that "God dwells in darkness".

In my opinion reality is a dark room and Jesus Christ is just trying to make the best of it.

 

[IFB_123]

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.”

The age of the earth and Universe is another reason to embrace the KJV. The KJV, New Arabic Version and the Hebrew all line up with each other on this issue. Its funny how the liberal Churches reject the English version of the Bible that supports an old earth. The NIV supports rape while the KJV does not.

Pay particular attention to Genesis chapter 2 verse 4.

Are you familliar with Haim Shore?

 

[IFB_123]

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?

see forum topic #29. Other than that we'll just have agree to disagree. I've dealt with this issue for over 10 years now. One of the main reasons as an english speaker i use the KJV is due to People such as Haim Shore and Proverbs chapter 1 KJV.

You can scroll through the many posts for this forum topic to see why i disagree with you. Some People say there is no god but due to questions raised by pan-psychism that is unlikely. God/Jesus_Christ is fully capable of providing translators for any given language. Rejection of the KJV isn't that bad of a thing but it is sign of rejection of nomianism. English originated with Europeans so it is not racist to promote the KJV for english speakers. English People happen. There is nothing we can do about it.

 

[John of Japan]

see forum topic #29. Other than that we'll just have agree to disagree. I've dealt with this issue for over 10 years now. One of the main reasons as an english speaker i use the KJV is due to People such as Haim Shore and Proverbs chapter 1 KJV.

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.

You can scroll through the many posts for this forum topic to see why i disagree with you. Some People say there is no god but due to questions raised by pan-psychism that is unlikely. God/Jesus_Christ is fully capable of providing translators for any given language. Rejection of the KJV isn't that bad of a thing but it is sign of rejection of nomianism. English originated with Europeans so it is not racist to promote the KJV for english speakers. English People happen. There is nothing we can do about it.

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

I read the King James, but it's not my primary Bible to read or use. I was raised on it - so I still like it from time to time and can appreciate it.

However, there are many words that need changed for a true "modernizing".

The first I always think of is the word, conversation, as found in Ephesians 4:22 - "That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;"

For the King James translators, this word did not mean talking or verbal communication. It means "manner of life, conduct". It's your behavior. This word is in the King James New Testament 13 times and if interpreting as speaking, then makes those 13+ verses awkward.

This word has changed in meaning since 1611. There are more.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

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

 

[Reformed1689]

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

The only reason i say that is when you read the KJV Bible to yourself, we should be able to do the conversion in our head.

When reading the KJV Bible out loud to others "thy" sometimes in our own heads sounds like "my".

Thou isn't really an issue with most People who've have a middle school education.

I'm not going to go into why the KJV Bible is sufficient other than for a society that embraces Science (Solomon was a scientist "speak to the earth and it will teach you") our society should have the brain power to be able to read the KJV. Most Churches treat their congregation like they are idiots and in many ways many churches are very condescending to their congregation.

So if we want to update the KJV Bible the only requirement for reading it out-loud is to convert "thy" to your. When reading the KJV Bible to ourselves the normal KJV is sufficient.

The KJV should not seem like some white supremacist phenonmenon. I'm not about to tell a Swahili speaker or a Spanish speaker what Bible to read. English originated in a European state so its only natural that the historical source of the optimal (as opposed to sufficient) English Bible would have been translated by Europeans.

Just as the Roman Catholic church promoted latin, many modern preachers tell us to go to seminary and learn greek and hebrew to read the Bible correctly.

Much of what is said about theology in this modern age is driven by banal and narcissistic thinking.

I understand much or all of what i'm saying right now has been stated on this forum 10,000 times. My main point is converting "thy" to "your" is the only requirement for updating the KJV Bible and that is due to that "thy" rhymes with "my" when reading aloud.

I hope you all have a great day.

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.