KJV 2000

Could you provide a link to information on this Bible, and maybe who publishes it? I am not familiar with the KJV 2000?

What did the translators derive its background manuscripts and what exactly are they?

Just curious. Thanks.

 

Yes I would appreciate that as well, as I am not familiar with it either...

 

It is the 1994 KJ21 (21st Century KJV) that
only updates archaic words in the KJV. Most KJV-only advocates will not even accept the KJ21 to be only an updating of the KJV so it is very unlikely that they accept the KJ2000.

The King James 2000 Version edited by Robert Couric and published by the Bible League [South Holland, IL 60473] updates archaic words, but it also makes some other changes or corrections. Below are a few examples:

Gen. 30:37
hazel (KJV, KJ21)
almond (NKJV, MKJV, KJ2000)

Lev. 11:19
lapwing (KJV, KJ21)
hoopoe (NKJV, MKJV, KJ2000)

Lev. 11:30
ferret (KJV, KJ21)
gecko (NKJV, MKJV, KJ2000)

Deut. 14:5
pygarg (KJV, KJ21)
mountain goat (NKJV, MKJV)
ibex (KJ2000)

Deut. 14:13
glede (KJV, KJ21)
red kite (NKJV)
falcon (MKJV)
buzzard (KJ2000)

Deut. 33:17
unicorns (KJV, KJ21)
the wild ox (NKJV)
a wild ox (KJ2000)

1 Samuel 17:6
target of brass (KJV)
bronze javelin (NKJV)
collar of brass (KJ21)
javelin of bronze (KJ2000)

Job 30:31
organ (KJV)
flute (NKJV, MKJV, KJ21, KJ2000)

 

Logos, was it a true translation from scratch or just a review of words in the KJV with updates to those words. Do you know if true comparisons to the Greek/Hebrew was made in each case a word or phrase was changed? Again, just curious.

 

According to its preface, Robert Couric wrote:
"The King James 2000 is not a new version. It is a King James Version brought forward 400 years."

He also wrote: "The intent of King James 2000 is to keep every KJV word the same, unless a misunderstanding or a gross word order 'error' (in today's usage' must be averted."

He added: "No 'corrections' or 'textual considerations' are taken into account, since the King James 2000 intent is to preserve the KJV 'as is,' except for truly necessary changes."

Thus, based on the preface, "Seeker of truth"
was right to think that it was only an updating of the archaic words of the KJV. However, based on having checked several verses in it, I was aware that it made some changes or corrections that would not be considering simply updatings.
Perhaps its editor considered them to be "truly necessary changes."

There is no mention of what sources or texts were consulted in the making of the KJ2000 in its preface.

The KJ2000 may be more widely used in some countries in Africa than in the U. S.

 

As I understand it, most of our KJVO friends will not accept the KJ2000 simply because there are some word changes, and that makes it different, and therefore wrong!

 

Here is one example of what one KJV-only author says about the KJ2000.

Gail Riplinger wrote: "Other corrupt versions include: ... The Easy Reading KJV-ER, KJV2000, and the KJ21" (IN AWE OF THY WORD, p. 754).

She fails to prove her serious accusation.
According to a consistent application of Riplinger's type reasoning, the earlier English Bibles of which KJV was a revision would also
have to be "corrupt."

 

For those interested in the KJV 2000 and motivation of its editors and publishers, it can be downloaded here.

KJV 2000

 

From my experience with the KJVO crowd, this is how it will be as well.

 

Thanks for the link to the KJ2000 site.

Here are a few word comparisons of the KJ2000
to the KJV and other updatings of the KJV:

Mark 2:22
bottles (KJV)
wineskins (NKJV, MKJV, KJ21, KJ2000)

Luke 6:1
ears of corn (KJV, KJ21)
ears of grain (MKJV, KJ2000)
heads of grain (NKJV)

Luke 14:10
worship (KJV)
honor (KJ2000)
glory (NKJV, MKJV)

Acts 7:45
Jesus (KJV)
Joshua (NKJV, MKJV, KJ21, KJ2000)

Acts 19:37
robbers of churches (KJV, MKJV, KJ21)
robbers of temples (NKJV, KJ2000)

1 Tim. 1:10
For them who defile themselves with mankind (KJV)
for those who defile themselves with mankind (KJ21)
for sodomites (NKJV)
for homosexuals (MKJV, KJ2000)

Titus 1:8
a lover of good men (KJV, KJ21)
a lover of good (MKJV, KJ2000)

 

But it is different (and therefore wrong) even if it is based on the textus receptus like the good old KJV...

 

Posters are indicating why KJV-only advocates would not accept the KJ2000 since you had asked what they would think of it, and not that they think all changes are bad.

The KJV translators made the same-type changes in the earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision as those found in the KJ2000. If all revision and updating of the English Bible was wrong, the KJV translators would have been wrong to revise and update the earlier good English Bibles.