KJVO: What Improvements Can Be Made...

[Rippon]

...to the text of the KJV to make it better? For some KJVO's no improvements are necessary as it is already perfect. But for the more open-minded (!) KJVOers I'd lie to get their thoughts on the matter.

Don't you think that putting the same thought line in paragraph form would be much better than keeping every verse a separate unit? a guy named Norton has done this. Would you have any objection to this? if so why?

Many KJVers use a defined word list for archaic and obsolete phraseology that is so prevalent in the KJV. Why not put the more current wording in the text? For instance,instead of saying:"The Lord is pitiful". What's wrong with saying He is full of compassion?

I know most of you abhor the Critical Text,however,why not indicate by brackets that conservative Bible scholars have reservations about the additions?

Why not include the Preface by Miles Smith in your KJV edition? By the way,what objections do you have regarding his non-KJVO thinking?

Can you think of other ways to improve the KJV?

 

[Yeshua1]

...to the text of the KJV to make it better? For some KJVO's no improvements are necessary as it is already perfect. But for the more open-minded (!) KJVOers I'd lie to get their thoughts on the matter.

Don't you think that putting the same thought line in paragraph form would be much better than keeping every verse a separate unit? a guy named Norton has done this. Would you have any objection to this? if so why?

Many KJVers use a defined word list for archaic and obsolete phraseology that is so prevalent in the KJV. Why not put the more current wording in the text? For instance,instead of saying:"The Lord is pitiful". What's wrong with saying He is full of compassion?

I know most of you abhor the Critical Text,however,why not indicate by brackets that conservative Bible scholars have reservations about the additions?

Why not include the Preface by Miles Smith in your KJV edition? By the way,what objections do you have regarding his non-KJVO thinking?

Can you think of other ways to improve the KJV?

the best thing the KJVO folks could do is to adapt the NKJV, for at least that version does a much better job expressing their beliefs in a modern form!

 

[Rippon]

Update the grammar to current standards.

Get rid of the thereofs,and replace them with its.

Have good,conservative footnotes with acceptable alternatives.

I made the suggestion before that Miles Smith's preface should be included. Perhaps a modernized and abridged version could be inserted in case the original isn't understandable.

 

[Logos1560]

...to the text of the KJV to make it better? For some KJVO's no improvements are necessary as it is already perfect. But for the more open-minded (!) KJVOers I'd lie to get their thoughts on the matter.

KJV-only author David Cloud admitted: "I do believe there are places which could be translated more clearly. I do believe there are antiquated words which could be brought up to date" (Myths about the KJB: Myth Four, p. 16). Cloud wrote: “Language changes and it is not wrong to update the language, for example, to change ‘wot’ to ‘know’ and ‘noised’ to ‘reported’ and ‘quick’ to ‘living’” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 161; Glorious History of the KJB, p. 214).

KJV-only author Floyd Jones maintained that “these few [referring to ‘several hundred obsolete or archaic words‘] could and should be brought up to date” (Which Version, p. 52).

In the first edition of his book The KJV Defended, Edward F. Hills indicated that “minor improvements” could “be made” in the KJV and that “certain obsolete expressions may be modernized, certain infelicitous renderings bettered” (p. 142).

 

[Logos1560]

Can you think of other ways to improve the KJV?

There would be a number of good ways to improve most KJV editions.

Updating non-standard or inconsistent English spellings of several words along with some inconsistent or non-standard English grammar would improve the KJV. Some KJV editions have updated a number of such spellings, but the majority of present KJV editions have not.

Updating a number of archaic words would help.

Making the use of italics more consistent would be an improvement.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I'm rather happy with the KJV, however I'm not KJO. The two I use the most are the KJV and ASV 1901, I just like the rhythm of both of them to read or to preach out of.

 

[Van]

If we tried to put this shoe on the other foot, why not eliminate the archaic words from the NASB95. I see no need for doing away with the one verse at a time format, just enlarge and bold the verse number at the beginning of each new paragraph.

 

[Logos1560]

its

Get rid of the thereofs,and replace them with its.

The KJV does something use "thereof" instead of the possessive pronoun "its." At other times, the KJV inconsistently uses "his" or "her" where "its" would be better.

While "its" was not found in the 1611 edition of the KJV, it was added in later editions at one verse Leviticus 25:5 and was in effect added in other verses where "itself" [its self] was updated or changed from "it self."

Leviticus 25:5 [it own accord--1560 Geneva; the own accord--1602 Bishops]
That which growth of it own accord [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1873 Cambridge] {1611, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1640, 1644 London} (1638 Edinburgh) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
That which growth of its own accord (1675, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1660 London}

Genesis 1:12 [in it self--1560 Geneva, 1602 Bishops]
in it self (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1720, 1728, 1747 Oxford) [1637, 1638, 1683 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1705, 1711, 1735, 1741 London} (1638, 1722 Edinburgh) (1746 Leipzig)
in it self (1770, 1771, 1778, 1783 Oxford) [1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1773 Cambridge] (1700 MP)
in it self (1773 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 1769 Cambridge]
in itself (1765, 1768, 1772 Oxford) {1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767 London}
in itself (1758, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [DKJB] (1755 Oxon) (1766 Edinburgh)

A few other editions of the KJV used "its" in a few other verses.

Deuteronomy 28:40 [see Exod. 23:11--thy oliveyard] [see Luke 6:44, Rev. 22:2]
your olive shall cast its fruit (E-R)
thy olive shall cast its fruit (1833 WEB)
thine olive shall cast its fruit (1911 TCE) (1842 Bernard)
thy olive shall cast his fruit [2005, 2011 Cambridge] (2006 PENG)
thine olive shall cast his fruit (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Luke 6:44 [see Rev. 22:2--her fruit]
every tree is known by its own fruit (1911 TCE) (E-R) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) (1851 Cone) (1824 Boothroyd) [NKJV]
every tree is known by his own fruit (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Mark 13:28 [see Matt. 24:32--his branch] [When its branch--NKJV] [see Lev. 25:5]
When its branch (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) (1824 Boothroyd)
When her branch (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Matthew 5:13 [see Mark 9:50] [salt become unsavory--1602 Bishops] [see Rom. 3:7--if the truth of God hath]
if the salt loses its flavor, how shall it (NKJV)
if the salt has lost his savour, wherewith shall it (EB)
if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it (1842 Bernard)
if the salt have lost its savor, wherewith shall it (E-R) (1851 Cone)
if the salt hath lost its savour, wherewith shall it (1700 MP)
if the salt hath lost its savor, wherewith shall it (1833 WEB)
if the salt hath lost his savour, wherewith shall it (1831 Brown)
if the salt have lost its savour, wherewith shall it {1795 London} (1831 Boston NT) (1911 TCE)
if the salt hath lost his savor, wherewith shall it (1834 Coit)
if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it (1675 Oxford) {1660 London} (1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (LASB) (1991 AMG)
if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Mark 9:50 [its saltness--1901 ASV]
his saltiness (EB)
its saltness (1700 MP) (E-R) (1911 TCE) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard) (1851 Cone) (1824 Boothroyd)
his saltness (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Psalm 34:2 [My soul shall glory--1560 Geneva] [its boast--NKJV]
My soul shall make its boast (1842 Bernard)
My soul shall make her boast (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[HankD]

KJVO: What Improvements Can Be Made...

Nothing, we have the NKJV for that.

Besides, what would Christmas be without the KJV accounts of His birth:

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise...

Luke 1

7 And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.
8 And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.​

HankD

 

[Logos1560]

Why should two of the uses of the old or archaic "sith" have been updated and one left not updated to present standard English spelling in most present KJV editions?

Is this an example of the inconsistent spelling or editing in many present KJV editions?

Jeremiah 15:7 [see Ezek. 35:6, Jer. 23:38]
sith (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1728, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1765, 1768, 1770 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1873 Cambridge] {1611, 1616, 1617, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1735, 1741 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
since (1762, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1743, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Jeremiah 23:38 [see Ezekiel 35:6, Jer. 15:7]
sith (1675, 1679, 1709, 1715, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1777, 1778, 1783, 1788 Oxford) [1629, 1637, 1638, 1683, 1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1768, 1873 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1644, 1660, 1672, 1684, 1711, 1735, 1741, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1767, 1772 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1722, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1789, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1762 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1746 Leipzig) (1782 Aitken) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (TPB) (HPB) (2008, 2010, 2011 HEND) (NHPB)
since (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Ezekiel 35:6 [see also Jeremiah 23:38, 15:7] [since-NKJV, 1901 ASV]
since [2005, 2011 Cambridge] (1818, 1819, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1826 Boston) (1836 Hartford) (1843 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1876 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1948 WSE) (1968 Royal) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (1987, 1988 IBS) (LASB) (KJRLB) (1984, 1994 ZOND) (LPB) (EB) (E-R) (2006 PENG) (ASB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)
sith (1769 Oxford, SRB) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

 

[Van]

The lovers of the KJV do not give a rip for eliminating archaic words that obscure the message, or eliminating inconsistent translation which obscures the message. Its my Bible, right or wrong. Cool-aid anyone?

 

[Yeshua1]

There would be a number of good ways to improve most KJV editions.

Updating non-standard or inconsistent English spellings of several words along with some inconsistent or non-standard English grammar would improve the KJV. Some KJV editions have updated a number of such spellings, but the majority of present KJV editions have not.

Updating a number of archaic words would help.

Making the use of italics more consistent would be an improvement.

wouldn't the easiest thing to do for them would be to adopt and use the NKJV instead?

 

[sdonahue1]

The ideal situation for modernising the KJV? The text from the 1967 New Scofield Reference Bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

The ideal situation for modernising the KJV? The text from the 1967 New Scofield Reference Bible.

had one of those!
was that the version that put changed words in 'brackets", and placed thsoe in the margin next to the changed words?

 

[robycop3]

Replace "Easter" with "passover" in Acts12:4.

Have 1 Tim. 6:10 read,"the love of money is A root of ALL SORTS of evils."

Restore the original preface.

Restore the original marginal notes.

But keep it in the English style it was written in. Let newer translations use newer language styles.

 

[Phillip3]

Nkjv

It sounds like your answer is the NKJV if you wish to keep to the basic TR text stream. Updates could be added to the NKJV based on modern textual criticism then footnoted along with what manuscripts do and do not contain the text such as the end of Mark which does not seem to fit and may have been added later.:thumbsup:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Replace "Easter" with "passover" in Acts12:4.

No....They did that for a reason....do some actual research before you spout off this way.

 

[Phillip3]

No....They did that for a reason....do some actual research before you spout off this way.

I think RobyCOP is right. Easter was a pagan holiday and passover is a much better rendering unless it is footnoted so the new meaning of Easter is known.

Good work Roby.:thumbsup:

 

[Gregory Perry Sr.]

I agree Heir....

No....They did that for a reason....do some actual research before you spout off this way.

And HERE is some good "research" by Sam Gipp: (click the link)

http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=02.htm
By the way...just because Bro.Gipp is a KJVO author DOESN'T automatically make him wrong on this matter....don't criticize or refute his research based on who or what he is ....but read it OBJECTIVELY...you MIGHT learn something.

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

...to the text of the KJV to make it better? For some KJVO's no improvements are necessary as it is already perfect.

Hi Ripponlinger! .....how would you answer this question in reference to the sacrosanct NIV that you percieve to be twice inspired?

But for the more open-minded (!) KJVOers I'd lie to get their thoughts on the matter.

If they gave them to you......You would learn nothing.

Don't you think that putting the same thought line in paragraph form would be much better than keeping every verse a separate unit?

UHHHHHH...........isn't that question relevant to EVERY single translation known to man including your perfect NIV?

Many KJVers use a defined word list for archaic and obsolete phraseology that is so prevalent in the KJV. Why not put the more current wording in the text?

Obsolete phraseology exists in your NIV Ripponlinger....the KJV simply isn't that hard to understand.

For instance,instead of saying:"The Lord is pitiful". What's wrong with saying He is full of compassion?

If that phrase is "archaic" to you...or difficult to understand...than frankly, I dismiss you as an illiterate, and would encourage you to learn how to read.

If you find "pitiful" hard to comprehend in context....than you are beyond hope. Just get "The Word on the Street"...and have done with it, for as much as you can read English.

I know most of you abhor the Critical Text,however,why not indicate by brackets that conservative Bible scholars have reservations about the additions?

Circularity in the most obvious form...It's dis-honest the way you did this...Do you actually BELIEVE someone should fall for your assumption of "additions"?? No sir...the critical text DELETES Acts 8: 37....Irenaeus quotes the passage directly in 150 (ish) a.d......

No sir. You can't sneak in the assumption (that's what you're doing) that the A.V. "adds" to the text without my catching you in your dishonest tactic.....

You're BUSTED!!! You have to prove that it was "ADDED"...not assume it....your text DELETES it sir.....it wasn't "added".

Why not include the Preface by Miles Smith in your KJV edition?

Do you even OWN a KJV??? Because nearly every copy I have includes it...I've read it numerous times...and always from my own KJV....

Oh, I get it...You actually THINK that most KJV's dispense with it? :laugh::laugh: Get a KJV first...then make this statement.

By the way,what objections do you have regarding his non-KJVO thinking?

None....it's your NIVO thinking which is disturbing.

Can you think of other ways to improve the KJV?

Interesting use of the word "other".....as though we don't catch the fact that you used the word in order to drop in the sub-conscious assumption that your previous suggestions must be accepted as prima-facie "improvements", that we should assume are true.

I, for one, am not falling for it. Become MORE clever than you are, and I won't notice these tricks. They are elementary.