Modern KJV

It is online at http://www.mkjvonline.com/

 

A true KJVo will always reject any modern Bible regardless of the source manuscripts. Just look at the NKJV. It is admittedly TR and Massoretic text, but they reject it. Why? One reason is they don't like footnotes that say: "Some manuscripts don't contain, blah, blah, blah". That makes people doubt the Bible.

So, to have a real KJV, you MUST have the 1611 footnotes (side-notes) and you MUST have the apocrypha.

 

I have a copy of the MKJV, and have compared it to the KJV1769. It is, truly, a KJV whose language has simply been updated. It's a good translation that still maintains the structure of earlier editions of the KJV. It updates words like "advise", "bronze", and "let" (in the AV1611, the words were "advertise" "brass" and "suffer", but no longer carry the same meaning). Since it adheres strictly to the same source texts as the AV1611 without derivation, ans since its updating is consistent with previous editions of the KJV (most recently in 1769), no KJVOist can argue against its use.

 

I have a copy of the MKJV, and have compared it to the KJV1769. It is, truly, a KJV whose language has simply been updated. It's a good translation that still maintains the structure of earlier editions of the KJV. It updates words like "advise", "bronze", and "let" (in the AV1611, the words were "advertise" "brass" and "suffer", but no longer carry the same meaning). Since it adheres strictly to the same source texts as the AV1611 without derivation, ans since its updating is consistent with previous editions of the KJV (most recently in 1769), no KJVOist can argue against its use. </font>[/QUOTE]This is from the publishers site:
The Modern King James Version of the Bible is an update of the Authorized King James Version in today's English. Besides the language update, it has these differences:
- Many older editions of the KJV have a center column in which they suggest a better translation, many of these suggestions have now been put into the text.
- The names of animals of the Bible have been corrected according to scientific studies today;
- The titles to the Psalms and names of places have been translated to their actual meaning rather than their original name, such as Hor-hagidgad = The Hole in the Cleft.
- Those places which are incorrect have been changed (e.g. 'Passover' instead of 'Easter'; 'Joshua' instead of 'Jesus' in Hebrews 4; 'expanse' is replaced by 'firmament'; 'eunuch' for 'officer'; 'Let it not Be!' for 'God forbid'; 'came into being' for 'made' in John 1:3);
- places where the King James Version paraphrases have been replaced by a direct translation from the original;
- the Greek names for Old Testament characters are given the same name as in the King James Version;
- money, titles, weights, etc. are translated as they are in the original languages (e.g. denarius instead of penny).

I just took a cursory look at the online version, and didn't see anything too glaring. There are differences, but a lot of the standard omissions of the new versions (Luke 4:4, Romans 8:1) are there. There was something in 1 John 5:7,8 that I thought was strange. Perhaps Johnv or someone who has the version could tell us what it says in the notes, as they don't have them on the online version?

 

Lk 4:4

(KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
(KJV) And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written that 'man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.'

Rom 8:1

(KJV) There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
(MKJV) There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

There are no "ommissions" in these verses as you claim.

(KJV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
(MKJV) For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on the earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three are into the one.

I see nothing "strange" as you claim.

 

I didn't say that they were omitted. I guess I worded it wierd. Those verses are usually partially omitted in many modern versions. They are present in the MKJV. The wierd thing I saw in the online version was that they put most of 1 John 5:7,8 in italics. I can only presume that there is a note to go along with it that is not included in the online text. My guess would be something along the lines of "the oldest/best manuscripts do not contain this text"

 

In the MKJV printed edition, the reason for the italicized text at 1Jn 5:7 is noted in the Preface:

"In italicizing words not in the original [!] for sense, we have sometimes been more strict than the KJV translators."

Yet this appears to contradict his other statement: "No change has been made on the basis of a mere handful of Egyptian-influenced manuscripts, but all are based on the original words of the Masoretic Text, or the Received Text."

Translation-wise, I find Green's MKJV to be of very uneven quality, with serious problems involved throughout.

To cite one example, inconsistency in rendering parallel passages, words, phrases, or expressions, where the original language words are identical (English differences in CAPS below, except for LORD):

Job 1:8 "And the LORD said TO Satan...Have you set your heart AGAINST my servant Job, BECAUSE there is none like him"

Job 2:3 "And the LORD said UNTO Satan...Have you set your heart ON my servant Job, THAT there is none like him."

Compare also Ps.14 and Ps.53 or parallel passages in the gospels for more inconsistency.

I do not put Green's MKJV very high on my list of translations, for these and many other reasons.

 

While the MKJV may only update the KJV for the most part, it does also attempt to correct or improve some KJV renderings.

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

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

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

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

Deut. 33:17
unicorns (KJV, KJ21)
an ox (MKJV)
the wild ox (NKJV)

Job 20:24
bow of steel (KJV, KJ21)
bow of bronze (MKJV, KJ2000)
bronze bow (NKJV)

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

Isa. 6:13
teil tree (KJV, KJ21)
terebinth (MKJV)
terebinth tree (NKJV, KJ2000)

The MKJV uses the name "Jehovah" many times
where the KJV has "LORD" (Exod. 15:3, 2 Sam. 7:20, Ps. 8:1, 140:7, etc.).

 

I have the KJII, the MKJV, and Greens Interlinear. The KJII is an early version of the MKJV. I believe the MKJV to be accurate, however, I find that the sentence structure is as stilted as the ASV. The NKJV is easier to read. Which is more accurate I cannot say. I still prefer the KJV.

 

I like greens LITV, I also find the MKJV a sound version.

 

The MKJV is available as a free download for e-Sword.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

There are no footnotes in my copy of the print version of the MKJV. Are you referring to the brackets placed around portions of verses 7 and 8? A foornote in the King James Study Bible says that the portions in question were not in early manuscripts.

 

Some more example KJV and MKJV comparisons:

Matt. 23:24b
strain out (Tyndale's, MKJV, NKJV, KJ21)
strain at (KJV)

Matt. 25:26c
strawed (KJV)
scatter (MKJV)

Matt. 27:50
yielded up the ghost (KJV)
released His spirit (MKJV)
yielded up His spirit (NKJV, KJ21)

Luke 1:63
writing table (KJV)
writing tablet (MKJV, NKJV, KJ21)

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

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

John 3:8a
The wind bloweth where it listeth (KJV)
The Spirit breathes where He desires (MKJV)
The wind blows where it wishes (NKJV)
The wind bloweth where it will (KJ21)

Acts 1:20c
his bishoprick let another take (KJV)
Let another take his office (MKJV, NKJV)

Acts 7:45
Jesus (KJV)
Joshua (Tyndale's, MKJV, NKJV, KJ21)

Acts 17:4
consorted with Paul and Silas (KJV)
joined themselves with Paul and Silas (MKJV)
joined with Paul and Silas (NKJV)

Acts 19:37b
which are neither robbers of churches (KJV)
who are neither robbers of churches (MKJV, KJ21)
who are neither robbers of temples (NKJV)

 

William Tyndale had consistently translated the
Greek word ecclesia by "congregation," and he
used the word "church" to refer to a building. The fact that the word "church" was already being used in his day to refer to a building was one of the reasons that Tyndale gave for his rendering of ecclesia as "congregation." The 1535 Coverdale's Bible even used the word "church" at least twice in the Old Testament in that same way.

In this case, "church" at Acts 19:37 was not actually the choice of the KJV translators themselves. It is one of the 14 changes that Archbishop Richard Bancroft made in the text of the 1611.

Alexander McClure wrote: "Bancroft, that he might for once stick the name [church] to a material building, would have it applied, in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, to the idols' temples!
'Robbers of churches' are strictly, according to the word in the original, temple-robbers; and particularly, in this case, such as might have plundered the great temple of Diana at Ephesus. Let us be thankful that the dictatorial prelate tried his hand no farther at emending the sacred text" (KJV TRANSLATORS REVIVED, p. 221).