Question about KJV Easy Reading
Does anyone out there have any comment on the King James Version Easy Reading, published by G.E.M. Publishing. They say that nothing from the Authorized KJV has been compromised. I would like to get some feedback.
|
If nothing has been compromised, then the text would be identical to the KJB. It is not possible to rewrite the wording of the KJB into modern grade-school English and not lose or distort some meaning. Simple examples would be the pronouns "thee", "thou", "thy", "thine", "ye" and the "est" and "eth" verb endings. Updating these to modern forms loses the detail expressed by the word.
|
Quote:
The King James English Bible was written for the English (another country) when they spoke another language (what we commonly call “King James English”). Satan didn't say "Yea, Hath God said?" (unless you think that Satan and Adam and Eve spoke English). The verse was originally written in Hebrew, but was translated into English by some kind folks so that the English in the 1700's could understand the Word of God. We have done the same thing with The Evidence Bible. We have taken words that people didn’t understand, and given the contemporary equivalent. And in doing so, we never thought of dropping verses about the blood of Christ, repentance, or the deity of Christ; nor did we change the meaning of any verse or drop one jot or tittle from God's precious Word. I used to have a copy of the original King James published in 1611 and could hardly read the introduction. They kindly updated the print in the main text to modern usage so at least the books in it could be understood. I see no difference between what was done in 1769 and what Ray Comfort has done in the 21 century. I couldn't count the number of times I've heard a preacher stand and explain what "conversation" or "peradventure" or a dozen other words that are no longer used mean. Does that mean he is perverting the word of God? Of course not! The issue that is raised is that modern English has lost the distinction between singular and plural in the second person. While this is true, it's not a mark against a Bible translation. The rules of language change over time, and you can't stop it, nor can you fault the translators for following the rules of English as they currently stand! For the record I use only a King James and would be considered King James Only. |
Quote:
Anything which detracts from the detailed exactness of the Scripture in English is not good. Thus, whatever does this must be rejected in favour of keeping to the old paths. The modernist and the evolutionist and so on argue that English is changing, therefore, they think that the Word of God must be altered on the basis of man's opinions and theories. The reality is that the English of today is conducive to the King James Bible, and that the King James Bible is comprehensible to the spiritually minded person today. Of course, we have to study, but that is because it is God's way, not man's lazy watered down way. If you are not using a King James Bible out of the right tradition, and from the historical lineage, you are not using a real KJB. Thus, a modernised "King James" version with many unauthorised word changes is dangerous. Have a read of this monograph to see the accuracy of our KJB words, the very words which the unauthorised revised "King James" versions destroy. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name's sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." (Isaiah 66:5). The changing of "shew" to "show" might not seem to change a meaning or anything, but it is these Scriptures which are against it: "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set." (Proverbs 22:28). And, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump." (Galatians 5:9). You see, there is no place to draw the line once you start changing things, and for the people you might think you are pleasing, you will find that others are displeased, not just because their traditions were encroached, but because they found that you had changed something of the very concepts of the Word of God (this can be easily done by changing so much as a comma!). Quote:
It is very clear that there is an authoritative lineage by which we receive our KJB today. We have a proper tradition which we receive out of, showing (by God's providence) what is His Word in English, and therefore what we must keep and jealously guard. It was needful and sufficient that editing took place in the King James Bible in the past, but nothing of the sort is required now, except to conform to correctness of presentation. No new revision is required, nor even anything to be touched in the spelling. It is what it is, and either you humble yourself and love it, or else you object in vain. Edward Hills wrote, “It is possible, if the Lord tarry, that in the future the English language will change so much that a new English translation of the Bible will become absolutely necessary. But in that case any version which we prepare today would be equally antiquated. Hence this is a matter which we must leave to God, who alone knows what is in store for us. For the present, however, and the foreseeable future no new translation is needed to take the place of the King James Version. Today our chief concern must be to create a climate of Christian thought and learning which God can use providentially should the need for such a new English version ever arise. This would insure that only the English wording would be revised and not the underlying Hebrew and Greek text.” The English language is not moving away from compatibility with the King James Bible. To believe that would be to argue in favour of atheistic evolution, or to argue that Satan’s corruptions in English were more powerful than God. No, God is control, and the English language is where it needs to be for many people of many nations to be able to have access to the “best translation in the world”. As for past changes in spelling and wording, Thomas Turton of Cambridge wrote in 1833, “Let me take this opportunity to state, as my deliberate opinion, that the Text of 1611 is, in consequence of its incorrectness, quite unworthy to be considered as the Standard of the Bibles now printed; and to express my conscientious belief, that to revert to that Text, as the Standard, would be productive of serious evils.” “For accuracy of printing, the Oxford edition of 1769, superintended by Dr Blayney, Regius Professor of Hebrew, at Oxford, is much esteemed.” |
Quote:
|
Quote:
1. We should have fear of God concerning the words of God’s Word. 2. Little changes (leaven) opens for big changes (the whole lump). 3. Changes are not required, and how would they be made anyway? 4. The historical editing in the KJB has been finalised. Quote:
Moreover, God’s Word was perfect when He first gave it, and was perfect at any time in any good and normal Bible, and is perfect today. Of course, the KJB is the final form of the Received Text and the best translation in the world. Thus, perfection of Scripture is not limited to one Bible one hundred years ago. Quote:
“So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.” (Nehemiah 8:8). There is a problem with deliberately changing or altering the KJB during reading it, and there is also a problem in having a new modernised edition which changes things (as I have outlined in several points above). Since the good old KJB exists in the PRESENT, and its words are PRESENTLY believed and used, it follows that there is no “updating”, because the KJB is up to date. A “contemporary meaning” is really a slight against the exactness, fixedness and perfection of the KJB as it has been received, and as it now stands. It is one thing for editors to do their authoritative work, such as Dr Blayney of Oxford, but it is a whole other matter to have some present day “scholar” come along and attempt to “revise”, “update”, “contemporise” the KJB. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Let me quote some Scriptures: “Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” (Job 38:2). “Seest thou a man that is hasty in his words? there is more hope of a fool than of him.” (Proverbs 29:20). “Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (1 Timothy 1:7). Quote:
|
Quote:
You have made an idol out of some edition of a translation for another country in another language and it seems that your entire life's work is defending that position. I'm sorry but we will have to agree to disagree. |
Just responding to Premio above...
The word savior is a generic word for someone that saves. The word Saviour is a title. It has a capital S. It is reserved only for Jesus Christ. |
The KJB is the Word of God for America. Many people who uphold the name of the "Saviour" and believe the KJB are in the USA. I know God has no problem communicating to the Americans with the KJB as it stands, with no need to resorting to unauthorised modernisation.
|
King James Easy Reading Version
I have a few different copies of this edition of the Scriptures, but I haven't cared much for the physical presentation. The "full" one is very large and the pages so thin the print shows through from the other side of the page, making it hard to read. The smaller editions are so small they're hard to use. For some reason the publisher didn't seem to make a medium sized edition.
As to the modernization, I do find it "smoother" to read. They index whether a "you" is plural or not, so even though it is easier to read, you can still see if it is a singular or plural usage of the word. The large version includes a list of every "modernized" word. I certainly like it better than J.P. Green's Modern King James version, which is very wooden and has what seems to me a few strange translations (though it has been so long since I've read from it that I can't recall any right now). I do know that when reading the Scriptures before my children (now ages 10, 12, and 14), that they seem to comprehend better when reading from the NKJV (in general). While I tend to stick with my KJV Bible, there are portions that leave my head reeling. This is a good thing, though, as it makes me look into Scripture all that much harder! Also I (usually) be sure to read the KJV before using the NKJV and will point out where the NKJV is using inferior wording. Hope this helps. If what BibleProtector claims is true, that the KJV is the perfected Word of God in English, then we really should work harder at just using that version, though... Doug A. |
To Premio53
Hi Premio
I admire your honesty and willingness to understand the concerns that you hold to but for me there are just some things that are set in stone. If the subject of the “Word of God” is approached from a mere collection of historical documents that hold valuable spiritual lessons, then yes, I would feel free to communicate them as I could word them. But if a king gave me his word to go and proclaim then I would be miss quoting him if I put it into my own words. It is one thing to go and preach the gospel to all creation, but another altogether when we try and reword “the Scriptures”. I have written one or two articles explaining my position and don’t want to run through them all again for the sake of anyone else who may read this. Who understands words such as; “holy” - “Propitiation” – or even the concept of a blood sacrifice? When we “update” we are doing more than we realise, and the question is – who gets to determine the need for updating? If it is the believer then I am sorry, I don’t think that the KJB is written in mandarin Chinese it is in a form of English that is understandable. Yes, I admit that it isn’t as easy as I would like in places but my desires are not the determining factor of what God has put into the Bible. I don’t understand everything that I come across in maths, does that mean that it needs to be changed so that I can benefit – or should it remain as it is and challenge me to answer its demands upon my mind? If I made the archaeological find of the century and unearthed the Ark of the Covenant, looked inside it and found the two tablets of stone. And just for arguments sake, I discovered that it was written in olde English (I speak hypothetically). I wouldn’t dare to think of taking a hammer and chisel so that I could reword the 10 commandments to those who don’t speak like that any longer. It would be sacrilege to do so. If the KJB is seen as a mere outdated translation then this site is nothing other than a forum without a purpose, but if it is seen (and it is) that it is the work of God then it is a totally different ball game. There is no way that anyone can convince me that “the message” or the NIV etc are the work of God, as the issue is far greater than updating archaic words etc. If we are to say “it is written” then on what authority can we do that unless it is written? We are either guardians of truth who believe in the promise of preservation or we aren’t – if we are, then we guard it – if we aren’t we change it! The question is this; did anyone at any point in time possess the Scriptures where they could call out in total confidence that “It is written” or did they not? If so then that is the side we stand with – if not then there is no word of God in written form today! God bless PaulB |
Just an after thought - Many today don't understand that a lamb's blood (especially that of Christ) is substitutionary. Does that mean that we just preach that Jesus passed away so that it is easy to understand that He died for them? No,we declare the whole council of God - thus we trust that God will work with that. but if we change it, we don't have that promise!
God Bless PaulB |
I just posted this reply, on another forum where the same question was asked.
"I have both the Oxford 1769 KJV, and Pure Cambridge KJV Bibles. Also a 1967 Scofield NRB-KJV, that Bible up-dates a lot of words, and does not remove any. But is by anyone in the know, not considered a KJV. So how could an easy reading KJV, which probably does more than the 1967 Scofield in changing words, be considered a trustful KJV." |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.