Modern King James Bible? Questions

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Plain Old Bill, Apr 8, 2004.

  1. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anybody know anything about this version/updateing of the KJV?
    Is it in print?
    Who is the pulisher?
    If it is not out yet when is it due out?
    Is anybody beating this version up yet?
    How good of a tranlstion is it?
     
  2. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a copy. It is the work of Jay Green and is published by Sovereign Grace Publishers. It is online at http://www.mkjvonline.com/

    I find it to be a pretty accurate translation of the same texts which underlie the KJV while avoiding some of the pitfalls other similar versions have encountered.
     
  3. Phillip

    Phillip
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    skanwmatos, Where does one find a copy of the underlying documents of the KJV that are known to be used by the KJV translators?

    Are the versions of the TR that are available today accurate enough for adequate use? Have they been modified significantly since 1611 and if so, are they considered as accurate by scholars?

    Do you feel the TR is more accurate than other Greek sources?
     
  4. Spirit and Truth

    Spirit and Truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mr Green has a new one coming out at the end of may. It has been revised. The MKJV is an easy read.
     
  5. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Skanwmatos,
    thanks for the site.
     
  6. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    See my reply in the other thread which I just posted here http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/4/1525.html#000005
    In my opinion, yes. Virtually any currently available Greek text is sufficient for our use. However, I do lean toward the Byzantine based Greek texts as being superior to the Alexandrian based Greek texts.
    Most scholars today favor the Critical text(s) largely, I believe, due simply to their having been educated in that venue. But I also believe the pendulum is beginning to swing back toward the Byzantine text type.
    I believe the TR (all 30+ editions) are representative of the Byzantine text type and are most likely to reflect the original readings.
     
  7. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone know anything else about this new version?
     
  8. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    I downloaded the MKJV at e-sword.net I like it is good just as good in my opinion as the NKJV. Its cool that they are releasing a new one.
     
  9. ZeroTX

    ZeroTX
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2004
    Messages:
    94
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have the MKJV on my Palm Pilot ;) One of several free versions out there. My favorites are all copyrighted, though and not free... :(

    -Michael
     
  10. DeclareHim

    DeclareHim
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope it will become available soon in print. I know Sovereign Grace Publishers has one but its $60 bucks. I hope they come out with a more lower priced Bible. Cause I like it.
     
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The story here is a very strange one! In 1962 a Bible called The Modern King James version was published. We are not told who the translators were—we are only told that the senior editor was Jay P. Green, Sr. In 1971 a Bible called the King James II Version of the Bible was published. Again, we are not told who the translators were. All we are told is that Jay Green wrote the preface and that it is copyrighted by Jay P. Green. The preface makes no mention at all of the Modern King James Version. It was in print for only a short time, but I bought one in 1971—a first (and probably only) edition copy—and I still have it. It is very different from the Modern King James Version.

    In 1999, a revision of the Modern King James Version was published. The preface makes no mention of the King James II Version of the Bible but says, “This 1999 Revised Edition is the fifth edition of this version.”

    I am including here the preface from the first edition of the Modern Kings James Version, and after that the preface from the 1999 revision.

    WHY CHANGE THE KING JAMES VERSION?
    For the past fifty years, the lovers of the grand old Authorized/King James Version have contended that there is no good reason to change their beloved version, none at all. For, they say, God has blessed the use of it, placing it as the standard English Bible for 380 years. It is beautiful, and it "is the finest specimen of English prose...the Bible of every English-speaking country" (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 112).
    Times have changed, and so has language. Every lover of the beloved King James Version should be aware by now that those who are willing to add and subtract words from God's Word have used the archaic Elizabethan English of the KJV as an excuse to issue new versions. And though the translators of these new versions praise the KJV, they then depart from its message, and from its Greek and Hebrew texts (the Received Text and the Masoretic Text). And it has become the common practice of modern translators to make changes, adding and subtracting words, and even inserting the formulations of the early heretics into their translations. These changes often deny, or throw into doubt, many cardinal doctrines contained in the original God-breathed words. And the one cardinal doctrine, the most important one they deny or doubt, is the co-equal Godhead of Jesus Christ, his essential deity from eternity. Several Scriptures testifying to the fact that God the Son, Jesus Christ, is of the same essence (Hebrews 1:3) and the same attributes with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, have been changed in the new versions. And this is because the translators have put their reliance on two error-filled fourth century manuscripts which were produced in Egypt (as were all the papyri), at a time when the Gnostics and their doctrines held sway in Egypt. For a detailed expose of these modern-day changes, and where so many of them originated, the reader should obtain and read thoroughly Unholy Hands on the Bible, Vol. I (Volume II examines the six major new versions). This may be ordered from Sovereign Grace Publishers or Christian Literature World. The book is bound in bonded leather, in a good type-size. It is 768 pages of unique information.
    IS IT BETTER TO LEAVE THE KJV UNCHANGED?
    The answer is NO! And to understand this, some history should be considered by those opposing an updating of the KJV.
    First, the Authorized/King James Version, as we know it, has been changed several times (the last two major updatings of the grand old version was done by a Dr. Sattergood in 1683, and again it was done by Dr. Blayney in 1769. In both cases, these changes were made because the English language had changed during the preceding years. Hardly anyone has been heard to criticize these updates. And this is because an updating of the KJV does NOT take away its beauty, its poetic excellence, nor its honest witness to the original God-breathed words.
    Secondly, "William Tyndale's influence on various versions down to the Bishop's Bible fixed the general tone of the translation....it [the AV/KJV] is a revision, not a new translation" (Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 112). In fact the majority of the wording of the New Testament of the Authorized/King James Version is that of Tyndale, but in updated English. To illustrate this, note Tyndale's and the AV's wording"
    Tyndale New Testament (1534), Matthew 2:13
    When they were departed, beholde the Angell of the Lorde appeared to Ioseph in a dreame, saying, aryse and take the chylde and his mother and flye into Egypte, and abyde there until I brynge thee the worde. For Herod wyll seke the chylde to destroye hym.
    King James Version (1611/1769) Matthew 2:13
    And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt and be thou there until I bring thee word; for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.
    Note how the English language had changed in the 78 years between Tyndale's translation in 1534 and the KJV of 1611. What if it had decided that the Tyndale Bible should never have been updated? Who would be reading it now? Next, 71 years later, Dr. Sattergood updated the English again to make it current for the readers of his day. Next, 86 years later, Dr. Blayney updated the English again to make it current for his day. That there has been 222 years pass since the Blayney revision only argues that the English of the KJV should have been updated many years ago. For it is certain that there has been a falling away from the use of the KJV during the last 60 years. And now, alas! We are witnessing the sale of over 60 million copies of the NIV, and over 30 million of the so-called Good News Bible (also called Today's English Version); and nearly 30 million of one called The Living Bible (which is not a Bible translation nor even a paraphrase, but is a rewriting of the Bible according to a Sunday School teacher's view of it).
    IF NOT UPDATED, THE KJV WOULD FADE AWAY
    Who is it that has quit reading the KJV, and have gone either to reading the new versions, or have quit reading the Bible altogether? It is not a secret that this generation, and most of the last generation, has on the whole refused to learn Elizabethan English in order to read the Bible. School teachers do not want pupils to read the KJV, because it confuses their ability to spell English words (for inability to spell is one of the weaknesses of pupils in our day). Not only the spelling, but the archaic words stumble younger readers today. Besides, there are many awkward, strange words which were the style in the seventeenth century, which today turn away readers. Therefore, it is important for us to give the new reader a Bible they can read, yet one that keeps every one of the God-breathed words. The question begging an answer from the the lovers of the KJV is this: Which Bible do you want this generation to read? Yes, and the generations to follow are involved in your answer. If you say that you want them to read the trustworthy KJV, then you should realize that the only KJV they will read extensively, one they will study to make them unashamed workers for our God and Savior, is an updated KJV in the English of their day. Oh, dear lovers of the grand old version, beware and be wise. Already we are losing the battle for readers of an uncorrupted Bible to the new, untrustworthy versions. And this is simply because the are in today's English!
    IS THE MKJV THE ANSWER?
    Yes, we believe it is what is needed, a King James Version that our children can and will read both now and from now on. After seeing it, you will be the judge of what you and your family will do, as well as your church. In the end our savior will judge how we defended His Word.
    THE MODERN KING JAMES VERSION CHANGES
    1. In 1769, suggested better translation were put into the margins of the KJV. We have in come cases placed these more accurate translations into the text. First, they were verified by referring to the original languages. Examples of these may be found in Job 3:6-9; 11:6-8; 14:18-20. But these changes were not made in every case.
    2. Arhcaic expressions and obsolete words have been updated: Asswaged (eased); amerce (fine); candlestick (lampstand); caul (lobe); neesings (sneezings); ouches ( plaited work); provender (fodder); shittim (acacia); taches (hooks); trow (think); etc. It is not that no one today knows the meanings of these words, but that the average reader does not ( and the new reader certainly does not). Some are in today's dictionaries, most are not. It is one thing to require the Bible reader to learn the key words of Christianity (e.g. fornication, justification, sanctification, etc.) and it is quite another to require them to learn a dead language (Elizabethan English) in order to know what God has said. Also, some phrases are not understood by most readers. Not one in ten can tell you what this means "We do you to wit" (2 Cor. 8:1), yet it simply means "We make known to you." Wit, wist, wot, and even wotteth appear many times in the KJV, yet its meaning (know, knew) escapes most people.
    3. Many words have changed their meaning since 1611, or even 1769. "Let" meant to hinder then; now it means to allow. "Suburbs" in the KJV means "open lands". "Corn" then meant grain, not the crop grown today. "Botch" and "Blains" referred to inflammations. "Advertise" in Num 24:14 meant to "advise". "Prevent" meant only to go before; now it can also mean to keep a thing from happening.
    4. The names of animals and birds in the KJV are often incorrectly identified due to the lack of knowledge of these 400 years ago. The MKJV has given them in accordance with the latest knowledge of zoologists and ornithologists: Conies are hares' gledes are falcons; pygargs are mountain-goats, chamois are mountain sheep; roe, roebucks are gazelles, etc. And satyrs, dragons, and unicorns are mythological; they have no place in the Scriptures.
    5. Many Hebrew names of places and things are very descriptive, and when translated shed light on the text. In the MKJV where this occurs, they are translated (e.g. "Hor-hagidgad" is "the Hole in the Cleft"; "Kibroth-hattaavah" means "Graves of Lust"; "the waters of Meribah" are "the Waters of Strife"; etc. Also the titles to the Psalms have been translated for the reader' "Altaschith" means "Do not destroy"; "Michtam" means "treasures"; "Jonath-elem-rechokim" means "Concerning the Silent Dove", etc.
    6. Some places where the KJV is incorrect have been corrected: "Easter" in Acts 12 should be "Passover"; "Jesus" in Heb. 4 should be "Joshua" -- "Jesus" is the Greek name for Joshua. "Firmament" in Gen. 1 should be "expanse" (for firmament would regard the heavens as being a solid vault above the earth). "Brass" is incorrect, since only "Bronze" and copper were available in Old Testament days (brass is an alloy of copper and zinc). "Wind" in John 3:8 should be translated "Spirit" (pnuema is so translated everywhere else in the Bible - there is another word for wind). "Made" in John 1:3 is better translated "came into being"; and "comprehended it not" in John 1:5 is "did not overtake it" in the MKJV
    7. Elizabethan English word endings are a hindrance to the modern reader. Such words as gaddest, riddeth, puttest, whilst, wouldst, provokedst; etc. are now gad, rid, put, while, would, provoked;" etc.
    OTHER HELPFUL IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MKJV
    The names of Old Testament people are kept the same in the New Testament, instead of in the Greek spelling. Names and pronouns of the Deity are capitalized to aid the reader in knowing who is speaking. Grammar and punctuation have changed much since 1769. And spelling has changed drastically. Roman terms are translated correctly in the MKJV: chiliarch for chief captain; sanhedrin for council; pro-consul for deputy; cohort for band; etc. Money terms are put correctly: denarius, assarian, lepta, daric, etc. The reader may not know the values of these, but will at least know the correct term.
    CONCLUSION
    The Modern King James Version is worthy to carry on the great work that the KJV has done for centuries. It has every true improvement that the new versions claim, yet without rewriting the Bible with many man-breathed words as they do. No private interpretations are inserted, and certainly no changes are made to please the pressure groups of our day (feminists, homosexualists, etc.) Nor is any accommodation made to today's God-dishonoring culture. The MKJV is the Bible, and nothing but the Bible; and it is all the bible. Words added for sense are italicized and there are fewer than are found in the KJV. The MKJV may be read publicly and can be understood by one with the KJV in his or her hand (and the meaning will be much more easily understood).
    Jay P. Green, Sr. Editor


    Preface To The Fifth Edition Of The Modern King James Version of the Holy Bible

    This 1999 Revised Edition is the fifth edition of this version. Continuing the plan to both update and revise each edition, some further improvements have been made.
    More attention has been paid to the grammatical construction of the original languages. A survey of the version since 1960 revealed that very little attention was being paid to the grammar of the Scriptures. In them, verbs are "translated" by nouns, and vice versa. Tenses are ignored in hundreds of cases, especially the aorist. We have attempted to correct many of these mistranslations.
    Hyphens have been added to many of the names of places, such as those beginning with Beth (Beth-horon; Beth-el: etc).
    Where "word" refers to the Word of God, it has been capitalized.
    Where "the LORD" has previously referred specifically for the God of Israel, this version will have "Jehovah." For there are lords many (every nation has had one or more), but there was and is only one Jehovah, He being the only God who favored Israel with His presence and His protection.
    It was decided to retranslate some words that had been badly misrepresented to the reader. For instance, in Numbers 6:4, the AV reads, "made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk," but the Hebrew translates as follows, "made of the grapevine, from grape seeds even to a stem." In Exodus 28:30 is the word "breastplate" in the AV, there the verse says, "you shall put the Urim and the Thummin into the breastplate." It is impossible to put anything into a plate. Actually the original word means "pocket". Therefore it has been changed to "breast pocket" in this version. In Leviticus 16:10 the AV reads, "let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness." Yet neither "scape" nor "goat" are contained in the Hebrew word. Instead, the meaning is plainly "complete removal." So Leviticus 16:10 reads like this, "send it away for a complete removal into the wilderness."
    The most universal mistranslation in the Bible is John 3:8.
    It should read:
    KJV: The [wind] blows where [it listeth], and thou hearest ^ [the] sound [thereof], but ^ canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
    NIV: The [wind] blows where[ever it pleases]. ^ You hear its sound, but you [cannot tell} ^ where it comes [or] where it is going. So [it is with] everyone born [of] the Spirit.
    NASB: The [wind] blows where [it wishes] and you hear the sound of it, but ^ do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who [is] born [of] the Spirit.
    But in this version it is correctly translated:
    MKJV/LITV: The Spirit breathes where He desires, and you hear His voice but you do not know from where He comes and where He goes; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.
    Only God the Spirit has the irresistible power to generate spiritual life into a soul. Translated correctly this verse fits verses 4 through 8. The others do not truly translate the Greek, not do their words in this verse fit the discourse in verses 4 through 8.
    Wycliffe centuries ago had the translation seen here in MKJV.
    NOTE: The Wind does not blow where it desires, but the wind goes where God commands it to go. Further [Original word*] (#4151) is translated Spirit everywhere else in the 370 times it appears in the NT. By translating pneuma as wind here, the entire verse is made to deprive the Spirit of God of His mysterious moving upon men, and His power to generate spiritual life. Wycliffe knew this centuries ago. Modern translators would do well to take note and follow the Greek instead of tradition.
    [Original word*] (#4154) may be translated as "breathe," or "blow."
    [Original word*] (#5456) may be translated as "voice" or "sound."
    [Original word*] "having been generated" (#1080 has the basic meaning of "to generate;" "to beget;" "to procreate;" "to father." While "born" may be allowable in some cases (per Thayer's Lexicon), the context in this verse demands "generate."
    Be assured that the reader will not find wholesale changes from the AV/KJV version, only in those places where it appears the reader will be best served by a translation from the original. This is done only when a change is needed in order to fit in with the context of the passage. Further, the reader may be sure that neither paraphrase nor interpretation has been thrust into the words that God breathed through the prophets and apostles.
    Again an invitation is given to the reader to write suggestions, or give a note regarding an error, by writing to the Revising Editor at P.O. Box 4998, Lafayette, IN 47903.
    "The heaven and the earth may pass away,
    but my words shall not pass away"
    (Matthew 24:35)
    Jay P. Green, Sr.
    Revising Editor
    February, 1999
     
  12. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    The vast majority of New Testament scholars writing today not only favor the Critical Text-Type, they consider the text from which the King James Version was translated to be a “corrupt” text. They do NOT believe this simply because of “their having been educated in that venue,” they believe this because the data currently available distinctly supports that conclusion. The study of this data and its application to the establishment of the most accurate possible Greek text is known as the science of textual criticism, and it is not a science that can be learned by reading a few books, but it is a science that can only be learned by many years of painstaking study.

    There is no pendulum here swinging back and forth. The problems with the Greek text underlying the King James Version are innumerable and insurmountable. The problems with the Byzantine Text-Type in general are less numerous and less difficult, but the vast majority of textual critics still believe that the problems are insurmountable. The best defense of the Byzantine Text-Type that has been published thus far is The Byzantine Text-Type & New Testament Textual Criticism by Harry A. Sturz, for many years Professor of Greek and Chairman of the Theology Department at Biola University. Professor Sturz favors the Critical Text-Type over the Byzantine Text-Type.
     
  13. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    It is not the worst translation that has even been made, but certainly not the best :( . It is more of a used Ford of Chevy with mechanical problems than it is a new Lincoln or Cadillac. The Rolls Royce of Bible translations is the NASB, but it costs no more than a Hyundai [​IMG] .
     
  14. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gosh, with all these 'criticisms' and 'counter-criticisms' of Bible versions from the Ye Olde KJV to the Yo,yall, this is KJV, and those in-between, the more I am convinced salvation, or conversion, is a work of the Holy Spirit and not dependent on the written or preached word.
     
  15. Anti-Alexandrian

    Anti-Alexandrian
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2002
    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not according to Romans 10:14 and 10:17.

    You see,Scripture blows your pre-conceived notion right out of the water...
     
  16. skanwmatos

    skanwmatos
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,314
    Likes Received:
    0
    Try reading Robinson/Pierpont. Their defense of the Byzantine text is masterful, and their published text is probably the most accurate Greek New Testament available on the market today.
     
  17. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    If those verses are about eternal salvation, next question is what about Abel, Enoch, Samson, Abraham, Joseph, the other Patriarchs, Simeon of the New Testament who waited for the promise of God's salvation, Mary, Elizabeth, Joseph husband of Mary, the prophets, Israel of the Patriarch's time, Israel of the judges't times, how did they all get faith ? No Paul to preach to them, no KJVO to preach to them, no anti-KJVO to preach to them, no anti-Alexandrian to preach to them.

    How, oh, how, did they get that faith ? How did they get saved ?
     

Share This Page

Loading...