Modern KJV

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Wilander, Dec 29, 2004.

  1. Wilander

    Wilander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Has anyone tried Jay P. Green's Modern KJV or use it regularly? I found a copy in a used book store, have been reading it off and on, and like how he's smoothed out the KJV's "thees" and "thous" and some of its sentences. But I have no idea, of course, how accurate it is or if it is heavily paraphrased.

    Any thoughts or advice?

    Thanks!

    Wilandar
     
  2. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
  3. Wilander

    Wilander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    Very helpful.

    How do y'all think the KJVO's would assess the MKJV?
     
  4. Phillip

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

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2001
    Messages:
    6,708
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. :eek:
     
  5. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  7. Johnv

    Johnv
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2001
    Messages:
    21,321
    Likes Received:
    0

    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.
     
  8. James_Newman

    James_Newman
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    0
    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"
     
  9. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    The KJVII or MKJV (as it was renamed) is just a slight updating of language. I personally do it automatically as I read the KJV1769. Most pastors I know automatically change "it" to "Him" and "which" to "who", etc as we speak.

    I do live in the 21st Century.
     
  10. Wilander

    Wilander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is very helpful and is my impression as well, although I haven't read it systematically or from Genesis to Revelation. It is nice not to have to automatically update the language in my head or as I read it aloud.
     
  11. Ziggy

    Ziggy
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.).
     
  13. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    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.
     
  14. Lawson-

    Lawson-
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I like greens LITV, I also find the MKJV a sound version.
     
  15. Trotter

    Trotter
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/6412.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2003
    Messages:
    4,815
    Likes Received:
    0
    The MKJV is available as a free download for e-Sword.

    In Christ,
    Trotter
     
  16. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    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)
     
  18. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Just curious here - where do these translations get "churches" in the text? I have the Greek underlying the AV1611 and the modern versions. They all agree with "temples".

    What am I missing?
     
  19. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,073
    Likes Received:
    101
    Probably from Tyndale.

    "For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet despisers of your goddess."

    Both the Geneva and Reims call it "sacrilege," thus escaping having to pick from "church" or "temple."
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    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).
     

Share This Page

Loading...