Friday, July 29, 2011

A "Modern" King James Bible




Should we create a "modern" King James Bible?

It's amazing to see what publishers are removing from modern Bibles!Author David W. Daniels is frequently asked whether or not we should "update" the King James Bible to remove "archaic" words found in it. People often are feeling pressured by their friends who harass them over their use of the King James, saying, "any Bible but that one!" Reproduced here is his answer to one such questioner:

I have considered the possibility of creating a "modern" King James Bible. But there are a number of questions that instantly stand before me:

1. Which words should I "update"? That is a very delicate question and means I should have a grasp of which words are "modern" and which are truly "archaic." But as Laurence M. Vance demonstrated in his Archaic Words and the Authorized Version (Revised 1999), quite a few of the words of the King James Bible are found in regular publications and in even modern Bible versions – just not in the places they are found in the King James! So can we truly call them words we must update?

2. How would I properly teach the 2nd person singular pronouns, since Modern English doesn't have pronouns or word-endings that indicate singular vs. plural for the 2nd person? They weren't even using that vocabulary in common speech when the King James was translated. That was done to preserve something that virtually every other language still had available—something that made sense out of some otherwise contradictory-looking scriptures, such as John 3:7 and Exodus 16:28.

3. When would I stop, once I started changing the holy words of scripture? At what point would I begin to realize I had changed the historical meanings of the words that God preserved so carefully? It is a great temptation to find a new "nuance" that no one else has ever found. I know this temptation. I had it before I came to realize the KJV was God's preserved words in English. I was already at work on my own translation on the New Testament, starting in Romans – and boy, did I EVER make some huge mistakes! I don't know that anyone can be trusted with that temptation, and I want to push it far from me.

4. Why would I change what from the beginning is only about an 8,000-word base vocabulary? (As a former Kindergarten teacher, I can tell you that's the average vocabulary of a 5 ½ year old.) I started teaching my kids and having them read the King James Bible at four years of age, and they have had no problems with it at all. They also are the most knowledgeable in their classes at church. That's their reading, blessed by God, being instructed by regular Bible-reading, not by me teaching them college-level courses. My friend's son, who had horrible speech problems, was given a King James to read at about 4-5 years (after my friend became convicted of God's preservation of His words in the KJV). And now he has improved so much that his teachers were asking my friend, "How did you do it?!" And my friend answered, "I have him read with us from the King James Bible!" What can they say? The evidence is right before them.

That's not all of the questions, but it is some of the very persuasive ones. In short, I'm quite scared to death of messing with God's holy words. That is why I wrote the King James Bible Companion, instead of trying to change a word. I want to bring my vocabulary UP, not the people's vocabulary DOWN.

No comments: