[atsgrad]

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.

[Brother Tim]

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.

[premio53]

Originally Posted by atsgrad

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.

I like it. Here are some excerpts from the publisher.

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.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by premio53

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.

By altering so much as a jot or tittle in English as now received, it will be against the accuracy of the KJB.

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.

[premio53]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

By altering so much as a jot or tittle in English as now received, it will be against the accuracy of the KJB.

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.

Bibleprotector, I understand your concern since I had a copy of the New King James and was apalled at the number of changes. The thing I don't understand is I have talked to a lot of “King James Only” people (I am one also) who get upset if "shew" is modernized to "show" or "Saviour" is Americanized to "Savior" (which has 6 letters). I have heard old preachers pronounce "shew" as a "shoo" and my understanding is that is how it was pronounced in the 1700's. Some are so caught up in numerology that simply Americanizing "Saviour" to "Savior" brings out the Black Helicopters and some are so paranoid that they pronounce that it is straight from the depths of hell even though one “hearing” it read from a pulpit realizes that there is no difference. As someone who was saved under the preaching of the King James and who uses nothing but a King James I simply don't understand the superstition as it seems concerning some of this. By the way, today numerology is most often associated with the occult, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by premio53

The thing I don't understand is I have talked to a lot of “King James Only” people (I am one also) who get upset if "shew" is modernized to "show" or "Saviour" is Americanized to "Savior" (which has 6 letters).

The issue is not about the sound of "shew" or how many letters "saviour" has (see 2 Kings 13:5). The issue is this:

"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!).

Originally Posted by premio53

I simply don't understand the superstition as it seems concerning some of this. By the way, today numerology is most often associated with the occult, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.

Whether or not someone seems to be just using the tradition argument, or the "if-it-ain't-broke" one, or some sort of mystical one, these in themselves are not the only arguments, (and some are quite wrong!), but that the very Scripture itself puts forth all kinds of injunctions upon the keeping of the Word, meaning the very components of words and letters too.

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.”

[premio53]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

The issue is not about the sound of "shew" or how many letters "saviour" has (see 2 Kings 13:5). The issue is this:

"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!).



Whether or not someone seems to be just using the tradition argument, or the "if-it-ain't-broke" one, or some sort of mystical one, these in themselves are not the only arguments, (and some are quite wrong!), but that the very Scripture itself puts forth all kinds of injunctions upon the keeping of the Word, meaning the very components of words and letters too.

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.”

I don't quite follow your argument. I have always believed the King James and never correct it but how can you honestly say that only some edition of the King James published over a hundred years ago is the only perfect word of God? If a preacher (King James Only or otherwise) stands up and updates words which obviously are no longer used in this generation and gives the contemporary meaning why not just publish it in the text like the Easy Reading King James does? Does putting the words in a glossary make it less evil? Millions around the world are lost and going to hell and could care less if Saviour is Americanized or if "shew" is modernized to "show." Of course the kicker must be if Geber is spelled as Gaber in some editions showing beyond all doubt that Satan is corrupting the Bible. I'm not trying to be facetious but the logic escapes me. Who invented the phrase "Perfect Cambridge Edition?"