5 replies to this topic

[jmloy]

I was reading Psa 46:4 KJV  There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.

 

Some translations have "place of the tabernacles" as plural and some in the singular. However, I noticed that the KJ2000 has tabernacle singular. There's no reason or justification for the difference. It's things like this that cause me not to trust people's attempt and correct the Scriptures. 

[Katoog]

It looks like an over editing problem: instead of looking to the Hebrew source did he looking to other translations.
Greek and Latin sources having "his tabernacle" in singular.

The KJV2000 is not updated since 2000 and is copyrighted. So except contacting Dr. Robert A. Couric to correct his error is there nothing to do.
The KJV2000 is not a KJV editon rather a moderate edited update : I should not call it a KJV edition.

BTW the KJV 1611 was an update of the Bishops' Bible.

[Tj Higgins]

I was reading Psa 46:4 KJV  There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.

 

Some translations have "place of the tabernacles" as plural and some in the singular. However, I noticed that the KJ2000 has tabernacle singular. There's no reason or justification for the difference. It's things like this that cause me not to trust people's attempt and correct the Scriptures. 

 

The King James 2000 version is one of a number of bible translations that are considered to be derivatives of the King James Version these included the following:

The New King James Version

21st Century King James Version

Third Millennium Bible  

Modern King James Version  

American King James Version  

King James 2000 Version

Updated King James Version

Proper Names King James Version

Real Names King James Version 

King James 3 Bible 

Modern English Version

 

Here is Psalm 46:4 from all of the above in comparison to the KJV:

 

(KJV)  There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.

 

(KJ3) There is a river, its channels gladden the city of God, the holy tabernacles of the Most High.

(KJ2000)  There is a river, the streams of which shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacle of the most High. 

(KJV21)  There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. 

(MKJV)  There is a river, its channels gladden the city of God glad, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. 

(RNKJV)  There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of Elohim, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High. 

(PNKJV) there is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of god, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most high. 

(UKJV)  There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High. 

(AKJV) There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.

(NKJV)  There is a river whose streams shall make glad the city of God, The holy place of the tabernacle of the Most High. 

(TMB)  There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the Most High. 

(MEV) There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God, the holy dwelling place of the Most High.

 

 

I have placed the words and phrases that differ from the KJV in different colors so they can be easily seen, and as you can see different translators have presented PSA 46:4 with some word differences when compared to the KJV but the meaning for the most part remains the same. 
 

The King James 2000 is not the only version that uses "tabernacle" in the singular the New King James Version also presents the singular "tabernacle"

 

The Modern English Version released in 2014 omits both "tabernacle" and "tabernacles" instead using the phrase "holy dwelling place" 

Edited by Tj Higgins, 16 March 2018 - 10:35 AM.

[jmloy]

Whether accurate or not. The product claims to be an updated KJV...not a translation. Not only in this instance but I have found elsewhere where Couric has translated or adopted other versions changes. I have no problem with it plural or singular, the same with Heaven or Heavens in Genesis 1.

[Tj Higgins]

Whether accurate or not. The product claims to be an updated KJV...not a translation. Not only in this instance but I have found elsewhere where Couric has translated or adopted other versions changes. I have no problem with it plural or singular, the same with Heaven or Heavens in Genesis 1.

 

The KJ2000 is in effect a modernization of the KJV as explained on the  KJ2000 official website:
 

About the King James 2000 Bible:

 

The most frequently asked question is: "What is the difference between this version and the other King James Versions?"

 

The King James 2000 is the King James Version brought forward 400 years.  Several categories of words are brought up to 21st century language.  Pronouns such as thy, thine, thou, ye, etc. are put into current language usage form.  Verbal endings such as -eth, -est, -st, etc. are given equivalent forms of today's language.  Words so archaic as to be unknown, such as wist, wot, froward, etc. are rendered as their current synonyms.  Some words considered entirely proper in 1611, but which may be considered "coarse" today, are changed to equivalent intentions (such as bowels to heart).

 

     The intent of King James 2000 is to keep every KJV word the same, unless a misunderstanding or a gross word order "error" (in today's usage) must be averted.  All punctuation is left the same, including omission of quotation marks, in order to keep the rhythm and pattern of KJV memorization intact.

 

     A large percentage of English speaking people still prefer the KJV, whether because of their trust in its truthfulness or their enjoyment of its beauty of language. To these saints of God the King James 2000 is presented, that they may hold to the old with confidence, yet move into the future without fear.  The intent of the King James 2000 is to "look, sound and feel" like the KJV.

 

     As with editors of many versions of the past, the desire of this editor was that the King James 2000, as well as "everything we do," may honor and glorify the Sovereign God of eternity.

 

1. NKJV uses all modern vocabulary (examples:  begat to begot; unto to to; ointment to fragrant oil.)  KJ2000 keeps all KJV vocabulary the same unless it causes a mistake in meaning (examples:  prevent to precede, suffer to allow) or has lost meaning for today (wist, wot, aforetime, haply, paps, superfluity of naughtiness).
2. NKJV uses all modern word order/sentence structure.   KJ2000 keeps KJV word order/sentence structure almost 100% of the time.
3. NKJV uses all modern punctuation.   KJ2000 keeps KJV punctuation to look like the KJV.
4. NKJV uses all modern poetic form.  KJ2000 keeps poetry in KJV form (prose) to look like the KJV.
5. The intent of the KJ2000 is to keep every KJV word the same, unless a misunderstanding or a gross word order "error" (in today's usage) must be averted.

 

The intent of the KJ2000 is to keep every KJV word the same, unless a misunderstanding or a gross word order "error" (in today's usage) must be averted.

 

https://www.kingjame...m/about-kj2000/

[jmloy]

I have read the preface, the introduction....thanks for reposting it but it doesn't change anything. That it deviates its original premise means it's not as KJ faithful as it claims. Like I said, this is just one example. I have found several before.  I choose not to use it as is. I can do it well enough on my own when  quote the KJV.