WRIGHT WAY: A New King James Bible?

[sianrose]

WRIGHT WAY: A New King James Bible?

by WILLIAM WRIGHT

A new King James Bible has broken a centuries-old tradition and is following in the footsteps of several Bible translations that restored the Divine Name to its original place in the Old Testament.

The Divine Name King James Bible is raising eyebrows in the world of Bible translators for replacing the capitalized GOD and LORD with the English translation “Jehovah” in 6,972 places.

In Hebrew the four letters representing the Divine name, also called the Tetragrammaton, is YHWH. To this day no one is certain of its exact pronunciation.

Translators of the Divine Name King James Version are following the pattern of other Bible translations, including Young’s Literal Translation, Darby Translation, The New World Translation, The American Standard Version and The Bible in Living English, in restoring the Divine Name where it was originally written.

Publishers of this latest King James Version wrote, “We specifically left the Authorized Version as it is except to restore the Divine Name. We hope then to make people pause and ask themselves if they want ANY modern English Bible that does not display God’s Divine Name as it is found in the original writings no matter how well translated it is.”

The group also stated it is not affiliated with or sponsored by any religious organization and the new edition was not produced by the direction, assistance or approval of any religious organization or religious community.

Explaining their reason for restoring the Divine Name where it originally appeared, the publishers stated online, “Does it not seem clearer than ever why Jesus instructed us at Matthew 6:9 to pray ‘Hallowed be thy name’ not ‘hidden be thy name.’ Jesus faithfully showed why the name of Jehovah must be known to us, for only by that way would we know who Jesus is and how actually Jesus set the pattern for pure worship.

“This is directly tied to our having eternal life, for Jesus himself said in prayer to Jehovah, ‘And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.’” — John 17:3.”

While some scholars prefer the transliterated pronunciation “Yahweh,” others say the name Jehovah has already been established over centuries and preserves the four consonants of the original Divine Name in English (JHVH).

Publishers of this latest effort to restore the Divine Name said, “The base text of the Authorized King James is in the public domain but the exclusive feature of restoring the name Jehovah or Yahweh to the otherwise unmodified content of the base text constitutes an important new literary expression.”

One example given of this “new literary expression” is at Isaiah 42:8 where the Divine Name KJV reads, “I am Jehovah: that is my name.” Numerous translations continue to insert “LORD” or “Lord” where the Divine Name originally appeared, a practice that is being challenged by adherents to more literal translations.

There is also the “21st Century King James Version”(KJ21), completed in 1994, which updated obsolete words from the 1611 edition by using Webster’s New International Dictionary, second edition. Spelling, punctuation and capitalization were also updated.

While the more popular Authorized King James Version uses the Divine Name “Jehovah” in Exodus 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 and Isaiah 26:4, The New King James Version replaced the name with LORD or YAH in those verses.

The 21st Century King James Version, however, restores the Divine Name in the four places where the Authorized King James Version used it for centuries. The Divine Name King James Version, however, restores the name Jehovah in nearly 7,000 places where YHWH or JHVH (Latin) originally was.

Personally, I am in favor of the most literal translation of the Holy Bible in its entirety regardless of who translates it. Any translation that is going to be closer to what was originally written is bound to bring its readers closer to God.

Besides, in Deuteronomy 4:2, the very verse that tells humans not to add or take away from God’s Word — many translators removed the Divine Name. I wonder how does that make God feel? Do you find that offensive? I simply want the truth as God intended us to have it. You don’t have to be a scholar to know that removing someone’s personal name and replacing it with a title is not accurate translating.

Some people are adamant about sticking with the Bible they were raised on. Others see the benefit in modern translations. To each his own. I was raised on the King James Bible. I will always love it. But I also enjoy modern translations which give me the benefit of more advanced research into the original Hebrew and Greek language.

Whichever translation you personally prefer, most people will agree there should always be room for the author’s personal name in His own book.

* For further information visit http://www.dnkjb.net/

Read more: http://www.clevelandbanner.com/view/full_story/16962037/article-WRIGHT-WAY--A-New-King-James-Bible-?instance=most_recommended

[Joey]

WRIGHT WAY: A New King James Bible?

by WILLIAM WRIGHT

Personally, I am in favor of the most literal translation of the Holy Bible in its entirety regardless of who translates it. Any translation that is going to be closer to what was originally written is bound to bring its readers closer to God.

Besides, in Deuteronomy 4:2, the very verse that tells humans not to add or take away from God’s Word — many translators removed the Divine Name. I wonder how does that make God feel? Do you find that offensive? I simply want the truth as God intended us to have it. You don’t have to be a scholar to know that removing someone’s personal name and replacing it with a title is not accurate translating.

http://www.clevelandbanner.com/view/full_story/16962037/article-WRIGHT-WAY--A-New-King-James-Bible-?instance=most_recommended

I love this article.He mentions the New World Translation and the above quote.

Yes, how true , reading God's name, in the 6,972 places they restored it to would draw people closer to the Bible's author.

[rocket]

Very nice article, I like the very last paragraph as a reasoning point.

"Whichever translation you personally prefer, most people will agree there should always be room for the author’s personal name in His own book."

[sianrose]

Yes, how true , reading God's name, in the 6,972 places they restored it to would draw people closer to the Bible's author.

it is pretty amazing really...putting the name back after all this time...

"Whichever translation you personally prefer, most people will agree there should always be room for the author’s personal name in His own book."

yes Lyn ...that is a great quote...

[Brother_Bliss]

Jesus instructed us at Matthew 6:9 to pray ‘Hallowed be thy name’ not ‘hidden be thy name.’

So true!

[AlexMichaels]

This is awesome.. A friend of mine just posted it on FB..

[BloomEtta]

Jesus instructed us at Matthew 6:9 to pray ‘Hallowed be thy name’ not ‘hidden be thy name.’

So true!

That's the same quote I liked. It will be very interesting how Jehovah uses this. He promised that his name would be made known. I imagine the churches are having a field day about this!

[philamarie]

Would you believe when I posted this article to my facebook page on Jan. 6. My Uncle (not a witness and has started his own ministry) said, "yea right jesus if you change the prophesies of this book you will have all this plegues on you .yea a new book full of curses.stay clear to avoid this jpalvey ministries." I was beside myself. Years ago, I had a conversation with him about Jehovah's name and was showing him where it was in the KJ and his Bible had taken it all the way out and my Aunts old version still had it in there 4 times. So, of course when he said what he did above. I said, "Uncle Jerry this is Putting Gods name back into the Bible. How is this a cursed book. If you remember right I showed you years ago, how your New King James Version had taken Gods name out completely. And your older version had it in 4 times. I think I would worry about the Bibles that have taken Gods name out over 7000 times."

[LuanaGlobal]

The Turth has been twisted so badly, that the Divine name being added back to the KJV has caused up a stir and a frenzy.

[barbara10]

The Scriptures tell us at Acts 20:30 "and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves." We know this is talking about apostates who twist the Truth but Christendom has twisted the Truth and what is written in the Bible to fit their own agendas. We had our two day assembly this past weekend with the theme about God's name being sanctified. This new King James Bible indeed must have Christendom spinning! :bible:

[inge]

I am new to this forum having joined only today. I would like to say that I have researched this link at great length. Please do not get too excited about this. I do not believe that you will ever see this Bible in print. You can only find some information on it on FaceBook. If I see it quoted in our publication..., then I will believe it. Please look at this:

From http://www.kingjamesbible.info/king-james-bible-copyright-status.php

King James Bible Copyright Status

The Authorized Version is still under copyright protection in the United Kingdom, although it has moved no copyright status and is legally reproduced in most other parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, however, the British Crown holds the copyrights under a perpetual Crown copyright. Publishers are only allowed to reproduce the King James Version only after receiving letters patent.

In Wales, Northern Ireland and England the office of Queens Printer holds letters patent as does the Scottish Bible Board in Scotland. The office of Queen's printer has had the right to reproduce the King James Bible for several centuries. The earliest known reference of a reproduction made by the office of the Queen's printer was in 1577, 430 years ago. During the 1700s, John Baskett bought all the surviving interests in the monopoly of who could reproduce the King James Bible. Baskett then distributed the rights to reproduce the Bible amongst a number of printers.

The Queen's printer of England, Wales and Northern Ireland became known as the Cambridge University Press. The Cambridge University Press inherited the right to reproduce the King James Version in 1990 after taking over the firm of Eyre and Spottiswoode.

The copyright protection that the King James Version (as well as the Book of Common Prayer) has is a reminder of the era when the Crown held complete control over all the printing and publishing that happened in the United Kingdom. This copyright protection states that only those publishers who hold letters patent are allowed to reproduce the Bible independently of the Queen's Printer. The ruling also prohibits the importing of Authorized Versions into the United Kingdom. Even though there is a freedom to reproduce the Bible freely in other parts of the world, the United Kingdom maintains its hold on the copyright privileges and will only allow those authorized with letters patent to make reproductions. (end of quote)

What this means, in my opinion, is that if you need permission to make reproductions of the King James Version, then you certainly are not allowed to make any changes. It is against the law.

When the FDS gave us a Bible with the divine name they made a brand new translation. They went right back to the original manuscripts and to the original languages to come up with the NWT. They did not take an existing Bible and change it.

I believe that some well-meaning people just replaced God and Lord with Jehovah in that Bible. Anyone with a good word processor can do that. Well-meaning does not make it right.

My 2 cents for what it's worth.

Inge

Niagara Falls, Canada

[Dages]

http://www.dnkjb.net/1189chapters/OT23ISA42.htm

Very nice to read it.

[Willow]

WRIGHT WAY: A New King James Bible? by WILLIAM WRIGHT

http://www.clevelandbanner.com/view/full_story/16962037/article-WRIGHT-WAY--A-New-King-James-Bible-?instance=most_recommended

The reason this is such a great article is because it was written by a brother - brother William Wright. A regular pioneer serving where the need is great in Tennessee. I stay in touch with him through email and he loves to have other friends write to him. If you would like his email address, you can find it through the clevelandbanner.com (that's Cleveland, Tennessee) or PM me and I'll send it to you. If you like this article, you might enjoy checking out his other articles on that web site.

The publishers state they did not attempt to correct anything about the KJ version - nor to recommend it as the Bible of choice - only to put Jehovah's name back where it belongs. This is evident from their "DESCRIPTION" on their Facebook page. Here is an excerpt:

"However our initial inspiration for restoring the Divine Name to the King James Bible was not to 'correct' the King James and make it the bible of choice. Why? Because we recognize that there are modern translations in many languages where the Holy Scriptures have been rendered faithfully not only with the Divine Name in all its justifiable places but also with fresh, accurate and unbiased textual renderings.

For us to recommend the KJB for gaining an accurate understanding of the Hebrew and Greek texts there would have to be many, many other changes to the text of the King James, besides the restoration of the name Jehovah

Their "MISSION" (according to their Facebook page) is:

"To deliver the greatest improvement to the King James Bible in 400 years. The singular focus is the restoration and magnification of the Divine Name... We hope that a dialogue between bible readers and publishers of modern English Bibles that have avoided at all cost the use of this Sacred and Unique name of the Almighty will ensue."

It all sounds VERY familiar to me... and is another witness about Jehovah - and that is always a good thing!

[inge]

Is breaking copyright laws bringing honor to Jehovah? Think about it.

Inge

[Willow]

What this means' date=' in my opinion, is that if you need permission to make reproductions of the King James Version, then you certainly are not allowed to make any changes. It is against the law.[/quote']

Dear sister,

I don't mean to enter a debate about copyright laws but as you stated, your understanding of the copyright status is your opinion. As the article you referred to (and numerous other sources will concur) the King James is in the public domain EXCEPT in the British Kingdom.There were other versions out there before this one was completed. So in my opinion, the idea of getting the greatest name to time indefinite in front of all eyes reading the KJ Bible is a worthwhile effort and a good witness. I don't care if it was done by a group of atheists - restoring His name to His book would be an honorable thing for them to do. However, being an atheist is not.

Perhaps anticipating your type of concern is one of the reasons the publishers state they are completely on their own and not affiliated with any organization - so as not to bring any perceived reproach on the true God's named people or organization.

[sianrose]

hi Willow and Inge:wave:

I had a feeling that it was brother who wrote that article thank you for the information about the brother...and yes I do believe also... that the copyright only applies to the UK...

"Michael Gove and the government are making a gift of the King James Bible to every school in the UK (Report, 25 November) but continue to restrict how we use it. The crown has a perpetual copyright on the King James Bible, through "letters patent" originally issued to stop unofficial editions and then to protect the country from ranters, shakers, Quakers, nonconformity and popery. Thus today we can't freely reprint, circulate passages, write commentaries and draw upon the text in the way we might with other texts of the time, such as Shakespeare's plays. Bizarrely, these restrictions only apply in the UK. Gove could make a gift of the King James Bible to every UK citizen – with a simple legal change to revoke its perpetual copyright.

Jim Killock

Executive director, Open Rights Group"

[rocket]

Would that Copyright also extent to Canada since it is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is mainly comprised of former British colonies?

[trottigy]

The King James Version of the Bible also has an unusual status in the UK. While it is in the public domain throughout most of the world, including the UK, printing it in the UK must still be authorised by the Crown or its agents. It is a common misconception that the requirement for authorisation is based on copyright. It is actually based on the royal prerogative, as exercised through letters patent, and is completely separate from the statutes governing copyright.

Also, It is often mistakenly thought that the Authorized Version is out of copyright. In fact, the Authorized Version is actually under United Kingdom Crown Copyright, though this is not enforced outside the United Kingdom.

[trottigy]

Would that Copyright also extent to Canada since it is part of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is mainly comprised of former British colonies?

In an attempt to protect works in a more globalized economy, two international copyright conventions have been adopted by a number of countries. They are the Berne Union for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Property, also known as the Berne Convention, and the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC).

Some industrialized nations, including the U.S., also have bilateral copyright protection agreements with other nations. Other nations offer very little or no copyright protections.

For more information about international copyright laws, see the following resources:

Circular 38A: International Copyright Relations of the United States (PDF, U.S. Copyright Office)

International Copyright (U.S. Copyright Office)

Collection of National Copyright Laws (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization)

International Copyright Law (University of Washington)

[retroHelen]

All Scripture Inspired Book, Study Number 7: The Bible in Modern Times paragraph: "13. The King James Version. World War II underlined the need for independent publication of the Bible itself. The Society succeeded in purchasing plates of the complete King James Version of the Bible. It was on September 18, 1942, at the New World Theocratic Assembly of Jehovah’s Witnesses, with key assembly point at Cleveland, Ohio, that the Society’s president spoke on the subject “Presenting ‘the Sword of the Spirit.’” As the climax to this address, he released this first complete Bible printed in the Watch Tower Society’s Brooklyn factory. In its appendix it provided a list of proper names with their meanings, a specially prepared “Concordance of Bible Words and Expressions,” and other helps. An appropriate running head was provided at the top of each page. For example, “Jephthah’s earnest vow” replaced the traditional “Jephthah’s rash vow” at Judges 11, and “Prehuman existence and human birth of God’s Word” appeared at John chapter 1.

Proclaimers Book page 607:", plates for the King James Version with marginal references were purchased in 1942 from the A. J. Holman Company, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This translation of the complete Bible into English was produced, not from the Latin Vulgate, but by scholars who were able to compare earlier translations with the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. A concordance, prepared by more than 150 collaborating servants of Jehovah, was added. This was specially designed to help Jehovah’s Witnesses find appropriate texts quickly when in the field ministry and thus use the Bible effectively as “the sword of the spirit,” to cut away and expose religious falsehood. (Eph. 6:17) In order to make the Bible available to people everywhere at a low cost, it was printed on a web rotary press—something that had never been attempted by other Bible printers. As of 1992, a total of 1,858,368 of these Bibles had been produced.

Our Printeries produce the KJV and we presume were aware of copyright rules and whether in 1942 they needed the then King George's permission or not to print it?

[inge]

It is not the printing of the King James version that is wrong. It is changing the King James version I consider wrong. The WT society made no changes to the King James version.

Inge

[rocket]

This is hardly the first revision of the King James Bible. Not counting the early revisions centuries ago.

1) The Revised Standard Version is a revision of the King James.

2) New King James Version

3) 21st Century King James Version

4) Divine Name King James Version

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/

[Willow]

It is changing the King James version I consider wrong.

Sister Inge,

Specifically stated, you object to Jehovah's name being put in this Bible - since that is the ONLY change that was made.

[Dages]

A note : Jehovah is not in the NT of this version of the Bible... I've just checked Matthew 4.

[Willow]

They didn't do anything with the Greek scriptures...They answer why in the FAQ section of their web site.