My Thoughts on the KJV

The word BOOK is a bit of a misunderstanding on this one....I guess booklet would be more like it. I'd call it a tract, but it's bigger in dimensions than a Chick Tract. It's very thin and fits right inside your Bible for those words you don't get when reading the KJV. I've found, in my experience, that it's really not needed all that much but it's nice to have. It's not like a Book of Mormon kind of book, it's a little dictionary is all, no different than grabbing one from the shelf of your library. Nobody is explaining anything or telling you what to believe, just gives the definition of a word and a scripture reference for that word. Period.

THIS is why I don't discuss this anymore because people become so defensive of their particular brand of translation and jump on the "people died to translate" soap box, among others. I do NOT...repeat DO NOT...deny you, or anyone else, the privilege of reading scripture in whatever translation you choose to read. I also DO NOT deny God's ability to use any translation to speak to those who are reading or to use any translation to bring someone to salvation. I, personally, prefer the King James Bible. It's what I grew up with, it's what I am most comfortable reading. I personally do not NEED a dictionary to read it, I understand it better than any of the modern translations. But then, I'm older and set in my ways. I enjoy the rich, beautiful, flowing language of the King James Bible. But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I have an expensive Sony Reader that sits in a drawer, unused because I still prefer holding a real book in my hands. So, call me old-fashioned.

 

I think I am pretty sharp and do okay with KJV era language - then I come across a word like bruit which was in my Bible reading today. I had no idea what a bruit was. I wonder how many other readers do without looking it up?

 

I'm no KJVO but I agree with this.

The King James is one of a kind. I believe there has never been a better version translated into English.

I am not a TR only guy either. I recognize the value and at times superiority of the more recently discovered mss, but the TR is VERY good and reliable. The KJV is a marvelously accurate translation of a VERY good text.

The combined brilliance of the men who gathered for the translation can hardly be paralleled. The tension between the Anglicans and the Puritans on that committee added much to the scholarship involved.

The beauty of the language is absolutely unsurpassed. It has a reverence and power to it that I have not seen another version even come close to rivaling. I also believe the Elisabethan style English represented the English language at her finest. That was the language used (yes I know about the modernizations made but it still kept the beauty and authority of the language). I am of the opinion that the English language has seen her best days long ago. The KJV was translated in those days.

I predict that when the NASB has petrified (that's what many wooden things do) and the NIV fad comes to an end and the yes, even the ESV (which I like) goes the way of the dodo bird- the King James version will still be going strong.

This documentary is one of the best I have ever seen. It is called "KJB: The Book that Changed the World."

It is totally void of all the nonsense that the psycho KJVO crowd usually regurgitates in documentaries about KJVO.

This is a VERY tasteful and historically accurate documentary that will renew in you an appreciation for, to date, arguably the most important book ever produced.

You can get it on Amazon here. It is worth every penny. I highly recommend it.

 

Luke2427...

I agree with your post. Thank you for sending it. Please consider doing more of these kinds of posts--you are a very good writer. Please consider doing fewer argumentative posts--and this goes for many others here at BB. Just my two cents worth.

...Bob

 

I own a bunch of dictionaries. I really like dictionaries. I am constantly looking words up in dictionaries--words not only from the Bible, but from other readings (newspaper, journal articles, speech of others, technical writings, etc.). I really don't consider pausing to look up a word in a dictionary to be an oddity in any sense. I learn many things when I look up English words in a dictionary, such as word origin, usage, and occurrence in the documented speech and writing of others. Like I said, using the dictionary is not an oddity, but an improvement of comprehension, an added enjoyment to the reading process.

I also own a Shakespeare Concordance, have all of the Shakespeare plays on audio recordings, two complete works of Shakespeare, and a Shakespeare Lexicon (2 vols.) and a Shakespeare Glossary.

And I am a pretty good Scrabble player!

...Bob

 

DiamondLady...

I really appreciate your post. And thanks for recommending the track of KJV Definitions from Chick Track.

...Bob

 

But with all the Latinate expressions used and the fact that it was deliberately styled in an archaic form --- people in 1611 didn't even speak that way.

 

Yes. That's why I am all for Bible versions of the 21st century.

 

OK, but it's still another publication that is needed to translate a translation of the Bible. Why go through so much work? Should new Christians be taught that you need a special booklet to understand the Bible?

 

I agree. Why should anyone have to go through the extra hoops? Special decoder rings would be kind of nice though.

 

That's the point.

They wanted the word of God to have a sense of majesty.

The Elizabethan English enabled them to do that while translating a wonderfully accurate version of the Scriptures. Furthermore, just because it was uncommon language did not mean that the common man could not understand it- they could understand it very well- as I am sure you know.

 

The Tyndale and Geneva translations were (and still are) were more natural-sounding.

 

Needed....no. Can be helpful...yes. Just as the Webster's Dictionary can be helpful when reading a novel or the NIV, or any other modern translation.

 

I've found a few discrepancies in the NAS and NIV from the original, other than that they seem to be ok.

The KJV is what I grew up with and am used to anyone over 40 probably is used to it.

 

No point of comparison. You better fetch yourself an 1828 Webster's if even that is old enough to unravel the meanings of some word or word groups in the KJV.

Going through the special booklet routine is so much extra unnecessary motion. We have modern versions now which are perfectly serviceable --no more steps are needed. It wastes time.

 

You have some words for an example?

 

I think you're wrong there. "Anyone over 40"? How about most people over 55.

 

What are you referencing as the original? Surely not the KJV.

 

Luke 10:1
KJV 1 After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

NIV 1 1 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two[a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go

I have also seen the NAS say 72 also.

Since the number 70 represents divine order then it would make since that Jesus sent out 70 not 72. I haven't compared it all but as I was teaching the significance of numbers in scripture and some folks had the NIV and NAS saying seventy two we found this. The original is always from an interlinear greek to english to me and it says seventy (hebdomEkonta).

 

Examples of words from the KJV that would require an 1828 dictionary:

Canker
Clave
Collop
Bdellium
Buckler
Mail
Sackbut
Euroclydon
Exactor
Firkin
Lintel
Glister
Higgaion
Knops
Oblation
Offscouring
Plaiting
Pressfat
Flesh pots
Sodden Flesh
Quick
Sith
Unction
Palmerworm
Chamois
Strange Slips
Peculiar people
Parbar
Outwent
Nitre
Minished
Mallows
Sky is lowering
Latchet
Blains
Daysman
Fetch a compass
Let
Rereward
Prevent
Tabering
Wen