Why I love the King James

[Luke2427]

I despise the doctrine of KJVO.

I don't like what some refer to as KJVP.

But I actually do think the King James is still the best we have.

I don't think it has the best texts- but it has very good texts.
I don't think it is the most accurate- but it is very accurate.
I don't think it is the easiest read today- but it is highly readable.

In fact, other than ONE FACTOR, I'm not sure that it is really better than many of the popular versions today in any other factor.
For example, the NASB beats the King James by a slim margin in most factors.

That ONE FACTOR would not be enough to make it superior to all the other versions in my mind if it did not score very well on nearly every factor.

It is the language. The English language was at it's peak of eloquence and descriptive power in the age in which the King James was born.

This very funny video about the telling of the story of The Three Little Pigs illustrates what puts the King James over the top.

 

[DaChaser1]

I despise the doctrine of KJVO.

I don't like what some refer to as KJVP.

But I actually do think the King James is still the best we have.

I don't think it has the best texts- but it has very good texts.
I don't think it is the most accurate- but it is very accurate.
I don't think it is the easiest read today- but it is highly readable.

In fact, other than ONE FACTOR, I'm not sure that it is really better than many of the popular versions today in any other factor.
For example, the NASB beats the King James by a slim margin in most factors.

That ONE FACTOR would not be enough to make it superior to all the other versions in my mind if it did not score very well on nearly every factor.

It is the language. The English language was at it's peak of eloquence and descriptive power in the age in which the King James was born.

This very funny video about the telling of the story of The Three Little Pigs illustrates what puts the King James over the top.

What is your opinion of the NKJV version?

 

[Luke2427]

What is your opinion of the NKJV version?

It is a fine version.

 

[joey]

Is it true that there are major differences between translations i.e. more than just updated language, or is that KJVO'ers own opinions?

 

[Oldtimer]

Yes, Joey there are material differences in the translations that are more than just updated language. The differences are the result of which major set of manuscripts that are used for the translations. Plus the translation method used. There are several methods that range from word for word (as closely as possible when switching languages) to what the translators think the author intended to say.

In another thread, Glfredrick posted two good links that covers the "sets" of manuscripts.

The thread: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=76731

Links:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=Bibles-Ancient
http://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Most modern translations use the Nestle & Aland as their basis.

Be careful when using the KJVO term, until you research it further. I thought I was until I dived into the controversy and learned what some on both sides of the issue have to say. It's sad to say to what extremes some professing Christians have to say about this topic.

Today, I choose to use the KJV as my primary Bible for many reasons. That said, there are about a 1/2 dozen other versions on the desk beside me. It's an interesting study to compare which ones say what when comparing scripture passages. Especially, when several agree with each other and disagree with several others. That's the influence of which set of manuscripts were primarlily used for the translaltions. Plus, the translation method.

IMHO & FWIW..............

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The English language was at it's peak of eloquence and descriptive power in the age in which the King James was born.

I do agree with you aout the power and beauty of the KJV. That's why so many non-Christians writers and poets commend it. Even Richard Dawkins says he likes it!

However, it isn't easy for people who have not studied English literature to understand, and when I preach from it, as I do from time to time, I'm frequently having to translate the text into modern English before I can expound it. For that reason, and although I think its textual basis is more likely to be correct, I prefer the NKJV. The NKJV, apart from its more modern English, is better dealing with some of the verb tenses (eg. Rom 6:2) and has some superior renderings, though IMO it retains the KJV readings too often and puts the better reading in the margin. There are other places where it follows the KJV too closely and for that reason some of the other modern versions are better (eg. Phil 2:6; 2Tim 3:16).

Having said all that, for somone who can cope with the 17th Century English and likes the Received Text, the KJV is probably better than many of the modern versions.

Steve

 

[Salty]

I despise the doctrine of KJVO.

I don't like what some refer to as KJVP.

I can understand your view, but the KJV P only came into use to differentiate the ultra-group of KJVO

This happens all the time - even in politics. Once folks were know as Republicans - but when some got to be liberal, then a portion became know as conservatives, now there are sub groups as neo-cons. paleoconservatism, ect.

Many on this board are Baptists - but why is it more important to be know as Reg Bap, SBC, Bible Bap, ect -?

 

[glfredrick]

I have been and will remain very outspoken against KJVO, but I have no qualms about making a choice to use the KJV Bible for all the reasons Luke2427 offers. I do myself when the occaision calls for that formal level of langage -- certain wedding and funeral ceremonies, the age of the persons to whom I am sharing, etc.

But to say KJVO is to seriously mistake the entire issue of God's Word and to place great power into the hands of a rare few human beings over our God who is the actual sovereign power in this cosmos.

 

[DaChaser1]

The English language was at it's peak of eloquence and descriptive power in the age in which the King James was born.

I do agree with you aout the power and beauty of the KJV. That's why so many non-Christians writers and poets commend it. Even Richard Dawkins says he likes it!

However, it isn't easy for people who have not studied English literature to understand, and when I preach from it, as I do from time to time, I'm frequently having to translate the text into modern English before I can expound it. For that reason, and although I think its textual basis is more likely to be correct, I prefer the NKJV. The NKJV, apart from its more modern English, is better dealing with some of the verb tenses (eg. Rom 6:2) and has some superior renderings, though IMO it retains the KJV readings too often and puts the better reading in the margin. There are other places where it follows the KJV too closely and for that reason some of the other modern versions are better (eg. Phil 2:6; 2Tim 3:16).

Having said all that, for somone who can cope with the 17th Century English and likes the Received Text, the KJV is probably better than many of the modern versions.

Steve

Fine to use KJV/NKJV, but also fine to use the CT based modern versions!

problem is when Christians state that KJV ONLY word of God for us today!

 

[DaChaser1]

I have been and will remain very outspoken against KJVO, but I have no qualms about making a choice to use the KJV Bible for all the reasons Luke2427 offers. I do myself when the occaision calls for that formal level of langage -- certain wedding and funeral ceremonies, the age of the persons to whom I am sharing, etc.

But to say KJVO is to seriously mistake the entire issue of God's Word and to place great power into the hands of a rare few human beings over our God who is the actual sovereign power in this cosmos.

far better to have a NASB/NIV/HCSB/KJV/NKJV version as main bible and really study and apply it then to just use the KJV because of faulty scholarship in the KJVO position, and use it it despite being unable to fully understand it!

just curious to how many KJVO read it religiously, but due to its wording not really understand it?

 

[glfredrick]

far better to have a NASB/NIV/HCSB/KJV/NKJV version as main bible and really study and apply it then to just use the KJV because of faulty scholarship in the KJVO position, and use it it despite being unable to fully understand it!

My position exactly. I am currently preaching from the ESV, but also use the NIV, the HCSB, the NASB (95), the NKJV, and The Message, among others used less often. For me, the KJV is mostly for looking up words in Strongs (most only reference the KJV) and for the formal language on special occaisions or in the rare instance when I think that the KJV translators actually hit closer to the core of some word.

just curious to how many KJVO read it religiously, but due to its wording not really understand it?

How many cults and 'ism's are there out there?

 

[preachinjesus]

I appreciate people who humbly use the KJV for their study and edification.

While I do not, I am always happy to hear from people who do.

 

[mandym]

However, it isn't easy for people who have not studied English literature to understand, and when I preach from it, as I do from time to time, I'm frequently having to translate the text into modern English before I can expound it.

Which has to be done regardless of the version. If you are going to expound in a way that the congregation understands the text the way the author and original readers did then much explaining is necessary.

 

[glfredrick]

Which has to be done regardless of the version. If you are going to expound in a way that the congregation understands the text the way the author and original readers did then much explaining is necessary.

But we USE the text to explain the text -- so explaining the text in order to use the text to explain the doctrines is an additional step that can get convoluted and even error prone.

 

[DaChaser1]

My position exactly. I am currently preaching from the ESV, but also use the NIV, the HCSB, the NASB (95), the NKJV, and The Message, among others used less often. For me, the KJV is mostly for looking up words in Strongs (most only reference the KJV) and for the formal language on special occaisions or in the rare instance when I think that the KJV translators actually hit closer to the core of some word.



How many cults and 'ism's are there out there?

think that a big improvement in the use of original languages study tools for non scholars was when there came to be an adoption of the Edward W. Goodrick, John R. Kohlenberger new numbering system to pretty much replace the old strongs one!

 

[DaChaser1]

Which has to be done regardless of the version. If you are going to expound in a way that the congregation understands the text the way the author and original readers did then much explaining is necessary.

Always would say that IF one was raised/grown up on KJV, then by all means preach and teach from it, problem is many of us were never reading from it, so would be the need for modern versions!

 

[Baptist4life]

Always would say that IF one was raised/grown up on KJV, then by all means preach and teach from it, problem is many of us were never reading from it, so would be the need for modern versions!

I agree, but, I also disagree that people who use and read it, don't really understand it. That's just not true.

 

[glfredrick]

I agree, but, I also disagree that people who use and read it, don't really understand it. That's just not true.

I'd love to prove that to you but just don't have the time... :applause:

 

[Salty]

I agree, but, I also disagree that people who use and read it, don't really understand it. That's just not true.

Not sure, I completely agree with the author, but there are a few interesting points.

Do you know the meanings of "avouch", "bruit", "collop", "durst", and "emerods"? Click here for an interesting link

 

[Oldtimer]

Thanks for the links.

The author is absolutely right with regards to our "modern" education system and the impact that TV has had on literacy. This oldtimer was around when TV was not in every home. And, especially when there was only 1 TV in the home. Parents controlled the TV watching in relationship to doing homework.