Featured Real Reasons to Use the KJV

uh no

 

Here is one in todays type.
The English hexapla : exhibiting the six important English translations of the New Testament Scriptures, Wiclif, M.CCC.LXXX., Tyndale, M.D.XXXIV., Cranmer, M.D.XXXIX., Genevan, M.D.LVII., Anglo-Rhemish, M.D.LXXXII., Authorised, M.DC.XI. : the original Greek text after Scholz, with the various readings of the textus receptus and the principal Constantinopolitan and Alexandrine manuscripts, and a complete collation of Scholz's text with Griesbach's edition of M.DCCC.V : preceded by an historical account of the English translations : Scholz, Johann Martin Augustin, 1794-1852 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

So, I've looked at the two articles you linked too and skimmed through most of the thread and just want to ask you the following questions...

Is there any reason given in support of the KJV that would not also support the NKJV?

Or asked the other way around, do you know of any reason why the NKJV would not be at least as good as, if not better than, the KJV?

In my view, the NKJV is little more than the KJV in modern English and the fact that it is in modern English makes it superior to the KJV for practically everyone who hasn't spent their entire lives getting "used to" the antiquated English in the KJV.

 

You make an excellent point concerning the difference between using modern English vs. the antiquated English of the KJV! That single point alone make nearly any modern translation superior for use by newer Christians who are just trying to learn the basics.

However, there are real problems with the source material for nearly all of the modern translations like the ESV and NIV, etc. to the point that, for anyone doing serious bible study, who wants to get into the deeper details beyond what would be typically taught to laymen in a Sunday school class, these translations are prone to lead people into serious error and should be avoided.

For most of the reasons given so far in this thread, as well as many others, what are referred to as the "Majority Texts" is superior source material and, since modern English is clearly superior to a centuries old form of English that no one speaks any longer, the clear choice for the serious bible student is the New King James, along with a healthy understanding of, and frequent reference to, the original languages, of course.

 

We don't use distinctions in our everyday speech & writings, except context, & we get along fine.

 

Yes, it does. It would be the exception to find an instance where it isn't made clear by the context and even then, such examples would be instances of poor translation work, not a lack of sufficient words in the English language.

 

Again, the exception (granting for the sake of argument that his counts as an exception) proves the rule.

Your own use of the English language on a daily basis without separate words for singular vs. plural pronouns is proof by itself that their use is not necessary. Can it be useful? Yeah, sure, it can be useful. Does that relatively minor utility outweigh the cumbersome nature of the rest of the antiquated nature of the language found in the KJV vs. the modern language used in the NKJV? Certainly not. One's use of the KJV for that reason amounts to a personal preference, which is totally fine, by the way. If that's what you want then terrific, but it can't be rationally argued that the use of "Thee", "Thou", "Thine", etc makes the KJV objectively superior.

 

Thee, thou and thine are singular.
Ye, you and your are plural.

King James English

 

Yes, and ONLY in King James English, which no one speaks any longer, which is why you feel the need to explain it.

Why not just read the New King James, which everyone can read and intuitively understand?

 

It represents the singular and plural in the original Greek. Used by William Tyndale. Although it might have been archaic by 1611, I think thats why the translators kept it.

A good idea perhaps. Have they revised it lately?

 

I'm not an expert here but I'm reasonably sure that the KJV was translated into what was normal 1611 English. It has only become archaic in the four centuries since.

No, I don't think so. It is a mere four decades old and so is written in what is still very much modern English but it too will eventually need extensive revision. Such is the nature of translating things into a language that is still in use.

 

It does represent the original Greek, which was 37818's point.

I think I might aquire one. Back when I had one I thought it was inaccurate because it used the Textus Receptus. However now after many years I have learned that the Textus Receptus is more accurate than Nestle/Aland, GNT. Another point in the KJV's favor . Not that the Textus Receptus is alway right verses others (it is not), but in textual decisions it seems way more accurate to me.

 

It's translated from substantially the same texts as the 1611 and it reads very very similar to the 1611 (which itself was actually a revision of a previous translation, by the way) only with modern words, sentence structure and actual paragraphs. WAY easier to read and understand.

 

It seems to me that using old, antiquated Bible language to try and bring someone to accept/acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Savior is placing an obstacle, a stumbling block, in their way and may even prevent them from becoming a believer. Am I the only one that thinks this?

And consider that most people (I assume) use modern English language commentaries to interpret and understand the KJV language, especially new readers, and that's not going to get better as the KJV language gets older and further from modern English.

 

Nope! You're not the only one.

Quite so! I've often wondered why pastors who argue that the KJV is the only acceptable version of the word of God are willing to sing songs and preach their sermons in modern English.