Why do so many Americans use the KJV?

Some (mostly) dispensationalists think that the KJV is more accurate that the Hebrew, Aramiac, and Greek autographs.

 

Most of the congregation where I preach has switched from the KJV to the NASB, since that is what I use in class and in the pulpit. I think most of them were using the KJV because of familiarity. It is what they had grown up with. I don't prefer it because I think it is a shame to have to translate the translation. Also, modern translations utilize older Greek manuscripts. I like the NASB because it makes fewer interpretive decisions for the reader than many of the modern "dynamic equivilent" translations.

Blessings,

Bob

 

Tradition. People will use whatever version that is used by their home church. It's hard to listen to a sermon in KJV when you have NIV. Conservative evangelicals prefer literal translations, and KJV is one of the most literal translations there is. Also evangelical churches don't like to change.

 

Well... there's just no substitute for the REAL thing!

 

I'll give my opinion why I like the KJV--- LEGAL reasons. Legal? you may ask. Yes. The KJV is public domain. I quote a lot of Scripture on my web site. Why must I have persmission from another to quote (supposedly) GOD's Word? Something is terribly amiss here if that's the case. Either other tranlations are not Gods Word, but man's paraphrase, OR some kind of blaspheme is talking place. How would you like to dictate something, have another copy it down, and then a third party translates it and claim "copyright" to it? Think about it. That's the most harebrained idea on the face of this Earth.

 

Amen liafailrock!

God Bless!

 

Tradition, comfort level, familiarity, cadence...many who were raised in Christian homes prefer the KJV while many who became Christians after being raised in non-Christian homes prefer some of the more modern translations.

 

I prefer the KJV myself but as I was reading this thread it struck me that back when the KJV was written at that time it was their "modern" version.....as we are now in the year 2005 even our ways of speaking are different......if I told my hubby to look in his purse for change he'd give me what for....cause men don't carry no purse...(unless I make him hold mine while I try on shoes. ) But back when the KJV was first translated it was probley common knowledge as to what Jesus was talking about when he said take no purse or script.

I read the KJV, but when I do I understand it in the modern language. I have even followed preachers reading out of the Amplified and it pretty much says in my understanding what I have in the KJV as I read along with them.

Music4Him

 

Uh, we've been over this countless times before- but there are numerous english versions of the Bible that are in the public domain, for example the ASV1901. The KJV is by no means unique in this regard.

 

Yet another KJVO potshot at any translation that's not KJV. Sad. The only "real thing" is the source texts. What we have is translations of the source texts. The KJV is no exception.

The reason the KJV is so popular is the same reason that the NIV is so popular. They are generally good and faithful translations.

 

Why do so many Americans use the KJV?

Because if old English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for them!

 

You are, of course, joking here... I hope!

 

~ GrannyGumbo ~
____________________________________________________________
Well... there's just no substitute for the REAL thing!
____________________________________________________________

BTW, before I knew there was the Baptist board I didn't study my Hebrew and Greek as much. But thanks to a few people that I met who are sticklers for the Hebrew and greek interpretations....maybe we all should read the very first oringinals?


Although it might say the same as the KJV in our language?

Big Smile
Music4Him

 

Grant it. I will not debate that. I know there are others, but do you hear anyone quoting from them? Let's face it. The tranlations many people have in mind are the mainline "McDonald's" of translations such as NIV, RSV, New Living, NKJV, etc. (I like Wendy's )

 

Strange sounding statements, considering
the history of the KJV.

Ed's short history of the "KJV".

In 1762 and 1769 new versions of the KJV were authorized
for distibution (distribution by Cambridge and Oxford),
authorization by the British Crown.
In 1776 the USA rebelled against the British Crown.
There was no interest in accuracy of printing copies
of the KJV nor of any crown rights. (Not to mention that
setting press was a highly error prone process)

I collectively call these editions the KJV1769
(I have several copies of it). I also have a paper copy
of the KJV1611 and the KJV1873.
Anyway, it was highly arrogent to call an unauthorized
copy "authorized" -- but such were the colonists

Fast forward to 1950. Somebody noticed that the various
versions of the KJV were NOT the same (and these new verions
were diffaerent still). So by 1980 there was a logic
and theory called the "King James Only" movement which said
(in several forms i might add) that the King James
Version (without specifying which KJV) was the only right
translation in English.

I consider it an arrogant matter to call oneself by a
moniker containing "AV" and/or "1611"
IF one does NOT use an "authorized Version" nor the
KJV1611 edition. No King James Version Onlyist that i
know uses exclusively either an actual AV nor an
actual KJV1611 Edition.

So then, why is the KJV still very popular in the USofA?
I'd say because
the colonist did their work well,
making many prints of the unauthorized American KJV.
While great lip service was given by the colonists to
the pilgrims, the pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible with them,
not the KJV.

 

"Well... there's just no substitute for the REAL thing!"
You got it Granny !

 

"Because if old English was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for them!"

On the other hand, have always wondered why the angel told Joseph to give the child a Greek name. <G>

 

IMHO...

I am moving towards the HCSB... in fact I use it 90 percent of the time from the pulpit...

But I catch myself... when quoting Scripture... I tend to revert back to what I had memorized years ago.

It is familiar to all of people out there.

 

Yep, after 30 years using the KJV
exclusively, most of the scriptures in my
head are KJV1769.

I still find it strange that the KJV1769
editions in the US on which no stamp tax
was paid to the British Crown are still
called in error: "the Authorized Version (AV)"