One thing I've been noticing about debates on the KJVO issue is the intentional fallacy that dictates that the KJV is THE standard by which all other translation efforts is judged. Who determined that and by what criteria?
And, if so, then why the updates of an "already perfect" translation?
Just for the record, and you might already know this, that's NOT what
I am saying.
While a good -- perhaps even great -- translation, it is not the only, not the most accurate, and not even the most understandable.
As far as the language being "our" language, it is not -- not in precise terms. Language changes over time and to select one snapshot out of the lifespan of any given language and then say that THAT moment in time was the culmination of the language is to ignore the facts that language is fluid and that usage changes with context and with time.
I agree that language is fluid. I am simply saying something that I think is abundantly clear to all of us- it was most substantial, poetic, and descriptive during the centuries surrounding the writing of the King James.
What have we today that compares to Shakespeare? And the language that followed that era for the next few hundred years- what have we that compares to it today?
Even as late as Spurgeon and his masterful sermons- what have we that compares?
This does not mean by ANY means that this is the only version to use or that it ought to be the primary version of most folks. I do not believe this to be the case at all.
If we use the former proposition as the basis for deciding about the veracity of any given language, then we must also take God to task for causing the original NT to be written in Koine Greek instead of Classical Greek. Shame on Him for using the gutteral language of the marketplace -- akin to 21st century American English as compared to 1611 King's Court English -- for He failed to capitalize on the culmination of the Greek.
We could also take this line of reasoning to say the preferred meeting place for worship ought to be houses and catacombs since that is largely where churches met in the first century.
As the church grew and conquered more and more territory with the Gospel of Christ she was blessed to be able to be more affluent and erudite.
So she built grand Cathedrals and she began to translate the Scripture in more beautiful language.
Israel worshiped in a big tent until she grew more powerful and affluent. Then she worshiped in a temple whose majesty was one of the wonders of the world.
Evolving toward greater beauty is a good thing- so long as we don't lose our ability to connect to the common man.
The King James, in it's day, was able to do this. Because language has, in my opinion, backslid since that day, the King James is less able to do this today. But it is not incompetent to do this.
In formal settings- which I think could certainly include Sunday morning worship- I think the King James is not only still very relevant- but pretty hard to beat.
The problem with making this argument is that there are these KJVO folks who have so tainted any crediting of the King James that those of us who love it for sound reasons find it hard to argue for it.
