Is the KJV clear?

The KJV translators themselves said a multitude of translations was profitbale for the reader to get thorough understanding of the text, besides AMERICAN English of the 21st century IS different (word meanings and grammar) than 16th century British English. I know the KJV was published in the 17th century but the English was really 16th century Shakespearean or Elizabethan English from the 1500's. Most agree that's a LONG time ago and languages change regularly.

I like the KJV for sure, but comparing verses in the ESV and the 95NASB does indeed help to understand verses and passages more clearly. The KJV is not ambiguous, it's just that American English has "moved on" from 1500's British English.

 

You are missing nothing by using the KJV. It, IMHO, is the Queen of English Translations.

Other version may help you understanding as well, but you can trust the KJV.

 

It's never failed me in all the 50+ years I've been saved - stick with it ... it's definitely a keeper.

 

There is no one translation that is perfect for real disciplined exegesis of the Bible. I believe a person can use the KJV and do serious disciplined exegesis. However, the person would have to use other noteworthy tools, not just the KJV or any other Bible, as a matter of fact.

For real disciplined exegesis a person must take a historical-grammatical approach, and this goes beyond the mere read of the Bible. There is more I can say about it.

If you can navigate the KJV, then God bless. If not, then use another version that is conservative and you are comfortable with.

As a pastor, I work from the original language in my preparation and I find that the NASB helps me the most. I usually emphasize words and I find the NASB the best fit for me. For another person, it might be the KJV or the ESV or even the NIV, but I like the NASB.

 

Yes, KJV, it is true that the use of certain words (wist for know/knew, you for plural pronoun and thee/thou for specific person and singular) are some simple examples of how the language differs from today. However the vocabulary is consistant through out various examples, is simple in understanding, and strongly reflective of the meanings when the autographs (originals) were written. There is no doubt, for example, of the prophecy regarding 'a virgin' bringing forth a child, in the Old Covenant, vs the fullfillment in the New Covenant.

I would reccommend getting a quality study Bible with footnotes and study helps regarding the persons in the Bible, archelogical and historical supports, and doctrinal keys. Realize, however, that the footnotes are dependant on the editorial viewpoints, and are helps in leading to further examination.....but donot have the authority of the scriptures, which they expound.

Would the moderators please be so kind as to reflect upon the postscript, at the bottom, before determining the appropriateness of lengthy quotation?
The following is in defense of the KJV.
From here


Please refer to the linked material - C4K

 

No, not as clear as it should be for the 21st century. Lnaguage changes

 

Hello, Windcatcher!

I read the linked material; it's a rerun if the same ole KJVO excuses that've been tried by them for years. Before automatically believing them, one should take the time to examine their VERACITY. Example: In luke 2:33, most MVs indeed call Joseph Jesus' father...but SO DOES THE KJV in Luke 2:41 & 48!

There are various manuscripts from which various Bible versions have been translated. Just as 'older' does not necessarily mean 'better', "longer" doesn't necessarily mean "better" either. Thus, when it appears that a certain part of a certain verse appears to have been left outta a given version, we must ask ourselves if it belonged in the first place. While your linked material cites several such examples, the author fails to mention the face that the words "through Jesus Christ our Lord" are found in Jude 25 of almost every MV while NOT appearing in the KJV.

Most telling in the whole discussion of KJVOism is its UTTER LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. Since Scripture is our highest written authority, any doctrine about it MUST BE SUPPORTED by it. Therefore, KJVO simply cannot be valid.

However, don't let that stop ya from using the KJV alone from personal preference. I believe the HOLY SPIRIT often points people to a given version or versions HE wishes them to use. Nothing wrong with using the KJV or any other one version alone, long as one doesn't get the idea that the one version is the ONLY valid one out there. Yes, you can use the KJV alone without wearing that dead bird of the KJVO doctrine around yer neck.

And as to yer original question...Yes, if ya fully understand the archaic English of the KJV, it should be as clear as any other English translation.

 

Isn't the effort of the modern versions? But they are often marginalized because they are not the KJV. How absurd!

At any rate, these version debates are peripheral and is of ZERO importance to things eternal, unless others think otherwise.

 

The KJV is not clear. There was a time when the KJV was the best translation of its manuscripts, but that day is long gone.

 

Respectfully, there was a time when you could lead in a scripture reading and I could recognize the reading and follow along in my own text: We could meet on the street or in a coffee shop and the verses you quoted to impress upon me some point of truth, would also speak to me from the remembrances of having read them before. There was a time when there was less to cause confusion: either one believed the Bible or one did not. Now, we ourselves, are being lead from pages which may differ from our own, and when every translation is acceptable in its own merit then why not the paraphrase of any individual: and if the paraphrase is acceptable, because the memory of a particular text is no longer solid, how do we know that one has not altered a little here and a little there.

(I can't help but recall a recent discussion with my sister over my hasty arrived at perception that JohnTB annoucement to Zecharias by the angel and the muting of his tongue and hearing was protective judgement against prematurely annoucing it and perhaps flamming a climate for persecution of the family and the child........... All because I had remembered so many messages exposing the doubts of Zachiriah, but I had recently revisited those scripture in Luke on several occassions my eyes skipped past the angels rebuke which is recorded.) My sister and I reconcile easily:laugh: We both acknowledge the weakness of human understanding and dependance on the Holy Spirit to reveal.

We read and study the Word in whatever form we can: It is not the text we worship but the God revealed by the book.

 

This source

http://www.concernedmembers.com/spiritualdeception.htm#foreword

cited above miss-interperts Daniel 3:25 damning
the 'Modern Versions' translation of 'son of the gods'
while the KJVs say:

"Son of God" - KJV1769 Edition
"sonne of God" - KJV1611 Edition

the word translated 'gods' is a Chaldee term used
by a Pagan. What method of exegesis demands that a Pagan
say New Testament (NT) Doctrine?

 

Who wrote, “Parents”? Luke! Who said, “thy father”? Jesus’ mother! See the difference between them. I posted comments on these passages in the past many times. Same passages – REPEATEDLY!

Repeated post! I read this repeatedly.

The Bible teaches us about the certainty of God’s Words. The most certainty of His Words is found in the KJV over modern versions because 10,000 uncertain words in modern versions affected important doctrines as an example of Jesus’ names in modern versions affected in the NT 200 times because of manuscripts where modern versions were derived -- removed, added and changed.

Only the KJV -- the KJV superiority!

The KJV is clearest than modern versions because modern versions have controversial passages. Anyone can understand the KJV as likewise as modern versions.

 

"Son of God" is correct over "son of gods." Modern versions are wrong!

 

Which opinion you are free to have, though wrong.

Because my question was ignored, I'll answer it:

Ed: //What method of exegesis demands that a Pagan
say New Testament (NT) Doctrine?//

Some strange exegesis for sure.
Strangly, the source allows the Devil to
use 'gods' but not the Babylonian Pagans???

QED: "son of gods" is correct over "Son of God".
Modern Versions are right.

Our next exegesis will be about the
Plural Unity Hebrew term 'el-o-heem'.

 

Askjo: //The KJV is clearest than modern versions
because modern versions have controversial passages.
Anyone can understand the KJV as likewise as modern versions.//

The KJVs have unclear passages and controversial
passages. Because the KJV1611 Edition has been
around for 396 years, and the most used KJV1769
Edition has been around for 238 years
and no changes to it have been accepted by many users
-- there are more misunderstood passages than
any of the MVs of the 20th Century (1901-2000)
and 21st Century (2001-2100).

The great schisims of the 19th Century (1801-1900)
all used their misunderstanding of
the KJVs as a basis for their doctrine:

Christian Science
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS)
Adventist movement
Jehovah's Witnesses

 

I've been working 5 years (come Aug) here on BB (Baptist Board)
to promote the idea: God has blessed we English readers
with a wealth of good translations in English. We can prosper
reading/studying/memorizing the Bible if we use a
MULTITUDE of God provided translations. God has in His
Divine Providence Preserved His Written Word: the Holy Bible,
for us in many reliable English Translations including
the KJVs. This Versions/Translations board should be
a place where we can discuss which of these various translations
are the best in various locations/scriptures/verses.
This cannot be done easily while some noisy sheep bleat about one
and only one version being all that God has the ability
to preserve.

 

The KJV is clear in spots -- exceedingly clear . Then again , in other places it may seem clear in the view of those who love it very much -- its very familiarity may be a stumbling block . IOW , what these folks think the text says due to the way the KJV reads may trip them up . A better rendering -- not only clearer English -- would assist them in gaining a greater understanding of God's Word .

In the book : " How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth " by Gordon Fee ( NT scholar ) and Douglas Stuart ( OT scholar ) they have some strong words . Here's what they relate : " ... for study you should use almost any modern translation rather than the KJV or NKJ . " ( p.40 ) .

 

Calm down folks or this thread will suffer the fate of so many others. The OP had nothing to do with "superiority" only if the KJV was clear.

I fear that this will be a short lived thread.

 

Your fear is likely well founded! :laugh:

Ed

P.S. Just because someone is paranoid, doesn't mean everyone is not out to get them. :laugh: :laugh: