Is the KJV inferior to you?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Cutter, Jul 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does anyone on this site believe the KJV is an inferior version?
    Many indirect statements are made to make me believe it to be true. Is anyone man (or woman) enough to stand and admit it? Thanks.
     
  2. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,972
    Likes Received:
    129
    It is sufficient to bring one to godliness, as are all faithful versions of God's word.

    Rob
     
  3. Martin

    Martin
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Likes Received:
    0
    ==Is the KJV a weaker or inferior translation? No. I would say that the KJV is a fine translation that is equal to the other fine english translations. Is the KJV the best english translation? While the KJV's language style is more poetic than the NASB I believe the NASB is the best english translation. That does not mean the KJV, NKJV, NIV, ESV, NLT (etc) are inferior translations. Each of those are fine translations and I use each of them on a regular basis. However it is my belief that the NASB holds closer to the greek than any other current english translation outside of a interlinear.
     
  4. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    This is a purposefully provocative statement, but since you are new I will let it run for a while.

    No the KJV is not inferior.
     
  5. Scarlett O.

    Scarlett O.
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2002
    Messages:
    9,836
    Likes Received:
    115
    Perhaps if you were to cite those specific indirect statements, then the people who made them could respond.

    I read the KJV. It was the bible that I was raised on. It is not my preferred version as I read the NIV more often than not and have others lying about my house that I read. But I do appreciate the KJV.

    I don't believe that inferiority is necessarily what people are indirectly or directly saying when they say that the KJV isn't their preferred version. But I don't know which statements you are talking about.
     
  6. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I also would appreciate you citing posts which suggest the KJV is an inferior translation.
     
  7. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    It is not my preferred version either, but it is a fine translation.

    It is one that I use along side with others.
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Sorry., but I have to comment on the title "Is the KJV inferior to you."

    No translation, even the Living Bible is inferior to me. I am the inferiorist of all :) .
     
  9. Brother Bob

    Brother Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    12,723
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, it is my perferred version. Man, my head is full of KJV and if it is inferior, I sure am in trouble.
     
  10. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0
    In my original post, I said, "Many indirect statements are made to make me believe it to be true."

    If you read through the thread you closed about an hour ago there are references made (IMO) to this effect.
     
  11. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78

    Examples please?
     
  12. mcdirector

    mcdirector
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2005
    Messages:
    8,292
    Likes Received:
    10
    I went back and read that thread. I didn't see any disparaging remarks about the KJV.
     
  13. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with what C4K has posted here.

    And I would add that the question in the OP is undefined, so has no specific yes or no answer. All languages of today are somewhat different than those of, say, 1900, 1800, 1700, 1600, 1500, 1400, etc.
    So that has a bearing on the answer.
    The question of available texts of Scripture, both OT and NT comes in as well.
    We have access to many more texts today, than were formerly available four centuries ago. That has a bearing on this question, as well.

    And I would add one caveat. Suppose I only spoke German, for example, as opposed to English. In that case, I would say the KJV, the NASB, the NKJV, the HCSB, the RVA, the RVR1960, the LSG, the CUV, a Korean, a Japanese, to name a handful, or whatever other version than a German language version, one may come up with would all be greatly inferior for me than, say, the ELB, the HOF, or the LUTH1545. It is a matter of language, in that case, nothing more.

    A fairly 'poor' translation (whatever that may mean) in my own language, would be far superior (and far more beneficial) to me, than the 'best' translation in a language, I do not understand at all.

    Why should any one assume that the English language is the apex of all languages? We are not talking about landing airplanes, here, we are talking about God's word for man.

    Ed
     
    #13 EdSutton, Jul 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2007
  14. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    As did I. And I agree fully with mcdirector. There was not one disparaging remark made about the KJV, either implied or directly, in this thread. I cannot speak to any other thread, and I'm not gonna' be wasting my time trying to find another.

    Ed
     
    #14 EdSutton, Jul 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2007
  15. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I read the thread twice and found nothing to suggest that anyone sees the KJV as inferior.
     
  16. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, the KJVs are not inferior translations. Do the various KJVs have errors? Yes, just like any other Bible version translated from one language to another. Why? Because, if one were to translate from either the Hebrew or the Greek into English literally, the English would often make no sense at all to the reader. There is no way to translate from one language to another with 100% accuracy.

    I use one of the KJVs quite frequently, along with the NKJV and the NASB. And despite the leading question of the OP, I have seen no one on this board attacking the KJVs as inferior Bible translations.

    The 1611 KJV, the original KJV, was the work of many able translators. They used the best available manuscripts they had available to them at the time. The language of the KJVs is somewhat antiquated - modern readers often have to dig to find the meanings of certain words (or at least what those words meant in 1611). Therefore some of the MVs are more suited for today's reader. But I would not go so far ast to say the KJVs are inferior translations. How can any Bible versions responsible for leading so many people to a saving faith in Jesus Christ be considered inferior?
     
    #16 Keith M, Jul 21, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 21, 2007
  17. Cutter

    Cutter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    0

    Sorry. Maybe it's just something I sensed that wasn't there.
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    There have only been a very few here in my almost four years now who have been critical of the KJV.

    Many have been critical of the harsh "my way or the highway" attitude that some KJVO members manifest.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    "Inferior" can be a relative thing. The KJV was, IMO, the best English translation of its day, when all its marginal notes & extra-textual material is included. Most later KJV editions were, IMO, overall inferior to the AV1611 because they omit the translators' preface, marginal notes, "Easter-finder", list of "Holy dayes" & the Apocrypha. However, later editions improved the text slightly by using more modern spellings, & updating a few obsolete words.

    Personally, I don't believe the KJV should be tinkered with. I believe it should be printed & sold in a form that's as close as possible to the original, sans printers' goofs & Gothic font, retaining the original spellings & punctuation.

    I have often used the analogy of comparing the KJV with a Model-T. The Model-T meets every criterion for a modern car, but how comfortable is it to drive on a modern road at highway speeds? The Model-T was made for the roads of the 1910s-20s, which were more often paths or trails more than an actual roadway. A newer car couldn't travel many of these 'roads'. The Model-T was the first mass-produced SUV, and performed remarkably well crossing creek beds & large mud holes. However, it has crowbars for shock absorbers & will soon wear ya out if ya drive one on an Interstate. But it's still a legitimate CAR, and can be licensed in every state same as any other car. It's just not the best car for MODERN roads any more. And, yes, it IS inferior to most newer cars in most respects.


    But the analogy ends with quality. The KJV is of highest quality of translation of its day, and it's still as true as it was 400 years ago, while the construction of the Model-T & the metal alloys it was made from are inferior of those of today. But, as the roads have been improved so that the Model-T is no longer the best car to drive on them now, the English language has changed so that the English of the KJV is largely archaic and not fully understood by many readers. However, that does NOT make it inferior...just outdated. But it has its uses and places, & I'm glad God has kept it around, as He has kept the English versions before it, & caused newer versions to have been made after it. I'm gladta be able to read both the KJV & the HCSB whenever.

    No, the KJV is not inferior...just older.
     
  20. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,429
    Likes Received:
    72
    It depends on what you mean by inferior. The KJV is better than some translations, but I do believe that many modern English translations are based on more reliable texts (unavailable to the KJV translators).

    Do I believe that the NASB is a better version than the KJV? Yes.
    Do I believe that the KJV is a bad translation? No. It's an old translation based on the best texts available at the time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...