Why I love the King James

I'd like to offer the simple fact that barely anyone in America in 2012 is literate in 1611 English as used during that era. A few Shakespearean scholars and perhaps a few preachers who have actually worked to become educated in that dialect, but not mainstream America. English has changed in usage somewhat in the 400 years that have passed between the KJV translation and where we are today. Why on earth would we expect our schools to teach a 400-year-old dialect just because some like it?

 

I can't tell exactly what you're trying to say about the KJV there. Its certainly not just a lot of flowery archaic ornate prose. The KJV is highly regarded universally among literary scholars. The English language as it exists today is highly indebted to the KJV. It was one of the very first books (if not the the first book) to be mass produced (remember the printing press came out only a short time earlier), and all subsequent literary works in English were influenced by it. There was a cover story on the KJV in the National Geographic only a couple of months ago (though I didn't read it).

I recently discovered my deceased Grandfather's leather-bound KJV. He was born in 1900 in Celeste, Texas. This Bible of his is in great shape, but it also has every so often his own margin notes. I really treasure that Bible now. I find I very quickly get used to the archaic constructions in it. And also its a study Bible from that era with all sorts of auxilliary material in it.

Aside from that I read the NASB. I will NEVER read the NKJV again. I've discovered a host of problems with it that I won't get into here. If anyone knows of a more recent version other than the KJV or NASB I should be reading, I'd like to hear about it (something that say, doesn't translate money into dollars and cubits into feet).

 

Since you brought up Shakespeare, all actors today have a deep reverential respect for him. And furthermore, audiences of high cultural aspiration at least feign appreciation for Shakespeare themselves. (I personally think he's a little overrated, but what do I know) That is why Shakespeare, in the original language is continually performed throughout the world - in the park, on the stage, at the movies, at schools, etc.

Now, no one says, "audiences today are just too stupid to understand that English, lets come up with 25 new modern versions of the bard. Sure, every so often someone does that, but its just sort of a goof - no one takes it seriously.

The English of the KJV is more expressive and nuanced and rich than the language we employ today (despite the archaic attributes). We shouldn't let it die out just to cater to the ignorant or lazy.

 

Also there's an issue of trust - I personally have deeper respect and confidence for the writers of the KJV - writing on the heels of the reformation, steeled by persecution, eloquent, serious, unswerving, rather than the glib posers of seminaries today.

 

Well,the works of Shakespeare have been translated into a host of languages in modern garb. I daresay that the readers of Shakespeare written in modern speech understand the plays much beetter than the average native English reader/speaker.

English translations do not have to have a loyalty to a largely 16th century text --but the much older and inspired autographs. There is much misplaced loyalty in tradition --a false god to be sure.

Prove it.

You are dead-wrong in your categorizations. Shame on you.

 

I am reminded of the famous KJV only IFB pastor who would tell the folks after reading one verse to close their Bibles and look at him while he preached.

His sermons were filled with "I" and rarely based upon the Scripture that he had read.

Unfortunately, quite a few non-thinking monkey see monkey doers were swayed by this man's view and also tried to copy his dicto-authoritarian leadership.



:BangHead:

 

glfredrick quoted:

Article disagreeing with the use of the Flesch-Kincaid formula to rate the reading level of the KJV.

Note the 100 most used words in the KJV along with the text stats on a KJV on sale at Amazon. Flesch-Kincaid Index: 10.4 http://www.amazon.com/dp/052116334X/?tag=baptis04-20

Here's a comparison of various Bibles using the Flesch-Kincaid index on the same chapters of each Bible. Plus additional information from various sources. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html

From a site making fun of the KJV. Note the cartoon.

Is the King James Bible Harder to Understand Than The Others?
http://www.elijahproject.net/read.html
Scroll down and note the word for word comparisons between the KJV and the NASB

Archaic Words in the NIV http://www.av1611.org/kjv/vanceniv.html

My premise is that our modern education system isn't producing enough literate people. Period. It has far less to do with a "400-year-old dialect" than is has with people being able to read materials being produced in 2012.

Wish I could find a percentage figure of the words in the Bible (any version) that haven't changed, in meaning, in the last 400 years. Note the 100 most used words in the KJV. Teach the children to actually read and comprehend 2012 English and they'll be able to read most of most Bibles without any problems. (Note the word comparisons in the lists in the links provided.)

How many of today's high school graduates can't read and comprehend their senior year textbooks? Thus the question... Can they read and comprehend any Bible on the market today?

 

Thanks, that makes more sense now.

I meant that impartially. I had forgotten that emotions can ride high either side of the fence on this issue.

 

Glad I could be of some help. When I first started this study, I had no idea of what was "behind the scenes" with the battle over Bible versions. Didn't know a thing about manuscripts, translation approaches, etc. I've still got a long ways to go in that regard, BTW.

You're right. Emotions do run high. It's often sad to see that "emotions" derail otherwise valid commentary on either side. John Doe may have a legimate point to make. But it's destroyed when he resorts to name calling, etc.

 

Recall that "pragmatism" (one of the main arguments of the KJVO crowd) is not always the same as "truth."

The argument goes along these lines, "More people have come to faith because of the KJV than any other translation..." That is pragmatic thought. There is not a cause and effect correlation between the fact that a lot of people used the only really readily available translation and God only using a particular translation to do His work.

 

have read many times that those devotees of the KJVO position claiming that its easier to read with understanding then versions such as the NIV/NASB/NKJV...

HOW can that be true?

Also...

Wouldn't it be far better to read and apply a Bible one can easier understand?

God does NOT just work through the KJV, His word in English for us includeds both good modern versions and the KJV!

 

There are no host of problems with the NKJV. KJV-only advocates make a number of misleading and false claims concerning the NKJV. If you have been influenced by such KJV-only claims, you have been misled.

 

Is that computer comparison based simply based on average syllables per word?

There may be some reasons why the KJV may have a lower average syllable count that have no bearing on whether or not it is easier to read. For example, in most editions of the KJV there are several commonly used words that are divided into two or more words where the exact same word united as one word in another translation may count as a longer, multi-syllable word. Some examples include “to day,” “to morrow,” “for ever,” “for evermore,” “son in law,” “mother in law,” “daughter in law,” “strong holds,“ “way side,” “good will,” “any more,“ “any thing,“ “mean while,” “mean time,“ “sea side,“ “sea shore,“ and “cart wheel.” There are also other such words. A few words may be united in the KJV that are divided into two words in another translation. Overall, because those words divided in the KJV are more commonly used words, they would contribute to giving the KJV a lower average syllable count. Those words do not actually make the KJV easier to read. By the way, some KJV editions would unite some of those words such as “to day” to either “to-day” or “today” so that those KJV editions would have a different average syllable count. The 1611 KJV edition had “shall be” united as one, longer word “shalbe,” and it would likely have a different average syllable count.

More importantly, the KJV has a number of archaic words or words used with archaic meanings that may be shorter or have fewer syllables than their present equivalents. Some examples could include “turtle” for “turtledove,” “vale“ for “valley,” “dearth“ for “famine,” “trump“ for “trumpet,” “tongue“ for “language,” “even“ for “evening,” “let” for “hinder,” “anon” for “immediately,” “oft“ for “often,” “sod” for “boiled,” “mete“ for “measure,” “dure“ for “endure,” “quick“ for “living“ or “alive,” “mean“ for “common,” “still” for “continually,” “attent“ for “attentive,” “by and by” for “immediately,” “ere“ for “before,” “minish” for “diminish,” “fine” for “refine,” “astonied” for “astonished,“ and “rid” for “deliver.” While such words may help reduce the KJV’s average syllable count, they do not actually make it easier to read and understand.

These reasons or factors indicate why claims concerning “average syllable count” that supposedly indicates easier to read may be misleading and misused.

 

I love it because the memorization I did as a child was in KJV. I love the eloquence and the stately language.

But it's not the best we have anymore. It served us well for centuries, but it shouldn't be the preferred translation anymore.

 

I think your sentiment sums up what a lot of us think about the KJV. We've used it, seen it used, it has been influential, and it is a good enough translation to continue using if that is what one wants, but it is neither the best nor the only translation that is the Word of God, so there is no basis for "only" when applied to that particular translation effort.

 

Why do people immediately assume that everyone including themselves just runs around parroting the words of some beloved "teacher" of theirs. Do you do that? I don't. Do you think the only people that have pointed out problems with the NKJV are in some fringe KJV-only sect?

Why not just ask me what my own specific personal objections to the NKJV are? I can assure they exist.

 

what are they?

NKJV based upon same Greek text, TR, as the KJV was, so what problems?