About Modern Versions compared to the KJV

Yes, I think we Americans tend to misunderstand the aspect of differences between English law and U.S. law.

 

It can be hard to "neutral" information on this topic online, much of the discussion of the copyright, editions, etc. is carried out by KJVO's and anti-KJVO's feverish to prove their points.

Scrivener's The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives may be the best resource, except for information about modern printings, of course. Editions of the KJV and Apocrypha at KJVToday is partisan but short and not filled with rancor, and gives a rundown of both the major editions and some "unofficial revisions" (such as the New Scofield). One of the downsides of "everyone" publishing the KJV is that many have no understanding of or concern for the different editions and that information is not supplied for the purchaser to make an informed decision.

 

You may have just uncovered the source of the KJVO movement...

 

Right. It seems that those who adulterate the scriptures are only to happy to proudly put their stamp on their work.

 

Actually, it's a little-known fact but every time you guys buy a KJV Bible, a dollar of the price goes to Her Majesty.
How do you think she keeps all those palaces going?

 

I think that the KJV is the most beautiful translation and that the KJV is written in modern English. I prefer the KJV above all other translations by far.

 

It may be designated as "Modern English", but it's not contemporary whatsoever. Something nearly 500 years old is considerably dated；out-of-date actually.

 

We agree! We have those versions that you quoted because the poor English received the gospel early thanks to having been conquered by Rome.

KJV is not dated. At the time it was plain English. Now it is educated., perhaps, but it is always beautiful and correct English. Lester Roloff used to say on the radio that only the KJV produced revivals.

We need something beautiful in our lives.

 

Of course it is. You're denying the obvious.

No, at the time it was using an older form of English. The words thee,thine,thou and ye were fast disappearing.
It was put in an older form of English to give it some perceived class.

There are plenty of verses in the Royal Bible that use tortuous English. That fact was even acknowledged by some in the 17th century. The perceived beauty was bestowed upon it starting in the late 18th century.

Lester Roloff was a nut.

You (or Lester) are ignoring the earlier English versions, as well as translations in other languages.

 

Poor Britons. The Angles hadn't crossed over yet.

 

Another reason to use the KJV is that it is sometimes the only translation accepted by the cults.