About Modern Versions compared to the KJV

Modern English but stuck somewhere between the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods coincidental with the writings of Shakespeare some folks even saying that he had a hand in the final construction of the vocabulary, grammar and syntax.

Eh?

HankD

 

COOL!

HankD

 

The HCSB went other way, was to be majority, ended up based upon the CT!

 

The Nasb used the critical text to update the Asv, so curious as to if there is really THAT much of a difference between the Web and the Nasv?

 

I don't quite follow you on that point. Specifically, I don't know what it tells me that cults accept the KJV. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are 19th century in origin so I attribute their insistence on the KJV to their founders. Do you care to elaborate on your point?

I always heard that the KJV was mostly Tyndale, which amazes me that one man could have been so brilliant.

I still think that Elizabethan English is the most beautiful flower in spoken and written English and that is part of what makes the KJV so beautiful.

 

While I don't necessarily see Elizabethan/Jacoban English as more beautiful than other varieties, I will say that (in my opinion) a majority of the most beautiful poetry written in English was written in those strains.

 

Not sure this tells us much of anything. Some good Bible-believing Christians use the KJV, some cults use the KJV (Mormons, perhaps?) and some cults do not use the KJV (Jehovah's Witnesses, e.g.). Seems to me all it tells us is that some people use the KJV and that some people do not.

 

I do not know if Jehovah's Witnesses use the KJV now, but they did use it in the past even as late as 1992.

For a period of time, Jehovah's Witnesses published their own editions of the KJV. In 1907, they published the Bible Students Edition of the KJV (Jehovah Witnesses, p. 606). In 1942, they purchased plates for an edition of the KJV with marginal references from the A. J. Holman Company, and printed over 1,858,000 of these KJV's by 1992 (Ibid., p. 607). They produced an edition of the KJV (perhaps the one just mentioned), which is "complete with a concordance especially designed for use by Jehovah's Witnesses in their field ministry" (Ibid., p. 93).

 

I think that Mormons say that the KJV is good insofar as it is translated properly. Of course, they cannot win any debate on the accuracy of the Tyndale/KJV.

In the case of the Jehovah Witnesses, they publish or used to publish the KJV (as Logos 1560 states above) so that one could say that the Watchtower publishes the KJV so let's use it instead of the Watchtower translation.

The trouble with abandoning the KJV is that one is not prepared to evangelize the cults, who probably are going to consider that one's today's translation is incorrect automatically.

 

That's pretty surprising -- that some JWs were using the KJV as late as 1992 -- considering they produced their own New Testament in 1950 and the whole Bible in 1961. This is the New World Translation. I have a 1970 revision that a friend gave me in Junior High about that time, so they were using it then. This version has been updated again in 2013. On their own web site, they seem to take about the same view of the KJV as most supporters of the critical text.

All that said, my point wasn't really about the Jehovah's Witnesses, but that cults use all sorts of Bibles, which to me doesn't prove much of anything about Bible versions.

[Note: I'm not saying you're wrong about some JW's using the KJV, just that such a practice is very odd in light of the fact that they have their own Bible that is much more supportive of their unique doctrines.]

 

I'm not too familiar with the Mormon view on the KJV (though I know someone I can ask), but I wonder if they're kind of "stuck" with it, seeing Joseph Smith "translated"/wrote the Book of Mormon sort of in that style of English. For example:

Seeing they have the KJV on their web site seems to indicate their support of it.

I am confused both by the fact they would publish the KJV (see above for a quote of what they say about it) and I don't understand what you mean by "so that one could say that the Watchtower publishes the KJV so let's use it instead of the Watchtower translation."

I have not abandoned the KJV -- still use it in study and preaching -- and am not advocating that anyone do so. But I don't really see that it is the "standard" to use against cults because that is what they use. In other words, I don't think it is a given that most cults use the KJV.

 

Here are some quotes on the KJV from the COJCofLDS web site, which shows their support of it, from a letter released by the First Presidency:

 

Maybe the JWs use different versions in proselytizing folks who won't accept their version??

 

That seems to be what is described HERE.

 

I am merely saying that the Watchtower translation is not recognized by anyone other than the Watchtower and that you can say to a Watchtower missionary that the KJV is acceptable to the Watchtower based upon their past publication of it and therefore the KJV is a translation accepted by both sides, although to the detriment of the Watchtower Society, as you know.

 

Obviously cults use the KJV to give themselves credibility. But what is an interesting comparison between the KJV and newer bibles is the presuppositional nature of the underlying texts. The new bibles exalt science over the bible subjecting scripture to 'science falsely so called'.

Consider this- conceal a thing