Your personal translation journey

I'm sorry, but this is the norm in non-IFB circles. You won't find the KJV being used very much in the rest of evangelicalism. In fact, it's a non-issue for most of us.

 

'Least accurate??' Could you support that please?

This is a non-issue for me, but when this type of comment is made I would like to see some support. Who would call the KJV one of the least accurate translations?

 

I visit other congregations quite a bit because I have 3 children who live in various parts of the U.S., and I'm still finding that the KJV/NKJV is predominant. The NIV is used quite a bit also. Maybe it's a "Baptist" thing, but though I see various other versions being used, the KJV/NKJV is still the version of choice in most Baptist congregations I've seen.

 

In comparison to the manuscripts from which it came the KJV doesn't do the best job translating it's own manuscript. Then you add the belief that the manuscripts that the KJV are from are not considered as accurate as those being used by most in scholarship and translation and ta-da you have the "KJV is not the most accurate translation".

I am not a textual scholar, so I don't know, but people I trust tell me this is so I guess I believe it. That being said, even if the KJV proved to be as accurate as my trusted TNIV, I still wouldn't use it. The language is archaic and often confusing. When choosing a translation there has to be consideration for both accuracy and usability. As far as I am concerned the KJV fails both.

 

Sadly, this is your loss. How any Christian could refer to the KJV as a failure is beyond comprehension. And please, do not accuse me of worshiping the Book. The language is not confusing if one chooses to read and study it. Just a lame excuse for casting it aside.

 

Amen! :thumbs:

 

What's lame is how you defend an archaic translation when there has been much better alternatives available for centuries. What is lame that the KJV was rejected by the most conservative of Christians when it first came out, yet you act like it was universally accepted right away. What is lame is how a doctrine first advocated by the Seventh Day Adventists has crept into Baptist circles and created division over something so illogical.

The KJV as a translation of choice in the 21st century is terribly unfortunate stand that someone has to be talked into as someone with fresh eyes on the situation would never come the the conclusion that in today's world we should keep on using the KJV.

FTR - I didn't say the KJV was a failure, I said it fails my modern day test of accuracy and usability.

 

It's not a failure - it was the best that we had for centuries. We have better translations now. Nearly every evangelical scholar believes this. Nobody is talking about casting Scripture aside. We just prefer to use modern translations that are rendered from more reliable consensus of original sources.

The language isn't confusing at every point, but let's face it, meanings of words change. The archaic usages are completely lost on an uninformed reader, which most of us are when we read the KJV text with a nuda scriptura approach. It's not a convenient excuse for getting rid of it and I've never heard of anyone who believes that. Some, I'm sure, use other translations because they prefer them, but it doesn't change the fact that the general consensus.

I know there are pockets of people who still prefer the KJV, mostly in non-SBC Baptist circles, but this is just not the case. Check out the best in evangelical scholarship today. Check out scholarly journals and other volumes. When they're not using Greek and Hebrew texts, they are using NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, and other modern ones.

I'm not knocking the KJV. It is the version through which many were led to Christ and it served the english-speaking Church faithfully, but there are more primary sources available now and more informed scholarship.

 

While I disagree with some of your points, this is a well reasoned post. Would you reconsider your contention that the KJV is considered one of the least accurate translations.

You also continue to use statements like 'nearly every' and 'overwhelming majority' but have yet to show any statistics.

 

How can this be true when believers, no matter how small their number, are being blessed and fed by it every day?

No solid translation as a translation of choice is unfortunate when the user is fed, edified, and blessed by it.

Take my wife for example. She loves her KJV. She was saved through it, grew up on it, has memorised, has taught with it, prayed with our kids with it, and uses it teaching today. She carries it to church. She reads out of it. She does not ascribe any mystical power to it and understands that there are other good, solid, trustworthy translations. She simply has chosen to use that as her Bible. How is that 'terribly unfortunate?'

 

I don't have any poll results, but I know that I have not read any modern evangelical scholarship, and I have an advanced degree in theology, that uses the KJV primarily. I don't think we can completely measure this, but it can be evaluated by the absence of the KJV in evangelical academia and, also, its absence from evangelical circles, other than in some fundamentalist groups.

I guess my answer is, I don't have numbers to prove it, but one only needs to look around and, if your own circle still uses the KJV primarily, look outside your own circle.

In case there is any doubt, I believe in the authority of the Bible and seek to treat it faithfully. Blessings.

 

My question is why. Why do you place so much faith in what is approved by men?

 

Since I don't personally have access to the Greek and Hebrew, I have to rely on the scholarship of others, and what I've read from the evangelical tradition holds this view. It's not even explicitly stated anymore, but most scholarship is done with this as an underlying presumption.

I wouldn't say I am not movable, but it would take a huge amount of credible scholarship to the contrary to convince me otherwise. If it's out there, I haven't seen it.

Blessings to you, friend.

 

I guess my problem is basically with your wording. I do not for a moment doubt that the KJV is no longer is general usage or that many consider that there are better translations out there. My issue is with the statement that many consider it among the least accurate translations. I have been around for a while and studied the topic quite a bit, but this is new to me.

Men I have read generally acknowledge the accuracy and value of the the KJV while being critical of the archaic language and even the underlying texts. I have not read much that would claim that the KJV is not an accurate translation of the Traditional Text body. I would have to see some evidence that the KJV does not generally accurately translate its text body.

 

Everyone does this on this issue. The Bible does not address translations so we are all compelled to study the issue, and that includes relying on the work of others.

 

I suppose the value I speak of in regard to the KJV is relative to the newer translations. There can be no doubt it was the best rendering of Scripture and changed millions of lives. It is God's Word. As far as I've read, what makes it less accurate today is not only the archaic usage, but also the fact it drew from far fewer and more recent ancient manuscripts.

Blessings.

 

More recent may be true, but the KJV translating team had vast resources at their disposal basically only lacking what we now refer to as the Critical Texts. Their impact, though beneficial, has hardly been integral.

 

I have used my 1945 kjv from the very beginning, including theological studies. Mind you, corrections have been noted and some words deleted, but still the same text.

I have not run into any theological problems over the years. It is a great preaching text.

I guess it is my personal "interpretation", but then, anyone who studies, uses their own personal interpretation, don't they.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Has God spoken on which translation He uses? I'm not just trusting anyone, but the majority of committed, faithful biblical scholars. We are foolish if we don't think there is good reason for faithful scholarship.

Why would I trust the few faithful Christians who believe that the KJV is the only or best rendition of English Scripture and not the many, many more who, knowing the difference between the thousands of ancient manuscripts and the difference in language usage, believe very strongly that many modern translations better capture the original meaning of Scripture in English. These people are far better equipped than I am in this way.

When we go to church and hear qualified and informed preaching we are trusting the knowledge and faithfulness of others. Why not when we choose a translation or need help exegeting and interpreting it (which we all do in some cases)?.

 

A friend from church who swears by the NASB gave me a copy, and I've reading through the Gospels and will read the Epistles next. I've been pleasantly surprised so far. Kept hearing about the NASB being the "Yoda Bible" and being hard to read, but the '95 Update is no problem at all.