US Christians and the King James Version

abysmul said:

I didn't say it was... ?

Click to expand...

It was merely a comment in response to what appeared to me to be a broad assumption.

Therefore i added my comment for clarity.

Undiscoveredcountry2 said:

It is striking when reading articles by US Christians across a wide range of books and websites that they tend to use the King James Version (KJV) of the bible. In the UK, the KJV has very largely fallen out of use because, on the basis that some Christians care a lot about accurate translations that are in accessible language, the KJV is seen as failing on both counts. The NIV is probably the most popular translation, but amongst Christians who place a high priority on bringing together accuracy and accessibilty, the English Standard Version and, to a degree, the New American Standard Version are frequently used.

So why do so many American Christians default to the KJV?

Click to expand...

I noticed the same thing as you and really, no idea. I embrace the ESV myself, love the translation. The KJV has a lot of inaccuracies and I can't understand enough of it. If its a chore to read I'm not getting as much from it.

Copyrights can be renewed, of course. And again, in the USA, a copyrighted book, including Bible versions, can be freely quoted from in its intended use. Part of a Bible's intended use is being preached from, which necessarily involves quoting from it. What's prohibited is copying or quoting from it for the purpose of making money.

Undiscoveredcountry2 said:

the KJV has very largely fallen out of use because, on the basis that some Christians care a lot about accurate translations

Click to expand...

Greek, like many Germanic and Romance languages, has both a polite and familiar form for the word "you" (su and umeis, respectively).

The archaic English found in the King James and other old versions also had a similar construct - "ye" for the polite and "thee" for the familiar.

In modern English, though, we have only a single word - "you" - available to translate either of two different Greek words.

So while some of the older vocabulary of the KJV may be less clear than modern English, I don't think that one could argue that more modern translations are necessarily more accurate.

Biblicist2 said:

It's a common misconception that the KJV that people currently use is the 1611 edition as the vast majority now use the 1769 Oxford edition.

There are numerous websites that discuss this where this link might help.

Click to expand...

The KJV edition most-commonly used in the USA is the 1769 Blayney's Edition.

Anyone wanting a repro 0f the original AV 1611 can find it in the Hendrickson edition, which is sold for about $30 in most Christian bookstores & in many Wal-Marts. The main differences in this edition and an original AV 1611 is its physical size and Roman font. (The originals are in Gothic font, much-harder for the average modern reader to make out.)

Dialogist said:

Greek, like many Germanic and Romance languages, has both a polite and familiar form for the word "you" (su and umeis, respectively).

The archaic English found in the King James and other old versions also had a similar construct - "ye" for the polite and "thee" for the familiar.

In modern English, though, we have only a single word - "you" - available to translate either of two different Greek words.

So while some of the older vocabulary of the KJV may be less clear than modern English, I don't think that one could argue that more modern translations are necessarily more accurate.

Click to expand...

Modern versions generally correct several goofs & booboos in the KJV, some of them being "Easter" in Acts 14:4 & "the love of money is THE root of ALL evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10.

Some things I DON'T consider goofs is the mention of unicorns. satyrs, & cockatrices in several places. While WE know those are fictional critters, the translators of the KJV & other English Bibles of that general time period didn't know that, especially since a unicorn is depicted on King James' coat-of-arms.

Originally, a satyr was a hairy billy goat, and the word cameta have several meanings, inclusing the fictional half-man, half-goat associated with the Greek god Pan. I believe the AV translators were referring to a goat.

In the English of 1611, 'cockatrice' was another name for a viper or adder, as well as a fictional super-snake. Several species of vipers & adders inhabit tunnels or dens, so those creatures were what the AV was referring to.

Same for the 'singing turtles' in Song of Solomon 2:12. In 1611, "turtle" was a handle for "turtle dove". The context of usage shows whether 'turtle' meant a bird or a reptile. (The only singing turtles I ever heard were the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and they're not in Scripture!)

I have grown so very fond and attached to the KJV that its the only version I read from.

It is not perfectly accurate to the original Hebrew and Greek language but then which English translation is.

I leery of modern English translations for another reason, that there are scholars subscribing to premillennialism, dispensationalism, and the Rapture doctrine.

I have seen this bias raise its UGLY head in the HCSB and NASB versions of Matthew 24:30 and who know what other modern English translations.

These modern versions say "sign in the sky (ies)" whereas the KJV says "sign in heaven".

Well guess what folks, the KJV is the correct translation, as the Greek word used here is "ouranos" (#3772) the same word Paul used to describe the Third Heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2.

So yes, the KJV is imperfect but it never substitutes the Greek word "ouranos" for English mistranslation. The proper Greek word for sky (ies) is either "aer" (#109, the lowest air) or "messouranema" (#3321, the second heaven).

And given the fact the Greek word used for see is "horao" (#3708, a metaphoric word).

So see, the HCSB and the NASB changed the WHOLE dynamic of Matthew 24:30 with their crappy or biased intentional distortion of this crucial verse. And I don't know how many other modern English translations have mistranslated the Greek into English in Matthew 24:30.

I can't stand the KJV and hate reading articles that quote it... I mean, it's 2015, and I've got a good education but I can't stand all the "thee" "thou" "-eth" that goes on, I think it's absolutely ridiculous to think that the KJV is most accurate. It seems to have been pushed by a select few who have said that the KJV is the most accurate version out there. It's so difficult to understand, my poor brain hurts having to read it at times. I'll take the ESV, TEV, or any other modern translation any day over the KJV. Sorry if this is repeating something someone already said, but it just really frustrates me that in today's society, when we have many other reliable translations out there, we are still foolishly using a horribly outdated version that is difficult to understand. How can we be fully edified and bathed in the Word of God when we don't fully understand what we are reading? Foolishness.

These are really excellent points, I think.

First, please let me clarify: I was not saying that the KJV was the most accurate version available; merely that modern English translations are not necessarily more accurate than the KJV.

Also, in writing about the accuracy of the KJV, I was writing only of the NEW TESTAMENT. It is hard to speak of the "accuracy" of the Old Testament translation in the KJV, since the Masoretic Hebrew text upon which it is based is not, strictly speaking, the "original" Hebrew. Personally, I use the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (usually the Orthodox Study Bible translation). If I am really interested in what the Masoretic Text says, I consult the Oxford Jewish Study Bible.

[Regarding Acts 12:4 (you said 14:4, but I think you made 12:4): The ambiguity only lies outside Greek, I think. When early Jewish Christians began to celebrate what we now call "Easter" in place of Passover, they used the same Greek word to describe the Feast - pascha. Easter in the Orthodox Church today continues to be known as "Pascha" and is called by that name. I am guessing that the KJV translators struggled with this and decided that by the time of Acts 12:4 the Apostles were no strictly Passover the way they had as Jews, and so termed it "Easter" instead of "Passover"].

Phil112 said:

Sure the KJV has a couple of errors, but no doctrinal errors

Click to expand...

Actually, there is at least one doctrinal error in the KJV.

Even when translators get the words right, they still have to punctuate the sentence. The Greek manuscripts not only had no verse numbering, but they also weren't punctuated. There are more than a few commentaries by Chrysostom and other Greek commentators discussing where they should assume the pauses to be.

Punctuating a passage incorrectly can lead to heretical readings. For example, from their commentaries we know that most Greek Church Fathers, and certainly Chrysostom, understood John 5:27-28 to read:


In the 3rd century, however, the heretical Antiochian bishop Paul of Samasota used a different reading of the same passage to support his theology contesting Christ's divinity. Unfortunately, his reading is the one that the KJV translators chose to render:


In the Orthodox interpretation, the passage says that we should not be surprised that the Son has authority to execute judgment because he is also the Son of man. In the heretical interpretation, repeated in the KJV, the passage says that the Father had to give Him the authority because he is the Son of man. John Chrysostom, writing (in Greek) from Constantinople in the late 4th century, explains:


(Paul of Samasota's teaching - known as Paulianism - was condemned by at the 1st Ecumenical Council in 325 and by several local councils before that).

Probably it is an unintentional error and I am not aware of any more like this in KJV, but I thought I would point out that is not strictly true to say that the KJV does not contain any doctrinal errors. It seems, though, that almost all the New Testaments out there contain the same error (e.g. NIV, NASB, Douay-Rheims). The only translation that I am aware of that does not contain the error are is the hyper-literal Orthodox New Testament, translated and edited by a group of schismatic Greek Orthodox nuns in Colorado

1watchman said:

As I have often said: There are errors in all works of man, for no man is perfect, so that is why one needs a Bible that holds to the wording of the Authorized -KJV- Version, and corrects only errors as shown by Bible scholars in the margins and footnotes. That has not and does not happen in all the new books men are printing as God's Word. One should not "throw out the baby with the bathwater" as the saying goes. Most of the new versions often use words which minimize or pervert God's thoughts. As to Bibles for other languages in the world, they should use wording very close to the KJV and make diligent comparisons.

Click to expand...

Rot

random person said:

I have grown so very fond and attached to the KJV that its the only version I read from.

It is not perfectly accurate to the original Hebrew and Greek language but then which English translation is.

I leery of modern English translations for another reason, that there are scholars subscribing to premillennialism, dispensationalism, and the Rapture doctrine.

I have seen this bias raise its UGLY head in the HCSB and NASB versions of Matthew 24:30 and who know what other modern English translations.

These modern versions say "sign in the sky (ies)" whereas the KJV says "sign in heaven".

Well guess what folks, the KJV is the correct translation, as the Greek word used here is "ouranos" (#3772) the same word Paul used to describe the Third Heaven in 2 Corinthians 12:2.

So yes, the KJV is imperfect but it never substitutes the Greek word "ouranos" for English mistranslation. The proper Greek word for sky (ies) is either "aer" (#109, the lowest air) or "messouranema" (#3321, the second heaven).

And given the fact the Greek word used for see is "horao" (#3708, a metaphoric word).

So see, the HCSB and the NASB changed the WHOLE dynamic of Matthew 24:30 with their crappy or biased intentional distortion of this crucial verse. And I don't know how many other modern English translations have mistranslated the Greek into English in Matthew 24:30.

Click to expand...

if you're happy with the KJV, fine, especially as you realize it's not the ONLY valid English Bible translation out there.

However, some dispensationalism is correct. OTOH, preterism is phony as a Chevy Mustang. The prophesied events preterists claim have already occurred, simply...HAVEN'T. They cannot account for them in history.

Dialogist said:

These are really excellent points, I think.

First, please let me clarify: I was not saying that the KJV was the most accurate version available; merely that modern English translations are not necessarily more accurate than the KJV.

Also, in writing about the accuracy of the KJV, I was writing only of the NEW TESTAMENT. It is hard to speak of the "accuracy" of the Old Testament translation in the KJV, since the Masoretic Hebrew text upon which it is based is not, strictly speaking, the "original" Hebrew. Personally, I use the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (usually the Orthodox Study Bible translation). If I am really interested in what the Masoretic Text says, I consult the Oxford Jewish Study Bible.

[Regarding Acts 12:4 (you said 14:4, but I think you made 12:4): The ambiguity only lies outside Greek, I think. When early Jewish Christians began to celebrate what we now call "Easter" in place of Passover, they used the same Greek word to describe the Feast - pascha. Easter in the Orthodox Church today continues to be known as "Pascha" and is called by that name. I am guessing that the KJV translators struggled with this and decided that by the time of Acts 12:4 the Apostles were no strictly Passover the way they had as Jews, and so termed it "Easter" instead of "Passover"].

Click to expand...

JESUS is quoting as using the same word, 'pascha', for passover. Did Jesus observe Easter?

Easter didn't exist when Luke wrote 'Acts', and if it had, no Orthodox Jew, nor Herod, woulda observed it. The truth is, Herod was waiting for passover to end before turning Peter over to the Jews, as he knew the Jews wouldn't deal with Peter during passover.

"If any man come unto me and hate not his wife, he cannot be my disciple." {Luke 14:26 KJV}
"If you want to be my follower you must love me more than your wife. Otherwise you cannot be my disciple." {Luke 14:26 NLT}

My wife says the King James is a bad translation here.

Armoured said:

Ummm... is this accurate? Don't copyrights expire after, iirc, 50 yers? That's why there's no copyright on Shakespeare, wouldn't the KJV be similar?

Click to expand...

The English Crown does indeed hold the copyright in the United Kingdom (incl. Cambridge and Oxford, as well as Scotland, etc.)
That copyright protection does not exist outside the UK, so for the United States the KJV is in the public domain. The reason that particular copyright in the UK remains in force is "royal prerogative", despite the fact that 1988 legislation abolished "copyright in perpetuity". As for the "No Bible version is published to NOT make money", that is a reason in part behind why KJV is still widely printed in the US. No royalties, more profit!

actionsub said:

The English Crown does indeed hold the copyright in the United Kingdom (incl. Cambridge and Oxford, as well as Scotland, etc.)
That copyright protection does not exist outside the UK, so for the United States the KJV is in the public domain. The reason that particular copyright in the UK remains in force is "royal prerogative", despite the fact that 1988 legislation abolished "copyright in perpetuity". As for the "No Bible version is published to NOT make money", that is a reason in part behind why KJV is still widely printed in the US. No royalties, more profit!

Click to expand...

TIL