King James Version - How Often?

How Often Do You Use the King James Version?

  • I am KJV Only.

  • I am KJV Preferred.

  • I use KJV, but it isn't my favorite.

  • I never use KJV.

  • It doesn't matter to me -- a Bible is a Bible.


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

SummaScriptura

Forever Newbie
May 30, 2007
6,984
1,050
Scam Francisco
Visit site
✟49,219.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
"I use KJV, but it isn't my favorite."

That does not answer the question you posed as "how often" though.

Truth is, I find myself using the KJV more and more.

Just today I was reading a post by Murjahel in another thread and dicovered the KJV preserves the many references in the O.T. to "Belial".

Modern translations give the interpretive meaning of this word rather than preserving it as a pronoun. A similar practice would be to take every refence to Jerusalem in the Bible and translate it "city of peace", lame dontcha think?

I have been reading the Dead Sea Scrolls in which the title "Belial" surfaces repeatedly. I found that weird and wondered if that were something sectarian. Turns out modern translators of the O.T. may be more sectarian than the writers of the DSS!
 
Upvote 0

WannaWitness

Shining God's Light for a Lost World.
Aug 31, 2004
19,072
4,909
50
✟149,993.00
Faith
Christian
Politics
US-Others
This was only my first poll at the time I made it, and didn't exactly know how to phrase what I was meaning, which was basically the use of KJV along with other versions. Maybe it would have helped if I added "Other" to the list (or maybe I shouldn't have created the poll at all).

Moderators have my permission to close this thread whenever they so desire.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Izdaari Eristikon

Well-Known Member
Mar 12, 2007
6,174
447
69
Post Falls, Idaho
✟32,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Married
I own many translations, but I very seldom use my KJV. It's among my least favorite translations. I just keep it around for completeness of collection, and in case I want to compare how the KJV translates a passage. I voted 4, do not use... though I actually do, just rarely.

HCSB, ESV, TNIV and NLT are my favorites, but I don't mind NIV, NRSV, NKJV, NASB and several others.
 
Upvote 0

No_More_Carrots

Living Life
Oct 7, 2008
19
3
Ohio, USA
Visit site
✟15,154.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I believe KJV is as valid a translation as any other modern translation. If you have a parallel you can see that both translations mean the same with slightly different words or phrasing.

I used to manage a christian bookstore and I had several customers that were quite adamant about KJV being the ONLY true Bible and actually getting hostile if I commented to the contrary.

I have heard that some modern versions like NIV have left out certain verses that are found in KJV. The reason for this is not understood, but this is one of the reasons for KJV ONLY folks. The same, however, can be said for KJV, which also is missing some verses found in NIV and others. I don't know what the specific verses are, but there is a list out there. It might have something to do with the original texts used for translations, etc.

In my opinion, the missing verses don't change the mission or message of Christ, which is most important. Thanks for listening.
 
Upvote 0

Knight

Knight of the Cross
Apr 11, 2002
3,395
117
50
Indiana
Visit site
✟4,472.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I occassionaly use the KJV but more for reading the elegant language than serious study. I have studied the issues at length and am convinced that the modern translations are created from more accurate texts.

However, I do appreciate the KJV for its endurance as a translation and the inherent beauty of the language. Not to mention the clear gospel message available in the KJV as well as NIV, NAS, ESV, etc...
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟10,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I know there are other threads regarding Bible translations, but I believe this one is a little different, focusing on the use of the King James Bible along with the use of other translations. This is the first time I've created a poll, so please bear with me.

Options are basically as follows:

1. KJV Only.
2. KJV Preferred (but will use at least one other translation as
secondary).
3. Highly appreciate KJV, but do not call it a favorite.
4. Won't use KJV at all.
5. Don't have a preference.
There's an option missing:

'Appreciate KJV, but do not call it a favorite.'

So those who use the KJV as a tool like any other chosen translation, which one would suppose is the default condition, are forced to opt for 4. or be disfranchised.
 
Upvote 0

calluna

Regular Member
Apr 23, 2008
2,237
114
✟10,394.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Private
I believe KJV is as valid a translation as any other modern translation.
The language of the KJV may technically be modern (though there are grounds for classifying it as Late Middle English, rather than Early Modern), but the KJV itself cannot really be described as modern, any more than a vintage car can be described as modern. There may well be things done on the vintage car that are better done than on a modern car, but few people would actually choose to drive one for getting things done practically. It needs to be said very firmly that any translation is simply not countenanced by any serious student, for study. Just try quoting a translation in support of an interpretation among theologians, and you won't be taken seriously again- ever, probably. Even serious students use translations to locate and point up references, etc.; but the KJV is very rarely used even for that. The 'standard' translation for many theological institutions is the RSV; also the ASV, with its improved word order, with some of the most recent versions now getting adopted. But those are only for new students finding their way around, not for anything meaty.

Of course there is the serious matter of personal use and use in public. It may well be that there the use of the KJV is analogous to using a vintage car. The chrome is deep and wonderful, the leatherwork looks classy, but for going shopping, well, maybe not. Those seats are hard, after all, and the suspension, well, keeps one in suspense- but then some of us are masochists, preferring to swim in molasses rather than water, and to make a 'cold shower' virtue of the KJV!

But whatever our personal preferences, we may be short-changed by the KJV, even in private devotions. The reason for this is that the KJV is four hundred years old, and much has changed since it was first published. The KJV's translators (and they did not actually translate much, but largely made an approved compilation from existing translations) did not even know that the Greek used in the NT was koine, not classical. Many more, many earlier Greek manuscripts have been discovered, and intense scientific study has produced almost unanimous agreement as to the actual autographs of the NT (the only dissenters being supporters of the KJV, as it happens). Research into extra-Scriptural koine has produced worthwhile improvements in our knowledge of verb usages and idiomatic expressions. The meanings of many Hebrew words and phrases have been elucidated by archaeology and comparative study.

Even sixty years ago, the KJV was the 'steam Bible', an old war-horse that had finally reached retirement, and, in the view of many scholars who had expressed their dissatisfaction, had been kept in harness far too long. Here is the Preface to the RSV, itself superannuated on the shelves of many, which, after expressing the 'incalculable debt' owed to the old version, admits that:

'... the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.'

So those who use the KJV as 'God's Word' are in some cases, unwittingly no doubt, reading the fumbling words of man only. That is not to say that modern published translations are acceptable, because they are not- not so much because they have defective scholarship, but because they show modern 'adaptations' to modern fashions of men. But then the KJV and its contemporaries show influence of the religious fashions of their day, also, and one might at least eliminate the honest errors.

At any rate, KJV users might take due note that, for one thing, their chosen version has no name properly given to it; and for another, that the name popularly given to it, that pertaining to a secular and worldly monarch known for persecution of believers, may be of more significance than is generally realised.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.