Why do people still use the "King James" Bible?

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

I have been using my time "sheltering" at home to read the Bible extensively, using several translations: the NIV, the NRSV, and the NET. All of them are excellent and written to be clearly understood in today's English.

The thought occurred to me: why do people still use the "King James" Bible? It was translated into English over 400 years ago and was based on questionable sources by today's standards. There is no question that the English is beautiful, but that is not in concert with the way the source documents were written. The "books" were written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic (the language that Jesus spoke), and Koine Greek, the common languages of the times. None of the original texts were written in some archaic language.

The King James is not written in the common English language used today; in fact, it's just the opposite. Do people feel some sort of pseudo-holiness when they read it? Why do some people regard it alone as "God's word" and criticize those better, more modern, more accurate translations? Is there some fallacious belief that the Lord wants His word to be difficult to understand and open to all kinds of misinterpretations?

Does anyone believe that Luke actually this wrote in the language of his day:
But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee"? Isn't the meaning far clearer to people living today when translated as "But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests."?

Or Deuteronomy 13:17, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." Unicorns? Really? ("Unicorn" is also mentioned elsewhere in the KJV)

Do people really believe that when Jesus spoke to thousands of people, he spoke in a language that was not easily understood?

Of course, there many more examples of why the King James Bible is a flawed translation that is totally unlike the source documents. So why do people rigidly adhere to its use?

OldWiseGuy · Apr 9, 2020

Because of the beauty of the prose, and because of the companion Hebrew/Greek dictionary and Concordance. But mainly because this version is the primary translation inspired by God and given to the descendants of Israel for the establishment of the new covenant church.

Modern versions are good for the reason you gave but the KJV is superior to all others both for general use and for deeper understanding.

HTacianas · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
I have been using my time "sheltering" at home to read the Bible extensively, using several translations: the NIV, the NRSV, and the NET. All of them are excellent and written to be clearly understood in today's English.

The thought occurred to me: why do people still use the "King James" Bible? It was translated into English over 400 years ago and was based on questionable sources by today's standards. There is no question that the English is beautiful, but that is not in concert with the way the source documents were written. The "books" were written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic (the language that Jesus spoke), and Koine Greek, the common languages of the times. None of the original texts were written in some archaic language.

The King James is not written in the common English language used today; in fact, it's just the opposite. Do people feel some sort of pseudo-holiness when they read it? Why do some people regard it alone as "God's word" and criticize those better, more modern, more accurate translations? Is there some fallacious belief that the Lord wants His word to be difficult to understand and open to all kinds of misinterpretations?

Does anyone believe that Luke actually this wrote in the language of his day:
But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee"? Isn't the meaning far clearer to people living today when translated as "But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests."?

Or Deuteronomy 13:17, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." Unicorns? Really? ("Unicorn" is also mentioned elsewhere in the KJV)

Do people really believe that when Jesus spoke to thousands of people, he spoke in a language that was not easily understood?

Of course, there many more examples of why the King James Bible is a flawed translation that is totally unlike the source documents. So why do people rigidly adhere to its use?

It is simply their tradition. It's the bible they "grew up on" or the bible of their parents, etc. They see the KJV as the standard and are reluctant to change. Oddly though, the KJV only extends back a few generations. Prior to that it wasn't widely used.

Mantishand · Apr 9, 2020

Isaiah 32:5-8 King James Version (KJV)
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful

The newer translations do not call the vile person a liberal. I always get flamed for this but I don’t care. American liberals for the most part support abortion, gay marriage and are generally anti Christian.

Arcangl86 · Apr 9, 2020

Mantishand said:
Isaiah 32:5-8 King James Version (KJV)
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful

The newer translations do not call the vile person a liberal. I always get flamed for this but I don’t care. American liberals for the most part support abortion, gay marriage and are generally anti Christian.

They mean liberal in the sense of generous. The meaning of the word has changed, which is why newer translations don't use it.

OldWiseGuy · Apr 9, 2020

King James Bible

"We have had to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line; and the longer we have been engaged upon it the more we have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, its general accuracy, and, we must not fail to add, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm."

Hank77 · Apr 9, 2020

Mantishand said:
Isaiah 32:5-8 King James Version (KJV)
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful

The newer translations do not call the vile person a liberal. I always get flamed for this but I don’t care. American liberals for the most part support abortion, gay marriage and are generally anti Christian.

In Hebrew the word translated as "liberal" actually means noble or generous. This is exactly why liberals have been described as "bleeding heart liberals."

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
Because of the beauty of the prose, and because of the companion Hebrew/Greek dictionary and Concordance. But mainly because this version is the primary translation inspired by God and given to the descendants of Israel for the establishment of the new covenant church.

Modern versions are good for the reason you gave but the KJV is superior to all others both for general use and for deeper understanding.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "this version is the primary translation inspired by God and given to the descendants of Israel for the establishment of the new covenant church."

What do you mean by the "primary translation", when there were English translations prior to the KJV? The first English translations of Psalms (1530), Isaiah (1531), Proverbs (1533), Ecclesiastes (1533), Jeremiah (1534) and Lamentations (1534), were executed by the Protestant Bible translator George Joye in Antwerp. In 1535, 76 years before the "Authorized Version", Myles Coverdale published the first complete English Bible also in Antwerp. The most popular translation of the bible prior to the King James Version was the Geneva Bible, published in 1560. King James' authorization was the only reason why the KJV was so popular for so many years instead of the Geneva Bible. King James gave the royal stamp of approval to the version that put his interpretation as the best, while removing helpful explanatory footnotes.

I and many others disagree that "the KJV is superior to all others both for general use and for deeper understanding". That is your opinion only.

Also, your saying "this version is the primary translation inspired by God and given to the descendants of Israel for the establishment of the new covenant church" doesn't square with history. The original "descendants of Israel" existed many centuries before 1611, and the church existed long, long before its publication. The new covenant was established when Jesus shed his blood on the cross in (approximately) 33 CE.

JM · Apr 9, 2020

I have used the Authorized Version by entire Christian life and I even raised my children on it. They didn't have any issues with the language. The translation has a lyrical quality to it, the Psalms just don't sound right to me unless they are KJV and yes, I pray them often. Just this morning I prayed through Psalm 119 thanking God the entire time. I have over 30 Bibles, most of them are KJV but recently I've been using the CSB app on my phone and it's okay. Reminds me of the old NIV when it was good. I've found the modern translations often lack reverence, that's just my opinion of course, but the NKJV is a nice alternative.

The last few days I've been using my Reformation Study Bible NKJV. If I'm not mistaken Dr. Sproul thought it was a good idea to have the old type manuscripts (Majority, Byzantine, Textus Receptus) to continue to be represented in the modern world of Bible translations.

The Pastor of the church I'm a member of preaches from the AV and we all follow along in whatever translation we want. Most of us still prefer the KJV. When I witness to people who were raised outside of the church, it has been my experience, they accept the KJV translation as authoritative. More often than not I'm challenged with, "yeah, that's what your translation says but is that in the King James?" I then tell them this is the KJV. This allows us to continue the convo.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

OldWiseGuy · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
I don't understand what you mean when you say "this version is the primary translation inspired by God and given to the descendants of Israel for the establishment of the new covenant church."

What do you mean by the "primary translation", when there were English translations prior to the KJV? The first English translations of Psalms (1530), Isaiah (1531), Proverbs (1533), Ecclesiastes (1533), Jeremiah (1534) and Lamentations (1534), were executed by the Protestant Bible translator George Joye in Antwerp. In 1535, 76 years before the "Authorized Version", Myles Coverdale published the first complete English Bible also in Antwerp. The most popular translation of the bible prior to the King James Version was the Geneva Bible, published in 1560. King James' authorization was the only reason why the KJV was so popular for so many years instead of the Geneva Bible. King James gave the royal stamp of approval to the version that put his interpretation as the best, while removing helpful explanatory footnotes.

I and many others disagree that "the KJV is superior to all others both for general use and for deeper understanding". That is your opinion only.

Also, your saying "this version is the primary translation inspired by God and given to the descendants of Israel for the establishment of the new covenant church" doesn't square with history. The original "descendants of Israel" existed many centuries before 1611, and the church existed long, long before its publication. The new covenant was established when Jesus shed his blood on the cross in (approximately) 33 CE.

The KJV changed the church and changed the world.

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

Mantishand said:
Isaiah 32:5-8 King James Version (KJV)
5 The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful

The newer translations do not call the vile person a liberal. I always get flamed for this but I don’t care. American liberals for the most part support abortion, gay marriage and are generally anti Christian.

Even though this is entirely off-topic -- it should be posted in a political forum -- a better translation is...

"No longer will the fool be called noble
nor the scoundrel be highly respected."

Isaiah continues, "For fools speak folly,
their hearts are bent on evil:
They practice ungodliness
and spread error concerning the Lord;
the hungry they leave empty
and from the thirsty they withhold water.
Scoundrels use wicked methods,
they make up evil schemes
to destroy the poor with lies,
even when the plea of the needy is just.
But the noble make noble plans,
and by noble deeds they stand.
to destroy the poor with lies..."
even when the plea of the needy is just.
But the noble make noble plans,
and by noble deeds they stand."

Your personal political views don't mean a lot here. The use of "liberals" meant something entirely different 409 years ago, which proves my point: the KJV is easily misunderstood and shouldn't be used out-of-context in today's world. BTW, have you seen any unicorns lately?

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
The KJV changed the church and changed the world.

Fine. But I really think that Jesus, not the KJV, changed the "church" and changed the world. And he didn't do that in 1611.

Just because the KJV was the most influential Bible centuries ago does not mean it's the best translation.

Albion · Apr 9, 2020

HTacianas said:
Oddly though, the KJV only extends back a few generations. Prior to that it wasn't widely used.

Wasn't widely used by whom? If you mean not by Eastern Orthodox churches, I get it. But it was always the standard in Protestant churches.

Anyway, it's already been mentioned that the claim that the KJV isn't understandable by moderns is overrated as a consideration, so what's left? While there may be a sort of romance attached to the beauty of the KJV, the opposite is true of most of the newer translations.

I keep a copy of a couple of them just to see how that kind of translation looks when some issue arises. But even the highly-respected NIV causes my soul to freeze over when I'm reading that dumbed-down, starkly matter-of-fact, paraphrase of the elegant King James Version.

I've gotten carried away, so please accept my apologies for doing that. :sorry:

OldWiseGuy · Apr 9, 2020

A must read for this discussion.

How the King James Bible changed the world

OldWiseGuy · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
Fine. But I really think that Jesus, not the KJV, changed the "church" and changed the world. And he didn't do that in 1611.

Just because the KJV was the most influential Bible centuries ago does not mean it's the best translation.

The 'best' one is the one you will read.

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

Albion said:
Wasn't widely used by whom? If you mean not by Eastern Orthodox churches, I get it. But it was always the standard in Protestant churches.

Anyway, it's already been mentioned that the claim that the KJV isn't understandable by moderns is overrated as a consideration, so what's left? While there may be a sort of romance attached to the beauty of the KJV, the opposite is true of most of the newer translations.

I keep a copy of a couple of them just to see how that kind of translation looks when some issue arises. But even the highly-respected NIV causes my soul to freeze over when I'm reading that dumbed-down, starkly matter-of-fact, paraphrase of the elegant King James Version.

I've gotten carried away, so please accept my apologies for doing that.

It was most definitely not "always the standard in Protestant churches". The Protestant church was founded long before the KJV was published...

Protestantism began in Germany in 1517, almost a century before the KJV was published, when Martin Luther published his Ninety-five Theses as a reaction against abuses in the sale of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church, which purported to offer the remission of the temporal punishment of sins to their purchasers.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with being "carried away". I am thankful for everyone who expresses their opinion, whether I agree with it or not. 8^)

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

OldWiseGuy said:
A must read for this discussion.

How the King James Bible changed the world

It's an interesting article but off topic. It says nothing about the accuracy of its translation from unreliable sources or its derivation from older English Bibles.

Albion · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
It was most definitely not "always the standard in Protestant churches". The Protestant church was founded long before the KJV was published...

All right. I will amend my wording just for you to have it say the obvious. Since the time of its publication, it was the standard in Protestant churches. That's almost 400 years running and sufficient to dispute the idea that it has been so for only "a few generations."

And if a strict accuracy is to be the rule here, there is no "the Protestant church."

SkyWriting · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
I have been using my time "sheltering" at home to read the Bible extensively, using several translations: the NIV, the NRSV, and the NET. All of them are excellent and written to be clearly understood in today's English.

The thought occurred to me: why do people still use the "King James" Bible? It was translated into English over 400 years ago and was based on questionable sources by today's standards. There is no question that the English is beautiful, but that is not in concert with the way the source documents were written. The "books" were written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic (the language that Jesus spoke), and Koine Greek, the common languages of the times. None of the original texts were written in some archaic language.

The King James is not written in the common English language used today; in fact, it's just the opposite. Do people feel some sort of pseudo-holiness when they read it? Why do some people regard it alone as "God's word" and criticize those better, more modern, more accurate translations? Is there some fallacious belief that the Lord wants His word to be difficult to understand and open to all kinds of misinterpretations?

Does anyone believe that Luke actually this wrote in the language of his day:
But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when
he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher:
then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat
with thee"? Isn't the meaning far clearer to people living today when translated as "But when you are invited, take the lowest place, so that when your host comes, he will say to you, ‘Friend, move up to a better place.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all the other guests."?

Or Deuteronomy 13:17, "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh." Unicorns? Really? ("Unicorn" is also mentioned elsewhere in the KJV)

Do people really believe that when Jesus spoke to thousands of people, he spoke in a language that was not easily understood?

Of course, there many more examples of why the King James Bible is a flawed translation that is totally unlike the source documents. So why do people rigidly adhere to its use?

It's a human desire to have an "insider" language. Nearly every social group has a specialized language that keeps the "club" or social group both together and seperated from the general public. I'm sure there are theories why this is universal.

JM · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
It was most definitely not "always the standard in Protestant churches". The Protestant church was founded long before the KJV was published...

Protestantism began in Germany in 1517, almost a century before the KJV was published, when Martin Luther published his Ninety-five Theses as a reaction against abuses in the sale of indulgences by the Roman Catholic Church, which purported to offer the remission of the temporal punishment of sins to their purchasers.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with being "carried away". I am thankful for everyone who expresses their opinion, whether I agree with it or not. 8^)

The KJV was an improvement on older translations and the translators purpose was not, "to make a new translation...but to make a good one better." For English speaking Protestants the KJV was the standard. It replaced the Geneva Bible rather quickly at that.

Why do people still use the "King James" Bible?

Wise old man

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Newbie

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

Augsburg Catholic

Wake me when it's soup.

Wise old man

Wise old man

Facilitator

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Wise old man

Wise old man

Facilitator

The Librarian

Augsburg Catholic

Similar threads