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

Gregory Thompson · 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?

I find it best if people apply what is written not just read it.

I use the KJV, but just because the interlinear bible I use has it has a base english text. If I don't understand a word I just double click on the number for the greek or hebrew word and that gives a better idea.

I don't mind using other translations, but using an electronic bible with the strongs numbers in it gives a number of different possible translations - it's better than an amplified version in a way.

by applying the different possible meanings, you discover which consistently has the best fruit.

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

What does this mean..?

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"?

Albion · Apr 9, 2020

I like your answer, Michael. I so often hear that the KJV uses words that we don't understand today. Yeh, maybe once in awhile. And that we "solve" by looking it up. Oh no, say the critics. That would be asking too much of us! And these are people who spend half their days using Google Search for something or other. :doh:

Gregory Thompson · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
What does this mean..?

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"?

At first glance.

However, when you are called, go and sit down in the lowest room. So when he that invited you arrives - he will be able to say to you, "friend, sit at a higher seat:" then you will have respect in the presence of them that sit to eat with you.

I could do a strongs click-a-thon and do a meditation, but not really moved to at the moment.

Original Happy Camper · 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?

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

Because of Hort and Westcott

Gregory Thompson · Apr 9, 2020

Albion said:
I like your answer, Michael. I so often hear that the KJV uses words that we don't understand today. Yeh, maybe once in awhile. And that we "solve" by looking it up. Oh no, say the critics. That would be asking too much of us! And these are people who spend half their days using Google Search for something or other.

Google search is helpful sometimes, because I memorized passages in a number of translations. However, if it's an NIV I'm remembering - it's like the NIV doesn't say that anymore - so going to the root is always better.

JM · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
What does this mean..?

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"?

Why kick against the pricks?

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

Michael Collum said:
At first glance.

However, when you are called, go and sit down in the lowest room. So when he that invited you arrives - he will be able to say to you, "friend, sit at a higher seat:" then you will have respect in the presence of them that sit to eat with you.

I could do a strongs click-a-thon and do a meditation, but not really moved to at the moment.

Why does this passage need to be "translated" into modern English? Answer: because its meaning is not clear to those of us who live today and speak 21st Century English. The KJV language is beautiful, but easily misunderstood. That is the primary purpose of starting this thread. Without question, most people are not qualified to convert 17th Century English into the language we speak/read today. See post #4 of this thread as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

pescador · Apr 9, 2020

JM said:
Why kick against the pricks?

Do you think that's what the passage means? BTW whom are you referring to when you say "pricks"?

Seriously, the phrase in Acts 9:5 is not in most modern translations. It doesn't appear in the most reliable source documents; a perfect example of what this thread is about.

tulc · Apr 9, 2020

I read KJV because I like it.

tulc(thinks the best version is the one you like to read)

Blade · Apr 9, 2020

Sorry this just gets to silly for me. Well you didn't give the other side for why? If you searched this out then you know about those verses and why some of those words were used. And any translation.. which comes closes to the org Hebrew and Greek? Kjv. And for me who doesn't look up how it was org translated now.

Take another verse you asked .. from the start what does that word mean "verb a past participle of bid1.
adjective invited.

JIMINZ · Apr 9, 2020

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

Mainly because it is the very best of the Bibles which are available today.

It is also easy to read, anyone saying is is difficult, or confusing must have a learning problem.

the KJV was used for hundreds of years and unlearned peasants in the Old World got Saved, but today when we have the availability of all sorts of Helps, it becomes more important to find a Bible which is easier to read.

I have a 9th grade formal education, and a GED High School Equivalency.

I asked God to help me understand His Bible because He had it written and if He did not then I would not know what He wanted me to know, He then immediately gave me comprehension through the Power of The Holy Spirit.

If anyone is not understanding then, they are missing an important ingredient for that understanding.

Can I get an Amen? :amen:

jacks · Apr 9, 2020

I always enjoy the KJV of the Psalms. Below is Psalms 23 in the KJV and then the NET version. I just find the KJV more beautiful. However, like OldWiseGuy said, "The best version is the one you will read."

King James Version (KJV)
The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
5 Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
6 Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever.

New English Translation (NET Bible)
The Lord is my shepherd,
I lack nothing.
2 He takes me to lush pastures,
he leads me to refreshing water.
3 He restores my strength.
He leads me down[g] the right paths
for the sake of his reputation.
4 Even when I must walk through the darkest valley,
I fear no danger,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff reassure me.
5 You prepare a feast before me
in plain sight of my enemies.
You refresh my head with oil;
my cup is completely full.
6 Surely your goodness and faithfulness will pursue me all my days,
and I will live in the Lord’s house for the rest of my life.

Gregory Thompson · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
Why does this passage need to be "translated" into modern English? Answer: because its meaning is not clear to those of us who live today and speak 21st Century English. The KJV language is beautiful, but easily misunderstood. That is the primary purpose of starting this thread. Without question, most people are not qualified to convert 17th Century English into the language we speak/read today. See post #4 of this thread as a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

One way of looking at it is, since there's already a 2 millennia cultural divide - an easily understood translation may be too glossy to get to the heart of the matter.

English in and of itself is not really compatible with other languages, so the modern translations will later become dated and so on and so forth - and the translators are not going to tell us which variant they chose to use and why when translating, so being able to see what something says regardless of how it is phrased is kind of important.

JM · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
Do you think that's what the passage means? BTW whom are you referring to when you say "pricks"?

Seriously, the phrase in Acts 9:5 is not in most modern translations. It doesn't appear in the most reliable source documents; a perfect example of what this thread is about.

I was having a laugh by using another difficult passage. "kicking against the pricks" refers to the goads used to spur on stubborn animals. Most of the KJV's I own have notes explaining difficult words, if not in the side column, in a KJV dictionary at the back.

The issue of "missing verses" has more to do with the manuscripts which underlay the translation you use. Modern translations are based on eclectic texts, meaning scholars piece together the Greek NT and translate it. Guys like Bart Ehrman will tell you, “there is always a degree of doubt, an element of subjectivity.” Kurt Aland declares that the latest Text of the United Bible Societies is “not a static entity” and “every change in it is open to challenge.” G. Zuntz admits that “the optimism of the earlier editors has given way to that scepticism which inclines towards regarding ‘the original text’ as an unattainable mirage.” So, for some folks it's a matter of reliability...the KJV doesn't change. Dr. Daniel Wallace is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and is considered an expert in ancient biblical Greek and New Testament criticism. In a blog post about the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature he wrote,

“As remarkable as it may sound, most biblical scholars are not Christians. I don’t know the exact numbers, but my guess is that between 60% and 80% of the members of SBL do not believe that Jesus’ death paid for our sins, or that he was bodily raised from the dead."

So modern translations are based on changing underlying manuscripts that are pieced together by unorthodox Christians.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

OldWiseGuy · Apr 9, 2020

pescador said:
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.

You have challenged the spiritual value of the KJV. Expect some of us to defend it.

OldWiseGuy · Apr 9, 2020

Albion said:
I like your answer, Michael. I so often hear that the KJV uses words that we don't understand today. Yeh, maybe once in awhile. And that we "solve" by looking it up. Oh no, say the critics. That would be asking too much of us! And these are people who spend half their days using Google Search for something or other.

And once you look it up you remember it forever.

coffee4u · Apr 9, 2020

Many reasons have already been given, but along with it being one of the oldest versions that we can easily get our hands on, it's best to have numerous translations so that you can check across versions. Being able to compare across the Old Kings James, New King James and the NIV or some other version gives a fuller deeper reading. The OKJ has the rich language while the modern wording helps more with understanding certain passages.
Some people advocate for the KJV only, which I also think is a mistake as there are some words that have changed meaning, and a few which have been better translated in newer versions.
Then there is the issue of some of the very newest versions being corrupt. NEW BIBLE TEXT MAKES GOD MALE AND FEMALE

OldWiseGuy · Apr 10, 2020

Young's Literal Translation might be the best, and is a good reference work, but the prose isn't very appealing. I do like the way Genesis 3:12 is translated however.

faroukfarouk · Apr 10, 2020

@coffee4u I do really like to do my main reading in English in the KJV...

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

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Wise old man

Facilitator

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

One of GODS Children I am a historicist

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Augsburg Catholic

Wise old man

Wise old man

loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Er Victus

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Augsburg Catholic

Wake me when it's soup.

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

Wake me when it's soup.

Fading curmudgeon

Similar threads