Reading the KJV

[GraceC]

Hello all,
I've been using the KJV and enjoying it but I'm starting to wonder if I'm doing myself a disservice. When I look up an unfamiliar word or scripture that I don't understand I frequently find that after my research the scripture basically says or means what is in a modern version. I'm starting to wonder if I should cut out the "middle man" so to speak or stick with the KJV. I do agree and believe that the texts the KJV are based on are the most accurate and I'm not a CT fan but wondering if I should compromise.

 

[St_Worm2]

Hello all,
I've been using the KJV and enjoying it but I'm starting to wonder if I'm doing myself a disservice. When I look up an unfamiliar word or scripture that I don't understand I frequently find that after my research the scripture basically says or means what is in a modern version. I'm starting to wonder if I should cut out the "middle man" so to speak or stick with the KJV. I do agree and believe that the texts the KJV are based on are the most accurate and I'm not a CT fan but wondering if I should compromise.

Hi GraceC, I use the KJV, but I also use the NASB, ESV, NIV84, NKJV, NLT, and HCSB regularly (the NASB has become the translation I look to first however). Why not use the AV + at least one or two others when you study.

For daily reading I would recommend a modern translation. If you love the KJV, why not use the NKJV instead (which is much easier to comprehend as you are reading along)?

--David

 

[Iosias]

I use the NLT and NRSV

 

[EGordo]

swordbible.org Has an KJV study bible that I use that shows all the archaic words with their meanings. The first bible I bought when I converted last year and it's probably going to remain my go-to bible. It has everything I need.

 

[ebedmelech]

Hello all,
I've been using the KJV and enjoying it but I'm starting to wonder if I'm doing myself a disservice. When I look up an unfamiliar word or scripture that I don't understand I frequently find that after my research the scripture basically says or means what is in a modern version. I'm starting to wonder if I should cut out the "middle man" so to speak or stick with the KJV. I do agree and believe that the texts the KJV are based on are the most accurate and I'm not a CT fan but wondering if I should compromise.

Do yourself a favor Grace, buy a parallel bible with the KJV and whichever modern translation you like. That should help.

Also no...the KJV is NOT based on the most accurate manuscript evidence. There were many manuscripts found after the KJV was translated. Primarily the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I don't wnat to persude you either way though. Do yourself a favor and do the research yourself.

1. You'll learn a lot.

2. You will gain knowledge and edification.

3. Your doubts will be erased.

I did it back in 1990...best thing I ever did...

 

[childofdust]

Hello all,
I've been using the KJV and enjoying it but I'm starting to wonder if I'm doing myself a disservice. When I look up an unfamiliar word or scripture that I don't understand I frequently find that after my research the scripture basically says or means what is in a modern version. I'm starting to wonder if I should cut out the "middle man" so to speak or stick with the KJV. I do agree and believe that the texts the KJV are based on are the most accurate and I'm not a CT fan but wondering if I should compromise.

My advice: dump the KJV. As a translator of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament, I am continually shocked and astounded at how bad a translation the KJV is. I am literally finding a verse EVERY DAY that the KJV gets wrong. That doesn't mean other translations will always be better, but it does mean that you're setting your expectations way too low. And your faith may suffer for it.

Sure, no one is going to "lose their salvation" by using a KJV. And, sure, God may work in valid ways through it, but what was the best 400 years ago is not the best anymore. Why settle for something that has long been surpassed? This is the bible. Go for the best!

 

[CredoBiblicist]

I would say continue to use it but also invest in a NKJV. It updates the language yet is still based on the same more reliable manuscripts.

Many on here will tell you it's based on a less reliable textual line. What they won't tell you is the textual line they say is better is based on very few manuscripts and they assume they are better just because they are older.

 

[Iosias]

What they won't tell you is the textual line they say is better is based on very few manuscripts and they assume they are better just because they are older.

It's a bit more complicated than that Try The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman.

 

[CredoBiblicist]

It's a bit more complicated than that Try The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman.

Of course, it's a very complex issue, I was just simplifying it. I believe the Byzantine textual line is the most reliable. Metzger while very knowledgeable was also a flaming liberal. At least not to the extent of Westcott and Hort though.

 

[Iosias]

Of course, it's a very complex issue, I was just simplifying it. I believe the Byzantine textual line is the most reliable. Metzger while very knowledgeable was also a flaming liberal. At least not to the extent of Westcott and Hort though.

Well if he was a liberal he must be wrong

 

[Anto9us]

Metzger, Westcort and Hort were "flaming liberals"?

Never heard that one before.

I did hear that King James was a flaming homosexual - history bears that out.

That doesn't mean the KJV is "not good" - but to say it is "from the best manuscripts" flies in the face of biblical scholarship.

 

[ebia]

Metzger, Westcort and Hort were "flaming liberals"?

Never heard that one before

"Liberal", in this sense, is a blanket insult that translates as "anyone I disagree with".

 

[ebia]

Hello all,
I've been using the KJV and enjoying it but I'm starting to wonder if I'm doing myself a disservice. When I look up an unfamiliar word or scripture that I don't understand I frequently find that after my research the scripture basically says or means what is in a modern version. I'm starting to wonder if I should cut out the "middle man" so to speak or stick with the KJV. I do agree and believe that the texts the KJV are based on are the most accurate and I'm not a CT fan but wondering if I should compromise.

The danger is not the words you know you don't know, but the words, phrases, etc that have more subtly shifted in their meaning. Plus the fact that it just isn't that crash-hot a translation and had its own agenda (the service of the established Chruch of England of the day), and its artificially "high" English is not faithful to the original languages - Tyndale was faithful to the original down-to-earth nature of the scriptures but the KJ threw that away. We now have better original language texts, a better understanding of what those texts meant, and we speak a different language.

 

[IndyEllis]

"Liberal", in this sense, is a blanket insult that translates as "anyone I disagree with".

“Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”

~ George Carlin

Similarly anyone left of oneself (socially, politically, theologically or whatever)is a "liberal." Anyone way left of oneself is a "flaming liberal."

Anyone right of oneself is a "right-winger" and anyone way right of oneself is a "right-wing nutter."

Everyone, in his or her own mind, is a centrist.

Fully reasonable and rational in one's own high-held opinion of self.

 

[IndyEllis]

The danger is not the words you know you don't know, but the words, phrases, etc that have more subtly shifted in their meaning. Plus the fact that it just isn't that crash-hot a translation and had its own agenda (the service of the established Chruch of England of the day), and its artificially "high" English is not faithful to the original languages - Tyndale was faithful to the original down-to-earth nature of the scriptures but the KJ threw that away. We now have better original language texts, a better understanding of what those texts meant, and we speak a different language.

Religious language, especially that of Scripture and liturgy, is of a high sociolinguistic register.

You're also overlooking the delectable fact that while the words get frozen, we get to subconsciously shift our beliefs over time without having to change the prescribed-as-orthodox wordings.

Even within the centuries of the texts themselves, linguistic, cosmological, and metaphysical shifts are present.

Thank God my pastor too often doesn't say in the paved-over fashion, "the Bible says..."

 

[ebia]

Religious language, especially that of Scripture and liturgy, is of a high sociolinguistic register.

Liturgy generally is. (Whether it should be is another question).
Most of scripture, especially the New Testament (with the odd exception like Hebrews) was not. The Koine Greek of most of the NT is very down-to-earth, particularly when compared with its contemporary literature.

You're also overlooking the delectable fact that while the words get frozen, we get to subconsciously shift our beliefs over time without having to change the prescribed-as-orthodox wordings.

What?

 

[CredoBiblicist]

"Liberal", in this sense, is a blanket insult that translates as "anyone I disagree with".

I disagree with James White's position in regards to the Critical Text yet I would never call him a liberal.

Metzger didn't believe in inerrancy which is rather crucial for someone involved in textual criticism and Bible translation.

Aug. 11th - Westcott: "I never read an account of a miracle (in Scripture?) but I seem instinctively to feel its improbability, and discover some want of evidence in the account of it." (Life, Vol.I, p.52).

1860 Apr. 3rd - Hort: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument in more detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." (Life, Vol.I, p.416).

They were hardly orthodox Christians, in the case of Westcott and Hort I'd use the term Christian very loosely.

 

[ebia]

I disagree with James White's position in regards to the Critical Text yet I would never call him a liberal.

Metzger didn't believe in inerrancy which is rather crucial for someone involved in textual criticism and Bible translation.

They were hardly orthodox Christians, in the case of Westcott and Hort I'd use the term Christian very loosely.

Neither of those comments, even at face value, are contrary to orthodoxy. Nor is not believing inerrrancy. nor is inerrancy a problem for textual critisism. The Westcott one looks suspiciously quote-mined. As, indeed, it turns out to be.

 

[CredoBiblicist]

Neither of those comments, even at face value, are contrary to orthodoxy. Nor is not believing inerrrancy. nor is inerrancy a problem for textual critisism. The Westcott one looks suspiciously quote-mined. As, indeed, it turns out to be.

I'm not sure what version of "orthodoxy" you subscribe to then. I don't recall any of the reformers denying the authority of scripture and Jesus' miracles.

 

[ebia]

I'm not sure what version of "orthodoxy" you subscribe to then. I don't recall any of the reformers denying the authority of scripture and Jesus' miracles.

Neither the authority of scripture not authenticity of Jesus miracles was denied in any of those quotes