Superiority of the King James Version

[Dale]

hindsey in OP:
"4) The King James Bible has Superior THEOLOGY"

A translation is not supposed to be based on a theology. It is supposed to give us render the text in an understandable language. Theology then arises from or is checked using the translated text.

"3) The King James Bible has Superior TECHNIQUE"

I do not know what the "technique" of a translation is.

The OP completely ignores one of the most basic issues on the use of the KJV. Regardless of whether it was accurate in 1611, do people today understand the Elizabethan language it is contains?

For example, one story about King James is that he went to see a new Cathedral. Someone asked him what he thought of the Cathedral and he said it was awful. In the language of the time that meant it was awe-inspiring.

 

[Dale]

I have read what defenders of KJV-only have to say. They make long lists where the KJV rendering of Bible verses is different from later translations. They consider it a self-evident truth that the KJV must be right wherever there are differences. This does not follow at all.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

hindsey in OP:
(snip snip to address a single point)

The OP completely ignores one of the most basic issues on the use of the KJV. Regardless of whether it was accurate in 1611, do people today understand the Elizabethan language it is contains?

For example, one story about King James is that he went to see a new Cathedral. Someone asked him what he thought of the Cathedral and he said it was awful. In the language of the time that meant it was awe-inspiring.

my personal favorite is still:
Luke 18:16...

Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not for of such is the kingdom of God.

The verb "to let" is used in three ways in the KJB. "Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind." "planted a vineyard. . .and let it out to husbandmen." The third example is the archaic use of to let meaning to withhold or to hinder.

There are still traces of this meaning today. Webster’s defines the noun "a let" as an obstacle, a hindrance, or a delay. In tennis if a ball hits the net, it is called a let ball. In 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way."

Not only does the KJB use the word "let" in the sense of to hinder or withhold, but so also do Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599 has "will let" in the second part of the verse. Even the Revised Version uses "to let" in this sense in Isaiah 43:13.

What I mean by bait and switch is the new versions say in effect "Let us clear up the confusion of the KJB and give you a modern rendering." But look at the NKJV, NIV, and NAS. They have updated the word "let" but all three have introduced a private interpretation into the passage by capitalizing certain words and not others (NKJV and NAS), or by adding words not found in any text (NIV).
...
The word "suffer" is criticized as being archaic in Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

If you look at a dictionary, the word "suffer", meaning to allow or permit, is not archaic at all. Have we been so dumbed down that we think a word can have only one narrow meaning? The Revised Version, the ASV, Darby, Young’s, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Third millenium Bible, and the KJV 21st Century versions, all render this word as "suffer to come unto me."

April 2, 2003, a commentator on Fox News, in opposition to the war, stated that, "...it may be incumbent upon us to possibly SUFFER the presence of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq in order to maintain a buffer between the Sunnis and Shiites."

The Rocky Mountain News in 2003 said of a politician: "He does not suffer fools gladly, and Washington is full of fools."

from: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/langKJB.html

i think that this is the biggest reason not to introduce people to the Bible in the form of the KJV. English has deeply changed.

 

[Jerrysch]

I have read what defenders of KJV-only have to say. They make long lists where the KJV rendering of Bible verses is different from later translations. They consider it a self-evident truth that the KJV must be right wherever there are differences. This does not follow at all.

My biggest problem with the KJV was that often one needs to retranslate it into modern English to understand what the KJV says, so by that very process you are that much farther from the original text. If textual clairity is that important why not learn Greek and be done with the trouble of determining the best English translation?

And for the same reason, if one doesn't know Greek how can s/he say what is correct and what is not?