Why do people still read the King James Version?

[pescador]

I wonder why people still read the King James Version. (And please don't tell me it's the perfect word of God.)

1) It is written in 400-year-old English, which is difficult to understand.
2) Because it is difficult, the reader must constantly translate in their head what is written into modern English. That makes it a translation of a translation by people who invariably aren't trained to do so.
3) The KJV is based on the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. Many more, earlier manuscripts have been found that are more reliable than what they used.
4) Chapters and verses were added long after the manuscripts were written, so aren't scriptural, yet the KJV includes them as if they were. They artificially break up the flow of the reading and cause single verses to be lifted out of context to prove doctrine.

Could it be that people who rely on the KJV feel more "religious" than if they were using a modern, more accurate, more understandable translation? Does the emotion experienced by reading the beautiful language of the KJV replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do they really believe that God spoke to the authors of the books in flowery poetry and prose, instead of the common language of the day (which is the language of the early manuscripts)?

God is not the author of confusion so why cling to a translation that is confusing to 21st century English-speaking people? Isn't it time to stop saying to one's self or out loud, "so what this really means is..?"

 

[archer75]

1) It's possible to be well-versed enough in the language of the KJV that you don't need to "translate" it.
2) Certainly some readers do have to "translate" or struggle with the text, which may not be ideal for them.
3) No comment, since I know nothing about the manuscripts.
4) No comment.

As to whether God spoke to the authors in "flowery poetry and prose," I thought that scripture was written in a variety of registers and styles. Sometimes it's a polished oral style, sometimes poetry outright, sometimes wordplay, sometimes a kind of basic-ish prose. But I have little Greek and no Hebrew.

 

[loNe]

I wonder why people still read the King James Version. (And please don't tell me it's the perfect word of God.)

1) It is written in 400-year-old English, which is difficult to understand.
2) Because it is difficult, the reader must constantly translate in their head what is written into modern English. That makes it a translation of a translation by people who invariably aren't trained to do so.
3) The KJV is based on the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. Many more, earlier manuscripts have been found that are more reliable than what they used.
4) Chapters and verses were added long after the manuscripts were written, so aren't scriptural, yet the KJV includes them as if they were. They artificially break up the flow of the reading and cause single verses to be lifted out of context to prove doctrine.

Could it be that people who rely on the KJV feel more "religious" than if they were using a modern, more accurate, more understandable translation? Does the emotion experienced by reading the beautiful language of the KJV replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do they really believe that God spoke to the authors of the books in flowery poetry and prose, instead of the common language of the day (which is the language of the early manuscripts)?

God is not the author of confusion so why cling to a translation that is confusing to 21st century English-speaking people? Isn't it time to stop saying to one's self or out loud, "so what this really means is..?"

..i think there's another good thread in this section love about it

yes i agree - those may think it is more 'holy' to use the kjv

but the real point isnt 'readability' -- but Sorcery.

see ; the góal of all those translations, and still they do that, is to 'water down the original context' ;
it is comparable to the game where you tell a person two lines, and he to the next guy, untill the seventh : and that 7th will tell you a different line as yóu told the first

see ?

that is why all the fuzz about translations :
no one got the original right !
read : several important mistakes -- crúcial mistakes.
And there is a bloodline, hostile to you, who wánts you to cherish false ideas, 'based on scripture'...you see the problem ?

 

[GeorgeJ]

Some folks prefer and like the KJV translation better. The only problem is that some of those folks insist that the KJV is the only version of the bible that should be used.

 

[com7fy8]

1) It is written in 400-year-old English, which is difficult to understand.

1 Corinthians 9:19-22

In this scripture, Paul says he has become to Jews like a Jew, to the weak like the weak, to the Gentile like a Gentile >

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save more." (in 1 Corinthians 9:22)

The King James Bible says this. I see this means how Paul would be like the people he was reaching to. This could mean he spoke like they spoke and did things like them so he was reaching them on their level so they could relate with him, then he could minister the Gospel to them.

So, I can see a Bible translation does well to relate the way people communicate. It is not going to have coded meanings and things which say what they do not mean in the language of whomever the Bible is meant to reach.

Paul did say to speak in a tongue which is known to the people God is speaking to. So, it is scriptural to have a Bible which is in the tongue of the people who are being ministered God's word.

Jesus related and communicated with uneducated fishermen. I would say He spoke in a way so they could understand what He was saying. Because, even though Jesus is so superior to all of us, Jesus is not conceited; He was willing to leave Heaven itself and share with us while being in a human body and going through things we go through. Because Jesus is humble and gentle and kind and willing to communicate.

So, I see it is scriptural for a translation to show this.

 

[PaaKne]

Only a personal answer from a Norwegain 16 yeas old boy:

I use KJV because that is a good (accurate) translation easily accessible also in countries not having English as first language. Except the first time I read - age between 10 and 10.5 - I have never considered KJV as difficult , as an average Norwegian handle more language difference that that every week.

That said: I'm sure that there are more good (accurate) translations than KJV, so this is certainly not the one and only useable Bible in the English languge (have e.g. read some in JND). Reading more than one editon is always the best, as translation work will never mirror the original work 100 % - only 99,999 % when absolutely 1st class.

 

[loNe]

1 Corinthians 9:19-22

In this scripture, Paul says he has become to Jews like a Jew, to the weak like the weak, to the Gentile like a Gentile >

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save more." (in 1 Corinthians 9:22)

The King James Bible says this. I see this means how Paul would be like the people he was reaching to. This could mean he spoke like they spoke and did things like them so he was reaching them on their level so they could relate with him, then he could minister the Gospel to them.

So, I can see a Bible translation does well to relate the way people communicate. It is not going to have coded meanings and things which say what they do not mean in the language of whomever the Bible is meant to reach.

Paul did say to speak in a tongue which is known to the people God is speaking to. So, it is scriptural to have a Bible which is in the tongue of the people who are being ministered God's word.

Jesus related and communicated with uneducated fishermen. I would say He spoke in a way so they could understand what He was saying. Because, even though Jesus is so superior to all of us, Jesus is not conceited; He was willing to leave Heaven itself and share with us while being in a human body and going through things we go through. Because Jesus is humble and gentle and kind and willing to communicate.

So, I see it is scriptural for a translation to show this.

all true.
But when the lion of Revelation 5 is not Christ, but a hostile lion -

then it will not matter much in what nice, understandable terms it is phrased...right ?

cause a Lie remains a Lie. Indifferent how sweetened.

 

[geiroffenberg]

i tell you what, i use the KJV version a lot still, even tho i also know it has a lot of problems. IT does have a truthfulness to it that lines very well up with the majority text, which is WHY i use it. BUT we dont have to use the 400 year old text - it HAS been updated!
The modern versions of it, and im basically thinking of either the WEB translation or the MKJV (not NKJV) is probably the best choice. NOT the minorty text terrible stuff. I stay awa from that alltogether.
Another reason, I feel because of its dry straight to the point translations of the greek, it gives me more of an option of understanding and sometimes encouragmenet to deeper look up meanings - compared to other very popular english bible versions that sort of interpret half of it for you, and makes some very suspicious choices of omitting certain verses and words, even tho it is proven to be in the earliest versions we know of! Dont like that!
Even tho its a recepticus book it lines up with the majority text, and to me, the majority text of the new testament is the best testimony we have for the correctedness, therefor any translation that gives ANY regard to codex sinaitucus or vaticanus, is bound to have many unneccesary errors in it. These two corrupt manuscript - one of the was not even known in the days of KJV or erasmus and the other was regarded as too corrupt to be used in the KJV. Thats good! Too bad they went away from that in alter translations!
THose modern trasnlations who even BASE the text on these two horrible manuscripts....i dont even concider reading. And that makes me end up with english majority text, kjv, revised version of 1901 (i guess thats ASV?), mkjv or the wonderful free WEB translation, who all support each other very well. WEB is the only truly free translation there is, because you can basically do with it what you want with no fear of being sued lol.
I sometimes get into YLT and a few others just for a very different view, but practicalyl never NIV, cant eve remember the namkes of the others.
Also i dont actually have the paper versions of any of them anymore, i only use digital version, inside e-sword. WHAT a good bible software.

 

[Albion]

I wonder why people still read the King James Version. (And please don't tell me it's the perfect word of God.)

1) It is written in 400-year-old English, which is difficult to understand.
2) Because it is difficult, the reader must constantly translate in their head what is written into modern English. That makes it a translation of a translation by people who invariably aren't trained to do so.
3) The KJV is based on the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. Many more, earlier manuscripts have been found that are more reliable than what they used.
4) Chapters and verses were added long after the manuscripts were written, so aren't scriptural, yet the KJV includes them as if they were. They artificially break up the flow of the reading and cause single verses to be lifted out of context to prove doctrine.

Could it be that people who rely on the KJV feel more "religious" than if they were using a modern, more accurate, more understandable translation? Does the emotion experienced by reading the beautiful language of the KJV replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do they really believe that God spoke to the authors of the books in flowery poetry and prose, instead of the common language of the day (which is the language of the early manuscripts)?

God is not the author of confusion so why cling to a translation that is confusing to 21st century English-speaking people? Isn't it time to stop saying to one's self or out loud, "so what this really means is..?"

I do not find it difficult to understand, and it's definitely the most beautiful and uplifting version. It's also the most widely-distributed and widely-known translation of the Bible, so it's a force for unity. It's the translation of the Bible that won the world for the faith. And it's the one used for all services in my church, so familiarity is an additional benefit.

I do not care for the "Classics Illustrated" style of most modern language translations which, if truth be told, are just as incorrect in certain areas as the AV is charged with by its own critics. In addition, and on a non-religious note, this translation is the one that has given our culture dozens of familiar expressions and phrases, so it's also a cherished work of literature.

If God is not the author of confusion (as you noted), it's the plethora of new translations that fill up the Christian bookstores that are the problem there, not the Authorized Version.

 

[Korean-American Christian]

I wonder why people still read the King James Version. (And please don't tell me it's the perfect word of God.)

1) It is written in 400-year-old English, which is difficult to understand.
2) Because it is difficult, the reader must constantly translate in their head what is written into modern English. That makes it a translation of a translation by people who invariably aren't trained to do so.
3) The KJV is based on the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. Many more, earlier manuscripts have been found that are more reliable than what they used.
4) Chapters and verses were added long after the manuscripts were written, so aren't scriptural, yet the KJV includes them as if they were. They artificially break up the flow of the reading and cause single verses to be lifted out of context to prove doctrine.

Could it be that people who rely on the KJV feel more "religious" than if they were using a modern, more accurate, more understandable translation? Does the emotion experienced by reading the beautiful language of the KJV replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do they really believe that God spoke to the authors of the books in flowery poetry and prose, instead of the common language of the day (which is the language of the early manuscripts)?

God is not the author of confusion so why cling to a translation that is confusing to 21st century English-speaking people? Isn't it time to stop saying to one's self or out loud, "so what this really means is..?"

I strongly believe that a Christian should understand what the Word of God is saying. Personally, I use the New Living Translation (NLT) because it is a good devotional Bible

 

[com7fy8]

But when the lion of Revelation 5 is not Christ, but a hostile lion -

Yes, people can be overly literal so they come up with what they claim to be contradictions.

And, in this case, of course, Revelation means how Jesus is hostile to Satan's kingdom. God's wrath, though He is love (1 John 4:8&16) is against Satan and his kingdom.

And God is a Rock and also living waters; the term Rock brings out how God is solid and safe and stable in His love, while the living waters shows how deeply soul soothing He is, in loving us in our souls (Romans 5:5, Matthew 11:28-30).

Jesus being the Lamb means what this means, and Jesus being also called the Lion of Judah means what this means.

The terms include how God has goodness but also wrath, Paul says > Romans chapter 11:22.

So, yes . . . no matter how clear the translation, still ones can misunderstand what God means.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

In think for some its usually because they are older and grew up on the KJ so they can't accept anything else.

 

[Albion]

I strongly believe that a Christian should understand what the Word of God is saying.

I wonder why people never say "teach them if they don't know what the tricky words mean?" Jews teach their kids to read Hebrew and Moslems are against translating the Koran into other languages...and yet, somehow, those people learn how to understand their sacred texts. But do we say that any problems with the King James Version can be explained--so explain them?! No. We send the people out to get a "Dick and Jane Reader"' version of the Bible or "The Bible for Dummies."

And consider how awful some of that gets to be. Instead of "Fear not for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy" (which I presume everyone here understands), you get "Don't be afraid. I'm here with good news for you." Ugh.

 

[JingshenBianxi]

I wonder why people still read the King James Version. (And please don't tell me it's the perfect word of God.)

1) It is written in 400-year-old English, which is difficult to understand.
2) Because it is difficult, the reader must constantly translate in their head what is written into modern English. That makes it a translation of a translation by people who invariably aren't trained to do so.
3) The KJV is based on the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. Many more, earlier manuscripts have been found that are more reliable than what they used.
4) Chapters and verses were added long after the manuscripts were written, so aren't scriptural, yet the KJV includes them as if they were. They artificially break up the flow of the reading and cause single verses to be lifted out of context to prove doctrine.

Could it be that people who rely on the KJV feel more "religious" than if they were using a modern, more accurate, more understandable translation? Does the emotion experienced by reading the beautiful language of the KJV replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do they really believe that God spoke to the authors of the books in flowery poetry and prose, instead of the common language of the day (which is the language of the early manuscripts)?

God is not the author of confusion so why cling to a translation that is confusing to 21st century English-speaking people? Isn't it time to stop saying to one's self or out loud, "so what this really means is..?"

I won't lie, early in my seeking of God I heard that the KJV was the most accurate translation or something? Or to say that the KJV is the most RAWEST form..the most...AUTHENTIC...like...first you had the original scriptures and then the very first translation from the original text was...the KJV...and some how that means that it is the more reliable source of scripture in regards to what it says.

To where now, I see that in saying that, it is to say that the HOLY SPIRIT some how stopped doing His work when the KJV was published. Totally NOT TRUE. So basically throughout most of this year I been reading from the English Standard Version. In witnessing and sharing my faith on forums and other social media constructs I do use online references like Biblehub.com and they list all sorts of translations and actually having those different translations to my disposal aids in whatever point I want to prove. Key words that I look for sometimes are not in my usual ESV..but I'd find the word I'm looking for in the NIV.

Some also say that in using the KJV that there is no KEY SCRIPTURES LEFT OUT. In the newer translations, yes, there are some scriptures that are left out, however, they have a reference note where that scripture usually is.." in other manuscripts ". So, I've come to realize that the newer translations don't necessarily hide valuable verses from more original manuscripts..rather, they organize it in such a way to really provoke..

STUDYING.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Our church, like a lot of others, uses the NIV because it’s a lot easier for folks to understand. I certainly appreciate the labor of love that is reading the KJV (and I say that with all sincerity), and Psalm 23 sounds a bit flat to me from the NIV. On the other hand, I’d rather read “Love is patient” and keep going than have to stop and explain to someone what “Charity suffereth long” means (1 Corinthians 13:4).


Either way, I think it’s more important that people understand the Word of God than that they toil to work their way through a version of English that’s largely foreign to them. The first time I read the NIV I was genuinely impressed with how smoothly it flowed and the fact that I didn’t have to stop every verse or two to mentally translate it. In our Bible study group everyone uses their own personal Bible, and it’s kind of a hoot when we go around reading to hear things flow from one version to the next.

 

[pescador]

I wonder why people never say "teach them if they don't know what the tricky words mean?" Jews teach their kids to read Hebrew and Moslems are against translating the Koran into other languages...and yet, somehow, those people learn how to understand their sacred texts. But do we say that any problems with the King James Version can be explained--so explain them?! No. We send the people out to get a "Dick and Jane Reader"' version of the Bible or "The Bible for Dummies."

And consider how awful some of that gets to be. Instead of "Fear not for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy" (which I presume everyone here understands), you get "Don't be afraid. I'm here with good news for you." Ugh.

Then Christians should be taught Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek so they can understand the Bible in its original language. I'm not sure why you're reducing the excellent translations that we have today to a "Dick and Jane Reader"' version of the Bible or "The Bible for Dummies." It's ridiculous to take one verse out of one paragraph and take it as an example of bad translation. FYI, the NIV translates the paragraph as " An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord."

Would you explain to me what these (unclear) verses 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." or "Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"

 

[Willie T]

I wonder why people still read the King James Version.

They use it because they believe it is the version Jesus and the disciples used.

 

[GeorgeJ]

They use it because they believe it is the version Jesus and the disciples used.

To hear some folks talk, you'd think that sometimes..........!!

 

[Big Drew]

I wonder why people still read the King James Version. (And please don't tell me it's the perfect word of God.)

1) It is written in 400-year-old English, which is difficult to understand.
2) Because it is difficult, the reader must constantly translate in their head what is written into modern English. That makes it a translation of a translation by people who invariably aren't trained to do so.
3) The KJV is based on the manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. Many more, earlier manuscripts have been found that are more reliable than what they used.
4) Chapters and verses were added long after the manuscripts were written, so aren't scriptural, yet the KJV includes them as if they were. They artificially break up the flow of the reading and cause single verses to be lifted out of context to prove doctrine.

Could it be that people who rely on the KJV feel more "religious" than if they were using a modern, more accurate, more understandable translation? Does the emotion experienced by reading the beautiful language of the KJV replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do they really believe that God spoke to the authors of the books in flowery poetry and prose, instead of the common language of the day (which is the language of the early manuscripts)?

God is not the author of confusion so why cling to a translation that is confusing to 21st century English-speaking people? Isn't it time to stop saying to one's self or out loud, "so what this really means is..?"

I'll still turn to the KJV sometimes, just to get a different perspective...but I agree with you. I put down the KJV for everyday reading years ago and switched to the NIV until I discovered the ESV...I like the ESV better than the NIV because it has the modern language, but retains that poetic flow that the KJV had. But, with that being said, I think any modern translation is better than the KJV, simply because it's in the language we use today.

 

[nChrist]

I grew up with the KJV and am most familiar with it. So, I like it and use it most of the time even though I know it isn't the most accurate English translation of the Holy Bible. I use the ESV and NASB when I want the most accurate and frequently do comparisons with the KJV. The KJV is still a good translation.