Discussion in another thread got to me thinking about this question.

 

Why do some espouse that the only "true" version of the Word of God (in English let's say) is the King James Version?

 

I grew up hearing that attitude espoused by some in my own family and then others in some churches. Where does this come from?

 

This is not intended to be a "bash the KJV believer" thread. What I would like to do is dialogue with each other and especially those on here who feel that the KJV is THE ONLY accurate translation of Scripture.

 

It has a lot going for it, and a lot going against it as well. I wonder if we can talk about it.

In my experience, the best "version" of the Bible is the one that touches you the deepest in a way that you understand the message that God has put forth to believers.

If it was good enough for the apostles, it's good enough for me. Just kidding. I actually prefer the NASB.

In my experience, the best "version" of the Bible is the one that touches you the deepest in a way that you understand the message that God has put forth to believers.

 

I think that is where most would fall.

 

However some translations are not very good and paraphrases like "the Green Monster" (Living Bible) have some very horrible moments of interpretation over textual translation.

 

Still curious about the insistence on KJV by doctrine or whatever.

 

I think there are definite positives to the KJV:

 

1. Stability. While it has been revived numerous times since 1611, it has remained very close to it's original form for 400 years.

 

2. The poetic versing. Poetry is a lost art these days and one thing Elizabethan English had was Poetry.

 

3. Familiarity. It's been the quoted text a lot longer than most and was the ultimate Protestant Bible because of the era it was printed was in the heart of the Separatist movement.

 

Those are some things in its corner.

If it was good enough for the apostles, it's good enough for me. Just kidding. I actually prefer the NASB.

 

Man Hoopboy, we have more in common than you may have thought. At least one thing. :lol:

 

I too use the NAS the most because of it's translation work.

 

Once, when I was a pastor in Lincoln County, I was explaining the actual translation of monai in John 14:3. I pointed out that it meant a place of residence or dwelling and was not really remotely connected to the idea of "mansion."

 

Then a lady said, "Well my Bible says Mansion and I'll take that over your Greek anyday. Afterall it was good enough for Paul and Jesus, it's good enough for me." They were very serious. :idunno:

Man Hoopboy, we have more in common than you may have thought. At least one thing. :lol:

 

I too use the NAS the most because of it's translation work.

 

Once, when I was a pastor in Lincoln County, I was explaining the actual translation of monai in John 14:3. I pointed out that it meant a place of residence or dwelling and was not really remotely connected to the idea of "mansion."

 

Then a lady said, "Well my Bible says Mansion and I'll take that over your Greek anyday. Afterall it was good enough for Paul and Jesus, it's good enough for me." They were very serious. :idunno:

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh: You gotta love it. When the NIVs first became popular some time ago, our Church replaced the KJV in the pews, until the congregation declared it heresy, and they were soon replaced back. They're a little more knowledgeable about it now, but not much.

^ For those who have the time and the education, I'd imagine there is likely no substitute for the Hebrew and Greek. My Greek consists of a knowledge of the alphabet and some phrases here and there. I wish I'd studied more of it as ancient Greek is really fascinating. But I'm equally happy with the Latin and Spanish I studied in high school and college.

 

I typically read the Douay-Rheims version or the KJV (you're right about the poetry, Hatz), I also flip through the Latin Vulgate every once in a while. I have a couple others that I've come not to enjoy very much, namely the "Today's English Version" New Testament that is just not good reading. I also have an NRSV that is fairly underwhelming too.

Being involved witht he FCA we give out "Student Bibles" at camps. They are written where the Teens might get a quicker understanding. I have several at home. My wife was given "Reach Out" new testament as a 13 year old. I can read this in 2 days. I've made notes from this easy read to my Bible. I even learned some things from our Children's Bible as I read to my little boys.

The only good explanation I have ever come across is that the KJV lends itself to a language of "antiquity" and therefore "feels" older. I've got nothing otherwise.

 

I read, and love, the ESV.

^ For those who have the time and the education, I'd imagine there is likely no substitute for the Hebrew and Greek. My Greek consists of a knowledge of the alphabet and some phrases here and there. I wish I'd studied more of it as ancient Greek is really fascinating. But I'm equally happy with the Latin and Spanish I studied in high school and college.

 

I typically read the Douay-Rheims version or the KJV (you're right about the poetry, Hatz), I also flip through the Latin Vulgate every once in a while. I have a couple others that I've come not to enjoy very much, namely the "Today's English Version" New Testament that is just not good reading. I also have an NRSV that is fairly underwhelming too.

 

Discussion in another thread got to me thinking about this question.

 

Why do some espouse that the only "true" version of the Word of God (in English let's say) is the King James Version?

 

I grew up hearing that attitude espoused by some in my own family and then others in some churches. Where does this come from?

 

This is not intended to be a "bash the KJV believer" thread. What I would like to do is dialogue with each other and especially those on here who feel that the KJV is THE ONLY accurate translation of Scripture.

 

It has a lot going for it, and a lot going against it as well. I wonder if we can talk about it.

 

I think people should read which ever version they choose. I have nver understood when people think you should only read the KJV. I don't understand it. They bible wasn't written in old english originally so if you want the real feeling learn Hebrew.

KJV has style, majestic language, and poetic rhythms. Why did the translators of the King James Bible translate it into the common English of the time? They said that they wanted to make a version that everyday common folks (of the time) could understand. Obviously, King James English no longer qualifies as being the common language of our time. For me, the NIV translation is easy to read and understand.

The only good explanation I have ever come across is that the KJV lends itself to a language of "antiquity" and therefore "feels" older. I've got nothing otherwise.

 

I read, and love, the ESV.

 

I'd offer more, but most of it has been stated. Hoopboy stole my joke.

 

And, I love the ESV as well. I got a small one, and then the study bible when it came out. I haven't used much else since then.

 

But, if I do, I prefer the NASB and NKJV. I also like the KJV. I don't have anything against the NIV, I just don't use it much for whatever reason.

 

So, to lend my thoughts to the thread, I asked myself why do I like the KJV, because in all honesty, if a new translation came out that was as hard to read, I'd hate it.

 

1. I think you're right Hearsay. It feels older. Due to the language, and the poetry that has been mentioned. That gives it a sort of majestic feel.

 

2. Again, it's been stated, but it is the most often translation that is quoted. It's the most widely used, so almost everyone is familiar with it. It's a bit like a common language in that sense. It's commonly quoted, so it's often used in that regard. Take myself for example, I don't read from it that much these days, but if I quote a verse, I often quote the KJV translation of it.

 

3. I was raised with it. So, there's some connection to the not just the historical past, but my personal past.

 

That's three things, IMO, that the KJV has going for it.

 

Now, for the actual question in the thread title. Why do some insist only on the KJV? Ignorance and stubborness.

 

Ignorance, not as an insult, but by definition. People lack knowledge on the truth about translations and all that go into them.

 

Stubborness because people do not like change.

Another interesting quote you'll hear, in addition to the one Hoopboy gave, is this:

 

"I won't read nothing but the good ol' original, 1611 King James Bible."

 

Really? Anyone who has actually read an original 1611 King James Bible will immediately see the humor in that statement. I seriously doubt that few, if anyone, is an original King James-er. Talk about difficult to read.

 

All the u's and v's are reversed and an s is replaced with something like an f. It's difficult to read.

In my opinion the KJV has stood the test of time because God has aloud it to do so. If you start waivering from the original message God has for us the his word changes. That is my opinion and I am not trying to get anyone to think like me. I do however read other versions for comparison and have even found some different translations. Try googleing this one, "the Cotton Patch" version. It was written by a preacher so the southern slaves could understand it.

In my opinion the KJV has stood the test of time because God has aloud it to do so. If you start waivering from the original message God has for us the his word changes. That is my opinion and I am not trying to get anyone to think like me. I do however read other versions for comparison and have even found some different translations. Try googleing this one, "the Cotton Patch" version. It was written by a preacher so the southern slaves could understand it.

 

Actually the "Cotton Patch Gospel" was written by Clarence Jordan in Georgia in the 20th century.

 

Jordan was a Graduate of Southern Seminary and founded the "Koinonia Farms" in Georgia. This was a rural community that was interracially mixed at the height of the 50's and 60's. During the 60's he wrote the "Cotton Patch Gospels" as a "Southification of the Good News" so people would catch the radical nature of the Gospel. It wasn't written for slaves but the entire Southern Experience.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Jordan

 

While I would disagree with your premise on the KJV, I appreciate your willingness to share that conviction on the thread House of Pain. I won't get into a critique with anyone for sharing their conviction about the KJV because I wanted people like yourself to express why they felt it a primary (or the primary) text to be used. :thumb: