• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the KJV Only debate dividing the Christian Church?

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Good point. I should have asked if it is dividing the English speaking church.
Even then, I don't think it is.
A small and shrinking proportion of English speakers are strangely attached to the KJV.

Personally, I love the rolling thunder of the KJV language. But to actually understand what the authors were trying to get across I find NIV the best. Although it's rather like news sources. If something is complex and hard to figure out it's best to read various sources and compare.

Different bible translations have different agendas, it's best to look at several.
Tom
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member

I would not say it's dividing Christianity.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using the KJV in my opinion.

It can be very majestic. I like that many of the original word pictures in psalms are carried over as is in KJV. Some say the manuscripts may be better that it was taken from.

On the down side, many of the words no longer have the same meaning as when written and many people will read it more slowly than a more modern translation.

The New King James, a more modern version in the style of the KJV, is in more modern phrasing and vocabulary and an essentially literal translation. Essentially literal means they attempted to not force a particular interpretation and leave it up to the reader as much as possible.

ESV is also essentially literal and very popular.
 
Last edited:

Sitara

New Member
I would not say it's dividing Christianity.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using the KJV in my opinion.
I like that many of the original word pictures in psalms are carried over as is in KJV. Some say the manuscripts may be better that it was taken from. On the down side, many of the words no longer have the same meaning as when written and many people will read it more slowly than a more modern translation.

The New King James is quote good as an essentially literal translation. ESV is also essentially literal. Essentially literal means they attempted to not force a particular interpretation and leave it up to the reader as much as possible. NASB was also essentially literal but a bit wooden and needed better flow.
Fair enough. I don't have an issue with the KJV, I just have an issue with people who infer that I am sinning by using another translation.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
I would not say it's dividing Christianity.

There are advantages and disadvantages of using the KJV in my opinion.
I like that many of the original word pictures in psalms are carried over as is in KJV. Some say the manuscripts may be better that it was taken from. On the down side, many of the words no longer have the same meaning as when written and many people will read it more slowly than a more modern translation.

The New King James is quote good as an essentially literal translation. ESV is also essentially literal. Essentially literal means they attempted to not force a particular interpretation and leave it up to the reader as much as possible. NASB was also essentially literal but a bit wooden and needed better flow.
Fair enough. I don't have an issue with the KJV, I just have an issue with people who infer that I am sinning by using another translation.

I agree with you, it sounds like quite an overstatement to say it's a sin to use a different translation
but some translations might be too liberal or eccentric for me. I think NKJV, ESV, Holman are fine

Conscience should be respected.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Fair enough. I don't have an issue with the KJV, I just have an issue with people who infer that I am sinning by using another translation.
In my experience,

People with that attitude aren't really much interested in what the Bible teaches. They are more interested in what they believe. It's easier to interpret the Bible the way you want if you insist on a Bible translation in a foreign language.
Which is essentially what the KJV is. Modern English speakers don't use those words any more.
Tom
 

Glaurung

Denizen of Niflheim
If by the Christian Church you mean segments of American Protestantism then perhaps. Beyond that myopic scope, the issue is nonexistent.
 

Jumi

Well-Known Member
We don't even have KJV in my language. There's a debate on different Bible editions, one anachronistic and one with better translations more in line with modern research.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
In my experience,

People with that attitude aren't really much interested in what the Bible teaches. They are more interested in what they believe. It's easier to interpret the Bible the way you want if you insist on a Bible translation in a foreign language.
Which is essentially what the KJV is. Modern English speakers don't use those words any more.
Tom
I agree with you, and ironically the KJV was deliberately written in the language of the common people of the day and not in some high fallutin language that writing often was. So in the spirit of the original goals of the language of the day I am fine with modern but careful translations

KJV has its strengths tho and was quite a literary accomplishment in its day.
 

Shiranui117

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee
Premium Member
Given that this whole KJV-only nonsense is only adhered to by a vanishingly small percentage of even English-speaking Christians (Orthodox, Catholics and most Protestants couldn't care less about the debate), no, it's not dividing Christianity.
 
Top