The archaic King James....

[Spiritone]

Is it not long gone past time to dump the King James version of the Bible? It is unbelievable that "we" still quote Biblical chapter and verse in an archaic version of english. What is wrong with all the Bible thumping religious "leaders" thinking that it means more if they speak this way? There are other more modern versions of course that some people do not trust. They seem to become discombobulated when they hear the very same quote in modern english. Goes to show how easily people are conditioned to believe and follow blindly.
Isn't is obvious, that is the question?

 

[Smoke]

The King James Version is in Modern English, though not contemporary English. I have no trouble understanding it. It has its faults, but it's superior to many if not most of the translations I see people using instead. I despise the NIV even more than the old Living Bible, which we used to refer to as Green Cancer.

 

[geofra]

I agree with Smoke. The KJV is the supreme translation of the Bible. It is the opinion of many people that no other translation has come close to its poetry and its power to motivate.

Is there any other translation that has originated so many familiar quotes?

About the accuracy of the translation I have to defer to those who know Greek or Hebrew.

 

[Mister Emu]

Obviously the KJV has its flaws, as most, if not all, translations do...

However, the language of the KJV is a point, not against but, in its favor. In my opinion...

 

[te_lanus]

My opinion is that the KJV must be put on the shelve and be forgotten. There are better translations that stays closer to the greek and is easier to read.

But then most people read it as that is what they grew up with, and it support their views.

 

[Smoke]

My opinion is that the KJV must be put on the shelve and be forgotten. There are better translations that stays closer to the greek and is easier to read.

There are more scholarly translations, but I honestly think the main problem people have with reading the KJV is formatting. If somebody would typeset it into paragraphs, you'd be surprised. People used to tell me they read the Living Bible because it was easier to understand, and I would have them actually compare the KJV to the Living Bible, verse by verse. They were usually surprised to find that the KJV was really clearer to them than the Living Bible.

But then most people read it as that is what they grew up with, and it support their views.

No translation supports my views; to get a Bible that supported my views you'd have to do some pretty serious editing. And I grew up reading the Revised Standard Version, though there were always King James, American Standard, and Luther Bibles around the house, too.

I like the KJV at least in part because it's the most recognized English version, the one literary allusions are drawn from, and it has a better rhythm and feel for the language than most other translations.

On the other hand, there are numerous verses that won't make it intact through RF's automatic censor.

 

[te_lanus]

Hi smoke. I see your point. But there is just to many errors for me to read it. I'm quoting from the catholicapologetics.info website:

The original 1611 King James venison had over 30,000 mistakes most of which have been corrected of these changes and bad translations. That many errors show a design and plan. Because it hard for 54 scholars to miss up that many times by accident. Either it was on purpose or they were 54 of the most incompetent scholars in history and they had no business even trying to translate the Bible. Here is a small listing of only few of them. They are thousands more. This author has found over 4,823 examples, all through I humble admit I have not even begun to scratch the surfaces

This sums my up opinion:

The King James Version has some problems:

• It relies on faulty texts of the original languages particularly the Greek
• It adds words and phrases not in the original languages
• It mistranslates some words due to the primitive state of Hebrew and Greek scholarship in the 17th century.
• It uses obsolete English words
• It uses words whose meaning has changed since the 17th century
• It's muddled in places
• It doesn't take advantage of recent archeological and manuscript discoveries
• The grammar and phrasing do not conform to modern style standards
• It's plain hard to read (12th grade reading level)
• It uses "churchy" words that obscure the commonplace ideas in the original text.

Is it "bad"? No, but it's not "perfected" either.
The King James Version of the Bible

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The KJV Has Beautiful language that I have no difficulty understanding.
It is a very neutral translation, It translates not simply by translating words, but translating meaning. ( try translating one modern language into another, using word translation, and it will be evident at once that this produces an abundance of rubbish.)
The KJC Gives a Traditional understanding of the Bible that has changed little from the early teachings of the Church.
All modern Translations Give greater emphasis to Particular variations of possible meanings rather than traditional ones, but with out any certainty of greater accuracy of meaning.

We do use The new revised a lot of the time in church but not exclusively. It is used not because of any greater accuracy but because some less well educated people find it easier to understand.
However we never use it in sermon references, where the meaning is well explained.

 

[Smoke]

I'm quoting from the catholicapologetics.info website

That's a really cheesy website, and a bad one to rely on for information. For instance, it claims: "They took out seven books of sacred scripture. (Old Testament: Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias, Wisdom, and the two books of the Machabees)." That's simply false. In fact, the original King James Version included all those books, and it was only much later that it became usual to print it without them.

It's plain hard to read (12th grade reading level)

A person who has trouble reading his native language at the 12th grade level is probably not in a position to accurately evaluate the scholarship of the King James or any other version.

 

[Spiritone]

The King James Version is in Modern English, though not contemporary English. I have no trouble understanding it. It has its faults, but it's superior to many if not most of the translations I see people using instead. I despise the NIV even more than the old Living Bible, which we used to refer to as Green Cancer.

I have no problem understanding it either, but instead of 'thou' why not just say 'you' and the same with the words that have become archaic except for preachers use. That won't change the real meaning.

Instead of inspiring I would call it 'semantics to persuade' like anything that sounds exotic is more appealing and clouds the actual reality of the text. Just my way of looking at it.

 

[Smoke]

I have no problem understanding it either, but instead of 'thou' why not just say 'you' and the same with the words that have become archaic except for preachers use. That won't change the real meaning.

When you eliminate the second person singular, you may not change the meaning, but you often obscure it.

 

[Spiritone]

When you eliminate the second person singular, you may not change the meaning, but you often obscure it.

I don't believe that that is going to make earth shaking changes. Thou, you or ye or yous which is used in certain places means the same thing. No need to nit pick. The overall implications have a great effect on how people are convinced to believe.