Why do people still use the KJV?

[PaulDA]

I understand that some people like the flow and beauty of old English. I imagine that is one of the reasons Shakespeare is still popular, but in general, I don't think it's most  Americans who enjoy old English.
.....My question is , why use the KJV to study and why do preachers use it to preach? Much of the language is unclear and I have seen sermons where the preacher spent 1/3 of the time rewording what he just said so people could understand it.
.....If I'm not mistaken, the New KJV is basically the KJV with modern language and with a few errors from the KJV fixed. Is this correct?
.....If so, why doesn't the New KJV completely replace the KJV?
I know that the NIV is more popular now than the KJV, as far as sales is concerned, but I wonder where the NKJV fits in there.

[Josh]

I think it's good to have several different intepretations, so that, when a difficult or unclear passage arises, you can illuminate it by comparing several different renderings of the text. In this regard, the KJV probably has its rightful place, so long as it is balanced with the NASB, NIV, RSV, etc.

As for using it from the pulpit, though, I agree with you, Paul. It seems much wiser to use something a little more straightforward (and historically accurate!) like the aforementioned translations.

[Vlad!]

I don't know why people still use the KJV. Maybe they feel more godly if they're reading something that's harder to understand. Of course, I never understood why there was such a problem getting the Bible translated out of Latin, either, so I think the Church just has too much intertia for its own good.

[bethany]

I don't really run across people using KJV unless they're over the age of 50 or 60, in which case it's understandable, because it's the translation they grew up reading and memorizing. But I agree, there are more accurate translations out there now that should be (and in my experience, are) utilized.

[PaulDA]

I don't really run across people using KJV unless they're over the age of 50 or 60, in which case it's understandable, because it's the translation they grew up reading and memorizing. But I agree, there are more accurate translations out there now that should be (and in my experience, are) utilized.

Some churches and denominations use the KJV to teach from.
My question is why do these churches keep using the KJV?
Isn't the NKJV the same thing except in modern English with some translation corrections?

[Brenden]

I find the KJV confusing, but there is the occasional person I run into who believes it to be the most accurate translation. One guy I know likes it better, but doesn't claim that it's a better translation.

[PaulDA]

I find the KJV confusing, but there is the occasional person I run into who believes it to be the most accurate translation. One guy I know likes it better, but doesn't claim that it's a better translation.

It's actually not the most accurate translation.
For instance, 'Holy Spirit' is translated 'Holy Ghost' and that is not in any other translation as far as I know.
Also, the word 'Easter' is in KJV and that was also a misranslation that is not in any other translation, again, as far as I know.

[Brenden]

I've heard it wasn't terribly accurate, I never liked it myself, too unreadable for me.

[danny316]

But it's the only real bible that wasn' t written by Satan! Don't you guys read av1611.org?

[murlough23]

I'm not a stickler about translations like some Christians are. It is something that I think we should be careful about, since we have a lot of translations and they appear to say different things at times. My basic belief is that they were generally written with the intention of clearing things up for folks who didn't understand the language of the KJV or whatever versions were previously available. I know enough to know that any translation is going to obscure the meaning a little, which is why we have scholars poring over the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic words for things and trying to get at the cultural context of stuff that may not necessarily mean anything to us.  actually wonder sometimes if there are certain issues on which most of the English translations available to us aren't really getting at the underlying nuances of the original because the translation was more literal. Sometimes we think we're taking something literally and it turns out that what seems literal to us may not be the actual literal meaning as it was apparent to the people the original words were spoken to all those years ago.

One area that's a little fuzzy for me is The Message. I really like what I've seen of it in terms of it being relatable in modern language and easy to read. However, I think it's a bit dubious when it's quoted in sermons without a more "traditional" translation given alongside it. It's often very helpful to understand what the author was trying to say, but what Eugene Peterson did was to write a paraphrase, and he acknowledges that in his own book, saying it's supposed to aid in Bible study but not replace the actual Bible. This is something I've actually been wondering on and off whether I should bring up with one of the pastors at my church - they don't always do it, but occasionally they do and it's kind of like saying "Matthew x:y basically says this" and just kind of summing up the gist of it rather than actually reading the passage. This isn't a slam on The Message, because I'd really love to read it in its entirety one day... but I'm sure that in doing so, I'd often need to do it in parallel with a more "traditional" translation for some trickier passages.

I'd like to see how the av1611.org folks reconcile the concept of the Bible being translated into new languages. If the KJV is the only legitimate version and it was written in the language of its day, then any translation into a new language, which will probably use that language's modern forms, colloquialisms, etc. is not legitimate. Right?

[AnAngelUnaware21]

My church does and so I do.  My favorite is the NIV, but the KJV is very pretty.  All accept that in those days the seat of the emotion was the bowels so every so often, there is talk about how much someone feels something in their bowels that is kinda gross.  

[murlough23]

All accept that in those days the seat of the emotion was the bowels so every so often, there is talk about how much someone feels something in their bowels that is kinda gross.

It's gross, but everyone still accepts it?

Oh, you meant "except". Sorry.

[ThePurplePerson]

I like it because it's pretty and majestic and all that stuff.  But I'm not all radical about it, and I don't use it for everyday reading-- for that, I use NASB.

[Wildcatblue7]

I kind of like the KJV on occasion.  For everyday things I read the NIV.  

One version that really concerns me is the Message.  When you do a comparison of the Message and the NASB (which is widely considered the most accurate translation) they just don't line up.  The Message is a paraphrase, for sure--it just isn't as widely portrayed as one.  I don't like hearing it in sermons and things because it sounds flat--like taking Shakespeare and dumbing it down to Sesame Street vocabulary.

[PaulDA]

I kind of like the KJV on occasion.  For everyday things I read the NIV. 

One version that really concerns me is the Message.  When you do a comparison of the Message and the NASB (which is widely considered the most accurate translation) they just don't line up.  The Message is a paraphrase, for sure--it just isn't as widely portrayed as one.  I don't like hearing it in sermons and things because it sounds flat--like taking Shakespeare and dumbing it down to Sesame Street vocabulary.

.....I disagree about The Message dumbing down the language.
I like the every day language. As far as using it to study from, that is not advisable because it is a paraphrase, but to read it in conjunction Bible translations, that is fine.
Rebecca St. James reads a few passages from The Message during her concerts and I like the flow of the words.
.....Personally, I don't read the Bible for 'beautiful langiage'. I read the Bible to praise and worship God. The simpler the translation, the closer to modern English, the better I like it. The reason the KJV was so popular when it first came out is because that's HOW the people spoke at that time!!
It is hard enough trying to interpret what the Bible says (there are so many interpretaions among Christians, even on the somplest things), that I don't want to have to try and figure out what some translator meant when he wrote in old English 414 years ago!

[dgp11776]

I pretty much solely read KJV.  I was raised reading it, and now I'm just used to it.  It's what I read, quote, and preach from.  I have no problems with people reading other translations, though.  I'm not a "KJV only" type of person.

[PaulDA]

I pretty much solely read KJV.  I was raised reading it, and now I'm just used to it.  It's what I read, quote, and preach from.  I have no problems with people reading other translations, though.  I'm not a "KJV only" type of person.

Ok, I have a question. Why do you like to use something that is not written in the language you use everyday? I understand you grew up with it, but why would you stick with it? Every sermon I have heard where the KJV is used, the preacher always has to explain passages he just read in modern language.
To me that takes up time and what good is it if a preacher has to keep explaining what he just read?
I'm just curious.

[dgp11776]

Ok, I have a question. Why do you like to use something that is not written in the language you use everyday? I understand you grew up with it, but why would you stick with it? Every sermon I have heard where the KJV is used, the preacher always has to explain passgaes he just read in modern language.
To me that takes up time and what good is it if a preacher has to keep explaining what he just read?
I'm just curious.

It is a pretty excellent translation, and, having read it for about 23-24 years now, I understand the language.

[Wildcatblue7]

.....I disagree about The Message dumbing down the language.
I like the every day language.
.....Personally, I don't read the Bible for 'beautiful langiage'. I read the Bible to praise and worship God. The simpler the translation, the closer to modern English, the better I like it. The reason the KJV was so popular when it first came out is because that's HOW the people spoke at that time!!
It is hard enough trying to interpret what the Bible says (there are so many interpretaions among Christians, even on the somplest things), that I don't want to have to try and figure out what some translator meant when he wrote in old English 414 years ago!

Didn't you just sort of contradict yourself?  Not to be an ass or anything, it just looked odd.

You do have to consider that some people like flowery (or more archaic) language.  I don't really like the way the Message just sort of splurts out the idea without any of the solid background or guts of the KJV or NIV.  And I've never liked paraphrases.  Give me the full version!  =)  

[murlough23]

I disagree about The Message dumbing down the language.
I like the every day language. As far as using it to study from, that is not advisable because it is a paraphrase, but to read it in conjunction Bible translations, that is fine.
Rebecca St. James reads a few passages from The Message during her concerts and I like the flow of the words.

I think it depends on what part of the Bible you're reading. Something like Paul's letters... those are instructional and those need to make sense and not be bogged down with flowery language. Paul does use analogies and other literary devices, as other writers do, and I think those need to come through with their intent intact even if that sacrifices some of the instant readability of it. It's tricky because you want it to make sense in contemporary language but you don't want to lose the original significance.

Something like the Psalms or Song of Solomon, or the parables of Jesus... that needs to remain more artistic and "flowery". That was the intent when the contents of those books were written, and to spell it out matter-of-factly kind of ruins the power of it (though it doesn't hurt to explain it on the side, butt hat's what commentaries/Bible studies are for). Sometimes words need to be wrestled with to be fully appreciated, I think, and more artistic things like poetry can often have different interpretations for different people. That is not to say that God's truth is relative for different people, but simply that those aspects of our relationship with God are going to be understood in different terms by each of us. That's what I think the beauty of the arts is, and I want it to come across clearly that art does exist in the Bible.

Personally, I don't read the Bible for 'beautiful langiage'. I read the Bible to praise and worship God.

But I hope you can agree that "beautiful language" does praise God, not in the act of making it purposefully complex and spouting off flowery words to appear more intelligent, but simply in the act of reiterating what we know about God in words that are personal and meaningful to us. It doesn't mean you have to be a walking thesaurus or anything. But I think it often helps to try to put yourself in a writer's shoes and try to see/feel what they were seeing/feeling. Understanding their words and even reiterating them in different (maybe for you, simpler) terms often helps.

And I've never liked paraphrases. Give me the full version!

Anything translated into another language is more than likely going to be a paraphrase, though. Translated entirely literally, a lot of stuff just plain won't make sense, because other languages have grammatical conventions and cultural references and idioms that are not apparent to us English-speakers. Something like the KJV or NKJV attempts a more literal approach, but obviously we still have some explaining to do when we ponder over its words and try to figure out what that means to us. Something like The Message may make more sense in our language, but we have to understand that some license is being taken with certain idioms or analogies.

Maybe different translations work better to shed light on different passages. I figure it can't hurt to have several available and use the one that makes the most sense for the situation you're in.

[Wildcatblue7]

True, but I was referring to bad English-to-English translations.

[PaulDA]

.....I disagree about The Message dumbing down the language.
I like the every day language.
.....Personally, I don't read the Bible for 'beautiful langiage'. I read the Bible to praise and worship God. The simpler the translation, the closer to modern English, the better I like it. The reason the KJV was so popular when it first came out is because that's HOW the people spoke at that time!!
It is hard enough trying to interpret what the Bible says (there are so many interpretaions among Christians, even on the somplest things), that I don't want to have to try and figure out what some translator meant when he wrote in old English 414 years ago!

Didn't you just sort of contradict yourself?  Not to be an ass or anything, it just looked odd.

You do have to consider that some people like flowery (or more archaic) language.  I don't really like the way the Message just sort of splurts out the idea without any of the solid background or guts of the KJV or NIV.  And I've never liked paraphrases.  Give me the full version!  =)

I didn't contradict myself. I don't equate 'simpole modern language' with 'dunmbing down'. That's kind of an insulting term, and it bascially says that people who don't like flowery language are dumb.  

[murlough23]

"Flowery language" also insists that the language is more complex for no reason other than to be complex. It kind of insinuates that complexity is unnecessary and only serves to obscure meaning. God wrote the Bible, and some of it is complex, and God also created things like flowers that seems to serve no purpose other than to be decorative. So I'm not exactly sure where the problem lies with so-called "flowery" language.

NP: "Someone Else's Arms", Mae

[MJanke]

True, but I was referring to bad English-to-English translations.

Those are paraphrases, not translations. Translations go back to the original language and "translate" it into English. To take English to English is to "paraphrase" (that is, re-phrase) an existing translation.

Thus, paraphrases, while useful for some purposes, should not be used and relied upon for serious study or matters of doctrine, since it's now twice removed from the actual source text. Kind of like playing telephone - the further from the first person you go the less reliable it becomes.

[MJanke]

"Flowery language" also insists that the language is more complex for no reason other than to be complex. It kind of insinuates that complexity is unnecessary and only serves to obscure meaning. God wrote the Bible, and some of it is complex, and God also created things like flowers that seems to serve no purpose other than to be decorative. So I'm not exactly sure where the problem lies with so-called "flowery" language.
 

If there is a problem it would be found in the writer choosing to be flowery where there was no flowery original language or intent.

If the word selected to translate the Greek/Hebrew is a flowery word and still conveys the original meaning, then that's good.

If the translator (or paraphraser) decides to be flowery and that goes above or beyond the text being translated then that is a grave error. Translators cannot be flowery or poetic when the source is neither.

[Wildcatblue7]

Those are paraphrases, not translations. Translations go back to the original language and "translate" it into English. To take English to English is to "paraphrase" (that is, re-phrase) an existing translation.

Thus, paraphrases, while useful for some purposes, should not be used and relied upon for serious study or matters of doctrine, since it's now twice removed from the actual source text. Kind of like playing telephone - the further from the first person you go the less reliable it becomes.

that's what I meant, I'm just rather fuzzy-headed today.  dang it.

[murlough23]

If the translator (or paraphraser) decides to be flowery and that goes above or beyond the text being translated then that is a grave error. Translators cannot be flowery or poetic when the source is neither.

Right. You have to be true to the intent of the original passage, which requires a good deal of study of that original passage.

[phaith]

When I took Homiletics (preaching) And hermeneutics (interpretation of scripture) in school, it was easier to find the main idea of the passage (in linear fashion) with either the KJV or the NASB. I was surprised, because I don't use either very often. My English/Greek bible is NASB trans too.

As to the KJV being more inspired (or whatever) I think that is ludacris!
I don't mind the KJV on a poetic level, but when I preached I used NIV translation after I did my initial work and research in the KJV and NASB. My prof actually encouraged us to use at least 3 translations when building a sermon because some trans. capture the 'spirit' of the text better than others.  

[leinad]

I once had a neighbor who claimed that God dictated the text to King James.

[bloop]

I prefer the NRSV to all other versions I've read, so I'm truly evil to the av1611 types.  Good.  I can't think of a group of people for whom thinking ill of a person speaks higher of that person.

[Blindman]

Here's a link to a very interesting article written by Pastor John Piper (perhaps best known for Desiring God) about his pastoral experience with the different major translations of the Bible, and why he believes the ESV should become the primary Bible for most believers.

For the record, I use NIV personally... but if preparing studies, I always read from the NASB, NKJV, and a bunch of other versions as well.  It's the next best thing to knowing Greek and Hebrew, I think.

[phaith]

[murlough23]

I would have smacked that dude over the head with his 1611 Bible.

You know who I can't be friends with? Anyone who says "You're only a genuine Christian if you _____", and that blank is anything other than having faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (or something of that nature).

[phaith]

I would have smacked that dude over the head with his 1611 Bible.

You know who I can't be friends with? Anyone who says "You're only a genuine Christian if you _____", and that blank is anything other than having faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior (or something of that nature).

When he first told me I laughed because I couldn't believe that he was that narrow minded! Then I felt sorry for him, that he couldn't live in grace and show that to others...and that he felt the need to be in such a small box and force others there too!

Mike Mason says in his book called 'practicing the presance of people' that 'hate' is when we cannot accept someone for who they are and must force them to be exactly like us.

Anne Lammot says "You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."

I recently went to see Brian McLaren speak and he said. "I know this may seem like heresy to some of you...but imagine for a minit...just imagine...what if God actually loves the world?"

Well...He does, and so should we.  

[Vlad!]

I once had a neighbor who claimed that God dictated the text to King James.

Your family does seem to have more than your share of crackpot neighbors

He told me that he was disapointed, but that since I was in all otherwise christian, he could still be my friend. Then he found out that I

1. Dance *gasp*
2. swear *gasp*
3. have the occasional beer *passes out*

Let's see here...King David, a man after God's own heart, danced, probably swore (though I can't recall any passages offhand where it says he does), and drank alcohol. AND he didn't use the KJV translation, either. Obviously God needs to be pickier about HIS friends, too!

[murlough23]

Let's see here...King David, a man after God's own heart, danced, probably swore (though I can't recall any passages offhand where it says he does), and drank alcohol. AND he didn't use the KJV translation, either. Obviously God needs to be pickier about HIS friends, too!

He had some pretty mean things to say about his enemies which could be interpreted as curses, like wanting their babies' heads to be smashed on the ground and stuff. Maybe the words themselves, removed from context, were not naughty, but it's kind of like my favorite example, saying "I wish that you would be raped", which does not contain any "bad words", but is certainly more offensive than a lot of colloquial phrases using "bad words", such as "That's f*cking awesome!" So we can postulate that if "cusswords" are a sin, then some of the stuff David had to say is more offensive and therefore also sinful.

[AnAngelUnaware21]

It's gross, but everyone still accepts it?

Oh, you meant "except". Sorry.

Yeah aren't you glad I am not a proof reader for a living?

[NinjaRob17]

3. have the occasional beer *passes out*

Personally, I can't understand Christians who think it's wrong to drink alcohol. I mean, Jesus- the son of God- turned water into wine (An alcoholic beverage! Gasp!).
That's an entirely off-topic subject, though, so...yeah.

[murlough23]

Personally, I can't understand Christians who think it's wrong to drink alcohol. I mean, Jesus- the son of God- turned water into wine (An alcoholic beverage! Gasp!).
That's an entirely off-topic subject, though, so...yeah.

The response to that appears to be that wine was much less alcoholic in those days, and therefore much harder to get drunk off of, but that argument doesn't hold up very well for those who claim it's wrong to have a drop of alcohol even for those who claim it's too small an amount to have an effect on them. Either it's an absolute rule and you can have none whatsoever, or it's a moderation rule and you're not supposed to drink to the point where you lose control or become addicted... but you can't have it both ways.

[Usadingo]

Expecially when you consider there's biblical verses saying not to get drunk on wine.  These verses not only imply that wine was alcoholic, but that it was possible to get drunk off it.