# Giving an AV Bible to an Unbeliever



## Afterthought (Oct 20, 2014)

I don't want this to turn into a lengthy AV/TR debate. Just a simple practical question. For those who prefer the AV translation and the TR texts, do you sometimes give a bible to an unbeliever? If you do, do you give them the AV, or do you give them something else because of concerns over whether they will be able/have the motivation to make the effort to read it? Or would view the translation as irrelevant or elitist (depending on their view of the language). For that matter, I suppose this question could be extended to giving a bible to a believer, especially a new believer.


----------



## MW (Oct 20, 2014)

Raymond, I confidently give the AV to any and every one who will read it, but I do so with the recognition that a spiritually enlightened and commissioned person is needed to explain the revelation. Acts 8. If we were realistic we would see there is much in the Bible that is foreign to the modern reader and perhaps even offensive. No faithful translation is going to remove these elements.

It might be worth considering the TBS edition of the Gospel according to John. We have found this a very useful publication to distribute to unbelievers.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 20, 2014)

Thank you, that is helpful. I'll definitely look into the TBS publication you have mentioned.



MW said:


> but I do so with the recognition that a spiritually enlightened and commissioned person is needed to explain the revelation.


Have you ever found the scarcity of churches that prefer the AV to be a problem when handing a copy to an unbeliever? You might not have, given that you are one of those commissioned people and are part of a church that does prefer it. But I wonder whether some difficulty might arise when such is not the case, since a minister who prefers another translation might simply say where they believe the AV is wrong and so the end result of giving an unbeliever (or new believer) that translation is counterproductive (perhaps because that person might feel you had mislead them by handing them that translation?)?


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 20, 2014)

What is their level of reading comprehension? Up until 1947 If I recall correctly the AV, RV and ASV were the only mainstream English translations if I am not mistaken. In '47 the RSV first came out. OTOH, many pulpits used the AV in preaching up until relatively recent times. Since the late '70s the NIV has been the most popular translation according to sales stats. I personally began with a 'New' Schofield KJV. I had read many classics of great literature as well as many of Shakespeare's tragedies/histories. 

Say that to say that my reading comprehension was fair. I had no church background and at 37 years old hadn't been brought up with any of the texts. I found some of the KJV difficult to follow. Romans 7 for example. I bought an NIV to 'translate' what I couldn't quite get in the KJV and that worked out well for me. I still read the AV, probably more so than other translations, but I still access the '84 NIV, the ESV, NKJV &tc. 

So using my own experience to judge what to give an individual, I've given people an AV if I thought that was what would be best for them, an NIV or ESV for others who, in my judgment, weren't ready for that, and for one individual an NLT. When I was a kid we read 'Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water," not King Lear. Giving someone new to the Bible an AV is fine if they can process it. If in doubt I'd opt for one in the current lingua franca and assume they might move on to the AV. 

To insist that anyone should begin with an AV regardless of their reading comprehension is In my humble opinion misguided and smacks of loyalty to a text rather than trying to help the new Christian. your mileage may vary.


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 20, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> and smacks of loyalty to a text rather than trying to help the new Christian.


If one is loyal to a text because one believes it to be a faithful translation and a better one than others, the two goals become one, so far as I can see. But anyway, although your post explicates the concerns I had in the OP and are fair questions to ask (obviously I would think so or I wouldn't have asked them!), I thought you preferred the NIV and CT, not the AV and TR?


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 20, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > and smacks of loyalty to a text rather than trying to help the new Christian.
> ...



I don't prefer the NIV and CT. OTOH, I don't reject them because of some people's opinions that they are based on corrupt manuscripts. One thing I've gotten out of reading the aforementioned translations is how little I can find that differs in the final 'takeaway' I get when I compare them. I'm sure someone will come along and tell me how many more words there are in the AV than in the NIV, ESV. Point is, the versions don't change the doctrines. Isn't it fair to say that the CT became the dominant version in the 20th century for a reason ? 

Discoveries of the papyri, the Dead Sea Scrolls, many more manuscripts, and devoted scholars and philologists working on these are pretty much unanimous in respecting the AV translation and the 400+ years it has been extant, but that doesn't mean that we close our eyes to the scholarship that has come along since the 1769 revision. The verses I learned to quote by heart are in the KJV. I pray, as the Pastor at the church I go to does, in KJV English, though he preaches, as you know, out of the NKJV. I love the AV, but I think that as Paul told Timothy .... "_all Scripture_", and the NIV and ESV are that AFAIC.

Back to your original question, I gave a NLT to a 20 or so year old kid who was hanging around the tattoo shop. He is a 'hood rat' and "Wassup dog" is his vernacular greeting I once quoted part of Ephesians 2 to him, 'And you hath He quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins wherein in time past ye walked' ........ and he looked at me as if I was speaking Chinese. Judge for yourself, here are a few comparisons ;


> Ephesians 3:3-5
> 
> AV
> 
> ...


----------



## bookslover (Oct 21, 2014)

To give the AV to an unbeliever (or even a brand-new Christian) is ridiculous. An unbeliever who would be willing to accept any Bible is going to have lots of questions that need to be answered, and new believers have all kinds of questions as well. I think it's stupid, quite frankly, to saddle these folks with the task of fighting to understand 500-year-old English on top of trying to find out about the faith. Why would anyone place an unnecessary burden like that on a new believer or an unbeliever?

Give them a Bible in a reliable translation in modern English. Why make things harder than they have to be?


----------



## One Little Nail (Oct 21, 2014)

bookslover said:


> To give the AV to an unbeliever (or even a brand-new Christian) is ridiculous.



Here we go again


----------



## SeanAnderson (Oct 21, 2014)

Something I will say in defence of giving an AV to an unbeliever, quite often that is what they expect of the Bible. The so-called 'cultural Christianity' that surrounds us is permeated by the language of the KJV. Some unbelievers might even be able to quote verses from the KJV and appreciate its literary value. I learnt the KJV translation of the Lord's Prayer in primary school and when I became a Christian at 19, I still remembered it and I continue to recite it, as opposed to the modern renderings used in churches which don't come naturally to me.

Another point is that the ESV (another sturdy translation in my opinion) is arguably not much easier than the KJV to understand. Easier translations are more 'dynamic', but these are not as faithful to the original text.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Oct 21, 2014)

In my evangelistic work I've often found that people request a 'real Bible', when you ask them what they mean by that, they always are talking about the AV. I think sometimes the church can worry more about translations that the people of the world do.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 21, 2014)

In actual fact it happened that upon my conversion (this unbeknownst to the one witnessing to me) I was given the Gospel of John in the AV. This is excerpted from the story, "St. Louis Blues to Conversion", in the book, _O Great and Terrible Love: A pilgrimage from Woodstock to Celestial City (via Babylon and Armageddon)_:

As I was up in Westchester already I went to Croton to pick up a camera I’d left at a camp for disturbed children I had worked at.

The lady and her family who were caretakers of the place were Christians from Estonia (I think they had fled the Communists). This woman, Lea, was an evangelical born-again Christian. Wouldn't you know, she started in on me. I thought she was a real fanatic, and when she began telling me about her version of Jesus I resisted her vigorously. After all, I taught reincarnation and the spirituality I had learned among the Sufis and Theosophists to my friends, and was not interested in what I saw as retrograde primitive religiosity that was ignorant of genuine spiritual consciousness. Notwithstanding my desperate spiritual state at that time, I wanted no part of this lady's Christian stuff, with her “Jesus died for your sins on the cross” as a constant refrain in her incessant raving. I was getting a headache listening to her. I was a very forceful character, but she was as forceful as I. It was a clash! And while she was speaking, and I on the verge of leaving, a light from Heaven shone into my heart, and with my inner sight I saw the glory of a Being whom I knew to be the Lord Jesus, and He looked upon me in His heart-rending love and majesty, and it was as though He had been crucified – for me! – and yet was alive, similar to what I later read in John's vision in Revelation 5:6, “And I beheld, and lo...stood a Lamb as it had been slain...” 

I was struck speechless! She kept talking, but I hardly heard her. _This_ spiritual Light and Glory was what I had longed for in all my searching! _This_ was the Life that lifted one above the wheel of birth and death, _this_ was the Love that made one complete and _not driven_ in the seeking of earthly loves. And all this was in a Person! Jesus! I had been sure it was “a state of consciousness” _I_ attained to through effort, or meeting an enlightened Teacher, or my karmic due. But it was an actual Person who was in Himself Deity! I was thoroughly shocked and humbled. I was so proud, so arrogant, so sure of my own way. It was with me as with a seer (I'd later read – Charles Spurgeon), who said, “I looked at Him, and He looked at me, and we were one forever.” From that moment on, I was His. Love at first sight.

I couldn't even say anything to Lea. I told her, “I’ve got to go!” and on the way out she handed me a little Gospel of John (in the old Authorized Version). All the way back to NYC I was aware of the presence of Jesus Christ. Up to this point in my life I'd never read the Bible, save as literature in college, or a book among other “holy books.” During my conversation with Lea, I had said to her, when she talked of worshipping Jesus, “What is a man that I should bow the knee to him? We are all on the path to becoming Christs!” But that evening, when I got to my bare, simple apartment, in the presence of this One who was to me unequivocally God – while in the shower – I bowed the knee to Him, and wept...for love, for joy, for sorrow...and shortly after wrote this poem:

​*LORD*

How You know​in the river of my heart​flowing through these words​
what is too deep for the words to say​sorrow too molten​joy too free​thankfulness too profound​
Oh Man, You are my Savior!​
What a joy to be in the presence of the Light I had so long sought among the world’s sages, and for this Illumination to be in the friendship and love of – heart-union with – a Person! The little Bible tract of John's Gospel, when I read it, was illumined by Him just as was my heart: the words of the Gospel were one with the Spirit of Him whose presence shone so ravishingly within _me!_ They were His words! And this holy Spirit continued to shine in my heart with an ineffable radiance that bespoke infinite wisdom, love, and power – _this_ was the Person of the living God!​


----------



## KMK (Oct 21, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> Have you ever found the scarcity of churches that prefer the AV to be a problem when handing a copy to an unbeliever?



What makes you say that AV churches are scarce? I would be interested in seeing some data on this. Which translations are preferred by churches? I have seen data concerning actual sales numbers. Based on those numbers, the AV is not scarce. But, it would be interesting to see data concerning 'pew' Bibles.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 21, 2014)

We have the AV in our pews (along with some NKJV)


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 21, 2014)

I find the print to be a big issue. An unbeliever might appreciate a large print if eye sight is an issue 
even teens will sometimes prefer a large print. Small print might be nice if easy to carry is an issue


----------



## joejohnston3 (Oct 21, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> What is their level of reading comprehension? Up until 1947 If I recall correctly the AV, RV and ASV were the only mainstream English translations if I am not mistaken. In '47 the RSV first came out. OTOH, many pulpits used the AV in preaching up until relatively recent times. Since the late '70s the NIV has been the most popular translation according to sales stats. I personally began with a 'New' Schofield KJV. I had read many classics of great literature as well as many of Shakespeare's tragedies/histories.
> 
> Say that to say that my reading comprehension was fair. I had no church background and at 37 years old hadn't been brought up with any of the texts. I found some of the KJV difficult to follow. Romans 7 for example. I bought an NIV to 'translate' what I couldn't quite get in the KJV and that worked out well for me. I still read the AV, probably more so than other translations, but I still access the '84 NIV, the ESV, NKJV &tc.
> 
> ...



+1


----------



## yeutter (Oct 21, 2014)

My home parish, like most Anglicans, adheres to the Authorized version. Some of the brethren in my congregation give out NKJV.


----------



## Sylvanus (Oct 21, 2014)

I wouldn't give an AV to anyone, because they probably don't speak Shakespearian English. I don't need to use a hypothetical example of a new Christian, because as a former "new Christian" I know I preferred a Bible that was understandable. Wouldn't use it in family worship either; don't feel the need to explain to my child words we never use in general discourse: "thence" "whence" "whither" "durst". Feel I could use my time explaining the doctrine rather than the verbiage. 

"And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli..." -Acts 28:13

Huh? 

I would give them a NKJV if I was wanting to go TR route.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 21, 2014)

SeanAnderson said:


> I learnt the KJV translation of the Lord's Prayer in primary school and when I became a Christian at 19, I still remembered it and I continue to recite it, as opposed to the modern renderings used in churches which don't come naturally to me.


 Assuming that the UK, like the USA disallowed prayer in school in the 1950s, you, like me are an older gentleman ? 


> Another point is that the ESV (another sturdy translation in my opinion) is arguably not much easier than the KJV to understand. *Easier translations are more 'dynamic', but these are not as faithful to the original text*.


If you would get hold of an NIV, a 1984 printing preferably, and read a chapter of any portion of the OT, or the NT, in the AV, and then in the NIV, I think you'll find that the meaning of the text is conveyed precisely in the NIV. No mainstream English translation is absolutely literal, not even the AV. Go to Bible Gateway and select Young's Literal Translation from the drop down menu, with a parallel of your choice to compare. Literal is fine as far as it goes, but in some ways it can be too much of a good thing. 

As the OP said, this isn't about personal preference for one family of texts or another, rather it is what to give an unbeliever to introduce them to the Holy Bible.


----------



## SeanAnderson (Oct 21, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> SeanAnderson said:
> 
> 
> > I learnt the KJV translation of the Lord's Prayer in primary school and when I became a Christian at 19, I still remembered it and I continue to recite it, as opposed to the modern renderings used in churches which don't come naturally to me.
> ...



I am only 22. Christian corporate worship is still part of the primary school day in Britain, even those schools which aren't church schools. Pupils are usually read Bible stories in assemblies, often have visits from local ministers and will thank God at lunchtime. Parents are allowed to withdraw their children from corporate worship and there is growing pressure to do away with it altogether.

I don't have a problem with the 1984 NIV, and I really like the ESV. I regularly compare Bible translations and I generally consider them all to contain the word of God (unless they are perversions of it). I'm just saying that the KJV is very sound and still relevant to many people, even non-Christians, and there's no reason to throw it out even if we do make use of other translations. No translation is perfect.


----------



## MW (Oct 21, 2014)

bookslover said:


> I think it's stupid, quite frankly



Then you would have to think it a marvel when young children read and understand the AV.


----------



## Tyrese (Oct 21, 2014)

Our Church is apart of a ministry where the students were provided KJV's by the organization that sponsored them. I was really disappointed when we decided to buy a ton of ESVs because of the assumption that they couldn't understand the KJV. Some people treat the KJV like it's not the Bible at all. We also have to remember that it doesn't matter what translation a person is using because you still need the help of the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible. So with the help of the Holy Spirit, anyone can understand the KJV.


----------



## Tyrese (Oct 21, 2014)

bookslover said:


> To give the AV to an unbeliever (or even a brand-new Christian) is ridiculous. An unbeliever who would be willing to accept any Bible is going to have lots of questions that need to be answered, and new believers have all kinds of questions as well. I think it's stupid, quite frankly, to saddle these folks with the task of fighting to understand 500-year-old English on top of trying to find out about the faith. Why would anyone place an unnecessary burden like that on a new believer or an unbeliever?
> 
> Give them a Bible in a reliable translation in modern English. Why make things harder than they have to be?



Very disappointed that you would write this brother


----------



## Tyrese (Oct 21, 2014)

Sylvanus said:


> I wouldn't give an AV to anyone, because they probably don't speak Shakespearian English. I don't need to use a hypothetical example of a new Christian, because as a former "new Christian" I know I preferred a Bible that was understandable. Wouldn't use it in family worship either; don't feel the need to explain to my child words we never use in general discourse: "thence" "whence" "whither" "durst". Feel I could use my time explaining the doctrine rather than the verbiage.
> 
> "And from thence we fetched a compass, and came to Rhegium: and after one day the south wind blew, and we came the next day to Puteoli..." -Acts 28:13
> 
> ...



I also use the NKJV, but I'm not sure I'm following you here because there's words in the NKJV that I have to explain to my kids that are much more complex than the examples you gave. I don't think we can avoid explaining words.


----------



## jayce475 (Oct 21, 2014)

Over here, we have ESL Bible college foreign students and young toddlers who have just begun taking to AV English just fine.


----------



## MW (Oct 21, 2014)

Sylvanus said:


> don't feel the need to explain to my child words we never use in general discourse



If one explained such words to his child those words by default would be used in discourse, thus taking away the unfamiliarity. It may also have the benefit of delivering the child from making the silly statement that such words belong to "Shakespearean English."


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 21, 2014)

Thanks for the comments all! Although I do wish the thread was limited to those who prefer the AV/TR since that adds an additional consideration when thinking on these things.



KMK said:


> What makes you say that AV churches are scarce? I would be interested in seeing some data on this. Which translations are preferred by churches? I have seen data concerning actual sales numbers. Based on those numbers, the AV is not scarce. But, it would be interesting to see data concerning 'pew' Bibles.


A fair point. Only on the anecdotal level can I say that it has seemed to me that those churches are scarce.



Josh Williamson said:


> I think sometimes the church can worry more about translations that the people of the world do.


You may be right about that, but given the negative responses on this thread alone, it seems like the perception of the unbeliever or new believer would depend on the person. Hence the concern brought up by the OP to begin with.


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 21, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> I do wish the thread was limited to those who prefer the AV/TR


 Maybe in a perfect world .....  ....... I think when all is said and done, you'll do as we all probably do, choose as the Spirit leads.


----------



## One Little Nail (Oct 22, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> And while she was speaking, and I on the verge of leaving, a light from Heaven shone into my heart, and with my inner sight I saw the glory of a Being whom I knew to be the Lord Jesus, and He looked upon me in His heart-rending love and majesty, and it was as though He had been crucified – for me! – and yet was alive,



Brother Steve, that's a wonderful testimony, though what puzzles me is that youv'e sworn you're a _cessationist_ yet here you're speaking in a language that any _continuist_ would happily embrace


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Oct 22, 2014)

Hi Robert – and yes, a continuationist should, for it is but the testimony of Scripture, that the Spirit of Christ bears witness to:

​I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you (John 16:12-15)​
​But they go beyond this into extra-Biblical revelation after the close of the canon, after the last writings of apostolic authority.


----------



## whirlingmerc (Oct 22, 2014)

Is there a difference if one is talking not about guidance like 'go to a street called straight and find a man named Paul' as opposed to new doctrinal truth

I am dismissive about claimed visions or dreams about novel new doctrinal truth since the apostles were led into all essential truth for salvation, but I think God might give a Muslim or Jewish or other person a dream pointing to Jesus. Jude says the faith was delivered to the saints. Ephesians talks about the apostolic teaching as a type of foundation. I don't believe in putting limits on what God might choose to do regarding other than essential doctrine.


As far as what Bible to give, consider if the person has a preference making it more likely to use one translation or the other. Better to give them something they will use.


----------



## Sylvanus (Oct 22, 2014)

Tyrese said:


> I also use the NKJV, but I'm not sure I'm following you here because there's words in the NKJV that I have to explain to my kids that are much more complex than the examples you gave. I don't think we can avoid explaining words.



Obviously I explain words...but not words I would never use, nor ever think to use. The point is, there's no need for it, not that I think I shouldn't explain words (I think that point is obvious).


----------



## Sylvanus (Oct 22, 2014)

MW said:


> If one explained such words to his child those words by default would be used in discourse, thus taking away the unfamiliarity. It may also have the benefit of delivering the child from making the silly statement that such words belong to "Shakespearean English."



Notice the adjective "general". I put that on purpose...

Yes, it is very silly, and true. Tell me, where else do they belong? Why are you not typing to me in such a way? 

"If thou wouldst explaineth such words..." Probably because you know that wouldn't convey the message as clearly. Nor do you talk like that "in general discourse."


----------



## SeanAnderson (Oct 22, 2014)

Sylvanus said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > If one explained such words to his child those words by default would be used in discourse, thus taking away the unfamiliarity. It may also have the benefit of delivering the child from making the silly statement that such words belong to "Shakespearean English."
> ...



I'd like to point out that while there are some archaic words in the KJV which may now be unnecessary (I like them, but only out of literary taste, not as a matter of faith), 'thou' and 'ye' are not good examples of archaisms. Even when the KJV translators were at work, the use of 'thou' and 'ye' had massively declined. In English society, these words - originally singular and plural - were by this time more a matter of informal-formal distinction, the latter having grown to the extent that even daughters addressed fathers formally.

But the KJV translators used 'thou' and 'ye' for an explicit grammatical purpose: it was the best way to render the singular-plural distinction which exists in Hebrew and Greek. These two words shouldn't be an obstacle at all, though I do concede that some archaic words may be an obstacle to a modern audience.


----------



## Sylvanus (Oct 22, 2014)

SeanAnderson said:


> But the KJV translators used 'thou' and 'ye' for an explicit grammatical purpose: it was the best way to render the singular-plural distinction which exists in Hebrew and Greek.



And I can appreciate that point. But that was not the question of the OP. The question was about giving a Bible to an unbeliever...taste and singular-plural distinctions aside (I assure you, most have no idea what that means anyways). If they continue to learn and grow and appreciate the KJV, more power to em'.


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Oct 22, 2014)

bookslover said:


> To give the AV to an unbeliever (or even a brand-new Christian) is ridiculous. An unbeliever who would be willing to accept any Bible is going to have lots of questions that need to be answered, and new believers have all kinds of questions as well. I think it's stupid, quite frankly, to saddle these folks with the task of fighting to understand 500-year-old English on top of trying to find out about the faith. Why would anyone place an unnecessary burden like that on a new believer or an unbeliever?
> 
> Give them a Bible in a reliable translation in modern English. Why make things harder than they have to be?



Every day I curse that when I was a poor ignorant heathen I was given in AV Bible... It's not done me any good at all!


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2014)

I would give an AV to an unbeliever in a heartbeat if that is what I had available. I think much of the back-and-forth between "versions" is style more than reading comprehension. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (KJV)


----------



## JimmyH (Oct 22, 2014)

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> I would give an AV to an unbeliever in a heartbeat if that is what I had available. I think much of the back-and-forth between "versions" is style more than reading comprehension. "So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (KJV)


Well for hundreds of years that was the only game in town and it worked pretty well from what history tells us. Worked for me with the assistance of an NIV to clarify some passages I got confused in. On the other hand, I confess I tend to skip words I don't know the definition of sometimes, in the AV, or in any other book. 

So I was reading an AV awhile back and learned the definition of this archaic word; 1Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the *shambles*, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

In the NIV ......... 1Corinthians 10:25 Eat anything sold in the *meat market* without raising questions of conscience, 

Not a big deal but just one example of many. In my copy of D.A. Waite's "Defined King James Bible" the archaic words are in bold and defined at the bottom of the page. On their website they write ;

"Everywhere we go, we are asked about the few *600 important words or so that have changed their meaning since 1611* when the Authorized Version was first printed. The Defined King James Bible has taken away this argument from people. They now have no more excuses. They do not have to consult their dictionaries for meanings. They need only to look at the bottom of the column in their own Bible."

It is a handy feature and if you were to give someone, who wasn't familiar with KJV English, an AV it would be a great help. It is also the Cambridge edition rather than the Oxford which allegedly has a list of incorrect spellings, and/or wrong words in various verses. 

So if you are a traditionalist, or someone who feels the AV is inspired here is the website ....... https://www.biblefortoday.org/dkjb_intro.htm


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2014)

No one on the PB thinks the KJV is inspired.


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 22, 2014)

An old friend of mine used to insist on preaching to Junior Highers and Senior Highers exclusively from the KJV, claiming that he got "more conversions" out of it.

I reiterate my old (NOT original) line that ANY English Bible that someone will actually read is the "right" translation.

We wear each other out with our arguments on the PB about translations. In reality, I'd prefer the NIV, Good News, or Living Bible (all YECH, double YECH, and exceedingly double YECH in my book) to no Bible.

KJV and NKJV are WONDERFUL translations of the TR (and TR type manuscripts); ESV, HCSB, and NASB are WONDERFUL examples of the CT. But, with NIV sales still as strong as they are, even John MacArthur was willing to put his study Bible out in NIV given the extraordinary popularity of the NIV internationally.

The archaic argument against the KJV is greatly overstated as Pastor Winzer and Jerusalem Blade will be happy to tell you.


----------



## Tim (Oct 22, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> The archaic argument against the KJV is greatly overstated as Pastor Winzer and Jerusalem Blade will be happy to tell you.



Right. The KJV is really not that difficult to understand, although some folks have apparently been successful in creating a stigma to the contrary.


----------



## Sylvanus (Oct 22, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> The archaic argument against the KJV is greatly overstated as Pastor Winzer and Jerusalem Blade will be happy to tell you.



Not for this discussion, however. The original question had everything to do with the archaism of the AV. I suggested the NKJV because it's essentially the same, with updated English. Just as the AV you read now is updated from the 1611. But why would we need to do that? Was the King's speech not good enough? Probably because we want it to have a broad appeal to as many people as possible, not just those who have a pietistic love for thees and thous.

I'd be content leaving John 3:16 as: "For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life." But I probably wouldn't put it on a tract or hand out a Bible that had it (unless, of course, it was all I had to work with).


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Oct 22, 2014)

Brother, you need to read those who defend and promote the AV with a bit more charity. 

Do you think that kind of post helps this conversation?


----------



## Sylvanus (Oct 22, 2014)

Which part, the first? I've seen my position called "silly" (by a moderator) and implied that the KJV is pretty simple actually. But I think that the second part was on track, yes. So I will remove the first part. Apologies.


----------



## Dearly Bought (Oct 22, 2014)

Since the OP requested the responses of those who prefer the AV, I thought I might provide such a response to the original questions.

If I give an Bible away to an unbeliever or new believer it will be an AV. The Trinitarian Bible Society produces a multitude of Bibles which have word lists printed in the back so that the few archaic terms may be easily glossed. If you get a Royal Ruby hardcover with metrical psalms ($12), then you have a well-made yet inexpensive Bible and metrical psalter with a word list and reading plan. All you need for private, family, and public worship. I see the potential pitfalls of of handing out a "starter" modern translation as being much greater than any initial reading difficulties with the AV. Plus, all of our ministers preach and teach solely from the AV.


----------



## jambo (Oct 22, 2014)

bookslover said:


> To give the AV to an unbeliever (or even a brand-new Christian) is ridiculous. An unbeliever who would be willing to accept any Bible is going to have lots of questions that need to be answered, and new believers have all kinds of questions as well. I think it's stupid, quite frankly, to saddle these folks with the task of fighting to understand 500-year-old English on top of trying to find out about the faith. Why would anyone place an unnecessary burden like that on a new believer or an unbeliever?
> 
> Give them a Bible in a reliable translation in modern English. Why make things harder than they have to be?



Wholeheartedly agree. 

One of the main principles of the translators was to have the bible in the language of the common people. To have it so that "the plough boy and parlour maid" could understand it.


----------



## One Little Nail (Oct 22, 2014)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> No one on the PB thinks the KJV is inspired.



Every & Any Translation which carries over Faithfully the Greek & Hebrew *Words* of the Scriptures into the receptor tongue displays the marks of the Divine Original, one of which is that it is Living or Spiritual or in other words it exhibits what is called a Derived or Secondary _Inspiration_.


----------



## ZackF (Oct 22, 2014)

If KJV was my first translation I would do something similar to how I handle my preferred translation, NASB. I've told people "I like the NASB because______however some people find it_____so if that is what you think I recommend the ESV, NKJV or NIV because_____"


----------



## MW (Oct 22, 2014)

Sylvanus said:


> Yes, it is very silly, and true. Tell me, where else do they belong?



On another thread you referenced Perry Miller, who used the words you call "Shakespearean." That is how silly it is.


----------



## Sylvanus (Oct 22, 2014)

MW said:


> On another thread you referenced Perry Miller, who used the words you call "Shakespearean." That is how silly it is.


----------



## MW (Oct 22, 2014)

Sylvanus said:


> MW said:
> 
> 
> > On another thread you referenced Perry Miller, who used the words you call "Shakespearean." That is how silly it is.



http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/church-covenants-84979/#post1061111


----------



## irresistible_grace (Oct 23, 2014)

My family now uses the Authorized Version [exclusively] in private, family & corporate worship. 

We have three small children (soon to be 3yo, 5yo & 7yo). By the grace of God, they are hiding more Scripture in there heart via the AV/KJV than they ever did when we were using the ESV.

Making the switch from the ESV to the AV was not easy because I was hearing all of the ridiculous "archaic language" arguments (as if people actually talked like that when the AV was translated! Seriously?). I was emotionally attached to the ESV because that was the translation used for the Reformation Study Bible that we bought upon becoming "Reformed" in late '08. 

That said, I believe making the switch from the ESV to the AV is the best choice my family has ever made!

As relates to the OP, when I was a "new" Christian I was given an AV Bible and if we decide to give anyone (unbeliever or "new" Christian) a Bible, it will be the Authorized Version.


----------

