# Why you love the KJV/NKJV



## ReformedBaptist (Dec 25, 2013)

In my area/church we usually use the ESV or NASV. Sadly, the KJV, NKJV and especially the NIV are, for lack of a better word looked down on and are thought to be less accurate. I know however, that many on here love the KJV and NKJV , please give your opinion on these versions and why you prefer them.


----------



## joejohnston3 (Dec 25, 2013)

This is my standard reply and resource for KJV, Dr Joel Beeke on Bible Versions: Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV | The Young Puritan


----------



## Edward (Dec 25, 2013)

As if the question hasn't been beaten to death around here? 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-esv-another-trans-70532/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/virtual-KJV-onlyism-76356/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-vs-NKJV-81000/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/why-not-KJV-71048/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/1-corinthians-3-17-why-i-still-use-KJV-80938/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/who-has-made-switch-KJV-another-translation-44772/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/question-why-deletion-these-words-KJV-81329/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-versus-nas-72109/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-textus-receptus-onlyism-modern-reformed-community-9463/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/horrified-rules-imposed-KJV-46394/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/NKJV-faithful-update-KJV-66482/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/about-KJV-onlysim-61118/


----------



## Gesetveemet (Dec 25, 2013)

Today I prefer the KJV because of the coma after Wonderful in Isaiah 9:6


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 25, 2013)

You may find some reasons in these posts, Jacob: Collected Textual Posts. And a belated welcome to PB!


----------



## ReformedBaptist (Dec 25, 2013)

Thank you!


----------



## Mike Gruber (Dec 25, 2013)

Gesetveemet said:


> Today I prefer the KJV because of the coma after Wonderful in Isaiah 9:6



Literally laughed out loud at this. I memorize scripture in KJV because I think the transliteration the KJV presents carries the authoritative power in English that the Word should have behind it. I use the ESV and the NIV too, however, in order to make sure my interpretation of scripture (in combination with Strongs, etc) is correct and within sound doctrine (Titus 2:1). I use the following analogy: the KJV is a broadsword. The ESV is a rapier. Are both deadly regardless of their functional differences (transliterations)? Yes. Absolutely.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 26, 2013)

Most reasons for preferring the KJV can probably be reduced to one of six headings;

1. Textual basis;
2. Accuracy of translation;
3. Literary excellence;
4. Track record;
5. Ecclesiastical provenance;
6. Personal experience.

Of course people disagree on points 1-5 with some saying "exactly" to those points and consequently rejecting the KJV, while others urge them as a reason for retaining it; and point 6 is irrelevant as an argument, though influential in individual decisions. 

For myself, I haven't come across an English version that can take its place, and the likelihood of such a version being produced in my own lifetime seems small. To say only something brief and simple about my personal preference, with regard to 3, except for occasional words or phrases, other versions tend to seem quite pale and flat next to the KJV. Acts 27 is a good example, with its adventurous shipwreck: in the KJV, that passage is worthy to stand with the excellent adventure writing with which English is so rich (e.g., Sir Thomas Malory, or Robert Louis Stevenson). 

With regard to 2, the idea is often expressed that a translation should make the original text sound contemporary, using every day speech; or that a translation should be designed to produce in today's reader the effect it would have had on the original reader. But I think that's quite wrong with regard to any translation, whether you're talking about the _Atlamal_ or the Apocalypse. First of all, it's writing, not speech. It is a deliberately composed text, not a casual conversation, and will therefore probably have more extensive vocabulary, more formal diction, and more elaborate organization than your typical casual conversation. Again, the mindset of the original readers is in most cases irrecoverable - it's a question of imagination, rather than research, especially where the original readers didn't leave much in the way of literary remains. But leaving that aside, the fact that a text was written in colloquial language doesn't mean that when it's put into my language it ought to be colloquial. My colloquialisms are different from Snorri's, Hesiod's, and Jeremiah's. I'm not an Icelandic landowner, a Greek farmer, or a Hebrew shepherd; strangeness is a necessary part of approaching their texts. A translation that brings them into my world is not as helpful overall as a translation that, if it can't bring me into theirs, at least does something to show it to me. 

For example, in _Hansel and Gretel_ rendering "Wer A sagt, muss B sagen" as "In for a penny, in for a pound" gives you the gist of the thought and colloquially reproduces the impression of a common expression; but rendering it "He who says 'A' must also say 'B'" is not only more exact, it also gives me a better glimpse into a world that isn't my own. I think that when translations attempt to make the alien familiar, it mostly means that the translator's historical ignorance and sociological ineptitude wind up filtering out a lot that could otherwise have been transmitted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Berean (Dec 26, 2013)

py3ak said:


> I think that when translations attempt to make the alien familiar, it mostly means that the translator's historical ignorance and sociological ineptitude wind up filtering out a lot that could otherwise have been transmitted.



Very well put, Ruben.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Dec 27, 2013)

While certainly not the only reason, nor the most important, I love the majesty of it's style. One of the tragedies of modern Christianity is its ignorance of aesthetics: that which constitutes true beauty. And more specifically, what constitutes true beauty in the written word. And that is not a question I believe is entirely subjective. Those who would suggest it is, betray a post-modern mindset about beauty, goodness, and ultimately truth. Beauty, objective beauty, literary and idiomatic beauty is something the King James Bible possesses that is absent from many modern translations. I offer the following examples:


*Hebrews 1:1-3 KJV* - "God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high."*Hebrews 1:1-3 NIV* - "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."*Psalm 90:1-2 KJV* - "Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."*Psalm 90:1-2 NAS* - "Lord, You have been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were born or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God."*Luke 2:8-14 KJV* - "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."
*Luke 2:8-14 NET *- "Now there were shepherds nearby living out in the field, keeping guard over their flock at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were absolutely terrified. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid! Listen carefully, for I proclaim to you good news that brings great joy to all the people: Today your Savior is born in the city of David. He is Christ the Lord. This will be a sign for you: You will find a baby wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger." Suddenly a vast, heavenly army appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among people with whom he is pleased!"

These are only a few examples, but there are many more in which the literary beauty of the King James is on full display. The exalted prose of the King James Bible are the peculiar heritage of the English-speaking world and especially of English-speaking Christians. But it is a treasure of which many know little or nothing at all.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 27, 2013)

The King James Bible is still the best Bible bar none, for all of the reasons stated above & more , as a Believer that the
true Transmission of The Scriptures came through the Antiochian/Byzantium Line of Manuscripts,so a Translation based
on this family line is a given, My home church uses the NIV and can still remember a home Bible study through the Book of Philippians were following with The KJB found myself losing my place as every chapter in the NIV had a missing verse!

In our home Bible reading we read through J.P.Greens Modern King James which I found to be quiet a good Translation
even seems to have some Spiritual Savour on it,though I don't think it is as good a Translation as the KJB, when we 
finished reading that we began reading through J.P.Greens Literal Translation which were about 3/4 of the way through
which I have found to be a little dry & wooden, we are planning to begin reading the KJB next,
which I Believe has an Unparalleled Spiritual Savour,Unction,Anointing,Derived Inspiration or call it what you will.


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 27, 2013)

Edward said:


> As if the question hasn't been beaten to death around here?
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-esv-another-trans-70532/
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/virtual-KJV-onlyism-76356/
> ...



Thanks for the Links Edward, what your saying may be true, though it is an interesting subject & I kept an eye on the
views & some have had phenomenal numbers, they seem to be among the most popular threads on the PB Forum.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/not-kjvo-kjvp-81126/

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/letis-inerrancy-warfield-81405/


----------

