# ? For my fellow King Jimmy Readers.......



## etexas (Feb 17, 2009)

First off, I read that there had been some "quarrels" over text-types and translations. ADMINS MODS, NO FEAR this is a LITERARY question! The question: Those who use the AV as your primary, do you find new translations difficult to read? I don't mean they are hard, I just mean, does it seem they don't flow well? This could just be ME being so used to the AV, I just wondered about you other AV folk, again, no war! Not knocking other translations! This is just an "Is it me" type question.


----------



## Nate (Feb 17, 2009)

I'm a life-long KJV reader. I've just recently begun to use other versions in certain situations for various reasons (NKJV and ESV - I don't know if these count as new translations as you alluded to). I guess I can't say that I have any problems with their flow - I actually really like both. I'm definitely more comfortable with the AV and do have a nagging guilt (probably baseless) in the back of my mind when I do read other versions - The KJV was drilled into my head as the only truly reliable English translation for so many years, it will probably take me a while throw that "guilt" off. Still love the AV, though.


----------



## Grymir (Feb 17, 2009)

YES!!!!! I have a copy of Sproul's Special ESV. It almost seems like a Dick and Jane book. The sentence structure isn't the same, as in the thought process. But I have the 1599 Geneva. Love that one and it reads great!


----------



## etexas (Feb 17, 2009)

Grymir said:


> YES!!!!! I have a copy of Sproul's Special ESV. It almost seems like a Dick and Jane book. The sentence structure isn't the same, as in the thought process. But I have the 1599 Geneva. Love that one and it reads great!


I am beyond laughing Tim, I am in a full blown Guffaw! NICE! THEY need to do that in a AV edition I heard a rumor they were....


----------



## Knoxienne (Feb 17, 2009)

Grymir said:


> YES!!!!! I have a copy of Sproul's Special ESV. It almost seems like a Dick and Jane book. The sentence structure isn't the same, as in the thought process. But I have the 1599 Geneva. Love that one and it reads great!



I agree. I don't like the ESV at all.

-----Added 2/17/2009 at 09:01:37 EST-----



etexas said:


> Fist off, I read that there had been some "quarrels" over text-types and translations. ADMINS MODS, NO FEAR this is a LITERARY question! The question: Those who use the AV as your primary, do you find new translations difficult to read? I don't mean they are hard, I just mean, does it seem they don't flow well? This could just be ME being so used to the AV, I just wondered about you other AV folk, again, no war! Not knocking other translations! This is just an "Is it me" type question.



Yes - there is a flow that you get used to with the AV. I've been slowly weaning myself from the "New Jimmy" over the last 3-4 years and I have found that I don't feel as comfortable if I'm reading another translation. However there's also an opportunity to compare the versions mentally during the reading or study. Bill uses the NKJV for our family worship and I'm fine with it - it's his preference. I just follow along with the AV.


----------



## etexas (Feb 17, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > YES!!!!! I have a copy of Sproul's Special ESV. It almost seems like a Dick and Jane book. The sentence structure isn't the same, as in the thought process. But I have the 1599 Geneva. Love that one and it reads great!
> ...


A friend of mine an associate Pastor at the OPC here was reading it up at the gym's coffee bar. He had it for like a few weeks or so, then I sat by him ordered a cup, and noticed a different Bible, it was an NASB I said "What happened to the ESV you had Mark?" He said "I TRIED to like it, I really DID! It just never clicked for me!"  Since he didn't cry I got to laugh.


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 17, 2009)

etexas said:


> Fist off, I read that there had been some "quarrels" over text-types and translations. ADMINS MODS, NO FEAR this is a LITERARY question! The question: Those who use the AV as your primary, do you find new translations difficult to read? I don't mean they are hard, I just mean, does it seem they don't flow well? This could just be ME being so used to the AV, I just wondered about you other AV folk, again, no war! Not knocking other translations! This is just an "Is it me" type question.



From a literary perspective, I find it difficult to follow the flow of any modern version. Some versions, such as the ASV & NASB, are known for their "woodness." I've grown so use to the AV that I expect a certain flow in my Bible reading. There's an older literature book that remarks on the literary qualities of the AV and goes into great detail on how it flows, types of speech used, Hebraisms, etc. I'll see if I can find a link.


----------



## etexas (Feb 17, 2009)

JohnGill said:


> etexas said:
> 
> 
> > Fist off, I read that there had been some "quarrels" over text-types and translations. ADMINS MODS, NO FEAR this is a LITERARY question! The question: Those who use the AV as your primary, do you find new translations difficult to read? I don't mean they are hard, I just mean, does it seem they don't flow well? This could just be ME being so used to the AV, I just wondered about you other AV folk, again, no war! Not knocking other translations! This is just an "Is it me" type question.
> ...


That would be interesting to read if you could track down that link!


----------



## Ivan (Feb 18, 2009)

Currently I'm using the KJV when I preach. The response has been good (of course, they like me so much at my church I could use the Message and they probably would accept it, but I'd hope they wouldn't). I read daily in the KJV as well. It's the version that I grew up with and still prefer, although I won't start a war when others use a different version.


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 18, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Currently I'm using the KJV when I preach. The response has been good (of course, they like me so much at my church I could use the Message and they probably would accept it, but I'd hope they wouldn't). I read daily in the KJV as well. It's the version that I grew up with and still prefer, although I won't *start a war* when others use a different version.



As you can see from my avatar I'm currently training legions of sniper kitties. Feel free to start a war after you place an order with me.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 18, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> > YES!!!!! I have a copy of Sproul's Special ESV. It almost seems like a Dick and Jane book. The sentence structure isn't the same, as in the thought process. But I have the 1599 Geneva. Love that one and it reads great!
> ...



My understanding is that the NKJV was deliberately designed so that those who had it could follow along relatively easily when the KJV was read or vice versa. We use the NKJV in our family worship as well. 

I have some familiarity with the KJV, but it has never been my primary version. If I had an edition with larger print I would probably read it more. I have listened to a fair amount of preaching from it through the years. I have a tendency sometimes to read too quickly and miss things in the text, so I often find it useful to read the KJV because it makes me slow down.


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 18, 2009)

Pilgrim said:


> My understanding is that the NKJV was deliberately designed so that those who had it could follow along relatively easily when the KJV was read or vice versa. We use the NKJV in our family worship as well.
> 
> I have some familiarity with the KJV, but it has never been my primary version. If I had an edition with larger print I would probably read it more. I have listened to a fair amount of preaching from it through the years. I have a tendency sometimes to read too quickly and miss things in the text, so I often find it useful to read the KJV because it makes me slow down.



Two words:

Alexander Scourby. Driving truck and listening to the Bible on my ipod.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Feb 18, 2009)

I was in the NASB for many years. Coming back to the AV was a challenge at first, but I'm glad I did it.

Someone gave me a NIV as a gift, and I could never get into it. It didn't flow for me. If I ever had concentration problems reading a passage in the AV, they were nothing compared to when I attempted the NIV. I couldn't stand it.


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Feb 18, 2009)

Been reading the A.V for 24 years. It is 'burnt' into my mind. I have read the NKJV and the Geneva through but can never leave the A.V. I think in KJV english.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 18, 2009)

I was started on the KJV. Then (GASP!) used the RSV for years. In high school I began to use the NASB and did so until about two years ago. I have been using the ESV now for the past year. (Most of my study is done in original languages.) I do find that the literary style changes are interesting, but I have no problem with it. My family does all of its memory work in the KJV.


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2009)

Blueridge Believer said:


> Been reading the A.V for 24 years. It is 'burnt' into my mind. I have read the NKJV and the Geneva through but can never leave the A.V. I think in KJV english.



It burn't for me as well James!


----------



## ww (Feb 18, 2009)

I'm a fightin, fundamentalist, KJV only, fire and brimstone kind of guy  ok the only true part in my past was fightin fundamentalist but even then I wasn't a KJV only type however I can understand the flow question as having been raised and only reading the KJV for 26 years of my life I don't think the other versions such as the ESV which I read now flow as well however I still have moved on since my Pastor uses the ESV to read and preach out of on Sunday mornings.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 18, 2009)

jaybird0827 said:


> I was in the NASB for many years. Coming back to the AV was a challenge at first, but I'm glad I did it.
> 
> Someone gave me a NIV as a gift, and I could never get into it. It didn't flow for me. If I ever had concentration problems reading a passage in the AV, they were nothing compared to when I attempted the NIV. I couldn't stand it.



I bought an NIV early on in my Christian life but likewise I could never really get into it as a primary version. Now I will cop to reading <gasp> The Living Bible for a short period early on, (in part due to a conservative study Bible that I had with notes by Harold Lindsell that debunked liberal views on authorship, etc.) but from there moved to NASB, NKJV, KJV.


----------



## Knoxienne (Feb 18, 2009)

Ivan said:


> Currently I'm using the KJV when I preach. The response has been good (of course, they like me so much at my church I could use the Message and they probably would accept it, but I'd hope they wouldn't). I read daily in the KJV as well. It's the version that I grew up with and still prefer, although I won't start a war when others use a different version.



That's exactly my position. I just want to use it, not go off on a Gail Ripplinger-style diatribe with others. I can accomplish a lot more just studying with it and reading it than I can arguing with folks. 

I'm glad you're using the KJV to preach.

-----Added 2/18/2009 at 05:35:02 EST-----



jaybird0827 said:


> I was in the NASB for many years. Coming back to the AV was a challenge at first, but I'm glad I did it.
> 
> Someone gave me a NIV as a gift, and I could never get into it. It didn't flow for me. If I ever had concentration problems reading a passage in the AV, they were nothing compared to when I attempted the NIV. I couldn't stand it.



Amen.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 18, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> I was started on the KJV. Then (GASP!) used the RSV for years. In high school I began to use the NASB and did so until about two years ago. I have been using the ESV now for the past year. (Most of my study is done in original languages.) I do find that the literary style changes are interesting, but I have no problem with it. My family does all of its memory work in the KJV.



Here's a good quote on the NIV and literary style, etc. 



> And aside from such inconveniences to theological exposition, the idiomatic style seemed to make the sacred text less impressive and less memorable than most conservatives would prefer. As Professor Wallace said, "It is so readable that it has no memorable expressions, nothing that lingers in the mind. This is a serious problem for the NIV that is not always acknowledged."


----------



## Knoxienne (Feb 18, 2009)

etexas said:


> Blueridge Believer said:
> 
> 
> > Been reading the A.V for 24 years. It is 'burnt' into my mind. I have read the NKJV and the Geneva through but can never leave the A.V. I think in KJV english.
> ...





My next challenge is to get in the habit of praying using the "thee's and thous" (no not to be more pious or anything like that) because it just sounds so beautiful and that language, although not used today, is part of our heritage and is good to remember and preserve. Ancient paths and rest for your souls and all that.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 18, 2009)

Knoxienne said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Currently I'm using the KJV when I preach. The response has been good (of course, they like me so much at my church I could use the Message and they probably would accept it, but I'd hope they wouldn't). I read daily in the KJV as well. It's the version that I grew up with and still prefer, althoug h I won't start a war when others use a different version.
> ...



I am too. I enjoy the KJV so much more and the members of my church are perfectly fine with it. Those who don't use it still have great respect for it.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 18, 2009)

KJV? Cool. Where would I be without my vocabulary fix? 

After all, without further ado, I adjure any farthing spent upon vain efforts to put afore a habergeon against the language of our blessed majesty, his royal highness King James. Thou canst move as a Palmer-worm or with a palsied hand and I wouldst still not lift a wimple against thee . . . KJV now, KJV then, KJV forever. 

Look at some of what you miss in the "modern" translations . . .

Abjects
Ablution
Acceptation
Adjure (adjuration)
Ado
Affright
Afoot
Afore
Afresh
Ague
Alamoth
Albeit
Ambassage
Ambushm
Amerce
Apothecary
Ariel
Artificer
Asp
Bake-meats
Balm
Basilisk
Battlement
Beeves
Behemoth
Bestead
Betroth
Bewray
Bitumen
Blains
Bolled
Booty
Bramble
Brigandine
Brimstone
Bruit
Buckler
Bullock

Max, Git thee my ox goad, verily.


----------



## etexas (Feb 18, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> KJV? Cool. Where would I be without my vocabulary fix?
> 
> After all, without further ado, I adjure any farthing spent upon vain efforts to put afore a habergeon against the language of our blessed majesty, his royal highness King James. Thou canst move as a Palmer-worm or with a palsied hand and I wouldst still not lift a wimple against thee . . . KJV now, KJV then, KJV forever.
> 
> ...


My Keith Richard's snarl: "Bullocks if ya think I gonna fetch yer goad! Ya get it yerself!


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 19, 2009)

JohnGill said:


> Ivan said:
> 
> 
> > Currently I'm using the KJV when I preach. The response has been good (of course, they like me so much at my church I could use the Message and they probably would accept it, but I'd hope they wouldn't). I read daily in the KJV as well. It's the version that I grew up with and still prefer, although I won't *start a war* when others use a different version.
> ...



I'm training TWO legions of puppy artillarymen!!! 

So, BRING IT ON!!!


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 19, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > Ivan said:
> ...



What do you call a puppy artilleryman a mile away from a sniper kitty?

Nothing, he's dead! WAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

Hey! Look at that, you put a nice target on their backs:







Now try your fire for effect and shake-n-bake mission.

(For those who weren't in the FA, FFE means your ready for the whole battery to fire on the target and shake-n-bake means 50% high explosive rounds and 50% white phosphorous rounds. OOSHA!)

Anytime, anywhere, anyplace my sniper kitties can take out your puppy artillerymen. 






And now back to our regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## SemperEruditio (Feb 19, 2009)

You guys are a weird bunch. First going against the ESV...naturally it seems that it is the paedo-challenged who are speaking heresy against the most blessedeth of translationeths. Secondly...shooting puppys???? A weird bunch indeed.


----------



## Galatians220 (Feb 19, 2009)

I've never understood the disdain and even loathing that most Reformed clergy have for the TR. I've asked pastors about it, but they don't know. This is especially puzzling since TR-based Bibles (the KJV & the 1599 Geneva) were THE Bibles of the Reformers. As an ex-Catholic who was, years ago, undiscerning enough to undertake grad school theology courses taught by Jesuits and told there that to read the KJV was "a venial sin - you have to confess it," I *seriously* don't understand it. The Jebbies were fine with the newer versions, for they read so closely to New American (Catholic) Bible and other Catholic versions, except for the absence of the Apocrypha in the more commonly used, TR-based Bibles.

When I privately broached the subject a few years ago to a Reformed man, he gave me these articles and told me that I didn't know what I was talking about with regard to the KJV or the 1599 Geneva:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/KJV.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/kjverror.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/KJVRevisions.htm

When I discovered that the author of these articles is a Catholic, I was thoroughly flummoxed.



(BTW, I have two seasoned kitties I'd like to volunteer for sniper kitty school. Although they've yet to hold a weapon, they've mastered numerous special ops, like turning door handles, opening wrapped gifts and making effective, late-night assaults on dried flower arrangements, rolls of kitchen paper and pantry doors that bar their access to kitty treats. They're 5 now, brother and sister littermates, and have finely tuned their cooperative instincts towards accomplishing their goals with incredible precision and dispatch. Their black, brown and gray mackerel- and tiger-striping would blend quite nicely with any ammo belts with which they could be outfitted.)

Margaret


----------



## turmeric (Feb 19, 2009)

Modern language doesn't flow as well as Elizabethan. I learned from Piper's recent bio of Tyndale that he is the one who put so many memorable phrases in his version, which carried over into the King Jimmy. It's the only version I use to memorize, b/c it scans like poetry.


----------



## etexas (Feb 19, 2009)

turmeric said:


> Modern language doesn't flow as well as Elizabethan. I learned from Piper's recent bio of Tyndale that he is the one who put so many memorable phrases in his version, which carried over into the King Jimmy. It's the only version I use to memorize, b/c it scans like poetry.


Ditto. I think I like the Cadence, the thing lacking in new versions.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 19, 2009)

etexas said:


> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> > Modern language doesn't flow as well as Elizabethan. I learned from Piper's recent bio of Tyndale that he is the one who put so many memorable phrases in his version, which carried over into the King Jimmy. It's the only version I use to memorize, b/c it scans like poetry.
> ...



Max, on that score I am totally with you. My wife and I do our daily Bible reading in the early mornings in the ESV (when my tongue is still tied in too many knots). I will grant you from that limited anecdotal experience that the ESV (in my opinion) does NOT read as smoothly as the KJV. However, the HCSB fixes that rather nicely. Still, you cannot beat the KJV for majestic cadences.

If Jerusalem Blade and Maurice Robinson ever convince me of the arguments for a majority text, then I will gladly jump on your bandwagon (or at least that of the NKJV). My guess is that the antipathy to the KJV that Margaret senses is more of a text critical dispute than a literary one. As you pointed out, the Geneva and the KJV were the Bibles of the English reformation.


----------

