A modernized KJV version

[bookslover]

I'd be interested to hear just why you think the KJV should be thus shelved.

Robert and Tom: The KJV should long since have been retired because the language is more than 400 years old now - actually, in the New Testament, it's older than that since about 80% of the New Testament consists of Tyndale's translation imported more-or-less entire into the KJV, and Tyndale's translation was nearly 100 years old then.

I, too, love beautiful language, but the Bible is a special case. Since the purpose of the Bible is for God to communicate with us, clarity should take precedence over beauty. If beauty obscures a passage, then the beauty should be sacrificed for clarity. In all books, understanding its message is the purpose of reading. And that's especially true in the Bible's case.

There's no reason why people should have to struggle with (in the New Testament) 16th-century language in order to be able to understand it. Any decent modern translation (NASB [sort of], ESV, and possibly the CSB [I say "possibly" because I've read very little of it, as yet], etc.) is superior to the KJV for the purpose of communicating to people living today. And that's going to be even more the case as time rolls on.

Besides, Christians living in non-English-speaking countries have gotten along without the KJV just fine. They have God communicating to them in French, German, Tagalog, whatever.

Clarity over beauty. Time for the KJV to enjoy its retirement.

 

[Tom Hart]

Robert and Tom: The KJV should long since have been retired because the language is more than 400 years old now - actually, in the New Testament, it's older than that since about 80% of the New Testament consists of Tyndale's translation imported more-or-less entire into the KJV, and Tyndale's translation was nearly 100 years old then.

I, too, love beautiful language, but the Bible is a special case. Since the purpose of the Bible is for God to communicate with us, clarity should take precedence over beauty. If beauty obscures a passage, then the beauty should be sacrificed for clarity. In all books, understanding its message is the purpose of reading. And that's especially true in the Bible's case.

There's no reason why people should have to struggle with (in the New Testament) 16th-century language in order to be able to understand it. Any decent modern translation (NASB [sort of], ESV, and possibly the CSB [I say "possibly" because I've read very little of it, as yet], etc.) is superior to the KJV for the purpose of communicating to people living today. And that's going to be even more the case as time rolls on.

Besides, Christians living in non-English-speaking countries have gotten along without the KJV just fine. They have God communicating to them in French, German, Tagalog, whatever.

Clarity over beauty. Time for the KJV to enjoy its retirement.

You're right, to a point, that it is the message that counts the most, and beautiful words less so. But remember that large portions of the Bible is in fact poetry. Not just the psalms, but also Proverbs and the prophets contain poetic language. Of the modern translations, I think it is the NKJV that renders poetry best. But the KJV is still better.

On the whole, in spite of some occasionally awkward phrasing, and some strange words ("unicorns" and "voice of the turtle") the KJV is a beautifully done translation. Yet that is not my principal reason for preferring it.

And let's not pretend the KJV is hard to understand. It's not. I grew up with the NIV and it wasn't really big leap to switch to the KJV. In fact, familiarity with the KJV has improved my English. It's easier to read Shakespeare, for example. (Surely we shouldn't retire Shakespeare as well?) My wife is Korean, and aside from a few words here and there, she has no trouble with the KJV.

I'm not really sure where you were going with your comment on Christians who speak other languages. Let them have their translations. The KJV is an English translation, for English speakers.

The KJV is a very accurate translation.

It distinguishes between different second-person pronouns.

It is common. Many people still use it. Surely that's a reasonable argument in its favour.

It was quoted in "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

It uses the Textus Receptus. I like that.

You can have your preferred translation. I'm not a KJV Only-ist. But you needn't think the KJV should be tossed. It's still a good translation, and it is dear to many Christians.

 

[bookslover]

You're right, to a point, that it is the message that counts the most, and beautiful words less so. But remember that large portions of the Bible is in fact poetry. Not just the psalms, but also Proverbs and the prophets contain poetic language. Of the modern translations, I think it is the NKJV that renders poetry best. But the KJV is still better.

On the whole, in spite of some occasionally awkward phrasing, and some strange words ("unicorns" and "voice of the turtle") the KJV is a beautifully done translation. Yet that is not my principal reason for preferring it.

And let's not pretend the KJV is hard to understand. It's not. I grew up with the NIV and it wasn't really big leap to switch to the KJV. In fact, familiarity with the KJV has improved my English. It's easier to read Shakespeare, for example. (Surely we shouldn't retire Shakespeare as well?) My wife is Korean, and aside from a few words here and there, she has no trouble with the KJV.

I'm not really sure where you were going with your comment on Christians who speak other languages. Let them have their translations. The KJV is an English translation, for English speakers.

The KJV is a very accurate translation.

It distinguishes between different second-person pronouns.

It is common. Many people still use it. Surely that's a reasonable argument in its favour.

It was quoted in "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

It uses the Textus Receptus. I like that.

You can have your preferred translation. I'm not a KJV Only-ist. But you needn't think the KJV should be tossed. It's still a good translation, and it is dear to many Christians.

As for the second-person pronouns, in a modern translation, context will tell you whether it's singular or plural.

As for "A Charlie Brown Christmas," well, there's that, I guess. Heh.

As for the Textus Receptus, keep in mind that that was an advertising slogan (as we would say today), not a scientific description of the text - sort of like using the phrase "authorized version" for the KJV: the king authorized the creation of the new translation but, by the time the translation was completed, the king had moved on, shall we say, and never authorized it in any other sense. So, "authorized text" is also sort of an ad slogan for the KJV. (Besides, King James was no expert in biblical languages or translation theory. So, in what sense was he qualified to authorized anything - except for the bare fact that he was the king?).

Also, Christians weren't exactly thrilled with the KJV when it first appeared. It took about half a century for it to catch on. Most Christians were happy with their Geneva Bibles at the time.

My sense is that many (most?) of the people who use it do so for sentimental reasons - it was what they grew up on, it's what grandma used, they used it when they were kids, etc. - rather than for reasons having anything to do with the quality of the text.

So, maybe the KJV can get a room next to the Geneva Bible's room at the Old Bibles Home.

 

[Regi Addictissimus]

It was quoted in "A Charlie Brown Christmas."

Done and done. If it is good enough for Charlie Brown, it is good enough for me. I'm going KJVO.

 

[JimmyH]

I've done a lot of thinking on the KJV versus other English translations. Over 30 years ago, when I began reading the Bible in earnest, I started out with the KJV. I found it difficult to understand some of Paul's thought process in particular, and bought an NIV as an adjunct to clarify passages I found difficult in the elder translation. I was blissfully unaware of any controversy surrounding the English translations.
In the ensuing years I've read quite a bit on both sides of the debate and I've come to a happy conclusion for myself. I still read the KJV for edification. study, and pleasure. I still read various other English translations for comparison and/or clarification. If I'm going to memorize verses it will be from the KJV translation, and I still think it speaks to my heart and soul more deeply than any of the 20th, or 21st century versions.
At least in my house it is not ready to be put out to pasture just yet.

 

[zdhoughton]

I was surprised to discover such translations as the Modern English Version or KJ21 were out there; for a long time, I had surmised the only TR-based (at least generally based) Bibles reasonably available out there were the Geneva, AV, Green's work, and (depending on who you ask) the NKJV. Still, none of the relatively new wave seem to have caught on in any appreciable way--at least, I don't believe they have.