KJV In Modern Culture

[Ryan&Amber2013]

So, I enjoy the KJV, but I'm really hung up on why I can't make it my primary translation. I feel like I automatically make a disconnect with people when I read it out loud or quote the Bible. Non Christians and those who are less seasoned in the church already have a difficult time understanding the scriptures. Using the KJV with them makes me feel like I'm adding a barrier and that it's a language that sounds too ancient for our modern times.

I can see it's value in being read in church and family worship, but in other areas it seems like modern translations are more suitable. Any thoughts?

 

[Beezer]

I feel much the same way. I used the KJV as my undisputed primary translation up until about a year ago. I still prefer it at home and I use it for my children's scripture memorization work, but when I'm outside the home I now take a NIV with me. I interact with a lot of people who speak English as a second language (my wife being one of them) and the KJV is just too difficult to use in those situations. I LOVE the KJV and always will, but I've grown to see the value in using other translations.

Here's a fun quiz to see how well you understand the KJV.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I feel much the same way. I used the KJV as my undisputed primary translation up until about a year ago. I still prefer it at home and I use it for my children's scripture memorization work, but when I'm outside the home I now take a NIV with me. I interact with a lot of people who speak English as a second language (my wife being one of them) and the KJV is just too difficult to use in those situations. I LOVE the KJV and always will, but I've grown to see the value in using other translations.

Here's a fun quiz to see how well you understand the KJV.

That quiz was good. It's funny though, that most of the answers I got right I was able to do so only by knowing the ESV translation.

But if I had no knowledge of the scriptures, I would have been lost.

 

[KMK]

I feel like I automatically make a disconnect with people when I read it out loud or quote the Bible.

In what context are you reading it and quoting it to people?

 

[bookslover]

So, I enjoy the KJV, but I'm really hung up on why I can't make it my primary translation. I feel like I automatically make a disconnect with people when I read it out loud or quote the Bible. Non Christians and those who are less seasoned in the church already have a difficult time understanding the scriptures. Using the KJV with them makes me feel like I'm adding a barrier and that it's a language that sounds too ancient for our modern times.

I can see it's value in being read in church and family worship, but in other areas it seems like modern translations are more suitable. Any thoughts?

Yes, the language of the KJV is more than 400 years old now. A simple solution: if you like it, continue to read it privately at home, and use a modern translation when you're with others, whether Christians or non-Christians. With non-Christians, their sin nature already gives them excuses as to why they should not obey the gospel. There's no point in giving them antiquated language as another excuse.

 

[David Lamb]

I feel much the same way. I used the KJV as my undisputed primary translation up until about a year ago. I still prefer it at home and I use it for my children's scripture memorization work, but when I'm outside the home I now take a NIV with me. I interact with a lot of people who speak English as a second language (my wife being one of them) and the KJV is just too difficult to use in those situations. I LOVE the KJV and always will, but I've grown to see the value in using other translations.

Here's a fun quiz to see how well you understand the KJV.

I find the New King James Version good in this respect. It resembles the KJV, but avoids words like "conies" which we don't use today, and words like "carriages" and "prevent" which mean something quite different now to what they meant in 1611.

 

[Beezer]

I find the New King James Version good in this respect. It resembles the KJV, but avoids words like "conies" which we don't use today, and words like "carriages" and "prevent" which mean something quite different now to what they meant in 1611.

True. I'm not sure why I've never given the NKJV much consideration. One would think it to be an obvious translation to transition off the KJV with.

 

[Gforce9]

I would agree that, in evangelical circles, there is an "allergy" to the KJV language. However, there exists the same allergic reaction to God-commanded regulated worship (the Stratocaster and Fender Deluxe can stay at home), the simplicity of worship, the means of grace, and to most things Reformed. In light of this, don't let what evangelicals think be your guide.........

 

[JimmyH]

Some years ago, when I still worked at the tattoo shop, I was witnessing to a young lady and told her the Gospel. She said, "Yeah, but I like chicks." I told her all have sinned and fell short of the glory of God, then I began to quote Ephesians 2 to her.
You hath He quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins wherin times past ye walked ..... and I stopped and began to transliterate it into modern English, because I knew I was bewildering her with the KJV English.

In my congregation are some people for whom English is not their first language. An elderly man from Cuba, an elderly couple from Guyana, a man from South Africa, and finally a couple from South Korea. I've asked each individually if they 'like' the KJV. Without exception they say it is too hard for them to understand and they prefer modern texts such as the ESV, NIV, NASB. All of them speak English well.

It can be said that the KJV was the premier English translation from 1611 to 1885 when the RV came out, and well beyond that. I believe it was 1947 when the RSV was completed. Even with those translations the KJV was supreme until the NIV gained ascendency in overall sales in the 1970s.

So some will say that the KJV served to bring sinners to repentance for over 300 years with no serious competitors and that is undeniable, but as our culture is dumbed down more and more year after year the modern English versions are probably better for beginners who don't need the hurdles of archaic language to further hinder them.

 

[Gforce9]

... but as our culture is dumbed down more and more year after year...

I think you put your finger on the issue, Jimmy. I don't know the right answer to this dilemma. Pop-evangelical's answer, by and large, has been to make everything like baby food. I can see starting where a person finds themselves, but the goal is to "bring them up" to maturity. Pop-e is still dishing out Junior Fruit Dessert and results are terrible. I think it was at a Christian Booksellers Conference some years ago, where the White Horse Inn guys were asking booksellers/authors to define the gospel. The answers were horrible. The faithful churches must not let this "slide" go without challenging it...

 

[JimmyH]

I think you put your finger on the issue, Jimmy. I don't know the right answer to this dilemma. Pop-evangelical's answer, by and large, has been to make everything like baby food. I can see starting where a person finds themselves, but the goal is to "bring them up" to maturity. Pop-e is still dishing out Junior Fruit Dessert and results are terrible. I think it was at a Christian Booksellers Conference some years ago, where the White Horse Inn guys were asking booksellers/authors to define the gospel. The answers were horrible. The faithful churches must not let this "slide" go without challenging it...

Some years ago I read/heard that public schools were no longer teaching children to write in cursive this amazed me, speaking of dumbing down. So when I heard on Moody Radio that Chuck Swindoll was releasing his new SB in the New Living Translation, though it surprised me, it made sense.

The last tattoo shop I worked in, before I retired, was in "the hood" with the type of clientèle for whom the 'king's English is not spoken, nor understood. The NLT might be just the thing for some folks. .

 

[Bill The Baptist]

True. I'm not sure why I've never given the NKJV much consideration. One would think it to be an obvious translation to transition off the KJV with.

No slick marketing campaign.

 

[Beezer]

No slick marketing campaign.

Slick marketing campaigns, much like one sees with the ESV, actually does more to turn me off of something than it does attract, so I don't think that was it. However, the lack of study aids and Bible study material based around the NKJV may have contributed to it. Moreover, I don't recall ever being in a church where the translation used by the congregation was the NKJV either, so maybe all of the above contributed. At any rate...

 

[Beezer]

I think you put your finger on the issue, Jimmy. I don't know the right answer to this dilemma. Pop-evangelical's answer, by and large, has been to make everything like baby food. I can see starting where a person finds themselves, but the goal is to "bring them up" to maturity. Pop-e is still dishing out Junior Fruit Dessert and results are terrible. I think it was at a Christian Booksellers Conference some years ago, where the White Horse Inn guys were asking booksellers/authors to define the gospel. The answers were horrible. The faithful churches must not let this "slide" go without challenging it...

Can you expound a bit on the relationship you believe exists between the perceived "dumbing down" of our culture and the existence of modern Bible translations? (You didn't explicitly connect the two, but given the context of the thread I infer this is what you're getting at.)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here. I hope you're not using the range of Bible translations as a scale used to judge one's spiritual maturity. I'm just as disgusted at the lack of discernment in the Evangelical world today and I too listened to the White Horse Inn interviews a few years back with equal shock...but I don't see how any of these things are tied to which Bible translation one uses.

 

[Gforce9]

Can you expound a bit on the relationship you believe exists between the perceived "dumbing down" of our culture and the existence of modern Bible translations? (You didn't explicitly connect the two, but given the context of the thread I infer this is what you're getting at.)

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here. I hope you're not using the range of Bible translations as a scale used to judge one's spiritual maturity. I'm just as disgusted at the lack of discernment in the Evangelical world today and I too listened to the White Horse Inn interviews a few years back with equal shock...but I don't see how any of these things are tied to which Bible translation one uses.

Brian,
The only connection that I intended was the fact that the KJV was "too hard to understand" for modern folk and the use of things like the NLT. Almost every new technology at my job would fit that category (too hard), but we learn it. My point is that we (pop-e, mainly) all-too-often allow people to stay "dumb". If one uses the NASB or ESV, I'm ok with that....no complaints here. When someone, after being a Christian for some time, still uses the NLT or the "minister" uses the NLT, however, we have big problems. If someone never learned to read, I can see the difficulty, but we do live in 21st century America. It is mostly motivational and not so much accessibility that would keep one in such a state.
In summary, my complaint is not that so many translations exist or that they're in widespread use, but that, too often, little is expected of people to apply themselves. When my generation is dead and gone, it will be a wonder if the Millennials will be able to tie their own shoes or change their own oil. I hope I made that more clear and not less.......

 

[Beezer]

Greg,

I believe I understand your main point, though I respectfully disagree with much of it. You seem to hold the view that older is better, both in regards to the translation (KJV) and the age generation (yours).

I agree there are many problems the church is faced with today, the lack of biblical literacy being the one in focus here, but I much prefer the strategy of putting the scriptures in the vernacular tongue of the "millenial ploughboy" than I do expecting them to learn what was written for the ploughboy living 400 years ago.

If as you say, the trajectory of growing mature in Christ moves one along the Bible translation scale from dynamic -> optimal -> formal equivalence does one not fully reach maturity until they are fluent in the original languages? Why stop at the KJV, NASB, ESV? I joke of course, but it seems like this is the argumentation you're using.

When earlier generations, such as yours and mine, are gone I don't wonder about millenials and their shoe laces...I'm betting velcro comes back in style! Oh, and they won't need to know how to change their own oil because the robots they invent will do it for them!

 

[Gforce9]

Greg,

I believe I understand your main point, though I respectfully disagree with much of it. You seem to hold the view that older is better, both in regards to the translation (KJV) and the age generation (yours).

I agree there are many problems the church is faced with today, the lack of biblical literacy being the one in focus here, but I much prefer the strategy of putting the scriptures in the vernacular tongue of the "millenial ploughboy" than I do expecting them to learn what was written for the ploughboy living 400 years ago.

If as you say, the trajectory of growing mature in Christ moves one along the Bible translation scale from dynamic -> optimal -> formal equivalence does one not fully reach maturity until they are fluent in the original languages? Why stop at the KJV, NASB, ESV? I joke of course, but it seems like this is the argumentation you're using.

When earlier generations, such as yours and mine, are gone I don't wonder about millenials and their shoe laces...I'm betting velcro comes back in style! Oh, and they won't need to know how to change their own oil because the robots they invent will do it for them!

Brian,
I do think you missed my point almost completely....I was probably not very clear, so I apologize for that. As to the KJV-NLT contrast I made, it was not an issue of old vs new, but of 1) the church agreeing to the least common denominator and 2) people in general being lazy. As to the generational thing, my grandparents thought my parents generation was lazy and my parents thought my generation was lazy. So far, nothing new, though that is a troubling, nearly universal claim. Regarding Millennials as a group, I see a new level of lazy going on (and I admit, there are some hard working, diligent kids, but they're the exception). I believe liberalism (theological and political) has fueled this. I don't think my generation was "superior" in any other way, than to say, at least we got out during the summer and rode our bikes for entertainment and exercise, interacted (face-to-face) with others and my parents insisted I wasn't lazy (my dad was born in 1921, so he was old school, depression-molded). I can hardly get me kids to peel away from their dumb electronic devises and we force them to interact with us face-to-face and it is a challenge......

 

[Tallifer]

I prefer to quote (or show) the King James verses, and then explain them. I acknowledge the drawbacks of such an approach, but I just feel the King James's language makes the message sound less like mine and more like scripture, more timeless and more unique.

 

[RBachman]

So, I enjoy the KJV, but I'm really hung up on why I can't make it my primary translation. I feel like I automatically make a disconnect with people when I read it out loud or quote the Bible. Non Christians and those who are less seasoned in the church already have a difficult time understanding the scriptures. Using the KJV with them makes me feel like I'm adding a barrier and that it's a language that sounds too ancient for our modern times.

I can see it's value in being read in church and family worship, but in other areas it seems like modern translations are more suitable. Any thoughts?

I use the KJV in my devotions and memorization, but I ways used NKJV or ESV at Church. At our small group study last night I was called on to read the passage. I found mysel dropping the “th”s and modernizing the personal pronouns. The only one not confused was the Gideon member.!

Not sure what to do, if anything. But to top it off I only got a 50% on the KJV quiz.

 

[RBachman]

True. I'm not sure why I've never given the NKJV much consideration. One would think it to be an obvious translation to transition off the KJV with.

Unfortunantly it is not as king Jamesy as the label suggests. You will notice differences if you try rememorizing verses.

 

[Jack K]

If I read the culture correctly, there is more than a language barrier with the KJV. Many people hear that language and, even if they can understand it, they associate it with religion that is stuffy and judgmental.

And truth be told... some (though certainly not all) of the people who tend to quote the KJV do practice a stuffy form of religion, or do seem overly eager to hurl verses of judgment at sinners. And pop culture such as movies tends to associate KJV language with this kind of religion as well. So there are cultural trappings to overcome that sometimes go along with the KJV.

Because of this, I think a person's tone becomes particularly important when quoting the KJV in our culture. There are some hazards that have been left by careless witnesses.

Alternately, among some people there is a growing appreciation for tradition and for the richness of older language. So some folks in our culture will have a positive reaction to KJV language. Again, my point is that it isn't just the language; it's partly the trappings associated with the language that either bother people or bring appreciation.

 

[SavedSinner]

What do you think of the non-Christians who use the KJV? The Mormon missionary efforts haven't been held-back by the KJV language, have they? They continue to grow using the old language and using "honorifics" in their false prayers, etc. But I think they see the old language as more holy and that is why they wrote the Book of Mormon in KJV English.

 

[ZackF]

that is why they wrote the Book of Mormon in KJV English.

Seriously?

 

[VictorBravo]

Pop-e is still dishing out Junior Fruit Dessert

pop-e, mainly

Just an aside on language confusion. It took me a little bit to figure out "pop-e".

First I thought maybe there was some Christian performance artist riffing off of Pop-Eye. Then I thought maybe it was a new way of describing the latest pope.

Never mind, nothing to see here....

 

[RBachman]

I still don't know what it means...

 

[JimmyH]

I still don't know what it means...

I don't either, and google was unfruitful. I think it might be shorthand for popular English ?

 

[RBachman]

I checked my KJV Archaic Word Dictionary and came up blank, but some of the other posts suggest it my be Latin for Popular Evangelism (not to be confused with Popular Mechanics), although that may be in dispute.

 

[Gforce9]

Just an aside on language confusion. It took me a little bit to figure out "pop-e".

First I thought maybe there was some Christian performance artist riffing off of Pop-Eye. Then I thought maybe it was a new way of describing the latest pope.

Never mind, nothing to see here....

I still don't know what it means...

I don't either, and google was unfruitful. I think it might be shorthand for popular English ?

I checked my KJV Archaic Word Dictionary and came up blank, but some of the other posts suggest it my be Latin for Popular Evangelism (not to be confused with Popular Mechanics), although that may be in dispute.

Sorry guys.....I generally don't care for the shorthand stuff out there and don't usually use it. Pop-E= popular evangelicalism. From the mega-churches to the small congregations that have all the trappings of the culture incorporated in worship, as a general definition.......