15 ms·

It's such a poor translation, it's unfortunate so many people still hold it as the one. My feeling is that being exposed to the KJV turns away a lot of people w

by jonah 11y ago

It's such a poor translation, it's unfortunate so many people still hold it as the one. My feeling is that being exposed to the KJV turns away a lot of people who might otherwise be interested in reading the Bible. There are so many others that are more accurate, use modern modern language, and are more accessible at the same time.

analog31 11y ago
As I understand it, there are sects for whom the supremacy of the KJV is actually a matter of doctrine. If so, then it becomes the truth relative to that particular sect.
- wyclif 11y ago
  Yes, you're talking about the "KJV-Only" movement adopted by some primitive Baptists and other fundamentalist sects. There's a big difference between KJV-onlyism and preferring the KJV over other translations. The former insists something that the KJV translators themselves never did: that the KJV is the only legitimate Bible translation, and specially favoured and preserved by God over other translations.
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    It's also ironic because the translation of the bible into people's native tongues from the Vulgate Latin bible was a major part of the Protestant movement in that it exposed a lot of issues in the Vulgate version which enabled the Protestants to attack Catholic doctrine.
  - gtk40 11y ago
    My church/denomination (A Presbyterian denomination mostly in Scotland, but my congregation is in North America) uses the KJV as the main Bible in the pulpit. Part of this is to have a standard translation throughout the churches (while the pastor uses other translations to clarify) and partly conviction, without being KJV-only. We prefer the Byzantine tradition manuscripts to the Alexandrian tradition. The KJV is a good translation mainly based on the Byzantine tradition, with some more sticky cases. There isn't as much work being done with the Byzantine tradition these days, as most editions being published, whether evangelical or mainline, use the Alexandrian tradition texts primarily.
hugh4 11y ago
I don't pretend to know or especially care about accuracy, but the semi-archaic language of the King James Version gives it a certain authoritative-sounding zing that others may lack. "Thou shalt not kill" sounds a whole lot better than "Don't kill" even though the former has two words missing from modern English.
- DanielBMarkham 11y ago
  I agree. This is much the same as Shakespeare's plays having more impact due to their archaic language. I have seen several of his plays both in modern and original form. I thought the originals would be impossible to understand. Interestingly enough, after a few minutes, not only was I able to follow along, I enjoyed hearing my mother tongue with a strange twist. It gave the work much more impact. Along those lines, from a literary and cultural perspective, I think most folks who want to participate in English-speaking nations would be good to have a solid literary background in the KJV. There's just too much allusion and metaphor scattered about to forgo it. There are also a bunch of second-tier texts to know, but as far as cultural impact, as far as I can see, the KSV is way out ahead of the rest. I do not know if the same can be said of the Bhagavad Gita and Indian culture, although from what I can tell, the Koran plays a huge role in many other societies. Understanding mythical and mystical works gives interlocutors a huge common metaphorical and allegorical reserve that just isn't possible without them.
- esaym 11y ago
  "Atheist Hitchens Praises King James Bible" http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-hitchens-praises-king-james-bible-49686/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-hitchens-praises-k... >"Hitchens called the contemporary version "pancake-flat" and more suited for 'a basement meeting of A.A.'"
  - wyclif 11y ago
    Hitchens, while an atheist, was appreciative of the KJV because of its foundational influence on English literature.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
esaym 11y ago
Except that they (non-KJV) are all copyrighted and thus you better not get caught reading them out loud in public or cutting and pasting quotes online. I agree, the KJV is not the easiest to read and a new Christian might want to start on something a little easier. But it is my advice that one hopefully outgrow the easier version as quick as possible. The KJV authors were genuine people as well. They were not bent on making a name for themselves which is what the basis for every modern translation is (other than money). I disagree that new translations are somehow "more accurate". From a handful of older manuscripts, that disagree not only with the originals used in the KJV but they also disagree amongst themselves, we get a hodgepodge of missing sentence fragments, and re-wordings that for what ever reason where backported into the Nestle greek from which most modern translations are derived. There are plenty of books written on the topic, the most recent being: http://amzn.com/B00KTV5GM2 http://amzn.com/B00KTV5GM2 (note I am not advocating any particular one,nor have I read any. What I speak of is from my own personal study). And the worst thing of all is none of the "modern bible" movements were ever lead by Christians. It was the complete opposite; lead by secularists and skeptics alike who's only goal seemed to be how many verses they could get away with removing. Verses were never added, only removed. In the end, there was no reason for the Christian community to be involved in this. The Christians already had a bible that had proved itself to be trustworthy and well liked. "Yea, hath God said?" --Satan, Genesis 3:1
- steve19 11y ago
  The American Standard Version is a slightly more modern revision of the KJ and is out of copyright and widely distributed online. The Standard Version and ESV build on it with successively more modern language and are in copyright. Comparison between the three: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+1&version=KJV;ASV;ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+1&version=... Personally, I don't think that any edition written in English (or latin for that matter) can be close to a canonical version of the Bible... nor do I think it is necessary that one is.
  - baldfat 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_English_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_English_Bible It is based on the ASV but is being translated to avoid copyright.
smithkl42 11y ago
Well, yes and no. We definitely have better manuscripts now, much better textual apparatus to organize and assess their variations, and much better research into what the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words would likely have meant to their original hearers. It also suffers from some horrible printing decisions: why folks continue to print the KJV with proper names in italics, and each verse as a separate paragraph is beyond me. But the KJV was a ground-breaking translation at the time: kind of like ALGOL or something like that. Nobody uses it anymore, but its ideas were what everybody has built on. And unlike nearly any modern translation, its English style means that it has rightly become a literary classic on its own rights. Yeah, it's not the Bible I read. But for certain uses (memorization, for instance, where rhythm and style is more important than every word coming across as familiar), it can hardly be beat.
- wyclif 11y ago
  I agree with everything you say here, especially about the manuscripts, except that it isn't true that "nobody uses it anymore." AFAICT, it's still the most popular English Bible by a wide margin. The KJV isn't perfect, and we do have better manuscripts now, but it's still a very popular Bible translation worldwide.
  - smithkl42 11y ago
    I know that there are various random churches and/or pastors who continue to advocate the use of the KJV, usually because of some (so far as I can tell) imaginary belief in the superiority of the Textus Receptus. But I would have thought that they were very much in the minority these days. Still, you seem to have a point about its popularity. According to this list, it's #2 (behind the NIV) in sales. That's a lot higher than I would have expected, given how rarely I see it used or quoted in my circles. http://thomrainer.com/2014/12/top-ten-bible-translations-2014/ http://thomrainer.com/2014/12/top-ten-bible-translations-201...
    - RanPaulHubbard 11y ago
      FOR THIS EXACT REASON, I CHOOSE THE DIANETICS TRANSLATION OVER ANY OTHER.
stevoski 11y ago
The KJV has plenty of archaic usage that reduces its usability. One of my favourite KJV oddities: "Suffer little children" Singing "Suffer little children" in church always struck me as odd. As a kid, I'd puzzle over why Jesus would say "suffer".
- hugh4 11y ago
  I've never understood that one, what does it actually mean anyway?
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    "Allow the little children"; the original text is "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." which is much clearer. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A14&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A14... A similar usage in the KJV is "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", which means "You shall not allow a witch to live". http://biblehub.com/kjv/exodus/22-18.htm http://biblehub.com/kjv/exodus/22-18.htm
  - DanBC 11y ago
    > 2. archaic > tolerate. > "France will no longer suffer the existing government" > synonyms: tolerate, put up with, bear, brook, stand, abide, endure, support, accept, weather; More "Those children aren't annoying, they're welcome in my churchy stuff"
  - zhte415 11y ago
    I love this kind of thing, as it reminds me of English literature classes, where the meaning and origin or words changes so much depending on word class, point in history, social story, but at some point there was a common bond. A few weeks ago at an ATM, having keyed-in the amount I wished to withdraw, I was presented with 3 options: Cancel Confirm *Correct All of the above are verbs, but I instinctively clicked 'Correct' taking the adjective meaning "This number is correct". The machine then asked me to re-input a withdrawal amount. The machine was focused on it's action; I was focused on the context of the number. A jarring reminder that even for everyday words, context is important. This is relevant for a historic text such as the Bible, and for our work interacting, and creating or using systems that create interaction for others.
afro88 11y ago
Can you recommend an accurate translation? I've always wanted to read the bible
- baldfat 11y ago
  I have studied 2 years of Greek and Hebrew and some Aramaic. The more I learned of these languages the more I realized how good our own translations are. All the modern translations are good but I do have two recommendations. New Living Translation is the best reading bible. It just is well written in sentence structure and word choices. New Revised Standard is the best "study" translation. To me it has the best "word for word" though I must say my old Hebrew teacher HATES this version's Old Testament version's word choices. (For example NIV translate the Greek word SOMA (flesh) sinful nature, I have an issue with that. In the Old Testament there are similar things that are merely differences in opinion) As a Linux and Open Source (Free Software) person I hate these copyrights so there are a few open license projects that I haven' dug into yet.
  - gecko 11y ago
    When I'm doing scholarly work, I think that the New Revised Standard version for the Gospels and other Christian writings is hands-down the best option. Its translations can be a bit stilted, since they try as hard as possible to go word-for-word with the original, but that's exactly what you want if you're trying to do a historical analysis. That said, I agree with your Hebrew teacher that it's not my top scholarly choice for the Hebrew bible. For that, I prefer the New Jewish Publication Society translation. Just as the NRSV, it's very easy to find with full scholarly commentary and without best-guess emendations (i.e., if the Hebrew makes no sense, or the meaning of a word has been forgotten, they will clearly mark it, rather than reaching to the Septuagint/Vulgate/Targum for a translation), but in my personal opinion, the NJPS translation is a bit more accurate.
- nogridbag 11y ago
  If you have an open mind, I recommend the SAB [0]. It's the King James version annotated by skeptics. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

by jonah 11y ago

analog31 11y ago

As I understand it, there are sects for whom the supremacy of the KJV is actually a matter of doctrine. If so, then it becomes the truth relative to that particular sect.

wyclif 11y ago
Yes, you're talking about the "KJV-Only" movement adopted by some primitive Baptists and other fundamentalist sects. There's a big difference between KJV-onlyism and preferring the KJV over other translations. The former insists something that the KJV translators themselves never did: that the KJV is the only legitimate Bible translation, and specially favoured and preserved by God over other translations.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  It's also ironic because the translation of the bible into people's native tongues from the Vulgate Latin bible was a major part of the Protestant movement in that it exposed a lot of issues in the Vulgate version which enabled the Protestants to attack Catholic doctrine.
- gtk40 11y ago
  My church/denomination (A Presbyterian denomination mostly in Scotland, but my congregation is in North America) uses the KJV as the main Bible in the pulpit. Part of this is to have a standard translation throughout the churches (while the pastor uses other translations to clarify) and partly conviction, without being KJV-only. We prefer the Byzantine tradition manuscripts to the Alexandrian tradition. The KJV is a good translation mainly based on the Byzantine tradition, with some more sticky cases. There isn't as much work being done with the Byzantine tradition these days, as most editions being published, whether evangelical or mainline, use the Alexandrian tradition texts primarily.

hugh4 11y ago

I don't pretend to know or especially care about accuracy, but the semi-archaic language of the King James Version gives it a certain authoritative-sounding zing that others may lack. "Thou shalt not kill" sounds a whole lot better than "Don't kill" even though the former has two words missing from modern English.

DanielBMarkham 11y ago
I agree. This is much the same as Shakespeare's plays having more impact due to their archaic language. I have seen several of his plays both in modern and original form. I thought the originals would be impossible to understand. Interestingly enough, after a few minutes, not only was I able to follow along, I enjoyed hearing my mother tongue with a strange twist. It gave the work much more impact. Along those lines, from a literary and cultural perspective, I think most folks who want to participate in English-speaking nations would be good to have a solid literary background in the KJV. There's just too much allusion and metaphor scattered about to forgo it. There are also a bunch of second-tier texts to know, but as far as cultural impact, as far as I can see, the KSV is way out ahead of the rest. I do not know if the same can be said of the Bhagavad Gita and Indian culture, although from what I can tell, the Koran plays a huge role in many other societies. Understanding mythical and mystical works gives interlocutors a huge common metaphorical and allegorical reserve that just isn't possible without them.
esaym 11y ago
"Atheist Hitchens Praises King James Bible" http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-hitchens-praises-king-james-bible-49686/ http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-hitchens-praises-k... >"Hitchens called the contemporary version "pancake-flat" and more suited for 'a basement meeting of A.A.'"
- wyclif 11y ago
  Hitchens, while an atheist, was appreciative of the KJV because of its foundational influence on English literature.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

esaym 11y ago

Except that they (non-KJV) are all copyrighted and thus you better not get caught reading them out loud in public or cutting and pasting quotes online. I agree, the KJV is not the easiest to read and a new Christian might want to start on something a little easier. But it is my advice that one hopefully outgrow the easier version as quick as possible. The KJV authors were genuine people as well. They were not bent on making a name for themselves which is what the basis for every modern translation is (other than money). I disagree that new translations are somehow "more accurate". From a handful of older manuscripts, that disagree not only with the originals used in the KJV but they also disagree amongst themselves, we get a hodgepodge of missing sentence fragments, and re-wordings that for what ever reason where backported into the Nestle greek from which most modern translations are derived. There are plenty of books written on the topic, the most recent being: http://amzn.com/B00KTV5GM2 http://amzn.com/B00KTV5GM2 (note I am not advocating any particular one,nor have I read any. What I speak of is from my own personal study). And the worst thing of all is none of the "modern bible" movements were ever lead by Christians. It was the complete opposite; lead by secularists and skeptics alike who's only goal seemed to be how many verses they could get away with removing. Verses were never added, only removed. In the end, there was no reason for the Christian community to be involved in this. The Christians already had a bible that had proved itself to be trustworthy and well liked. "Yea, hath God said?" --Satan, Genesis 3:1

steve19 11y ago
The American Standard Version is a slightly more modern revision of the KJ and is out of copyright and widely distributed online. The Standard Version and ESV build on it with successively more modern language and are in copyright. Comparison between the three: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+1&version=KJV;ASV;ESV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+1&version=... Personally, I don't think that any edition written in English (or latin for that matter) can be close to a canonical version of the Bible... nor do I think it is necessary that one is.
- baldfat 11y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_English_Bible https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_English_Bible It is based on the ASV but is being translated to avoid copyright.

smithkl42 11y ago

Well, yes and no. We definitely have better manuscripts now, much better textual apparatus to organize and assess their variations, and much better research into what the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words would likely have meant to their original hearers. It also suffers from some horrible printing decisions: why folks continue to print the KJV with proper names in italics, and each verse as a separate paragraph is beyond me. But the KJV was a ground-breaking translation at the time: kind of like ALGOL or something like that. Nobody uses it anymore, but its ideas were what everybody has built on. And unlike nearly any modern translation, its English style means that it has rightly become a literary classic on its own rights. Yeah, it's not the Bible I read. But for certain uses (memorization, for instance, where rhythm and style is more important than every word coming across as familiar), it can hardly be beat.

wyclif 11y ago
I agree with everything you say here, especially about the manuscripts, except that it isn't true that "nobody uses it anymore." AFAICT, it's still the most popular English Bible by a wide margin. The KJV isn't perfect, and we do have better manuscripts now, but it's still a very popular Bible translation worldwide.
- smithkl42 11y ago
  I know that there are various random churches and/or pastors who continue to advocate the use of the KJV, usually because of some (so far as I can tell) imaginary belief in the superiority of the Textus Receptus. But I would have thought that they were very much in the minority these days. Still, you seem to have a point about its popularity. According to this list, it's #2 (behind the NIV) in sales. That's a lot higher than I would have expected, given how rarely I see it used or quoted in my circles. http://thomrainer.com/2014/12/top-ten-bible-translations-2014/ http://thomrainer.com/2014/12/top-ten-bible-translations-201...
  - RanPaulHubbard 11y ago
    FOR THIS EXACT REASON, I CHOOSE THE DIANETICS TRANSLATION OVER ANY OTHER.

stevoski 11y ago

The KJV has plenty of archaic usage that reduces its usability. One of my favourite KJV oddities: "Suffer little children" Singing "Suffer little children" in church always struck me as odd. As a kid, I'd puzzle over why Jesus would say "suffer".

hugh4 11y ago
I've never understood that one, what does it actually mean anyway?
- cbd1984 11y ago
  "Allow the little children"; the original text is "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven." which is much clearer. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A14&version=KJV https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A14... A similar usage in the KJV is "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", which means "You shall not allow a witch to live". http://biblehub.com/kjv/exodus/22-18.htm http://biblehub.com/kjv/exodus/22-18.htm
- DanBC 11y ago
  > 2. archaic > tolerate. > "France will no longer suffer the existing government" > synonyms: tolerate, put up with, bear, brook, stand, abide, endure, support, accept, weather; More "Those children aren't annoying, they're welcome in my churchy stuff"
- zhte415 11y ago
  I love this kind of thing, as it reminds me of English literature classes, where the meaning and origin or words changes so much depending on word class, point in history, social story, but at some point there was a common bond. A few weeks ago at an ATM, having keyed-in the amount I wished to withdraw, I was presented with 3 options: Cancel Confirm *Correct All of the above are verbs, but I instinctively clicked 'Correct' taking the adjective meaning "This number is correct". The machine then asked me to re-input a withdrawal amount. The machine was focused on it's action; I was focused on the context of the number. A jarring reminder that even for everyday words, context is important. This is relevant for a historic text such as the Bible, and for our work interacting, and creating or using systems that create interaction for others.

afro88 11y ago

Can you recommend an accurate translation? I've always wanted to read the bible

baldfat 11y ago
I have studied 2 years of Greek and Hebrew and some Aramaic. The more I learned of these languages the more I realized how good our own translations are. All the modern translations are good but I do have two recommendations. New Living Translation is the best reading bible. It just is well written in sentence structure and word choices. New Revised Standard is the best "study" translation. To me it has the best "word for word" though I must say my old Hebrew teacher HATES this version's Old Testament version's word choices. (For example NIV translate the Greek word SOMA (flesh) sinful nature, I have an issue with that. In the Old Testament there are similar things that are merely differences in opinion) As a Linux and Open Source (Free Software) person I hate these copyrights so there are a few open license projects that I haven' dug into yet.
- gecko 11y ago
  When I'm doing scholarly work, I think that the New Revised Standard version for the Gospels and other Christian writings is hands-down the best option. Its translations can be a bit stilted, since they try as hard as possible to go word-for-word with the original, but that's exactly what you want if you're trying to do a historical analysis. That said, I agree with your Hebrew teacher that it's not my top scholarly choice for the Hebrew bible. For that, I prefer the New Jewish Publication Society translation. Just as the NRSV, it's very easy to find with full scholarly commentary and without best-guess emendations (i.e., if the Hebrew makes no sense, or the meaning of a word has been forgotten, they will clearly mark it, rather than reaching to the Septuagint/Vulgate/Targum for a translation), but in my personal opinion, the NJPS translation is a bit more accurate.
nogridbag 11y ago
If you have an open mind, I recommend the SAB [0]. It's the King James version annotated by skeptics. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com