KJV--why use it?

[hebrews_beauty]

This may belong in another forum, but I'm not sure which. It's a sincere question...almost a concern.

Why should Christians today be using the KJV?

For one, it's not in the English spoken today...which, in a sense, means that it's in another language.

For two, because of this, it's difficult to read and understand. I can't imagine using some of the scriptures from the KJV to explain something about God or salvation; it takes me extra time to understand what I'm reading!

For three, there are MUCH better translations today. KJV was good for its time, but now there are better alternatives.

So why do some Christians insist on it? Yes, I know it's a "traditional, older" translation, and I also know some groups insist it's the "only correct" translation, which is a joke. I feel like using it, especially when sharing something with someone who is not saved, could bring more confusion than necessary, and may even turn some people off because the language is old, not today's English.

Opinions, please?

[serotta]

hebrews_beauty,

Since you asked for opinions, mine is that this is one of several topics that has been beaten to death here. I do not believe that anyones salvation will be based on what version of God's word they learned from. There is plenty of opinion out there if you search for it.

[dwinkjr]

I started out in a Strict baptist church that believed in KJV only, and i was the same for the first 2yrs of my walk with the Lord. Now after much research and many debates, on these boards mostly I have come to understand that the meat of the Text is the same in almost any translation you choose to use. And as was already said, no ones salvation is going to lie in which translation they use. I do enjoy the KJV for the poetic language used, but for study purposes i would much rather have an ESV or NASB.

God Bless,

Dave

[Abigailwc]

This may belong in another forum, but I'm not sure which. It's a sincere question...almost a concern.

Why should Christians today be using the KJV?

For one, it's not in the English spoken today...which, in a sense, means that it's in another language.

For two, because of this, it's difficult to read and understand. I can't imagine using some of the scriptures from the KJV to explain something about God or salvation; it takes me extra time to understand what I'm reading!

For three, there are MUCH better translations today. KJV was good for its time, but now there are better alternatives.

So why do some Christians insist on it? Yes, I know it's a "traditional, older" translation, and I also know some groups insist it's the "only correct" translation, which is a joke. I feel like using it, especially when sharing something with someone who is not saved, could bring more confusion than necessary, and may even turn some people off because the language is old, not today's English.

Opinions, please?

It does not matter which Bible you read, as long as it translates accurately the original manuscripts. Just stick with the one you like, everybody's different.

[Leonard]

Come, come, Little Sister, Shakespeare's English is much more archaic than KJV, but you're not putting Shakespeare aside, are you?

Having read 8 English translations all the way through, and having read in at least 50 others, I assure you, KJV's accuracy is unparalleled. There are very few truly good modern translations; they have all been infected with the intellectual virus of Graf-Welhausen!

Still, as another pointed out here, no one's salvation is going to depend on what translation they read.

[ayin jade]

Then I heard about the Textus Receptus. Those are the manuscripts from which the King James Bible was translated. It is the only version that used those manuscripts exclusively. All others come from less reliable manuscripts (of course they claim them to be more reliable). This comes down to where you put your faith.

Not so. The MKJV is translated from the Textus Receptus too.

Come, come, Little Sister, Shakespeare's English is much more archaic than KJV, but you're not putting Shakespeare aside, are you?

Since Shakespeare isnt needed for my growth in Christ, then it doesnt matter to me if I understand it completely or not. So I can enjoy it even though my comprehension of it is maybe 50%. But with something as important as the bible, I want and need to get the most understanding of it as I can. And for me, that means reading other versions. With esword, it is easy enough for me to compare the NASB against the MKJV against the KJV against an interlinear bible with just a click of the mouse.

Personal pet peeve though, for those who claim they read the KJV1611 version. Unless yours looks like this passage, and unless it contains apocrypha, it isnt the 1611 version.

1Co 3:12 Now if any man build vpon this foundation, gold, siluer, preciousstones, wood, hay, stubble:

1Co 3:13 Euery mans worke shall be made manifest. For the day shall declare it, because it shall bee reuealed by fire, and the fire shall trie euery mans worke of what sort it is.

1Co 3:14 If any mans worke abide which he hath built thereupon, he shal receiue a reward.

1Co 3:15 If any mans worke shall bee burnt, he shall suffer losse: but he himselfe shall be saued: yet so, as by fire.

(KJV 1611)

The KJV used the Geneva bible when it made its translation. The Geneva bible is the one that came over with the pilgrims. If I have to use an old english version, I prefer the Geneva bible.

[SwordFish]

Come, come, Little Sister, Shakespeare's English is much more archaic than KJV, but you're not putting Shakespeare aside, are you?

Having read 8 English translations all the way through, and having read in at least 50 others, I assure you, KJV's accuracy is unparalleled. There are very few truly good modern translations; they have all been infected with the intellectual virus of Graf-Welhausen!

Still, as another pointed out here, no one's salvation is going to depend on what translation they read.

swordfish

i agree the kjv is the most accurate translation out there and in my opinion there is no comparison as i also have read other versions and they do not even hold a candle to the kjv version. no one's salvation hinges on it unless they leave that portion of scripture out of the other versions which i've seen other things left out and altered the meanings of verses when i compared them. so i keep the other versions only to use for comparisons and not for reliable text. i only hold and adhere to the kjv version as the only bible of my choice. i do not at all find it hard to understand when i read and study within it's pages. but everyone has their own preferences i just wouldn't take any chances when it comes to the other "copyrighted" versions of the bible.

swordfish

[ayin jade]

Concerning the Geneva Bible, the reason the KJV came about was that the Geneva Bible had been slanted to a protestant viewpoint. As I said before, I don't care which way the slant is, I prefer accuracy. The King James Bible was written under strict orders to make it as accurate as possible, and that is precisely what was done.

The Geneva bible was translated accurately. The notes in the Geneva bible had the strong protestant slant, and the KJV was translated because of the pressure to eliminate the notes against the catholic church. The Geneva bible itself was not translated with a protestant slant. The KJV uses, among many sources, the Dhouay Rheims as a basis for its translation, which is a heavily catholic based, and inaccurate according to many, translation.

[amazingrace]

I like KJV to be read in church, I dont know why.... but it just pleases me to hear it being read. But for daily reading, when I read it myself, I find the outdated language tedious. I own a KJV but seldom use it. For daily reading I prefer the NKJV. I have the NASB on CD's.

[ayin jade]

Does this mean that you believe everyone would do well to use the Geneva Bible?

No, I just dont believe in KJV only.