Quote:
|
Originally Posted by armourbearer The point which seems to be assumed is that the AV is written in 17th century English. The language of the AV was not the English of the 17th or any century. The language of any "version" of the Bible which seeks to be even remotely accurate will be foreign to the 21st century English reader. |
The English of the KJV was such that anyone who was literate in the 17th century would be able to understand and comprehend what it was saying. Maybe the concepts and such would be foreign, but the text would be understandable. The text of the KJV is no longer understandable or comprehendable to today's younger generation. So not only are the concepts foreign, the language in which they are being conveyed is foreign.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by armourbearer Why use the AV? For the same reason that different communal groups of the 1st century used the "strange" Greek version of the Old Testament. It was universally received and read. This meant that people of various contexts could share in a single language which they all held in common, notwithstanding the fact that the language itself was a little strange to all cultures. |
And eventually, when the LXX became incomprehensible to people it was either updated or translated into another language.
There seems to be an assumption on your part that the KJV is the universally received and read Bible in the English world. Maybe this was the case when you were younger and for your generation but that is definitely not the case now. The translation that would meet that requirement today would be the NIV---->TNIV. Furthermore, the English in the KJV unites no one in today's generation of English speakers. It may unite the older generations, and it may unite certain wings of the Reformed community and KJV Onlyists, but that's about it.