Why NOT the KJV?

[irresistible_grace]

If you don't use the KJV in your Corporate, Family, and/or Private worship...
Why NOT the KJV?
What Translation do you use? Why?

 

[rookie]

Personally for my own reading, church and house, I use the NSAB and the Louis Segond (French). I used the ESV when I had one, gave it to my brother in law. The reason for these translations, is that they are today's english.

 

[TimV]

Because you have to translate it for most people. Last Bible study one of the guys read our study passage from the KJV even though I keep telling him it's not confessional in our situation:

1Ti 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

and I asked a young man what it meant and he had no idea. So why not just read the Bible in English?????What are some people trying to prove?

 

[reformedminister]

I use and prefer the KJV in preaching, personal Bible study, and family worship. I appreciate it's historicity, the beauty of the language, and am convinced that it is a great and reliable translation.

 

[irresistible_grace]

For corporate worship we typically use the NKJV (depending on who is filling the pulpit) because of the pastor's preference.

For Family worship we are using the ESV because it is in "today's english" as you say.

For private I use KJV because... What We Believe - Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland

---------- Post added at 03:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

The Importance of An Approved Translation Of The Bible

 

[Rufus]

I can't speak for myself (I read out of the KJV) but for many its the archaic language and the ease of reading a different translation.

 

[Zach]

I prefer the ESV translation because I find it to be both readable and accurate. To be fair though, I have never read much from the KJV other than when I cross check if the meaning is unclear or if I am using the Matthew Henry Commentary.

 

[irresistible_grace]

Because you have to translate it for most people. Last Bible study one of the guys read our study passage from the KJV even though I keep telling him it's not confessional in our situation:

1Ti 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate;

and I asked a young man what it meant and he had no idea. So why not just read the Bible in English?????What are some people trying to prove?

All you quote did was prove the importance of not singling out one verse ... when read in context it makes perfect since in the KJV (which is in English).

"Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life (1 Timothy 6:17-19 KJV)"

 

[NB3K]

I read mainly from the ESV, but if it was not for Calvin, I would never known about the changes in many OT passages. I read it because I got on the ESV bandwagon.

Jer 31:18 I have surely heard Ephraim bemoaning himself thus; Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke: turn thou me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the LORD my God.
Jer 31:19 Surely after that I was turned, I repented; and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth. KJV

Jer 31:18 I have heard Ephraim grieving, 'You have disciplined me, and I was disciplined, like an untrained calf; bring me back that I may be restored, for you are the LORD my God.
Jer 31:19 For after I had turned away, I relented, and after I was instructed, I struck my thigh; I was ashamed, and I was confounded, because I bore the disgrace of my youth.' ESV

&

Job 21:30 That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath. KJV

Job 21:30 that the evil man is spared in the day of calamity, that he is rescued in the day of wrath? ESV

So while I do not use the KJV for study, it is nice to be able to use it to cross-examine other versions. I would rather see an updated Geneva Bible which from my knowledge was considered the "Protestant's" Bible.

 

[Herald]

Why don't I use the KJV as my primary translation? For starters, I've used the NASB since I became a Christian in 1979. I've memorized Scripture in the NASB. I consider the NASB to be at least as faithful an English translation as the KJV. I have nothing against the KJV; I just don't prefer it.

 

[southkogs]

Okay - I'll jump in.

I don't mind the KJV (I've spent a lot of time in it), but ultimately it was originally commissioned in an effort to support the divine right of kings. I think the 1635 version repaired much of the language that is suggested to have supported King James' claims to divine right, but the roots are still there. The 1599 Geneva offers a more "Calvinistic" translation (which I would say is probably more accurate). I do like the ESV and use it heavily - it's easy to read, easy to teach from and a good formal translation.

I have found that I also like to dabble in the Holman Christian Standard as well. It's a little more of a dynamic translation, but it also holds a little more tightly to gender representations of God and offers some interesting insights to context.

 

[Weston Stoler]

Was in an IFB turned SBC KJV only church. As long as your not one of those people who believe the KJV is more reliable then the greek and herbrew I am fine with whatever version you use.

I use the ESV on the simple fact that I love it, and I have issues with anger at my former church and the KJV (although a wonderful and beautiful translation) brings that back up again.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

In all honesty, I use the NASB because: 1) what i've personally read and researched involving the manuscripts used for the NASB(i.e. alexandrian) 2) the history of the 1611 KJV 3) and the fact that we don't speak in old english terms anymore( e.g. using terms such as "unicorns":

Deuteronomy 33:17
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Psalm 22:21
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

Isaiah 34:7
And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

)

 

[jogri17]

My Church is French speaking so that is why we do not for corporate worship. As for personal use, I do use it a long with the ESV. I love both. But I do think the KJV was based off of inferior manuscripts and the language has changed enough since 1611 that certain words do not reflect the meaning of the original Greek and Hebrews and modern English.

 

[elnwood]

Westminster Confession, I.8:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

The Westminster Confession (and the London Confession, in preserving the same language) tells us that we must do the missionary work of translating the Bible into the "vulgar language" of every nation. The Confession should not only lead us to support missions work in foreign lands without Bibles, but it also demands that the Bible be translated into the language as spoken by the people.

Since the KJV is no longer in the "vulgar language" of any nation, I believe the confessions teach us to use Bible translations that use modern English for modern English readers and listeners.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

As has been noted before, seemingly ad nasuem, the way folks are using the word "vulgar" the KJV really was not "vulgar" in 1611.

Also I have heard a lot of rumor surrounding the KJV but it being written to support the Divine Right of Kings is a new one.

 

[TimV]

It's been noted before, but always by KJVOnlies Outside of this forum I've never heard vulgar meaning anything other than vulgar

The ancestor of vulgar, the Latin word vulgris (from vulgus, "the common people"), meant "of or belonging to the common people, everyday," as well as "belonging to or associated with the lower orders." Vulgris also meant "ordinary," "common (of vocabulary, for example)," and "shared by all." An extension of this meaning was "sexually promiscuous," a sense that could have led to the English sense of "indecent." Our word, first recorded in a work composed in 1391, entered English during the Middle English period, and in Middle English and later English we find not only the senses of the Latin word mentioned above but also related senses. What is common may be seen as debased, and in the 17th century we begin to find instances of vulgar that make explicit what had been implicit. Vulgar then came to mean "deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement." From such uses vulgar has continued to go downhill, and at present "crudely indecent" is among the commonest senses of the word.

Pretty much what any dictionary says.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

As has been noted before, seemingly ad nasuem, the way folks are using the word "vulgar" the KJV really was not "vulgar" in 1611.

Also I have heard a lot of rumor surrounding the KJV but it being written to support the Divine Right of Kings is a new one.

Here's were I first encountered this idea:

No. 29- James I, Pervert and Tyrant, Part 1 WS021 - SermonAudio.com

No. 30 - James I, Pervert and Tyrant, Part II WS022 - SermonAudio.com

and I believe here also:

No. 15 - The History of the English Bible WS007 - SermonAudio.com

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thanks James!

 

[Unoriginalname]

I use the Esv for my personal study because I have it on my phone so it is always available to me. I have a KJV hardcopy I bring to church, but I only really use it in church because I didnt grow up using the KJV and learned most things NIV . I bring the KJV to church though because it looks bad to be on your phone the whole service. While I think the KJV is a good translation, I do not think it is the only one so I go for the most accurate/easily accessible version which is the ESV for me. (in case that sentence is unclear I am not saying the ESV is the most accurate, but the most accurate translation I have access to, I believe it is at least as accurate as the KJV.)

 

[Prufrock]

Tim,

Interestingly enough, the primary definition of "vulgar" found in the Oxford English Dictionary (which seems like a fairly reliable resource) does not include the notion of pertaining especially to the "low orders," but rather is simply refers to (in the case of English) English as opposed to _____(something else). I still don't buy a redefinition of the term vulgar which requires the necessary insertion of the term "contemporary." (And please do keep in mind that I would be all for certain semantic modernizations to the AV provided the were accepted by the broad church as linguistically helpful, without changing the meaning of the passage). Can vulgar involve the concept of being contemporary? Of course. Must it? Of course not. More importantly, are you positive the divines truly, consciously and purposefully used the term vulgar to specifically include the notion of "contemporary" such that they thereby purposefully and consciously exclude non-contemporary language? I know it has been stated here before that the WCF requires a modern translation, but are you positive (i.e., is it demonstrable) that such is exclusively what they meant? Or rather is it possible that they meant it simply in the standard meaning of "English, not Latin, Hebrew or Greek", such as this example from 1612 taken from the Oxford English Dictionary: "I haue giuen them vulgars, or Englishes, such as I haue deuised, to be made in Latine"? I'm not in any way suggesting the WCF somehow requires an older translation or a specific translation; I am asking for any shred of evidence for the oft repeated claim that the divines' use of the term "vulgar" in the WCF necessarily invokes the legitimate subset of the definition which includes being contemporary or pertaining to the common speech of the lower orders specifically.

 

[Claudiu]

I used the KJV for years, but switched to the ESV recently. But I'm trying to finish my daily readings in the KJV since it's the 400th anniversary.

The reason for the switch is because the ESV is more understandable. I love the KJV, but people just don't understand it as well (although many on here would disagree). I don't have anything against the KJV though, and still use it in my daily reading. I'm starting to use the ESV more. As far as family and corporate worship, I use the ESV. Also, I believe the manuscripts used for the new translations (NASB and ESV) are better than the ones used for the KJV.

 

[a mere housewife]

We use KJV for corporate worship; and we have a very ably read version by Alexander Scourby which I love to listen to. For private reading, I use the ESV, and the Geneva Bible. I have no understanding of textual issues; I only know that my mind is often tired when I read my Bible (even first thing in the day) and when I am tired I easily find myself reading and rereading the same lines numerous times without grasping the sense. This is aggravated by familiarity, as well as by complexity -- and both these factors (familiarity because I grew up with the KJV) play into the trouble I have in reading Scripture (I do have more trouble understanding what I am reading, than I have hearing it well read). When I was looking at various Bible versions to help with this I asked my husband which were fair game, opened to the Psalms in each of those, and fell in love with the ESV in the bookstore. I love it more deeply now: its words have been the greatest comfort of the past years. For study I use the Geneva Bible because of the wonderful notes: I have also come to dearly love this Bible.

We went to visit my husband's grandma recently after she had a stroke: she had been reading an NIV for years because of its being in use at church she attended, but she could not read it, or remember it, anymore. She could not consistently remember the names of her children. Yet she could quote long passages she had read most of her life out of the KJV. Those times of quoting Scripture (and I found out I could quote a good bit along with her) and singing familiar hymns were the only times she was joyful and comforted while we were there. Naturally this makes the KJV even more precious to me; and makes me aware of how a received and (as I understand) more universally familiar, version of Scripture can impact the comfort of laypeople (I'm afraid I also love some fairly inadequate hymns a little more now too . I think I will always find the rhythms of the KJV better for memorisation. I tend to trust its translation more where the sense conflicts with the ESV (as in Proverbs 19:27), because several people who are knowledgeable about textual issues, for whose opinion I have respect, prefer the KJV. The language of the ESV is more natural to me in prayer.

I am so grateful for the scholarship and the devoted lives behind my possession of three Bibles. I can't help wishing all people in the world had the same privilege.

(please note, that I am never sure about contributing my underinformed opinion especially to these discussions; but one of my few settled convictions on this subject is that the experience of God's normal, even underinformed, people ought to be taken into consideration. Yet I understand there are other important considerations involved and wouldn't wish to contribute my very unscholarly two cents as if I think they should count for more than merely that.)

 

[baron]

I have been using the KJV in my daily bible reading , but next year I may switch back to the HCSB. The HCSB just seems to flow so nice.

 

[seajayrice]

I refrain from the KJV only when seeking to antagonize firebreathing KJ onlyists types. ESV, NKJ or NAS otherwise, they are all fabulous translations and a publishers winter wonderland of profits.

 

[TimV]

Heidi don't be silly, we all think you're a genius, at the very least. People read what you say several times over because of how seriously you're taken here, and that's no joke.

Interestingly enough, the primary definition of "vulgar" found in the Oxford English Dictionary (which seems like a fairly reliable resource) does not include the notion of pertaining especially to the "low orders,"

No one said it did

but rather is simply refers to (in the case of English) English as opposed to _____(something else).

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!! Like some language where communicate means giving money.

Can vulgar involve the concept of being contemporary? Of course. Must it? Of course not.

Paul, that is simply hilarious!!! Vulgar means simply that!! What the people mean!!!

More importantly, are you positive the divines truly, consciously and purposefully used the term vulgar to specifically include the notion of "contemporary" such that they thereby purposefully and consciously exclude non-contemporary language? I know it has been stated here before that the WCF requires a modern translation, but are you positive (i.e., is it demonstrable) that such is exclusively what they meant?

Yep

Or rather is it possible that they meant it simply in the standard meaning of "English, not Latin, Hebrew or Greek", such as this example from 1612 taken from the Oxford English Dictionary: "I haue giuen them vulgars, or Englishes, such as I haue deuised, to be made in Latine"? I'm not in any way suggesting the WCF somehow requires an older translation or a specific translation; I am asking for any shred of evidence for the oft repeated claim that the divines' use of the term "vulgar" in the WCF necessarily invokes the legitimate subset of the definition which includes being contemporary or pertaining to the common speech of the lower orders specifically.

You can make it as complicated and/or twisted as you want, but the chance of scores of educated people taking a secondary definition of a term that they were all familiar with, i.e. "pertaining to the lower orders" above the standard definition of "what everyone speaks" makes my head spin. Why can't "is" just mean "is"? Really!!!!

 

[Prufrock]

I guess that settles it.

 

[py3ak]

Why can't "is" just mean "is"?

Because the AV deliberately uses archaisms, yet the AV was acceptable to the Westminster Assembly!!!!!!!!!

 

[TimV]

Lol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[py3ak]

( ! )