Why do people stubornly stick to 16th century english?

Question

And a version at that! The KJ-Version was a wonderful adaptation and translation that suited the reigning king at that time, but it was done under fear of loosing one's head!
Much new research shows that there were in it ;
more than 1500 errors!
Yet people stubbornly continue to use it thinking it is perfect.
Absolutely no disrespect intended. People at the time did the best they could, but the language is archaic and, were Jesus to spend some time talking with you, he wouldn't use it.
He would talk with you in your native language!
Yes some things loose their meaning when languages change, that is why God confused the language at the tower of bable, or at least one of them.
Just some thoughts that I have had running in my mind, as I said, no disrespect intended. I have several versions myself. Won't you consider haveing a great day?

Answer 1

The path of the KJV bible can be found in the first article on this page...
http://planttel.net/~meharris1/mikescorner.html

Fact is, there are alot of left out verses, twisted words and such in the newer translations. The NASB comes pretty close, but the KJV is what it is. God's preserved Word.

Answer 2

The BEST manuscript available to the translators was a western tradition manuscript denoted 'D' otherwise called Codex Baeza, yet the translators went against it several times by adding later additions to the text.

For all the claims of its supporters, 20+ years reading the New Testament in Greek has taught me that the kjv IS A VERY POOR EXCUSE for a Bible translation.

Many of those supporters think there was no English Bible before the kjv. That is false. Bibles in languages of the British Isles go back to the 8th century when Bede translated John. There were several complete Bibles of varying quality published before the kjv:

Tyndale's Bible
The [authorized] Great Bible ;-)
Matthew's Bible
Taverner's Bible
The Geneva Bible
The Bishops' Bible
The Douai-Rheims Version

Answer 3

The King James translation of scripture is a good one. It does give modern English-speaking folks fits, sometimes. However the translation from original language into 16th century language, is in most cases correct. The American Standard, Revised Standard, and NIV are also good translations, but do have some difficulties in translations.

I would suggest the newest translation, the English Standard Version, is a good one to use. It has not only used the original texts, but the translators also researched many aspects of Biblical life, history, and customs to bring about, what is called, the most accurate translation, yet.

Translation and readability is important. After all, Christ said that by His words, we would be judged. I want my scripture to tell me plainly about denominations, baptism, grace, faith, alcohol, marriage and divorce, true worship, prayer, sin, heaven and hell. Don't you?

Answer 4

I like it, but that's because I think the language is beautiful, not that it's particularly accurate. And I'm not Christian.

Updated versions are translated with new knowledge about the past and ancient languages; I would think they'd be more accurate, too.

Besides, the KJV was written in their version of contemporary English at that time. Why can't today's Christians do the same now?

Answer 5

I agree with you. When we read things in another language other than our own, things truly get lost in translation. I can say i can speak spanish, but my original language is English so there are still things I won't get. Therefore, in the same way, updated NIV is the way to go at first so you can truly know what Jesus was saying. Then after that you can go on back to other versions. I myself have the NIV, NLT, and NKJV.

Answer 6

Minor grammarical errors do not change the core message at all. It is beautiful in that it reads like poetry. I agree, they substituted the word "Easter" for "Passover" but one still gets the core message. I own KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, LIVING and other versions. I have read and enjoy them all.

Answer 7

I do verily say unto thee that men whose sojourn is in that century called the twenty and first may find brimstone descending on them from the firmament unless their repentance from the mockery of ancient forms of olde English is sincere and with haste. If the English of His Highness King James was of sufficient import for the usage of even Saint Paul himself then I will not foresay it or the Empire be lost!

Ouch! Was that a piece of brimstone that just landed on my head?

Answer 8

I think I will stick to the bible that many was Martyrd for. The NIV has many errors in it and I can show them to you. The KJV is close to the orignal and I will stick with that.

Answer 9

The odd thing to me is that I have never heard Shakespeare's writings attacked in this manner. Never! Have you?

Answer 10

i actually like playing around withh word from the olden days lol