Why should many Christians leave their KJVs in the 1600's with King James?

Question

The KJV has served it purpose. Let it go! There is no need to struggle with two foreign languages; the translated Greek and Hebrew and the archaic British! Many modern Americans can barely understand Brits today, let alone, 300yrs ago!! Don't get me wrong, the KJV was a great translation for its time. Did you know there was as about much criticism over the KJV back then compared to other "elder" versions as there is over the modern translations compared to the ,now, "elder" KJV!! What a small world afterall! A wise book once said, "History only repeats itself." This is so obviously the case right here. Tradition can be a two-edged sword. Some traditons are good such as family reunions, praying before you go to bed, going to church on sunday ,but on the other hand there are other traditions that are bad, such as slavery, goverment oppression, the unrest in Middle East and so on. God has given mankind common sense to discern between a "good moral excercise in faith" and just a bad habit.

You should not be compelled to read KJV because it's "traditon".

"You should be compelled to read any translation because it brings understanding to its current audience."

Answer 1

The King James Version is the most accurate version to the original Greek and Hebrew.
This is proven, look it up.
If it's too hard for you to read, ask the Holy Spirit for guidance.
I think it is the easiest to read for its poetic qualities.
S

Answer 2

I don't like any of the Modern Translations.

Known and Begotten are just TOO PC in the NIV

Maybe if they got a little gutteral I could get into it.

The KJV it at least SPICEY and down to Earth

The NIV is just too PG13

Too antispetic

The NIV doesn't even use words that are acceptable like RAPE

The KJV at least gives you a gutteral feel for what happens when a MAN COMES ACROSS A YOUNG GIRL IN THE FIELDS

The NIV makes it too limp

I mean you gotta get down to it

He held her down, ripped her clothes off and RAPED her for satisfaction

the NIV just doesn't impart that

Not that the KJV does, but the KJV at least hints about it

The KJV in it's own way is rated R

The NIV is G all the way

I can't stomach that

YOu can't just GLOSS over some guy doing in a 13 year old girl in the fields

That just isn't REALITY

That's I Love Lucy saying she's in a FAMILY way instead of saying she's pregnant.

I just can't STOMACH the NIV's G rated approach to things.

Answer 3

No onecan fully grasp the language of Shakespear when first read. The flow and word use take some getting used to...There are no modern revised versions of this writing because its classic and its beautiful. What you have instead are plagerized renditions which are butchered and ripped apart by man's interpretation of what Willy wanted to convey. So! The same thing holds true for the KJV of the Holy Bible. Why? Because it was prophesied of in scripture (Revelation 11) and is the most accurate translation. I understand it perfectly well and enjoy reading it. I have used the NIV and Strongs as study guides back in the day but I no longer need that...besides I noticed the NIV really was bad at wording things with the same impact so I began to stear clearer of it. To each his own. Perhaps its not your preference...that's fine. However, for other people who do indeed sincerely study the Bible they should be able to discern for themselves if they can handle the heavy language...look at the other classics...Moby Dick, The Count of Monte Christo, any Jane Austin novels or as I said...Shakespear. As far as history repeating itself...it was not a book but a famous quote from a poet that continues to be misquoted which is this..."Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason by a Spanish American George Santayana. This quote is realized in scripture because its true...we can't remember historically for instance that the Sabbath was commanded to be kept on the 7th day, which is never changed in the Bible, but through men's traditions it was changed to Sunday worship. We allowed that historical event to occur as prophesied...however, a second tragedy would be to allow persons such as yourself to convince us to let go of our foundation in favor of men's revision which is weaker and more watered down. Sunday worship is watered down obedience to obeying the commandment to "remember" the Sabbath and keep it holy. So reading another version of the Holy Bible would be to consume less satisfying scripture and be less moved by our God paraphrased. God has given mankind common sense to believe Him when He says...don't rely on mankind or on your own understanding..but on every word that proceeds out of His mouth. That is a good moral excersize of faith that prevents bad habits. Get it strait. Love in Christ, ~J~

Answer 4

The only reason why any Christian should leave their KJB in the 1600 is because they are ignorant. Don't believe all the lies. Compare thes verses.

Does the modern translation leave out firstborn son? If so, Mary was not a virgin.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS

Does the modern translation change “Joseph” to “father”? If so, Joseph could have been the father of Jesus.
Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

Does the modern translation change “blood” to “death”? If so, Jesus could have died without shedding His blood and we would not have redemption through his blood.
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Does the modern translation change “God” to “he”? If so, Jesus would not be God.
I Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Does the modern translation leave out “without a cause” in Matt 5:22? If so, Jesus was a sinner.
Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger,

Does the modern translation change “of” to “in” in Rom 3:22? If so, then the righteousness of God is by your faith and not by the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.

Does the modern translation change “rightly dividing” to “rightly handling” in II Tim 2:15? If so, then there is no division in the word of truth, it is all to us.
II Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Does the modern translation leave out “O Lucifer” and add “o morning star” in Isaiah 14:12? If so, then Jesus and Lucifer are the same.
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Who does the modern translation say who killed Goliath? Is it David or Elhanan, or both?
I Sam 17:51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.
II Sam 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

Answer 5

The KJV was never a good translation, hence why no mainline protestant groups use it. Except the Baptist.

When the Reformed Churches went to retranslate it they found it so errant they scrapped the whole thing and started again from scratch.

Answer 6

Whatever floats your boat...I prefer KJV over NIV or all the other translations ..I have read many !You must have a Strongs Concordence if you want to get down to the nitty gritty....

Answer 7

To say nothing of the fact that the King James version is so ful of mistranslations and outright distortions of prior version.

BB,
Raji the Green Witch

Answer 8

i always find it amusing that people who claim not to be able to understand shakespeare - because the language is too old fashioned - cling on to the authorised version (which comes from exactly the same period).

i suppose the difference is that it matters if you don't understand shakespeare; because what shakespeare is saying is actually important.

Answer 9

Thou knowest the answer within thee.