Why is the king jams version of the bible so popular?

Answer 1

People seem to really like Elvis.

Answer 2

Some of the best arguments against KJV-onlyism come from the translators of the KJV!

there are at least 827 words and phrases in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no longer used in our modern, everyday English language, i.e., suffer, filthy lucre, quick, lunatick, wax, charity, gay clothing, etc.! This is just a partial listing.

Furthermore, the modern KJV edition that you read from is probably not the 1611. It's probably the Blayney edition of 1769. The 1611 edition of the KJV underwent various changes in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769.

Also, if one claims the original 1611 KJV is the only inspired, infallible Word of God, he is claiming that Purgatory is true, since the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 version and it teaches Purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:45).

The forty seven Revisors were restricted in their duties on the new Bible by fifteen rules as dictated by King James.

Here is one of these rules for our examination.

Rule 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, --- King James needed this rule to make his new Bible appear familiar to his subjects who were accustomed to the earlier English Bibles and also to further some of his cherished doctrines and those of the established English Church. It was also directed against the trend of the Puritans who wanted to abolish terms taken from Catholic ritual.


Consider this example of Rule 3

The Greek word ANGELOS should be correctly translated messengers. The K.J.V. brings down two words, angel and messenger for this one Greek word ANGELOS. Had the K.J.V. used the correct translation instead of the ecclesiastical word angel, many scriptures would have become more defined and clear.

If the King James revisors had been consistent in bringing down their word angel for every Greek word ANGELOS, then Mark 1:4 would be calling John the Baptist an angel (also Luke 7:27), and in Luke 7:24 the two disciples of John the Baptist would be the angels of John the Baptist.

Note the salutation to the angels of the seven churches --- in Asia as recorded in the K.J.V. in Revelation chapters 1, 2 and 3. The word angel conveys the idea that these are heavenly overshadowing beings when in fact they refer to earthly messengers (the message givers) or the pastors of these seven churches.

and there are tons more reasons why KJV is not a good Bible

Answer 3

spiritro... gave an excellent (and accurate) answer. Many answers on here are not so accurate.

The King James Version (KJV) was not
1) The 1st English translation
2) The 1st English translation from the original languages
3) The 1st English translation in common language
4) The first, or last, authorized version (indeed, it's authorization is a matter of debate)

So, why *was* the KJV so popular? The previous "common" bible (that was extraordinarily popular as well) was the Geneva Bible (GB). This bible included Protestant (read: anti-Roman Catholic) commentaries that was the cause of considerable unrest in the English-speaking world.

King James, in an effort to quash this problem, agreed to *fund* the translation of a new common-language translation, with the caveat that no notes would be included. This is the "authorization" - the permission to make an English translation and the funding. The finished work never received formal authorization from king or Parliament. The king's $ paid for a scholarly translation in the modern vernacular. Interestingly, the translators *included* marginal translation notes because they considered alternate possible translations *needed* to be offered for ambiguous passages.

According the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, "It took nearly forty years for the KJV to replace the Geneva Bible in the affection of the people". What gave it an edge over the GB? It's poetic & familiar language (primarily borrowed from bibles authorized for use in English churches in the past), it's well-respected scholarship, and its more modern wording.

It's use among English-speaking non-Catholics was so widespread that it became the de facto standard bible. Like many traditions, particularly *religious* traditions, this tradition has been maintained over the centuries, despite the availability of versions that have more modern language, more accurate translation, more authentic sources, and the benefit of vastly improved modern scholarship.

Does the KJV still have value? Absolutely. Is it the best bible available to us? Not a chance.

Here are the best KJV editions available today (of which I am aware).

KJV (Paragraph) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FKJV-Cambridge-Paragraph-Bible-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0521843863%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044700%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
A scholarly effort to duplicate the original KJV *translation* (as opposed to any particular printing). Spelling is modernized (not the wording) and the complete contents of the original translation is here, including the excellent marginal notes.

KJV (Oxford) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0192835254%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1190233697%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
Similar to the above, this edition lacks only the marginal notes and is much cheaper (and paperback). It is pretty well-put-together for a paperback.

KJV 1611 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-King-James-Version%2Fdp%2F1565631609%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044819%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
This is a "replica" of the original 1611 printing. Each word on each page is in precisely the same position as in that original printing. It also includes the excellent marginal notes. The *spelling* in this edition is also identical to the original, and at 1st will cause readers some difficulty (but only at 1st). Once you have mastered the transposition of u and v, and of i and j, you will likely find it just as easy to read as an Oxford Revision KJV. Fortunately, this edition does not use the original Germanic lettering of the original, and instead uses the Roman lettering to which we are all accustomed. Possibly the best bible to use when discussing scripture with a KJV-only Christian, as this is about as close as you can get for under $100 to the *actual* *original* KJV. It is also quite reasonably priced.

I hope this helps.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 4

Because it was the first bible translated into a common language (though it's archaic now). That boosted its popularity immensely - before the KJV, most bibles were in Latin and required clergy to 'interpret' for the congregations, thus ensuring the necessity of the church.

According to most scholars, it's actually a fairly poor translation (though there are worse). There are even entire verses in it that do not exist in the original manuscripts. The fact that Hebrew & Greek don't translate well into English doesn't help.

ticd needs to do his research; there were multiple versions of the Bible before the KJV, (in Latin, Hebrew, and Greek) and even multiple versions of the KJV itself. The original contained the Apocrypha, in fact. It wasn't until the 1800s that it was removed.

Answer 5

It was the first mass produced English version of the Bible, written in a common vernacular. Because of that early popularity, it remains the primary translation for many denominations

Answer 6

The jokesters are snarking on your mis-spelling of jam e s. the King James Translation was the first English translation and been around the longest. It is no more than that.

Answer 7

There's a group of people - adults AND children - who tend to learn better if you set lessons to music.

Hence Sesame Street.

Answer 8

The KJV is popular because, in spite of it's mildly awkward language, it remains to be the English language version most accurate to the original manuscripts and texts of holy writings.

Answer 9

They "claim" that it is more of an accurate translation of the bible.

Answer 10

Some people think it is the original.

But it is said that it is one of the poorest translations of the original texts.

Answer 11

The sizzling guitar solos after each verse.