In defending the KJV's use of archaic language?

Question

do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?

Answer 1

No, I don't. Kids really should be taught Classical English, at least to the extent that they can read something without a dictionary. Don't schools teach Shakespeare anymore?

Anyway if you really care about preserving the message you shouldn't be reading it in English at all. Different languages have different words, there is no such thing as a 100% accurate translation.

Answer 2

KJV is what it is. It was the best translation at the time. I agree with the point people make that the language is archaic and hard to understand for most people today. That is one of the problems with a living language, it changes.
Ancient Greek and Latin might be preferred for sciences and keeping records over centuries because as already dead languages they do not change (much). However they are dead languages because nobody uses them so printing popular bibles in them is really pointless.
The other updated translations suffer from other problems. One is that in attempting to use modern simple English they lose many of the meanings KJV managed to capture.
There are several points where the KJV's language is out of date to the point people no longer get the meaning intended and I think there should be some notes added, kind of like an updated accordance, but from from English to English instead of to the Greek and Latin.

Answer 3

Archaic language of the KJV is good for some things. Sometimes it brings out a point in scripture better than modern terms.

But overall, the purpose of reading the Bible is to understand what God wants us to know. Otherwise He would not have spent 1,520 years authoring it or another 4,000 plus years protecting it.

So having a modern language translation is better for that understanding. comparing it with other translations is even better to get the true sense of the writer's intent.

Answer 4

Study the history of King James and his authorization of the translation of the Bible. I think most will find some surprises. In any case, no one should belittle modern translations as if they are somehow inferior to an older translation. Bible scholars have learned so much more about the structure of ancient Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages than was generally known in 1611. This would make modern translations more accurate, not less, providing the translators were careful not to allow their preconceived ideas to filter the translation.

Answer 5

It wasn't translated into archaic language. The language of the KJV was common English among early seventeenth century Christians. The idea was to translate it into readily understandable English. They weren't to know how much the English language itself would change over 400 years.

Answer 6

The wording of the KJV Bible is of a 4th grade reading level...

considering the dumbing down of the American educational system; the average college student would be hard pressed to manage the 4th grade McGuffey's reader ....

strive for excellence instead of the easy mediocrity of simplicity...

Answer 7

Must?? There are any number of translations with concordances. There are good bible dictionaries available. Why would one wish to read a book purported to be an instruction manual casually?

Answer 8

The language of the KJV was already archaic when it was first written.

Then, and now, it was felt using archaic language makes the result seem more antique and authoritative.

Answer 9

If you're not comfortable with the KJV, why not use one of the other translations, like the New American Bible?

Answer 10

Well, it's ok if they can't appreciate archaic language!
As for me, I LOVE the olde English language!