Why I Hate the KJV
Well, confession is good for the soul. It’s time I own up to all that deep seated, seething hatred for the KJV.
And thus, my first effort on YouTube, crossed with video blogging:
See! That was easy!
Similar Posts
Another KJV-Only Comment
Byhenry
Every so often a KJV-Only advocate comes by this blog to comment. They normally don’t hang around long, but I occasionally feel inclined to respond. I like to tolerate and even celebrate other points of view, but I don’t make an idol of it; it’s one value, not the value. KJV-Only is one of those…
History of the Bible for 3rd Graders
Byhenry
I was surprised to be invited to teach a session on the history of the Bible to the third grade class at my home church. So what does one do with about a half an hour to talk about the history of the Bible with about 20 lively 3rd graders? I chose to create some…
Idolatry and Male Representation
Byhenry
The new, young associate pastor was praying, and in her prayer she referred to God as “Father-Mother God.” Silence settled over the congregation as mental gasps replaced “Amens.” The associate pastor had transgressed the unofficial line. You can represent God as vengeful or loving, gentle or angry, gracious or demanding, present or distant, but don’t…
Link: The Comma Johanneum
Byhenry
Bill Mounce discusses the evidence that the added trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8 is not original. This is a summary of well-known evidence, not breaking new ground, but is one of the clearest presentations I’ve seen.
ESV vs KJV (Better Bibles Blog)
Byhenry
Those following the ESV/KJV debate might be interested in this post by Suzanne McCarthy, explaining why she prefers the KJV as her literal translation. I don’t find the language of the KJV nearly as attractive as she does, but that’s a matter of taste in my view. I always love to find the occasional comments…
NLT for Academic Study
Byhenry
Chris Heard asked via Twitter whether the NLT was suitable for academic study. T. C. Robinson has given an answer: Concluding thoughts: The NLT, New Living Translation, is simply too loose to be considered a serious academic Bible. While I have some sympathy with this point, I have to ask just what the definition of “serious” and “academic”…
Another KJV-Only Comment
Byhenry
Every so often a KJV-Only advocate comes by this blog to comment. They normally don’t hang around long, but I occasionally feel inclined to respond. I like to tolerate and even celebrate other points of view, but I don’t make an idol of it; it’s one value, not the value. KJV-Only is one of those…
History of the Bible for 3rd Graders
Byhenry
I was surprised to be invited to teach a session on the history of the Bible to the third grade class at my home church. So what does one do with about a half an hour to talk about the history of the Bible with about 20 lively 3rd graders? I chose to create some…
Idolatry and Male Representation
Byhenry
The new, young associate pastor was praying, and in her prayer she referred to God as “Father-Mother God.” Silence settled over the congregation as mental gasps replaced “Amens.” The associate pastor had transgressed the unofficial line. You can represent God as vengeful or loving, gentle or angry, gracious or demanding, present or distant, but don’t…
Link: The Comma Johanneum
Byhenry
Bill Mounce discusses the evidence that the added trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8 is not original. This is a summary of well-known evidence, not breaking new ground, but is one of the clearest presentations I’ve seen.
ESV vs KJV (Better Bibles Blog)
Byhenry
Those following the ESV/KJV debate might be interested in this post by Suzanne McCarthy, explaining why she prefers the KJV as her literal translation. I don’t find the language of the KJV nearly as attractive as she does, but that’s a matter of taste in my view. I always love to find the occasional comments…
NLT for Academic Study
Byhenry
Chris Heard asked via Twitter whether the NLT was suitable for academic study. T. C. Robinson has given an answer: Concluding thoughts: The NLT, New Living Translation, is simply too loose to be considered a serious academic Bible. While I have some sympathy with this point, I have to ask just what the definition of “serious” and “academic”…
Another KJV-Only Comment
Byhenry
Every so often a KJV-Only advocate comes by this blog to comment. They normally don’t hang around long, but I occasionally feel inclined to respond. I like to tolerate and even celebrate other points of view, but I don’t make an idol of it; it’s one value, not the value. KJV-Only is one of those…
History of the Bible for 3rd Graders
Byhenry
I was surprised to be invited to teach a session on the history of the Bible to the third grade class at my home church. So what does one do with about a half an hour to talk about the history of the Bible with about 20 lively 3rd graders? I chose to create some…
4 Comments
Comments are closed.
I’ve just posted a note about the “Good News Bible”. I’d be interested on your take.
How can the KJV be the greatest event in Bible Translation? How can we claim that the KJV is the start of many bible translations? The KJV was a mere revision of the Bishop’s Bible, etc… and it all started with Tyndale.
Okay, but I get your point. I happen to hold the KJV very dear, but am not an onlyist! Thank God for that!
Polycarp: I get there by combining impact on the church as a whole. The reason I say it “might be” is that the Vulgate is a good candidate for greater impact due to length of time used and the theology built on it, and the Septugint because it is kind of the starting point for Bible translation and also for its long use and influence in the Eastern church. Of course this is all quite subjective.
Even though much of the Bishop’s Bible was carried into the KJV, that Bible itself is not as good literarily and did not attract much of an audience, and did so only for a short time.
I don’t know how you can say the KJV “communicated the scriptures wonderfully to the people of it’s time, over time that language has changed.” First you don’t seem to know much about the KJV, at the time it was translated (the 17th century) the “people of it’s time” did not speak the English of the King James Bible, (often referred to as “Kings English.”) The KJV was translated into this already “archaic” form of English because it was the most perfect form of English, our language is not getting better over time it’s getting worse. Yet “the people of it’s time” didn’t seem to want a more modern “version” of the Bible, they were merely interested in a more perfect Bible. Also the KJV is the most widely used Bible today even more so than it was when it was translated so I don’t quite understand how you can consider those in the 17th century “people of it’s time” and not the people of our time who use it more widely. The time of the KJV has not passed, neither of those two groups then or now speak King James English, and both groups have the KJV so how it can be the Bible of their time and not the Bible of our time just doesn’t make sense.
The other thing that you mentioned is that you study the Bible in “it’s original languages” which I believe I can easily conclude as Greek and Hebrew. A lot of people say that you really should learn Greek and Hebrew to understand the Bible more clearly. I don’t understand why I should study Greek and Hebrew when God has already preserved His Word in English, God had the foresight to know that the common World language would be English. If I’m having a hard time understanding the English Bible wouldn’t it make more sense to study English? The only thing learning Greek & Hebrew does is allow each individual to translate God’s Word the way he sees fit and not accept it as God intended. It’s more confusing to me to “purchase multiple English versions” because I do not “read the source languages,” especially now when the majority of modern translations have been continuously revised within the last 20 years. How would I know the version I’m currently using is going to be relevant to the next generation, I would be perpetually upgrading to the latest version. The people of 17th century England not only had the Bible in it’s “original languages” they also had “multiple English versions,” the whole reason they took on the task of translating the Bible, was so that English speaking people would have a “more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue;” (quoted from the Epistle Dedicatory which was written by the translators themselves) so going out and buying “multiple English versions” is taking a step backwards not forwards. Just because the English language has become more and more watered down over time doesn’t mean we should water down God’s Word to match it so that it will be more relevant to the world. The world rejects the Word of God because His Word is Holy and it convicts them of their sin. Changing His Word to be more relevant to the world allows the world to be comfortable in their sinful state and does not bring true repentance of sin. I will leave you with something I found on the the University of Virginia’s website while trying to look up a free online RSV bible.
The Bible, Revised Standard Version
We regret that we are unable to host the Revised Standard Version of the Bible on our website any longer. We were recently contacted by the National Council of Churches of Christ (http://www.ncccusa.org/), who own the copyright for the Revised Standard Version of the Bible in the USA. They have asked us to remove the text from our website, and we have complied with their request. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.
The King James Version of the Bible may still be accessed on our website at http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html.
The KJV was translated to be freely available to all men, while all other versions were created to be under the control of men. What right do we have to hinder others from freely accessing the Word God for our own greedy gains? Apparently a lot if you own the copyright.