What's so great about the KJV?

[Bridget_Burke]

Well, let’s go straight to the horse’s mouth (as it were).

The reverence of the English Authorised Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible is unsurpassably pre-eminent casting the hem of its holy garment over every sentence, word and syllable

---

My Plea for the Old Sword
Dr. Ian R.K. Paisley

The Holy Bible means Holy Book. The Authorized Version breathes the reverence of the Holy Bible of which it is the translation.

Just the same way as the Church of Rome attacked the translation of the Scripture into what was called the Vulgar Tongue (i.e. the mother tongue of the particular country) so today there has been a resurrection of that antagonism by those who have adopted the Romish principle, but applied to a different set of circumstances. They simply rehearse the old Roman argument that no translation can be truly the Word of God.

Deluded spokesmen say with so-called superior and scholarly airs, “What is the use of insisting on any special doctrine of inspiration when you know it cannot apply to our English version? The original Hebrew and Greek may have been inspired but you do not surely claim inspiration for a mere translation?”…

The reverence of the original Scripture has been wonderfully preserved in the Authorized Version translation. There is a sacredness, a reverence, and a spiritual uniqueness about the sentences, the words and the syllables which make them unsurpassably pre-eminent above all the other English translations.

It is this holy anointing oil of sacredness which, like Aaron’s anointing, runs to the hem of the garment and so includes the whole. This sacredness and holy awe produced and produces the spiritual influence of the Old Book in the lives of the people.

Sermons of Dr. Ian Paisley

Search the rest of the site for more of Rev Paisley’s praise of the KJV. And for his many other interesting ides…

[Polycarp]

Nice, Bridget. Although personally I think the horse was facing the other way!

[dropzone]

Jeeze, I challenge anybody who recognizes Rev Paisley’s name to read that without hearing his voice. It grates on my very soul. :eek:

[tomndebb]

I will defer to the adjective Jacobean over the adjective Jacobite.
I still hold that that Scot had his scholars write their translation in Elizabethan English.

[tomndebb]

@Polycarp

Nice, Bridget. Although personally I think the horse was facing the other way!

Actually, Rev. Ian is an inverted push-me-pull-you.

[Giles]

@tomndebb

I will defer to the adjective Jacobean over the adjective Jacobite.
I still hold that that Scot had his scholars write their translation in Elizabethan English.

It would be more accurate to say that they wrote it in Early Modern English , i.e., the languagfe written and spoken ca. 1450 to ca. 1650. Elizabethan suggests limiting to the reign of Elizabeth, i.e. 1558-1603. I don’t believe that James I and VI would have said, “Limit your language to that used during the reign of our late dear cousin, Queen Elizabeth,” or anything to that effect.

(While the distinctioon between Elizabethan and Jacobean is not so imporatant in talking about language, it does become more important when talking about literature. Obviously, Shakespeare and his contemporaries did not suddenly change style or genre in 1603, but 10 years difference – say 1598 to 1608 – gives you an enormous change in the plays being written for the English stage.)

[Find_Friends]

@Giles

It would be more accurate to say that they wrote it in Early Modern English , i.e., the languagfe written and spoken ca. 1450 to ca. 1650. Elizabethan suggests limiting to the reign of Elizabeth, i.e. 1558-1603. I don’t believe that James I and VI would have said, “Limit your language to that used during the reign of our late dear cousin, Queen Elizabeth,” or anything to that effect.

(While the distinctioon between Elizabethan and Jacobean is not so imporatant in talking about language, it does become more important when talking about literature. Obviously, Shakespeare and his contemporaries did not suddenly change style or genre in 1603, but 10 years difference – say 1598 to 1608 – gives you an enormous change in the plays being written for the English stage.)

Interesting. How many styles or genres of written English would you say were extant at the time of the original edition KJV (1611)? Someone of my personal acquaintance once swore up and down (actually that’s hard to imagine in his case) that the KJV style was rather unique even to its era. I don’t suppose that there is any truth to that, is there?

---

True Blue Jack

[kiwimac]

There is no biblical support for the idea that God intended the KJV to be the ‘One Correct and True version of the English Bible.’ My considered opinion is that in the multitude to translations we coe as close as it is possible to translating the Hebrew and Greek. Indeed the KJV translators themselves believed that their version was no better than any other.

“Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?.. Judge by an example or two… So, by the story of Ezra, and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon, was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former, wept when they considered the latter) [Ezra 3:12] notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks? The like we are to think of Translations.” (“The Translators to the Reader”)

[dropzone]

@miss_elizabeth

What’s so great about the KJV?

It’s really cheap. You can get one for a buck at Everything’s a Buck.

[Declan]

I thought this was a battleship thread.

Declan

[Great_Antibob]

Lest we get a ton more responses to old posts, a reminder that this is a nearly 6 year old zombie thread.

I hope you aren’t expecting responses from some of the original posters to the thread, though many are still regular posters.

[FriarTed]

Just a note about the American Standard Version of 1901- there is a group that keeps it in print because it was the first major English translation to translate God’s Name into English where it appears in the Hebrew- of course, it’s the Anglicized Latinized version of the Name- “Jehovah”. The group keeping it in print- The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society aka the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Of course.

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

@silenus

I like the KJV for the poetry, not for the accuracy of translation. Apparently there are people out there who forget that is just that…a translation.

As a writer, I like the KJV. But I don’t practice religion, and moreover the religion I don’t practice is Judaism, so from a religious/Scriptural standpoint I have no preference among translations.

When I use a Biblical quote as an epigram I usually go with the original, unless I need some specific turn of phrase from the KJV.

[Flyer]

@FriarTed

Just a note about the American Standard Version of 1901- there is a group that keeps it in print because it was the first major English translation to translate God’s Name into English where it appears in the Hebrew- of course, it’s the Anglicized Latinized version of the Name- “Jehovah”. The group keeping it in print- The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society aka the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Of course.

Are you saying that no translation before 1901 used “Jehovah”? If so, you’re wrong. The KJV uses it in a few places. (And anyway, as an aside, God has a whole bunch of different names.)

Exodus 6:3–“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.”

Isaiah 26:4–“Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength.”

Psalm 83:18–“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.”

[FriarTed]

@Flyer

Are you saying that no translation before 1901 used “Jehovah”? If so, you’re wrong. The KJV uses it in a few places. (And anyway, as an aside, God has a whole bunch of different names.)

Exodus 6:3–“And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.”

Isaiah 26:4–“Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength.”

Psalm 83:18–“That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.”

No, the ASV 1901 was the first to make the use commonplace where the Tetragrammaton appears in the Hebrew. THe KJV I think had it four place.