King James Version

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Bro. Clifton wrote:
>With do respect to the very learned brother, I doubt I have a buble to
>burst.  I have spent much  the last three years reading different
>translations of the bible and studying the process of translation.  While
>I agree no translation is  infallible I can recommend the KJV on the
>following grounds:
[ snip ]
>3: It has a strong sense of poetry (lacking in modern translations) which
>permits a preacher to convey some very deep meanings to the congregation.

While poetry is certainly nice, I think it is important to remember
the gospel as it was preached by the Apostles didn't use such poetry.
By the word poetry, I mean to say "flowery" words and vague ideas.
At the time of writing, the Apostles used very common language, even
slang, to convey their message.  This was probably in part because 
few were very educated, but Paul was certainly learned enough to 
have written in a very esoteric manner, yet he did not.  He used 
plain words that "the man on the street corner" would understand.

Although I appreciate the KJV for its many strengths, and don't mean
to discredit it at all, I believe it is crucial that the bible be
readable and understandable by even a child.  The KJV may sound
poetic, but the result of this is that it takes a number of readings
and some translation to really figure out what it's saying many 
times, *and* when something sounds so poetic or figurative, it is
easy to dismiss it as an abstract idea and not something that must
be applied to our everyday lives.

Just some thoughts to consider.  The KJV is a useful translation
and has benefits over many others (which I think were addressed 
well by the post I'm responding to), but all have certain 
strengths and weaknesses which are important to note.

-Dee
 <><