Although most proponents will not admit it, the KJV harkens back to a day when English-speaking people ruled the world. Could it be that it is a symbol of lost glory? A reminder of the imperial ambitions?

[dcbii]

[Bob Hayton] I certainly respect the KJV and think it is a great, if not the great translation of all time. But I found that even though I knew a lot about the archaic language, when I started reading from the ESV, my Bible came alive in new ways. The idea of the Greek text was communicated in a more accessible form through a modern version, and I believe that will be the case for many others as well.

You’re absolutely right, and that was true for me too — “alive” is a good way to state it. The first time I read through the prophets in the NIV (and I realize that whatever fundamental credentials I may have had just evaporated, simply for stating that), those books of the Bible opened up in ways they hadn’t before, simply because of my previously having misunderstood (or not having fully understood) what was written.

I’ve heard tell that the NIV is particularly good in its OT translation, actually. Also the ESV markets itself as essentially literal, but is actually much closer to the NIV than say the NASB. Still it does seem to maintain a more formally equivalent translation in places where it seems to matter.

Hey, I read the minor prophets in the NLT. If you’re going to go with a paraphrase like the NIV, might as well go all the way. ;)
(But I did read them in NKJV and ESV first, so I could see how they read in a real Bible).

[RPittman] Well, this is not a good argument at all. There are alternatives such as modernization and updating of the KJV. It remains in the TR tradition of a faithfully preserved text transmitted and preserved by the Believing church throughout the ages. The argument can be used against modern translations because the KJV has a history of 400 years giving meaning and substance to its words whereas any modern translation is vastly affected by the translation philosophy, the state of the English language, the influence of economic forces, and a post-Modern concept of semantics.

Although you may speak of how modern translations adhere more closely to the Greek, it is readily established that the KJV and almost all modern translations were translated with diametrically opposing translation philosophies. If you think modern translations are closer to the Greek, then it is reasonable to assume that you have a background in Greek including college or seminary courses. If so, your exposure to Greek and its translation into English obviously influences you. In other words, a modern translation based on the current status of Greek language studies correlates with the understanding of those who have taken Greek. Modern translations are skewed to conform to our understanding of meaning and interpretation of the academic discipline.

Now, I know the thread is thin here, but I am persuaded that the KJV had such a profound influence upon the English language that words as used in Scripture took on theological content. Because the Bible is its own best commentator and interpreter, a process of contextualization took place so that English words took on theological meaning within the semantic range of Scripture. No modern translation can match this. Modern translations reflect our own human understanding of what Scripture means, which is highly variable in a post-Modern context.

Much of this is very similar to what happened with the Latin and the Vulgate too. In fact theological books were still written or translated into Latin into the 1800s. This was because of the theological content that inhered in the very Latin words.

This being so, the argument for translations in the vernacular could also apply today with the English of the KJV. Should we learn the language of theology and use the Bible of theology, or should we give the Bible to the commoners in their common tongue?