The King James translation of the Bible has been around for hundreds of years and uses language that is hard for the modern reader to understand. So the question is, why use it? Most people consider it out of date. Some would even argue that the translation is not what God said but what the translators of the 1600's said. When the Apostles were inspired by God to pen the New Testament, they used the Koine Greek, the standard spoken and written language of the day to testify of Jesus. Likewise, the translating counsel of the 1600's used English of their day and time. Interestingly enough, the English used was considered high English. So, the terms that were used were not easily understood by the average person OF THAT TIME. The archaic words of the King James Version (KJV) seem to put a stumbling block in the way of understanding the Bible. Most people attempting to read the KJV must look up many of the words in a Bible dictionary or use a concordance to help decipher what they are trying to read. For instance, in Mark 10:14 when Jesus stated "Suffer the little children to come unto me," what is he really saying? In our modern speak, the word suffer brings images of pain and unpleasantness; however, when the KJV was written, it meant to let, to allow, or to permit. Many words used in the KJV are simply not used today, such as artificer (craftsman), bewray (betray), caul (fat), dearth (famine), holpen (help), ouches (settings), soddened (boiled), and wist (knew). A lack of clarity causes confusion.
Newer translations attempt to put a modern meaning to archaic words but the King James Only (KJO) camp believes changing these archaic words actually changes God's word, which obviously is wrong. As an example of their misplaced dedication, let's look at I Corinthians 10:25, "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:" What does "sold in the shambles" mean? For us today, the word shambles means an utter wreck or complete destruction; however, at this point in English history, the word shambles actually referred to a meat market. Shambles is not only an archaic term but it literally no longer has the same meaning. It seems that dedication to a particular tradition is the only reason to insist on continuing to use the word shambles. Here is the same verse taken from the New International Version (NIV), a translation that is roughly 50 years old and is quite easy to understand. As a matter of fact, the NIV was last updated in 2011. "Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience".
What translation should a new believer use? What if English is not their first language? Would they really benefit from the KJV? No, they would not! Giving this person a hard to understand translation simply would not communicate to him or her. Going back to the word shambles, which would make more sense, to say my room is a shambles or my room is a meat market? We should have simplified translations for people who do not understand English very well with the goal of moving then away from the simplified version as soon as possible. Think about it, the KJV translators had no way of knowing that many of the words they used would not always be used in the same way in a few hundred years. Don't look negatively on them, the translators gave their best efforts, using terms that made sense at that time, the words just no longer work with today's modern language.
The KJV is a translation of the Bible - it is NOT the Bible itself. Translating the Bible into the English language - that by the way, did not exist back when the Bible was given by God - is not changing Scripture. It is making God's message to humankind more understandable in the English language. KJO argues that Christianity is being dumbed down by modern translations but ironically, KJO is the greatest example of dumbing down Christianity because it indulges people who don't want to deal with how we actually got the Bible. With the number of modern translations available there is really no good reason for further English translations, but at the same time, we should not have translations that are easily read by 1st graders. For example, let's say God's word was originally written at a level 10 (understanding that not all Scripture was written at the same level. The key purpose of I John is to set boundaries on the content of faith and to give believers assurance of their salvation whereas the book of Hebrews clearly lays out the present priestly ministry of Christ in the life of the believer. That He is the divine Son of God all the while being completely human, and that through Him we can boldly approach the Father. For this example though we will say that ALL Scripture is written at a level 10), but we decide to write a new translation at a level 5, one that uses easy to understand vocabulary. What do you do with what's in between? The Message (which is a paraphrase) cannot be considered a translation because there is so little connection between the original Greek text and the paraphrase. It is too dumbed down.
Children, new believers, and new English speakers should use an easy to understand translation to help get them started but the goal is to see them grow and mature. A good English translation will clearly communicate on the level that the New Testament was written. It is not good to put unnecessary barriers between a person and the Word solely to uphold a tradition. We may not like where the English language is headed but we still have to communicate in it. The KJV translators would find the KJO movement laughable. The Apostles spoke in plain, everyday, Greek to their audience, shouldn't we follow their example? Shouldn't we use a translation that is written in modern, easily understood English?
TAD
