[cbdevidal]

In Christian circles some people are KJV-only, only reading from the 1611 KJV. But articles like this demonstrate that languages change dramatically over time.

Thus I regard KJV-onlyism to be a passing fad; for if another 400 years passes, the writing in the 1611 will go from being strange to our eyes, to being unreadable in the future by anyone but trained scholars.

[illusive4080]

Very true. The trueness to the original text is lacking in KJV, which is the major argument against that translation. It is more written to be old English proper prose than meaningfully translated. Modern translations like ESV are much closer to source, although hard to read compared against others like NIV and NLT which are written for comprehension.

[cbdevidal]

Hmm I’ve always heard that the KJV isn’t perfect but it is closer to the ESV than the NIV. These three charts suggest this[1]. I do know there are places where the KJV isn’t faithful to the sources, such as in the use of the word Easter for Passover in Acts 12:4.

It is a pretty translation, but harder to follow in my experience. I only use the KJV when talking with other denominations because it is more readily accepted than my favorite (NASB85).

[1] https://www.chapter3min.org/bible-translations-comparison-ch...

[Refreeze5224]

Kinda does a number on the whole "literal word of god" thing doesn't it?

[cbdevidal]

Hey, if the KJV was good enough for Paul and the Apostles, it’s good enough for me