I agree, Jim. There is power and usefulness in studying the original languages, but the power of the knowledge of God, e.g “wisdom”, is found in all translations.

As a child, I used the RSV. Once I got converted, I used the NASB and was quite happy with it. Since then, I’ve enjoyed reading all or much of KJV, NKJV, NIV, HCSB. My church uses ESV. I’ve also listened through the WEB. For me, almost any of those translations is excellent. Some are better than others. I’m less satisfied with the NLT, GNB.

My problem usually isn’t a matter of not comprehending the meaning; it’s usually a matter of not comprehending and applying the SPIRITUAL meaning. I believe the Lord has protected the translations, so that honest, non-cult translators normally end up with a translation that is sufficiently accurate to bring the knowledge of God to people who know that language. That doesn’t mean I’d recommend the KJV as the first Bible for an ESL speaker.

My favourite story about the creation of the KJV, was that the scholars spent as much time reading it aloud as they did translating it, because it was designed to be read aloud by priests to the illiterate; this is the reason why it rolls of the tongue so easily (and I imagine why I feel it so poetic).

I cannot imagine anyone going through that trouble in a translation, perfecting rhythm and eloquence as much as meaning. And even so, it probably wouldn’t be idiomatic at all – which might defy the point of the entire exercise. I wonder that it might just result in a version similar to those we read casually anyway.

From my limited exposure to both, I’d have to agree. Simply replacing “dost” or “doth” with “does” et al. may seem simple, but it raises as many new questions as it possibly answered.

Roger Coleman touched on this with regards to “thee/thou” in his book about making the REB: he cites an example phrase, “the words which thou hast uttered”. Simply changing “thou” to “you” and updating the verb results in “the words which you have uttered”. However, “uttered” now sounds out of place, when it fit with the old language. A conservative change would be “the words which you have spoken”, while a more idiomatic change would be “the words you spoke”. Which of course is clear but retains none of the rhythm of the original text.

Think about how many phrases in the KJV would have to be touched for that sort of updating, plus taking the surrounding texts into context – it’s rather overwhelming!

I agree that if they made a ‘new’ KJV it would be a fantastic translation – I have to admit I resent the NKJV as, because it simply replaced old words with new, it reduced both the literary qualities and the quality of the translation.

But, back on topic, you are very correct that in any translation you choose, you’ll have to be aware of the flaws in it, and perhaps supplement your reading accordingly.

I’ve never seriously used the KJV and all my attempts to read more than a verse or two have left me feeling befuddled and feeling like I’m spending just as much time decoding the English as I am reading it.

Probably not great for either casual reading or study, which is what Elshaddai’s looking for, but I just had to defend it.

I don’t think any of them are truly great unless you’re willing to overlook quite a few flaws.

When KJV was the only English translation in widespread use it was probably considered great, and for good reason. And back then most people didn’t have more knowledge than they knew what to do with like we have now. Now we’re translation connoisseurs and spend an inordinate amount of time in choosing and critiquing. Which has its pros and cons. Hopefully it ultimately helps us in understanding what the inspired writers were saying.
Jeff