Why Should I read the King James Version?

Many people regard the King James translation as the most superior English translation of the Bible.  And they would be right-- 400 hundreds ago.

There are many people who say that reading any other version of the Bible (besides the KJV) is a sin.  Most of their claims are based on the fact that it is the original English translation, which is wrong (that credit goes to the Wycliffite translation in 1384), or that one must read the Bible in its original language, which is also wrong (it was originally written in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic), or that it has remained unchanged since its first publication, which is also wrong (it was first published in 1611, but underwent many revisions until 1769).  Modern English translations are far superior, and here's why:

First, the KJV was based on a handful of sources: the Aleppo and Leningrad Codex for the OT, and then the Textus Receptus, Theodore Beza's revised Textus Receptus, Erasmus's Novum Instrumentum omne, and (arguably) the Latin Vulgate for the NT.  

While the KJV was based on (about) six sources, modern translations use about 5,000 sources for just the NT alone. 

Not only that, but the Greek manuscripts that the KJV translators used were dated around the 11th century; today, we use manuscripts from the 1st and 2nd century.  That's not including the manuscripts we use for the OT (like the Dead Sea Scrolls), which are half a millenium older than our Greek sources.

Second, our understanding of Kione Greek is much better.  For several hundred years, scholars literally thought that the version of Greek the NT was written in was some sort of a celestial language.  It wasn't until relatively recently that scholars figured out that the Greek used to write the NT was a commoner's dialect.  Non-Biblical manuscripts were uncovered that were written in the same language as the Bible, but they weren't from the New Testament.  Comparing the non-Biblical and Biblical sources, modern scholars have a greater understanding of Kione Greek. 

Picture trying to learn English just reading Michael Crichton novels, and then discovering Stephen King, George RR Martin, Rowling, Steinbeck, Chaucer, and Shakespeare.  Your understanding of the language would expand in scope, much like modern scholarship in understanding Kione Greek.

Lastly, the English language has evolved, while the language used in the KJV hasn't.  Don't believe that languages evolve? Let's look at the word "soft".  Today, it's an adjective that describes something smooth, plushy, or gentle.  Back in Shakespeare's time (the time when the KJV was published), "soft" meant "hold on a moment".  That's why in Romeo and Juliet, Romeo says "Soft! What light from yonder window breaks?" 

In 1 Corinthians 13 of the KJV Bible, the word agape is rendered as "charity", while modern translators use "love".  The difference in this is huge, because agape describes a love without boundaries, while today we understand "charity" as being giving, yet this "giving-ness" doesn't require emotional investment.  If you can think of an English word that means the same thing, then perhaps modern translators should use it, but for now we are stuck with "love".

Despite this, are there any good reasons to read the KJV?  Several, but perhaps not for serious scholastic or spiritual guidance.  The first one would be because someone wants to learn more about the Bible, and they are stubbornly sticking to the version they are familiar with (myself at one time), so you have to accomodate them. Another is because there are few translations which are as dramatic and evocative as the KJV (which is why Hollywood almost exclusively quotes from it).  The last one would be to compare and contrast the modern translations, the KJV, and the original Greek, to convince the person stuck on reading the KJV that they are being stubborn and hard-headed.

We'll continue talking about the various translations, starting with a brief overview of the most popular English translations of the day.

Thanks for reading, and see you there!