The KJV is a good translation of Scripture. It’s common knowledge how popular this translation has been for hundreds of years. The KJV is one of the many good English translations for which we can be thankful.
It’s also common knowledge that some people believe the KJV is the only translation a Christian should use. Some believe it is far superior to modern translations because God providentially used very godly men to translate it just at the right time from just the right Hebrew and Greek texts.
Sometimes KJV Only adherents use subjective arguments to vouch for the superiority of the KJV. Mark Ward lists some of these in his helpful book, Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. For example, some KJV-Only adherents say that translating Scripture into regular modern language is dumbing down the Bible. They also argue that the KJV sounds like the Word of God, which is why it is the best translation. Or they argue that the men who translated the KJV used timeless language, so abandoning it is foolish.
First of all, saying that modern English translations dumb down the Bible is not an objective, verifiable statement. It’s more of a preference statement. In fact, when the KJV translators did their work, they aimed to make Scripture understandable for the common person who spoke and read the English language of that day. Translating Scripture into a common language is not dumbing it down. When the NT authors quoted the OT, they often translated it into the regular language of the day, koine Greek (e.g. John 9:7, Acts 13:8, Heb. 7:2, etc.). Someone might prefer an older English translation, but it is poor logic to say that modern translations dumb down Scripture.
Second, saying that the KJV’s early modern English “sounds like Scripture” is also somewhat subjective. God did not speak to the OT saints in early modern English. Jesus did not teach and preach in early modern English. The language of the KJV may sound reverent and lofty to many English speakers, but not to all of them. Furthermore, it might not sound like Scripture to those who don’t speak English as a first language. And the early modern English of the KJV won’t sound like Scripture at all to someone who doesn’t speak English. As Ward noted,
God didn’t choose a grandiloquent or literary or archaic form of Greek. If God picked standard, contemporary, normal, common, vernacular Greek for the New Testament when he had other options (and he did), shouldn’t we choose to do the equivalent in English?
We can’t make our decision about the KJV based on a statistical survey of how people respond emotionally to Elizabethan verbiage. We have to go back to the Bible’s own directives. And I think after studying 1 Corinthians 14 that I know what Paul would say if he were guiding a Bible translation project: the Bible should be in the vernacular.
Third, to argue that the KJV was translated into “timeless” English is also subjective. Timeless to whom, or in whose eyes? And is English the best language in the world, or is early modern English the best English in history? It’s hard to argue those points objectively. Here’s Ward explaining how the KJV translators did not purposely choose to use archaic forms in an attempt to make a “timeless” translation:
And the only document they’ve left us that details their intentions is the preface to the KJV, “The Translators to the Reader.” In it the KJV translators specifically contradict the idea that choosing old-fashioned language was their goal. As I quoted earlier, “We desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” If you don’t know who they’re talking about, let me assure you that we have met the “very vulgar,” and it is us. It’s the common people, the ones without the Cambridge and Oxford educations the KJV translators had. The “very vulgar” is the plough boy—the least of these—to whom William Tyndale was so eager to give the Scriptures.
Language can have “dignity,” but it can never have a quality called “timelessness.” Because of the slow and inevitable process of language change, some features of a language will always be going out and some will always be coming in. Every lengthy piece of English writing in existence can be dated to a particular era.
There’s more to the discussion for sure. And these points are not meant to discredit or defame the KJV. It’s a good translation! But sometimes KJV-Only advocates use subjective reasoning for their position. That’s something to note. And if you want more information on this topic, check out Ward’s book. It shows much appreciation and respect for the KJV, but it also points out why other modern translations should be appreciated and utilized by Christians today. The above quotes came from chapter six of the book:
Shane Lems
Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Hammond, WI, 54015
The Reformed Reader Blog 
Thank you for this. I’ll repost this.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on HERALD OF GRACE COVENANT BIBLE CHURCH OF CAVITE and commented:
“Sometimes KJV Only adherents use subjective arguments to vouch for the superiority of the KJV. Mark Ward lists some of these in his helpful book, Authorized: the Use and Misuse of the King James Bible. For example, some KJV-Only adherents say that translating Scripture into regular modern language is dumbing down the Bible. They also argue that the KJV sounds like the Word of God, which is why it is the best translation. Or they argue that the men who translated the KJV used timeless language, so abandoning it is foolish.”
“And the only document they’ve left us that details their intentions is the preface to the KJV, “The Translators to the Reader.” In it the KJV translators specifically contradict the idea that choosing old-fashioned language was their goal. As I quoted earlier, “We desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” If you don’t know who they’re talking about, let me assure you that we have met the “very vulgar,” and it is us. It’s the common people, the ones without the Cambridge and Oxford educations the KJV translators had. The “very vulgar” is the plough boy—the least of these—to whom William Tyndale was so eager to give the Scriptures.”
LikeLike