Why do so many people consider the KJV to be the definitive bible?

[Anonymous No.18417090]

I mean what's the point if you can't even understand what you're reading?

[Anonymous No.18417121]

>>18417090
>can't understand English
1)read moar
2)saged

[Anonymous No.18417150]

>>18417090
It's partly tradition and partly the desire to have a uniform Bible version. All KJV-onlyists have a deep anxiety over the uncertainty modern textual criticism creates, and they feel threatened by it.

[Anonymous No.18417156]

They think the archaic words make the Bible sound more 'godly'

[Anonymous No.18417169]

>>18417121
Do you speak 17th century english dumbass?

[Anonymous No.18417176]

>>18417169
Every high school expects you to read Shakespeare in the original language so I don't see what the problem is when the KJV is around the same time period

[Anonymous No.18417180]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J52c9kb70oE

Here's a good video on it. It's mostly a thing with Baptists.

[Anonymous No.18417201]

>>18417176
Most people in schools read annotated versions of Shakespeare, or the teacher at least explains to them dead words and false friends. That's not how most people read the KJV, and even if they were to do so, they shouldn't have to, since there are great translations in modern English. The KJV also has other problems as a translation besides its archaic language, which modern translations remedy.

[Anonymous No.18417230]

>>18417090
On this board? Larpers.

[Anonymous No.18417441]

>>18417090
Is it really that hard to understand? I read the KJV, and honestly, I don't find it difficult. Maybe for someone whom english isn't their first language, sure, but if you have a good grasp of the english language you shouldn't have any issues with the KJV.

[Anonymous No.18417443]

the board is plagued by ESLs

[Ghostofoswalt No.18417513]

bump

[Anonymous No.18417524]

>>18417169
>Do you speak 17th century english dumbass?
Do I speak modern English, but with some archaic words that can either be gleamed from context or looked up? Why yes, OP--you massive retard--I do.
>>18417090
Prots and burgers. Personally, I feel that the KJV is the most beautifully written English translation, but it's far from the best in terms of authenticity. Still, it's nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be

[Anonymous No.18417574]

>>18417524
>Do I speak modern English, but with some archaic words that can either be gleamed from context or looked up?
Except that's not all there is to the KJV. There have been serious changes in punctuation and syntax since then. There are also tons of words in the KJV which we still use now but which meant something different when it was translated. No reader is going to look up the meanings of words which they falsely think they already know.

[Anonymous No.18417584]

The writing in the KJV is more aesthetic. I use both KJV and ESV and a study bible.

[Anonymous No.18417623]

>>18417574
>There are also tons of words in the KJV which we still use now but which meant something different when it was translated
This is the only legit problem, but it's still not even that bad. It's pretty easy to figure out that Ecclesiastes doesn't use vanity in the conventional sense. Again, I don't think you should be reading the KJV if you want an "authentic" Bible, but it's nowhere near unintelligible, and it's as if it's wholly inaccurate

[Anonymous No.18417639]

>>18417090
Any Douay-Rheims niggas here?

[Anonymous No.18417656]

Sounds like you’re an ESL sinner

[Anonymous No.18417677]

In my experience it's always low information protestants advocating for the KJV. There's generally two groups of them. The more intelligent but crazy group sees the deviation in manuscripts and they have a lot of trouble reconciling this with sola scriptura, so their solution is that God must have miraculously preserved the Majority Text which the KJV is based on. I call them crazy because they'll persist in this belief even when you point out the deviation within the Majority Text tradition. That's the least of the problems with their position but it shows how unreasonable they can be.

With the other group the best I can get from them for prioritizing the KJV is that it had a big influence on the English language, and apparently that's something worth caring about.

[Anonymous No.18417733]

>>18417677
>low information

What "information" are they lacking?

[Anonymous No.18417760]

>>18417733
I explained how the solution to their problem is not a solution because the Majority Text has deviations within the manuscript. That's one example. I could also point out that there are better ways to reconcile manuscript deviation and sola scriptura than assuming that God must have preserved some largely late medieval group of manuscripts, but that would belabor the point.

[Anonymous No.18417815]

>>18417760

Why should the deviations refute the KJV and the no the other way around?

[Anonymous No.18417910]

>>18417677
KJV is the cornerstone of the English language, you retarded faggot. It’s obviously worth caring about.

[Anonymous No.18417913]

>>18417639
Pre-Challoner?

[Anonymous No.18417967]

>>18417090
if you can't understand the KJV Bible you're retarded

[Anonymous No.18417977]

>>18417910
Why is is worth caring about?

[Anonymous No.18418009]

>>18417815
The problem as they see it is that there's deviations in older manuscripts, and therefore they can't know what the real scripture is. Their solution to this is an almost Islamic notion of a perfectly preserved manuscript tradition called the Majority Text. The problem is that this Majority text has the same sort of deviation or differences that the older manuscripts have so it doesn't work. Do you understand what's being said here? I'm not saying deviations refute the KJV. I really don't know how you got that.

[Anonymous No.18418710]

>>18417090
Old protestant translation
They dislike modern textual criticism
It sounds old and antiquated so it must be better

[Anonymous No.18419098]

KJV-onlies descend from a specific church group which they themselves are largely ignorant of. Firstly, out of a book called "Our Authorized Version Vindicated." The second major movement was the influence exerted by a pastor named Jack Hyles, who commandeered a major evangelical publisher towards his ideas. Hyles was in many ways a cult leader and a heretic, especially in making a cult of personality. Most people advocating KJV only these days descend from him, in some way, often because they were inspired by somebody who went to his college. They're not coming from an "originalist" position in any fashion. Another guy who came around to spread it was Peter Ruckman.
Hyles believed the KJV in of itself had special power, same with Ruckman. They raised it higher than the original Greek and ascribed special saving power to it.
The other group of people are more level headed. They're not KJVOs, but believe the best Greek text is found in the Textus Receptus tradition.

All of them misunderstand textual criticism to varying degrees. There are no monolithic Greek texts, per se. Before printing, and even after, books accumulated "scribal errors" and variant readings, based on different factors. However, for the most part, these are tractable by scholarship and are often intelligible just in the original language. Because manuscripts of books were always copied by hand, books and manuscripts tended to form "types" and streams.
There are textual traditions which move like streams, not like cohesive families. The KJV and TR are products of textual criticism, albeit earlier forms than that of the 19th century. A printed textual edition of the the Bible (and mostly this issue is taken with the Greek part) is almost always a collation of many manuscripts, since before printing books were in handwritten manuscripts. The scholar(s) behind the edition examine those manuscripts and make a choice about the "reading" of the text. In virtually all cases, it's untranslatable (different spellings, rephrasings). In some, it might make a difference. But they are, to the layman's eyes, the same book, and this is something that these groups misunderstand by distrusting textual criticism. If you put Hemingway's Old Man and the Sea through the same levels of "scribal distance," it's likely you wouldn't notice if you read two versions back to back, unless you put them side by side.
The reason guys like Jack Hyles preferred it was because they could isolate their people to their own bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18419110]

I really wish Robert Alter would translate the NT because his OT is really good. But he's Jewish so I don't think he cares about the Christian expansion packs.

[Anonymous No.18419381]

>>18417090
Because it sounds like the Bible.

[Anonymous No.18419392]

>>18417169
I trust a 17th century translation to be less soulless than whatever they'd write nowadays

[Anonymous No.18419666]

>>18417169
KJV isn't even true 17th century English. Nobody was using the thees and thous and -eth verb endings by that point. They literally wrote it to sound old even to themselves which is based. They created a Biblical English.

[Anonymous No.18419675]

No one has posted examples.

[Anonymous No.18419738]

>>18417169
You English speakers make me laugh. In the rest of the world it is normal to be able to read literature in your language from centuries or even 1k+ years ago.