... The second point on which the KJV is far superior to most modern translations is that it uses a principle of exact translation as much as possible, rather than the principle of so-called "dynamic equivalence."
Thank you for the info. I suppose if I was honest, I would have to say that my main issue with the KJV is the Oh-so-unoriginal readability issue. It's not that I don't think I CAN understand it. I mean, I read Matthew Henry in his original words, so I figure if I can handle that, I can handle the KJV. :)
BUT, it is a lot more work. :) I think I have a stumbling block because even when I do the mental translation into today's English, I'm still not sure how to take some words or concepts. I don't know what the colloquialisms, etc. of the old times were, so I worry about missing something, not SOLEY due to my laziness :) for not researching, but that I could very easily miss something without even realizing it. I suppose that fear helped me to pick a version like the NIV, which hopefully, was designed to take care of issues like that.
One thing I have no grasp of at all is to what degree the KJV really is different. On this thread, people from all three sides have posted quotes from the KJV, and though I know I didn't notice every case, I can only think of one instance where the KJV was significantly different from what I would have expected. I think it was from the OT, and I can't remember the cite, but it was the "God creates/causes evil" verse. :) That one really struck me as being different.
But other than that, I know I've read dozens of quoted passages posted in the KJV, especially from Dr. E., and I've never really noticed anything I didn't expect. Of course I haven't compared them all line for line with my version, but I have on some, especially those of opponents :), and I can't really see any pattern of significant difference. Perhaps there is one I'm just not seeing. That is something that would really interest me, knowing what the important differences are. If anyone already knows of such a website, I would very much like to see it.
In any event, by no means have I ever thought the KJV was an inferior translation or anything. And, I am grateful to learn that it is, in fact, a Superior translation. That part I didn't know. :)
It is too bad that, as Waite says, a major driving force in new translations and revisions is, quite simply, money. The KJV is in the public domain, and thus, no-one can make much money from publishing it.
Now that's an aspect I hadn't thought of. Given my training, shame on me! :)
The major differences in text occur in the Gospels, although there are some significant differences in the epistles as well.
The two most easily notable differences between the Byzantine text/Textus Receptus are the lengthy passage about the woman caught in adultery and the final pericope of the Gospel of St. Mark. To the NIV editors' credit, they did not omit them entirely, as do many modern translations, nor do they stick the text into a footnote. But the editors do mark them off and say that "the oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain this passage" -- or something like that. Oldest, yes. Most reliable? A *very* debatable matter of opinion.
Keep in mind that the consensus opinion amongst modern textual scholars is that St. Mark's Gospel is the olest Gospel. So go look at that passage at the end of St. Mark, and see what is missing from "the oldest Gospel."
I've got to run, but just Google "KJV only" and you will find quite a few websites that detail the textual differences between the critical Greek text and the KJV. I was completely unaware that this movement existed in the fundamentalist world. I thought that only traditional Anglicans and Orthodox even cared about the KJV anymore.
Needless to say, I do not care for the shrill tone of many of these websites, nor do I agree with much of the theology, etc... But if you just want to have lists of the differences in texts, you'll find them very easily on these sites. The KJV only people also believe that the Hebrew texts used in the KJV are superior, but I haven't studied that issue at all, since we are LXX people. The Catholics might care, since I suspect that the Hebrew texts that St. Jerome used may be more like the KJV texts than are those used today -- but given the strict uniformity of the Masoretic tradition, I can't imagine that there would be many differences in any event.
On readability, you are right that there are archaisms. You might enjoy the "Third Millenium Bible," which has removed true archaisms (i.e. if words have actually changed in meaning -- like "conversation" and "prevent"), changed some awkward sentence constructions, etc... There are also recently available epistle and Gospel books put out in the Orthodox world which supposedly do the same thing, but I haven't perused them enough to recommend them withh confidence.
But I will say this also. KJV English is actually more understandable on the whole (especially for the non-highly educated) than is NIV English. Testing has placed KJV English at about the 5th grade level. The NIV tests out at about 8th grade (I learned this from a KJV only site, but I do believe it to be true, based on my intimate familiarity with both translations -- I used the NIV exclusively for many years as a Protestant.)
So dive in and use the KJV -- read it aloud, get a glossary of archaisms from a KJV only site (some other gems I have found on those sites for which I am grateful.) The water is fine, better than you would think when you just dip your toe in!