Posted on 03/14/2014 9:15:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
When Americans reach for their Bibles, more than half of them pick up a King James Version (KJV), according to a new study advised by respected historian Mark Noll.
The 55 percent who read the KJV easily outnumber the 19 percent who read the New International Version (NIV). And the percentages drop into the single digits for competitors such as the New Revised Standard Version, New America Bible, and the Living Bible.
So concludes "The Bible in American Life," a lengthy report by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). Funded by the Lilly Foundation, researchers asked questions on what David Briggs of the ARDA, which first reported the results, calls "two of the most highly respected data sources for American religion"—the General Social Survey and the National Congregations Study.
The numbers are surprising, given the strong sales of NIV translations in bookstores. The NIV has topped the CBA's bestselling Bible translation list for decades, and continued to sell robustly in 2013.
The high numbers of KJV readers confirm the findings of last year's American Bible Society (ABS) State of the Bible report. On behalf of ABS, Barna Group found that 52 percent of Americans read the King James or the New King James Version, compared with 11 percent who read the NIV. The KJV also received almost 45 percent of the Bible translation-related searches on Google, compared with almost 24 percent for the NIV, according to Bible Gateway's Stephen Smith.
In fact, searches for the KJV seem to be rising distinctly since 2005, while most other English translations are staying flat or are declining, according to Smith's Google research.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
Did they sound poetic even to the 17th century ear?
Could this be the passage you are remembering:
“Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.”
— 2 Corinthians 2:13-15
I can think of others, but that one is certainly applicable.
Based on John 6:45 we know that all who come to Christ will be “taught of God.” I believe that means that not only will they hear the gospel, but they will be given spiritual ears to really hear it and a heart to understand and believe it.
A passage that fascinates me concerns parables. Jesus said He used parables to confuse the people and keep them from understanding, for He did not want them converted (Matt 13:11-15).
“Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. . . .Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. . . . lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.”
Most men cannot stand the idea of Jesus Christ being a sovereign King, who shows His truth only to His elect, but that is precisely what Scripture teaches.
Our glorious Lord has concealed His truth from the wise and prudent, and He has revealed it unto babes - even His elect (Matthew 11:25-27).
“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.”
I am posting my reply to this thread as a reply to your post since your description of the literary significance of the KJV needs to be mentioned.
I grew up on the KJV and all my memorization is done with that text. My church moved on to the NASB, the NIV, and is now using the ESV. My son and I currently use the ESV as our primary reading Bibles, but we both like the NKJV for reasons of familiarity.
There are four major issues with Bible translations (1) language, (2) literary and cultural significance, (3) textual sources, and (4) textual accuracy. AnAmericanMother dealt with #2 adequately above. I will discuss the others briefly in reverse order.
Earlier in this thread posters have mentioned problems where the English meanings of words have changed since the original translation. While examples of this exist, they are few and I would suggest that none of them affect major doctrinal issues. The translators of the Authorized Version were careful and most scholars that I have read do not raise major objections centered around the accuracy of the translation.
Instead, the concerns of modern churchmen center on textual sources and language. There were multiple "pools" of New Testament Greek manuscripts from which to draw. Since the translation of the KJV (Authorized Version) older manuscripts have been located. Greek scholars have attempted to make the case that the older manuscripts are more reliable while the adherents to the KJV maintain that these older manuscripts come from a geographical area tainted by bad doctrine as evidenced by Pauline admonitions within the New Testament.
For me, the differences in meanings are academic distinctions which would not be noticed by most folks in the pew. Clearly, the Gospel (The Good News) of Christ's sinless life, atoning death for our sins, and subsequent Resurrection is a message which comes through loud and clear.
The reason that I have moved on to the ESV is the first item on the list: language. Let me tell you a story.
There are several variants of ancient Greek. The New Testament was not written in the same language style used by the philosophers or many other writers. In fact, not only was the style different, but scholars had identified many words which did not even appear in any other texts. They referred to the distinction in language by asserting that the original texts were written in "Holy Spirit" Greek.
Then, the archeologists went to work in the late 1800's and started digging. They located these words in common letters and even street signs like what you would see in the window of a barber shop. At that point they realized that the style of Greek employed was "street Greek". Since then they have referred to the Biblical manuscripts as being written in Koine Greek or common Greek.
Now, remember that even though many of the authors were not highly schooled, the most prolific New Testament author was Paul who had a formal education. Yet, he also chose to write in "common" Greek.
If God wanted the original texts to be produced in the language of the man on the street, then I think it is our duty to maintain it in that fashion. God's word IS for the man on the street and there shouldn't be an entrance barrier for the understanding of His Word.
I generally read in at least 3 translations. It frequently leads me to think about the scripture more.
The REV is an update of the New English Bible, but I think it does a better job of translating scripture into today's English without sounding breezy, casual or politically correct. Using your example, Mark 1:17, the REV reads, "Jesus said to them, 'Come, follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.'"
Ich Oach.
Changing words can not help but to change meaning even if it is ever so subtle. It is why progressives and socialists/communists do it all the time. The fact that it sows confusion among their target populations at the same time is just a bonus to them.
The KJV and Shakespeare are the foundations of English, keeping it on a steady course. Before public schools they were the main tools for mothers to teach their children how to read, write and speak in public. Is it any wonder that our founders shine so bright in history for they, for the most part, learned that way.
I often use the Holman version for reading but there are just some passages that have to be KJV; 23rd Psalm, Luke 2, and 1 Corinthians 13 come to mind....so beautiful in the KJV.
They would do the translation and then it would be read out loud to see how it flowed.
This was a time when most people did not read (books were expensive!) so things were read to them. The end result was that thing that were meant to be read to others were written in a way that allowed the words to flow and (not incidentally) stick in your mind. Things that were meant to be read silently were written in a different manner.
**KVJ**
??? New version?
Beware OF THE NEW NEW NEW ....”MILLENIALS BIBLE”
“and then like In the beginning “....
However, there IS a mistranslation of John 1:12 (in the 1966 edition), which was corrected in the New Jerusalem Bible of a later issue.
The old version reads:
"He [Jesus] came to his own domain [Israel] and his own people did not accept him. But to all who did accept him he gave the power to become children of God, to all who believe in the name of him who was born not out of human stock or urge of the flesh or will of man but of God himself."
The NIV reads:
"He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. But to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God--children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision, nor a husband's will, but born of God."
BIG difference, and--after checking out a bunch of other Bible versions--the NIV is CLEARLY correct, and the JB not!
I worry about the profusion of Bibles for children, teenagers, women, men, churches, etc.. God help us to be grounded in truth, allow not for seekers to be mislead by the enemy. In Jesus name I pray. Amen.
The best translation is whichever one God chooses to use to reach each person.
My NIV has “fishers of men”. 1985 edition
King James is my main read but I keep two other versions around and sometimes look up in them, something I am having a problem with in the old English. Also keep a Greek and Hebrew translation dictionary close at hand to really delve into a matter. Time is my problem not which one.
King James is my main read but I keep two other versions around and sometimes look up in them, something I am having a problem with in the old English. Also keep a Greek and Hebrew translation dictionary close at hand to really delve into a matter. Time is my problem not which one.
Some of the other translations are less faithful to the original text, and in meaningful ways.
Well at least I get the jokes in Westside Story.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.