Mar. 28, 2008 - Why Not KJV?
Category • Spiritual Development
I use the Ambleside Online curriculum, and for our daily Bible reading AO suggests we use the KJV. In an article on the AO website, the use of the KJV is defended on literary grounds. The argument is that since the KJV uses big words and rich language, and since it is often quoted in great literature, we are intellectually improved by reading it.
I do not disagree with that argument. Familiarity with the KJV is almost certainly useful in reading literature and in generally improving one's intellect and grasp of language. However, I think that this quote from early in the article is key:
"Decisions about which version a) is the more correct translation or b) will most readily help your child understand the truth of God's Word, should be approached individually, intellectually and prayerfully."
Now, the article goes on to immediately add a third criterion, that of enhancing a literary education, but it is my contention that this criterion has no place in a discussion of Bible translations. When selecting a translation to use for Bible study (rather than for some school-related reading that is in addition to regular Bible study), the two questions given in the quoted selection should be the primary considerations.
I am not going to advocate for any particular translation. I am, however, going to argue that the KJV is singularly unsuited to effective Bible study today.
As far as question a) is concerned, which is the more correct translation, the old KJV is certainly out of the running as we now have available much better texts. However, the NKJV has made changes based on the newer information.
Some sites which offer information to compare available translations (I have not extensively reviewed these sites, so I can't vouch for them; on cursory review they looked helpful):
- Recent English Bible versions compared
- Index of 100+ Versions of the Scriptures
- Comparing Bible Translations
Question b) holds quite a bit of weight for me, assuming no significant issues were found with question a). In other words, after we've determined that a particular set of translations are acceptably accurate, then we need to grapple with which one is going to best convey the meaning of the text, which is of course the point of Bible study--understanding.
The KJV uses archaic language. That of course is the attraction for those who wish to use it as a tool for improving our minds, and I understand that appeal. But for the purpose of Bible study, using archaic language represents an obstacle to understanding. It's not just that the KJV uses big words and complicated sentences. If those big words and complicated sentences fairly communicate the sense of the original, particularly if the original also used big words and complicated sentences, that would not be problematic. The problem arises more from the fact that the KJV also uses words not in use today at all, as well as words whose meaning has changed so that what the word means today is not what it meant in the past. That latter group creates the most barriers to understanding, since we read the word and assume we know the meaning because we have no way of knowing that its meaning has changed.
Can a child learn to read and understand the KJV? Certainly. I contend, however, that the Bible study done with this version will not reach the child's heart as effectively as study done with a version using modern English. I donate money each month to support Bible translation internationally. These translations are being done in areas where Bibles are available in a language spoken in that area, but not in the "heart language" of the particular people group. In other words, those people grow up speaking one language, but learn another for purposes of communicating with the larger world. They have a Bible available in their second language but not their first. The Bible translation effort is necessary because God's word is not effectively reaching their hearts when it comes through a language that does not reach their heart. How ironic would it be if I helped these people receive God's word in their own language but gave my children God's word in a language we do not speak in our home? I have yet to meet anyone who speaks KJV English in their home.
Ambleside is a Charlotte Mason curriculum. Charlotte Mason used the KJV, but she used it because it was the only option at the time. Also, the language used in homes at the time she wrote wasn't nearly as far removed from KJV English as the language used in homes today. She doesn't discuss Bible translations much because that wasn't an issue in her day. She suggests that children can understand Bible language better than we give them credit for, and that they should not be given watered-down retellings. She does, however, emphasize the idea that spiritual training is about helping children develop a relationship with God and suggests in at least one place that KJV English interferes with that process:
From Volume 2, pp.56-7:
But the little English child is thrust out in the cold by an archaic mode of address, reverent in the ears of us older people, but forbidding, we may be sure, to the child. Then, for the Lord's Prayer, what a boon would be a truly reverent translation of it into the English of to-day! To us, who have learned to spell it out, the present form is dear, almost sacred; but we must not forget that it is after all only a translation, and is, perhaps, the most archaic piece of English in modern use: 'which art,' [Catholics say 'who art'] commonly rendered 'chart,' means nothing for a child. 'Hallowed' is the speech of a strange tongue to him––not much more to us; 'trespasses' is a semi-legal term, never likely to come into his every-day talk; and no explanation will make 'Thy' have the same force for him as 'your'. To make a child utter his prayers in a strange speech is to put up a barrier between him and his 'Almighty Lover.' Again, might we not venture to teach our children to say 'Dear God'? A parent, surely, can believe that no austerely reverential style can be so sweet in the Divine Father's ears as the appeal to 'dear God' for sympathy in joy and help in trouble, which flows naturally from the little child who is 'used to God.' Let children grow up aware of the constant, immediate, joy-giving, joy-taking Presence in the midst of them, and you may laugh at all assaults of 'infidelity,' which is foolishness to him who knows his God as––only far better than––he knows father or mother, wife or child.
Choosing a Bible translation to use can be daunting. There's no one right answer. In our home we use several versions in different contexts and for different purposes, and the KJV is available to the children as well. I do agree with the statement quoted above, from the AO article, that a translation should be selected after much study and prayer.
Comments
Mar. 31, 2008 - A Thoughtful Approach to Translations
Posted by Anonymous
An excellent post on a thorny subject. We must always think of our goals, in what we do, and constantly assess whether or not our actions are stilling heading us towards our goal. This is especially true about educating our children, I think, and most important where it comes to their spiritual education. You supply a very reasoned approach to the subject translations with regard to Bible study.
Leslie R
Apr. 29, 2008 - Untitled Comment
Posted by melissal89
Very thought provoking post. Yes, it is a controversial issue, but you tackled it in a very fair way. We choose to use NIV as our core, simply because that was what I was taught on; however I will frequently refer to KJV and other translations to compare. And even pull out my Bible concordance and dictionary to check original Hebrew and Greek meanings. I do agree that we need to speak our children's languages and teach them everyday speech that is used today; with a nice balance of challenging new vocabulary. We've found it's hard enough to teach that! Just depends on the child.
Apr. 29, 2008 - Very nice
Posted by Testimony
I must agree that the KJV is difficult to use as a Bible study because I have difficulty comprehending what I am reading when I use the KJV. I cannot use that as a silent read. I have to read it aloud in order to understand what I am reading.
No, I use NKJV or NIV reference Bible to study God's word. I need to understand and digest my lesson and those versions do it.
I have a problem with the Message Bible. I think that is going off the deep end with paraphrases of the Bible instead of the whole thing.
Blessings on your homeschooling journey.
Karen
www.homeschoolblogger.com/testimony
Apr. 29, 2008 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Daisy
We use a progression of translations in our home. As soon as the child can read we have them read from English Version like the Contemporary English Version or ESV. By 3rd grade, the child is using NKJV. We do use the KJV for memory work because I think it is more lyrical and easier to remember. We often will read a passage from all three versions with the children taking turns. I'm not much for jumping into debates on translation. I have an opinion on it but frankly, just prefer folks to actually pick the Bible up and read it. ;-)
Apr. 29, 2008 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous
This is a very good post. When we used AO this was something we, or perhaps I should say "I", struggled with. I like the KJV but it totally confused my children. When you read things like "Job scraped his withal with his potsherd," You know it is time to put it down. I put it away for bible study with them.
ChristyH
Apr. 29, 2008 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous
Personally to be honest, I don't understand why so many think the KJV is so hard to understand. My dc 5 &3 have never had a problem. I'm not trying to be mean. They just don't. Once you know what a word means, you know what a word means. Also when the Bible is being read, I like knowing it's the Bible, not trying to figure it out if it's the Bible or just someone's quote.
Apr. 29, 2008 - Hard to Understand
Posted by lklivingston
Why do people think KJV is hard to understand? I was an English major and can pretty easily read Shakespeare, CM, and KJV. However, if I read KJV with footnotes pointing out words that mean something different in the KJV than what they mean today, I could easily find many words that have changed their meaning but that I didn't realize had changed their meaning. I think most people with a reasonable vocabulary could read KJV for surface understanding successfully, but you will miss shades of meaning that, in my opinion, are important for Bible study. In fact, in some cases you might get quite the wrong meaning. This doesn't happen as often in the stories, but it's a real problem in books such as the prophets or the epistles.
I don't like to argue about Bible translations either. But I also don't think people should be encouraged to use KJV without some discussion of the actual merits.
Apr. 30, 2008 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous
Wow!!!
That was a very good post! I think you expressed it all so well. I have always felt this way. Anyway just wanted you to know I did enjoy your post and I agree
with it =o) Angie in GA
May. 1, 2008 - KJV
Posted by Anonymous
We only read the KJV to our children (6, 4, 2, baby) and, with any book, give explanation where it is needed. They don't have trouble understanding with that help.
A disservice is done to children to not ground them in the truth of being able to TRUST their BIBLE and God completely. When numerous translations are introduced, the authority is removed from God's words to man's opinion of what God's words are.
Plus, they WON'T find mistakes or contradictions in them like are in modern versions. (Like who did kill Goliath? Check it out in a concordance there are two listings with two different 'slayers', but not in the KJV.)
The texts the KJV was translated from are the MAJORITY of texts (95%). ALL other versions come from the MINORITY of texts. This fact is rarely brought out, usually overshadowed by the claim of "older is better" about the texts used for the new versions. Older is UNUSED, thus accidentally preserved.
I don't like to argue either, but to teach. I write only with the hope that it would speak to someone's heart or conscience since this article was linked from a some-what widely read blog carnival.
JoyH joyinktm-at-yahoo.com
May. 2, 2008 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Jimmie
You've done a good job addressing this issue. The KJV was written at the same time as Shakespeare, so that's a good rule of thumb. Does your child understand the language of Shakespeare? Can he? Sure, with a lot of unpacking. I totally agree with you. We use more modern translations. But I think the Bible can be used (by older students) as a literary text in KJ language.
Jun. 10, 2008 - KJV issue
Posted by Debi Z
We have different ways we use the Bible in our home. One of them is Bible Study. For that, we use a newer version. Another, however, is to read stories from the Bible for the purpose of understanding the narrative of the Bible. For this, we use the KJV. If they can understand other narratives in "archaic" language, why use "modern" versions for the Bible narrative?
Jun. 10, 2008 - KJV for Bible narrative
Posted by lklivingston
Debi,
I think using KJV for reading Bible stories separately from actual Bible study is a perfectly legitimate way to meet both goals. It's similar to what Lorraine does when she reads parables in Spanish or whatever other language she and her kids are studying. So the Bible reading in that case is intended for literary education rather than spiritual instruction (but of course spiritual instruction might also occur--that's just not the main point).
So I would say that you and I agree perfectly here. However, not everyone realizes that it might be necessary to have different Bible readings for literary education and spiritual training. That's my concern.
Sep. 20, 2008 - Thank you
Posted by basketflat
Thank you. That is a very clear and compelling article you wrote. I agree with you. This was my gut feeling as well, but I hadn't put it into words. I love the thought of giving my children non watered down truth from the Bible, but it doesn't have to be in archaic language - unless as Ambelside Online suggests it is to strengthen their use of archaic language. So, we are free to choose from a number of very accurate modern versions of the Bible. Yet, I would want to avoid paraphrased versions for Bible study - because they aren't accurate and because our children don't need altered versions to understand. Sometimes it's nice to read a paraphrase (such as the The Message) side by side - but because it says something that makes sense to your heart - but we must always go back to the meat of the Word I think, to as close to the original language as we can get.