digested from a thread of messages at Quora
Is it easy to memorize?
Pr Edi Giudetti, Pastor:
KJV has long been recognised to have poetic form and metre. It has the least number of words per sentence on average, and the least number of syllables per word on average.
KJV has not changed nor lost any words. Other than the NKJV, all modern translations are some 60,000 to 70,000 words shorter than the KJV, that is almost 10%, strangely however they are wordier in their respective sentence structure.
Dan Jamey Pierce:
KJV is very rhythmical. It was designed to be memorized. You can usualy go line by line. It can put to music easily. It uses cholerfull imagery that helps. Is it the easiest i am not sure. I think it is easy to be memorized wleven with the arcane words.
Lea Emery:
We did a lot of memorizing scripture by playing games as a kid.
Debate
Dennis Cybulski:
This Bible was translated in the 1600’s under the auspices of King James I and the Church of England.
It was translated from the Tyndale, Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles along with the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text with little or no consulting the early manuscripts or scrolls available.
Further, the Archbishop of Canterbury himself influenced this translation to more or less conform to the Anglican Church’s concepts and beliefs. There are a number of mistranslated words and scriptures in this Bible version some very minor, some very major. Here are just a few examples of likely errors:
Satan’s angelic name is Lucifer:
Isaiah 14:12 King James Bible
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! [how] art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
We do not know Satan’s name when he was an angel. The name Lucifer came about because of the KJV translation of this Hebrew scripture in Isaiah which had nothing to do with Satan but was discussing a King of Babylon most likely Nebuchadnezzar. One of his titles was “morning star” in Hebrew which a translator mistranslated into the Latin Lucifer which translated to English reads “light bringer or bearer” not “morning star”.
The correct translation is:
12 “How you have fallen from heaven,
O **star of the morning**, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!
It is accepted by Bible scholars that the name Lucifer is incorect, this name allegedly for Satan only appears in the original 1611 King James Bible and any direct copies of it.
The next is one which has resulted in major doctrinal disputes among Bible Scholars:
Jesus is God they are one and equal:
John 1:1 King James Bible
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God
This translation appears in the 1611 King James Bible (and the many subsequent “clones” of it)
That said there are several other translations that render this verse as follows:
"In a beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and a god was the word."
(John 1:1, DGT) Direct from the Greek Translation and others.
Their are many who will debate the above translation stating this does not fit the rules of Greek grammar. I cannot comment on that, however there are many, many other scriptures in the Bible that clearly state that Jesus is not God nor did he ever claim to be God. One has to consider ALL scriptures regarding a matter rather than just one that support ones beliefs.
Then there is the “Trinity” scripture in 1 John 5:7-8 KJV
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
The words in italics are simply not a part of the generally accepted New Testament manuscripts. Regrettably, in this particular passage some other versions read essentially the same. Most available early manuscripts do not render these verses as stated in the KJV.
Most Bibles render this as:
1 John 7-8 NIV
7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
The added verse appears only in 2 - 14th Century manuscripts and as only a margin notation in 2 - 16th Century manuscripts (likely copied from the then existing Latin Vulgate). Nowhere in any of the many earlier Greek manuscripts.
Then there is the issue of “syntax” (sentence structure) and obsolete words. The KJV is written in 1600’s English. Many word meanings and “syntax” that is sentence rendering do not read correctly in modern English. e.g.
Philippians 2:5–7 KJV
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
One can interpret this as stating that Jesus was equal to God after all that IS what it reads like. But here is the same verses rendered in today’s English and sentence structure:
Philippians 2:5–7 NASB
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Here again the word for word Greek to English supports the above NOT the KJV rendering of these verses. (See Mounce Reverse Interlinear or the Emphatic Diaglot).
Totally opposite of the rendering in the KJV.
There are now other more accurate Bible translations available which correct many if not all of the KJV errors. The New American Standard Bible, The New International Version, English Standard Version and others. Keep it in mind however, that most of these are King James “clones” in the majority of their texts.
All this stated, if one wishes to insist that the KJV is the ONLY true bible, I will not debate it.
Ben Smith:
conveying proper context - In Proverbs 28:21, the King James Version cautions, oddly, that “to have respect of persons is not good.” What!? 400 years ago “respect” meant “to be partial to”, but that meaning has changed, even in English! So, how should that passage be translated? Should we add all the necessary words to get to “to show partiality of persons is not good”? Or, is that “adding to the text?”