While I’m an ESV man, myself, it appears that most Bible readers in the U.S. prefer the King James Version:
Of the 89% of U.S. adults who own at least one Bible, 67% own a King James, which marks its 400th anniversary this year, according to LifeWay Research, a Nashville-based Christian research agency.
Although there are two dozen English-language Bibles in many contemporary translations, the King James Version reigns even more supreme among those who actually read their Bibles: 82% of those who read the Good Book at least once a month rely on the translation that first brought the Scripture to the English-speaking masses worldwide.
April 21st, 2011 | 1:05 pm
If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it is good enough for me!
April 21st, 2011 | 2:01 pm
Although the statistic might be true, that doesn’t mean that people “prefer” the KJV. The double whammy of being both copyright free, and acceptable to almost every church means that it tends to be handed out enthusiastically by roaming groups of would-be evangelists knocking on doors, left in hotel rooms by the Gideons, etc.
April 21st, 2011 | 2:11 pm
What a sad state. I appreciate the higher language used in the KJV, but we deserve a more accurate translation.
April 21st, 2011 | 4:39 pm
What Jack Perry said. All it means is that many of us have, at some point in our lives, bought or been given a KJV, and haven’t gotten rid of it. It doesn’t in any way mean we “prefer” it.
My guess is that the KJV is the favored translation of the religiously uninformed who wish to give a Bible to a religious friend for some occasion. That’s in fact probably the only reason that we have one (it was a wedding gift) — unless you count the heirloom from my husband’s great-grandfather that I couldn’t even find without a serious search.
April 21st, 2011 | 5:42 pm
I just posted something about this yesterday (KJV Onlyism):
http://thereformedmind.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/where-are-they-coming-from-kjv-onlyism/
April 21st, 2011 | 7:43 pm
One thing the KJV has that the rest don’t – is stability. With a proliferation of translations – dozens or more – some copyrighted – there’s something to be said for a stable translation. Something you can memorize and quote.
It becomes a common language among the many.
April 21st, 2011 | 8:17 pm
Also, the King James tends to be preferred by college English majors – along with the ESV, both of which are, in their own way, majestic.
April 21st, 2011 | 8:51 pm
All the Bible scholarship of recent years can only be a good thing. Personally I like the NKJV.
April 21st, 2011 | 10:08 pm
I was raised on the RSV, trained at a mainline seminary, and not too subtlely taught to despise the KJV and the Textus Receptus.
I have changed my mind. It is the Bible I prefer both for personal reading and for Bible studies. Every year I like and trust it more and more.
There is a lot of snobbery in the comments above. I forgive you. I used to talk that way myself because that was the training I got in theology at school. I had no idea that there are reasonable arguments for accepting most (not absolutely all, but most) of the KJV as excellent text and excellent translation. No one ever offered the other side of the debate. There was no debate. Just snide predjudice and assumptions about the ignorance of KJV readers.
April 22nd, 2011 | 11:07 am
FWIW, my comment was not intended as a disparagement of the KJV or its readers. However, the reality is that it’s not my preferred translation, and its presence in my house reflects something other than my use of it. I stand by my comment about the religiously uninformed believing it’s what the religious want — that’s not meant to imply that *only* the religiously uninformed would think it desirable, however.
But I do agree that some other translations are both more accurate and more accessible, which are important priorities in choosing a translation of the Holy Scriptures for regular use. That opinion does not, however, translate to snobbery toward those of different opinions.
April 22nd, 2011 | 3:11 pm
I work at a large bookstore. Of those customers who are looking for a bible, the KJV is by far the one they want. I think its because they are not familiar with other versions. If they are Protestants or evangelicals, I recommend the NIV. If they are Catholic, I recommend the RSV, because I’m Catholic and that’s the one I have used since I went to college in the 60s – Catholic college. Sometimes I will recommend the St. Joseph Bible to Catholics – if we have it on the shelf.
April 25th, 2011 | 4:21 am
Tzard makes a very good point about stability.
It is a consideration that weighed much with St Jerome in his translation of the Vulgate, only departing from the earlier Italic translations, when they were manifestly wrong.
Similarly, the 1662 edition of the Book of Common Prayer retained the Psalter from the Bishops’ Bible, partly because it was familiar and, partly, because it was singable
April 25th, 2011 | 9:28 am
What to read in translation is a vexing problem. In my classes at Notre Dame I use the NAB because that is the version students will hear at the liturgy even though, by and large, he NAB is, to put it charitably, clunky. I like the NRSV for my own personal use but i have also tried to read the bible in another language as a Lenten practice. To read in another language demands that one slow down and attend to the text. Hence, I sometimes read the Psalter in the Vulgate but I also like the French Bible de jerusalem. Last year I tried the Gospels in Greek and managed to stagger through Mark and a bit of John. My Greek is not great!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact