I am looking for a thoughtful discussion of the KJV only debate.
Williams, James B., and Randolph Shaylor, eds. God’s Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us. Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador Emerald International, 2003.
Williams, James B., and Randolph Shaylor, eds. From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man: A Layman’s Guide to How We Got Our Bible. Greenville, SC; Belfast, Northern Ireland: Ambassador-Emerald International, 1999.
These are both in Logos and seem reasonably balanced.
How about this:
https://www.logos.com/product/144705/authorized-the-use-and-misuse-of-the-king-james-bible
Here is another good resource -
How about this: https://www.logos.com/product/144705/authorized-the-use-and-misuse-of-the-king-james-bible
I see Todd just beat me to it by a minute. [:)]
There are many who offer thoughtful refutations of KJV only, but if you are looking for a sane, well stated case for preservation and the TR, I suggest "Touch Not the Unclean Thing" by David Sorenson.
https://www.amazon.com/Touch-Not-Unclean-Thing-Separation/dp/0971138400
It is required reading for every graduate of Pensacola Christian College... it is not the re inspiration position espoused by some KJV folks... if you truly want exposure to a pro kjv side without hunting straw men, this is a good start.
Outside of Logos, last time I looked there were some well written Thesis on the topic from both sides of the debate, can't honestly say that I have ever read anything truly neutral on this though. Quite a few quote an Ian Paisley book that from memory has "Old Sword" in the title which is out of print.
For those advocating the KJV, or more accurately in many case Textus Receptus, the best of the Thesis available, in my opinion, are the ones that don't rely on a character assassination of Westcott and Hort but focus on the methodology of textual criticism i.e. they discuss theory rather than attack the person.
On the other side the best ones avoid the obvious personality debates and again focus on textual theory usually the external support i.e. the Church Fathers.
I found that this was a good debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHR8wJAjNFo
I also profited from James White's book: The King James Only Controversy
https://www.logos.com/product/43390/the-king-james-only-controversy-can-you-trust-modern-translations
I appreciated White's discussion of the spectrum of positions of people that would hold to some form of KJV Only-ism
Group #1: “I Like the KJV Best”
Group #2: “The Textual Argument”
Group #3: “Received Text Only”
Group #4: The Inspired KJV Group
Group #5: “The KJV as New Revelation”
... Quite a few quote an Ian Paisley book that from memory has "Old Sword" in the title which is out of print.
I believe the Ian Paisley book you're thinking of may be My Plea for the Old Sword.
I also profited from James White's book: The King James Only Controversy https://www.logos.com/product/43390/the-king-james-only-controversy-can-you-trust-modern-translations I appreciated White's discussion of the spectrum of positions of people that would hold to some form of KJV Only-ism Group #1: “I Like the KJV Best” Group #2: “The Textual Argument” Group #3: “Received Text Only” Group #4: The Inspired KJV Group Group #5: “The KJV as New Revelation”
[y][y]
This book is short and, in my estimation, helpful.
https://www.logos.com/product/30964/the-king-james-version-debate-a-plea-for-realism
One final suggestion from me is looking at the work of Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad, they both make the case for the Majority Text which is nominally a third option so they get criticism from both sides. Both are often quoted in works where the textual conflict is raised as they are seen as having a more reasoned view/approach on the older versus more debate.
Masked by the divisive/polarising effect that this topic often has is an interesting topic that unfortunately is difficult to discuss. One thing that looking into this reinforced for me was the importance of reading the pages in any Bible before Genesis where textual basis and translation approach are outlined. I believe that the information contained in the opening pages is really useful and makes using the different translations much easier.
Enjoy your reading and studies.
... Quite a few quote an Ian Paisley book that from memory has "Old Sword" in the title which is out of print. I believe the Ian Paisley book you're thinking of may be My Plea for the Old Sword.
That'll be the one, thanks.
+1 I really appreciated White's logic and emphasis on consistency. Do note, that James White now says that the book should be updated in light of the latest research.
...One thing that looking into this reinforced for me was the importance of reading the pages in any Bible before Genesis where textual basis and translation approach are outlined. I believe that the information contained in the opening pages is really useful and makes using the different translations much easier.
I strongly agree. Thank you for making that point.
"The King James Only Controversy" by James White is an excellent resource and is available in Logos.
This book is short and, in my estimation, helpful. https://www.logos.com/product/30964/the-king-james-version-debate-a-plea-for-realism
This has been my "go to" since the early 80's. D.A. Carson is as irenic as always in this presentation.
There are many who offer thoughtful refutations of KJV only, but if you are looking for a sane, well stated case for preservation and the TR, I suggest "Touch Not the Unclean Thing" by David Sorenson. https://www.amazon.com/Touch-Not-Unclean-Thing-Separation/dp/0971138400 It is required reading for every graduate of Pensacola Christian College... it is not the re inspiration position espoused by some KJV folks... if you truly want exposure to a pro kjv side without hunting straw men, this is a good start.
Would be nice to have this in Logos
It seems to me that the greatest motivating factor in the KJV only debate is the desire to circumvent the entire need for textual criticism. There are all kinds of assumptions and presumptions that undergird people's perception of the Bible, and part of why these generally anchorless starting points are so crucial and imperative for so many is because they believe that 1) exercising more than a handful of brain cells at any given moment is a work of the flesh (i.e. deep thinking is bad, as are situations that require it), and they are 2) subject to extreme fear of anything that calls their "belief" and "faith" into question. Christians, in general, succor reams of unsubstantiated platitudes that they confuse with legitimate Biblical perspective. Thoughts like "the Bible's message is so simple that a child can understand it" and "God is not the author of confusion" become "anchors"...but they are free-floating anchors unconnected to Biblical truth. If you believe that "God provides certainty", whatever that means, then you can interpret that to mean that any suggestion that a person may need to weed through the difficult task of becoming familiar with issues of textual criticism, a phenomenon that is the antithesis of certainty, is a work of the devil. If you believe that "God wants us to have peace of mind", peace of mind is most quickly reasserted by just declaring that the "old, old book" (KJV) is the only one people need bother their little heads over. Ironically, to "support and prove" this position, a handful of apologists develop elaborate arguments that are themselves something other than simple. C'est la vie.
Of course, one way to circumvent the issue of "which English Bible is best and/or acceptable" is to just learn to study and read the original languages. But that requires more than just a handful of brain cells and so making such a suggestion is a work of the devil...besides "God would never require anyone to learn an unfamiliar language in order to know Him." Speak Your Platitude With Attitude!!
David Paul, do you have a book recommendation in light of your theological considerations?
(I don't. As a Catholic, the KJV-only arguments are just-sit-back-and-watch debates, preferably with popcorn, for me. But this thread has been helpful for me nonetheless.)
Per the Logos page above, this is the one to beat: "the most formidable defense of the priority of the Byzantine text yet published in our day."
https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New-Testament-Text/dp/0840757441
Per the reviewers, it smashes up modern day criticism.
https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New-Testament-Text/dp/0840757441 Per the reviewers, it smashes up modern day criticism.
Would be nice to have this in Logos also. Always good to have various sides to read for research.
The historian in me wants to recommend that you go back to where it all started. The entire KJV-Only movement began with an old Seventh-day Adventist college president named Benjamin G. Wilkinson in 1930 when he published his book “Our Authorized Version Vindicated” which is readily available online. Even though this happened during the years when SDA theology was at its most legalistic as its leaders were trying to impress the fundamentalists of the day with their own rigidity and extremism, the majority of SDA scholars and leaders at the time felt his book was just too extreme and problematic so they almost immediately published a rebuttal (I believe it’s called “Objections to Our Authorized Version Vindicated”). Wilkinson later published his reply to their objections (I think it was called “Answers to Objections to Our Authorized Version Vindicated”) and that was it. All other KJV-Only teachings are built on the foundation that Wilkinson created. (I own facsimile reprints of all three volumes but do not know if the second two are as readily available as the original as the publisher of my copies died around 5-6 years ago.) I’ve been told more than once that Wilkinson was so extreme in his views that none of his children had any desire to remain in the SDA denomination after becoming adults but that he eventually had a deathbed conversion where he repented of his legalism and found Christ in his final hours. He is still extremely popular among some of the far-right fringe Adventist members who want to hold on to the extremes of the 1920-1950 era of SDA theology, while most mainstream Adventists who understand the gospel of grace have little-to-no use for him or his materials today.
It seems to me that the greatest motivating factor in the KJV only debate is the desire to circumvent the entire need for textual criticism.
Except as soon as a choice has to be made between two or more manuscripts reading then Textual Criticism applies so whether people accept it or not Textus Receptus was the result of Textual Criticism.
Of course, one way to circumvent the issue of "which English Bible is best and/or acceptable" is to just learn to study and read the original languages.
Except you still need to choose which text to read in Greek...
The only book(s) I have read on the subject were dead tree versions, and they have been mentioned above (White...possibly Carson?). I think they are available in Logos. Taken as a whole, I find the subject tedious. Like I said, I think the whole issue is more about psychology than it is about theology. The whole complex uncertainty related to textual criticism and trying to determine the "real" text gives some people the shakes. Uncertainty about YHWH terrifies people. People want to believe that ':Elohhiym can't be pinned down, and yet they want to believe that they somehow have pinned Him down, like a bug on a board. On the other hand, when things regarding "how He does what He does" get uncomfortable, people quickly agree to rely on the old trope of "mysterious ways"...or, as I said, platitudes (sayings that sound religious and/or Biblical but are just presumptions that can't hold up to scrutiny).
Yes, which is why it is so much more psychologically safe to ignore the "problem" and insist YHWH sent us a magic English version...though I'm sure they would insist it's actually "inspired".
Per the Logos page above, this is the one to beat: "the most formidable defense of the priority of the Byzantine text yet published in our day." https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New-Testament-Text/dp/0840757441 Per the reviewers, it smashes up modern day criticism.
Oh, this one looks much more fun and effective...I just love the strategy of insisting that all opposing views are the work of SATAN!
Plus, he's got advanced degrees! He must know what he's talking about!!
David, your comments are pushing the line (or crossing it) of violating forum decorum. The OP wanted information, not moralizing.
How about setting up a debate between a KJV-only proponent and a Latin Vulgate only proponent? That might attract both a Protstant and a Catholic audience.
http://www.dtl.org/versions/article/vulgate.htm
David Paul, do you have a book recommendation in light of your theological considerations? (I don't. As a Catholic, the KJV-only arguments are just-sit-back-and-watch debates, preferably with popcorn, for me. But this thread has been helpful for me nonetheless.)
I am curious, how is this issue different for Catholics. Ignorant question, I am sure, please help.
how is this issue different for Catholics.
The KJV is a protestant (Anglican) bible! It isn't a Catholic translation.
Well, there's the historical component, of course. The Western Catholic church used the Latin Vulgate for the majority of their existence. English wasn't even a thought, much less a consideration.
In Orthodoxy it takes the form of Patriarchal New Testament and the Septuagint as the "preferred text"; in western Catholicism it took the form of the Vulgate as the preferred text. Note, however, the the Vulgate was revised by scholarship and had no definitive text until the Reformation forced the issue. Remember that for two millennia the Anglicans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Oriental Orthodox have happily agreed on the Septuagint as the canon for the Old Testament ... I use "canon" in the sense of "suitable for lessons in worship" and "recommended for personal reading" ... However, it has never bothered them that even within a religious stream, there is not agreement as to what books constitute the Septuagint. And the Oriental Orthodox were quite willing to accept a 27 book canon for the NT and not bother to print or use in worship more than 22 of the books for a millenia and a half. In short, the view of Scripture that requires a definitive canon and a definitive text is tied to a particular interpretation of sola scriptura which is dependent solely on a printed text rather than universal church and tradition. One could mark the divide, perhaps, by asking it scripture is read or proclaimed in worship.
I am fishing for a simpler answer. Imagine I start attending a Catholic church. I get to talking to my priest about reading the Bible. He tells me to go to Amazon and get... what Bible?
I am curious, how is this issue different for Catholics. Ignorant question, I am sure, please help. In Orthodoxy it takes the form of Patriarchal New Testament and the Septuagint as the "preferred text"; in western Catholicism it took the form of the Vulgate as the preferred text. Note, however, the the Vulgate was revised by scholarship and had no definitive text until the Reformation forced the issue. Remember that for two millennia the Anglicans, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, and Oriental Orthodox have happily agreed on the Septuagint as the canon for the Old Testament ... I use "canon" in the sense of "suitable for lessons in worship" and "recommended for personal reading" ... However, it has never bothered them that even within a religious stream, there is not agreement as to what books constitute the Septuagint. And the Oriental Orthodox were quite willing to accept a 27 book canon for the NT and not bother to print or use in worship more than 22 of the books for a millenia and a half. In short, the view of Scripture that requires a definitive canon and a definitive text is tied to a particular interpretation of sola scriptura which is dependent solely on a printed text rather than universal church and tradition. One could mark the divide, perhaps, by asking it scripture is read or proclaimed in worship.
Fascinating. Awareness about such things is just creeping into my awareness. Thanks for cracking the door open a bit more.
Not Catholic, but a check of this page shows the Bibles that are part of the Verbum Portfolio package. Douay-Rheims is old school. Newer are NABRE, RSVCE, NRSVCE, and there are others. NABRE is probably the most common of these in American churches.
Your first should be the NABRE as that is what it used in the Mass. Other versions what frequently finds brought to Bible study are: NAB, JB, NJB, RSVCE, NRSVCE, Community Bible, an occasional DR, CEV from high school
NABRE is probably the most common of these in American churches.
It is currently the only permitted translation (Latin rite/novos ordo) except for Children's services. Elsewhere in the world one finds JB, RSVCE, and NRSVCE as the required text. Those of us living near the border may occasionally fudge a bit ...
One could mark the divide, perhaps, by asking i[f] scripture is read or proclaimed in worship.
Well, certainly, in the Tanakh: there is more reference to what we consider to be Scripture being "called" (i.e. spoken). Indeed, the Qaraites (Karaites) identify their chosen distance and separation from Rabbinic teachings and accretions (i.e. Talmuudh) by referring to themselves as "Scripturalists" by their use of the word qaaraa', which means "call" or "call out". When the tohraah was read aloud in the Bible, it is often described as being "called out", and this results in the word many Jews use to describe the Hebrew Scriptures, miq:raa'. [Adding a meim (M) to the front of a verb can turn it into a substantive noun.] Looking at Neh. 8:8 NASB, the word "read" is qaaraa' and the word "reading" is miq:raa'...thus it can be translated as "They CALLED from the scroll, from the instruction of ':Elohhiym, clarifying to give insight so that they understood THE THING BEING CALLED (i.e. the Scriptures)."
Although miq:raa' is used today to refer to the Hebrew Scriptures, TaNaKh: (or simply Tanakh) is more common. It's an acronym word based on the three Hebrew sections of the "Old Testament".
All that said, we must also account for the Bereans, who were described as "searching the Scriptures daily", and this obviously indicates that they had reading matter for daily perusal. Even the terms for "calling" suggest that SOMETHING is being called out, and Neh. 8:8 above shows that this "thing" was a scroll...which obviously had to be read in order to be called out.
I want to add that there is plenty of reason to conclude that YHWH planned for current conditions (ubiquitous Bible reading options, including Logos software) and that what we commonly refer to as "studying" is His fundamental expectation for all who wish to enter His kingdom. Prophecy certainly indicates that will be the case. Worship (which tends to be viewed as collective adulation in song) must be accompanied by intensive reading (to be done individually or in groups).
Parrots can "call out", but that doesn't mean they will be in His kingdom. Wisdom in the form of "insight" and "understanding" are requisite for worship to have any effect at all, because mishandled worship is equivalent to idolatry.
One book that might be useful is God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. What's nice about it is that it discusses the making of the KJV, its literary qualities and its cultural and religious impact without getting into the "KJV-only" debate. It's a good reminder of why some people still value that translation so greatly. Understanding that might help build some bridges between the two camps.
NABRE is probably the most common of these in American churches. It is currently the only permitted translation (Latin rite/novos ordo) except for Children's services. Elsewhere in the world one finds JB, RSVCE, and NRSVCE as the required text. Those of us living near the border may occasionally fudge a bit ...
Which border? The US/Canadian border? I've been curious about what Canadian Catholics use since the NABRE is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I thought I read somewhere that the NRSV was approved for use in the mass in Canada, is that true, and is that what most people use? And do they mostly use the RSV the mass in English-speaking parts of Europe?
Oh my. NABRE is my mobile Bible ... the notes are really good, and translation choices are refreshingly ... hmmm .... well, agree with my thinking.
Who knew it was the 'only permitted translation' for Catholics?? I thought it was kind of like 'out there', like New Jerusalem (which also has good notes, but not in Logos). I wonder what theology map covers this unexpected situation.
I don't know about building bridges, but I'm old enough that I cut my teeth on the KJV, and I think that having that background and familiarity is extremely valuable due to the enormous amount of cultural references that come from the KJV's centuries of English language dominance. These days if you say "mote and beam" you may get a roomful of blank expressions. So I'm glad to have the background, but I only infrequently turn to the KJV these days unless it is one of those rare instances when the NASB fumbles the "literal translation" ball and the KJV is able to recover. One clear example is Rev. 13:8, where the NASB committee caved-in to a textual canard that has become the contemporary fashion.
Comparing Rev. 13:8 NASB with Rev. 13:8 KJV, the KJV retains the EXTREMELY LITERAL interpretation "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in favor of a translation that does clear violence to the Greek but is similar to a verse four chapters away (Rev. 17:8 NASB). The NASB chooses "written from the foundation of the world in the book". The KJV gets it right because its interpretation is EXACTLY what the Greek says...PLUS there are at least half-a-dozen other verses in the Bible that confirm the idea of the Lamb's death being an established prophetic fact from before creation. So kudos to the KJV (and NKJV) in this case, but overall the NASB is a more literal translation, and since prophecy relies inordinately upon word choice, I prefer the NASB in almost all cases.
I wonder what theology map covers this unexpected situation.
Who knew it was the 'only permitted translation' for Catholics??
Not the "only permitted translation for Catholics", only permitted translation for Mass ... unless it's for children, non-English service, non-Latin rite ... Catholics are permitted to use any translation. The theology is known under the exotic name of "pragmatism", the same theological principle that cost us the second year of readings in the Office of Readings. The lectionary from which the scriptures are proclaimed in Mass is not identical to the scripture as it may be edited for length or given a short incipit to provide the context esp. in Paul where who he is addressing may be many verses back. The are often pre-divided into sense lines to make it easier for the liturgical reader to know how to make it understandable to those listening. So guess what ... the theology of pragmatism moves in - its cheaper to make just one official lectionary .... and, yes, I've known of bishops who've slipped into Canada to get an alternative to use at the cathedral which permits any church in the diocese to do likewise.
I've been curious about what Canadian Catholics use since the NABRE is from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
The Canadians use the NRSV which they had approved before the three-way-battle among the Vatican, the US Conference of Bishops, and the NRSV copyright holders. Inclusive language is apparently harmful to Americans but Canadians are immune to its corrosive effects. [Yes, I'm still annoyed with the situation.]
the mass in English-speaking parts of Europe?
Most of the world is on the Jerusalem Bible (not the NJB). Australia has been attempting to choose a new translation but fell into the same silly muddle as the US. I've not checked on the current state of Australia's efforts.
and is that what most people use?
I've never seen statistics on what people actually use and the rules for recommended translations changed in the early 80's.
A fairly complete list of our options from Wikipedia:
https://www.amazon.com/Identity-New-Testament-Text/dp/0840757441 Per the reviewers, it smashes up modern day criticism. Would be nice to have this in Logos also. Always good to have various sides to read for research.
I very much agree - Denise''s suggested book by Wilbur Pickering would be very useful in this discussion and good to have in our Logos libraries.
People may be interested in the Wilbur Pickering collection currently in Pre-pub which will also be excellent when it becomes available: https://www.logos.com/product/43193/wilbur-n-pickering-new-testament-collection
On the wider issue of resources for examining KJ-Only-ism and related debate, I found value in reading Chick Publications view on 'why the KJV?" (See https://www.chick.com/whykjv/ ) or scroll down among the YouTube videos of David Daniels who works for Chick Publications as there is a variety of material and comment there including on why the KJV is preferable, the adverse influence of Codex Sinaticus and much else.(See: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhmAbEGx-AnRnnY4pE6kwj1XYsqUeH0gY. Whether people agree with the content or not, it is well argued and presented.
Some older hardback books in this area:
David Otis Fuller, DD, "Which Bible? (1975, Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503). This is a collection of essays covering issues such as modern criticism, the Textus Receptus, the Westcott-Hort textual theory and much else.
David Otis Fuller, DD, "True or false? (Sequel to "Which Bible?") (1990; Institute for Biblical Textual Studies, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503)
Dean John William Burgon "The Revision Revised: A refutation of Westcott and Hort's False Greek Text and Theory - A Defense of the Authorized Version (1883); (Available Dean Burgon Society Press Box 354 Collingswood, New Jersey 08108; http://www.deanburgonsociety.org ). This is dated and technical, but still an excellent historical resource in explaining how far the emergence of the Westcott-Hort theory adversely affected later Bible translation.
I note the side issue and the comments about which Bibles Catholics might use. My understanding (and I'm open to be corrected) is that following the encyclical Dei Verbum a Catholic may read any Bible they wish.They may be encouraged to read Bibles containing the larger number of books than in the Protestant canon, but there's no obligation. In effect, Catholics are as free to read the King James Bible as the Douay-Rheims. Keep well Paul
They may be encouraged to read Bibles containing the larger number of books than in the Protestant canon, but there's no obligation.
For purposes of prayer and scripture study, the issue is not canon but ecclesial approval. Canon 825 giving the bodies that can currently give ecclesial approval. As a matter of course, I use a Bible with a broader canon than the Catholic canon in a translation that has an approved Catholic version. There are times and places where the ecclesial approval applies reasonably strictly, there are times when it is treated in the manner of Italian law.
They may be encouraged to read Bibles containing the larger number of books than in the Protestant canon, but there's no obligation. For purposes of prayer and scripture study, the issue is not canon but ecclesial approval. Canon 825 giving the bodies that can currently give ecclesial approval. As a matter of course, I use a Bible with a broader canon than the Catholic canon in a translation that has an approved Catholic version. There are times and places where the ecclesial approval applies reasonably strictly, there are times when it is treated in the manner of Italian law.
Canon 825 is certainly relevant in relation to Catholics seeking to publish translations of scriptures. In that case approval is needed from the "Apostolic See or Episcopal Conference". However, that does not appear to affect the right of an ordinary Catholic to use a particular Bible if they choose to do so as a matter of conscience. The issue of "right" interpretation is a different matter which a conservative Catholic would recognise the Catholic church reserves to itself, given its claims to a guardianship over the deposit of faith.
One book that might be useful is God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. What's nice about it is that it discusses the making of the KJV, its literary qualities and its cultural and religious impact without getting into the "KJV-only" debate. It's a good reminder of why some people still value that translation so greatly. Understanding that might help build some bridges between the two camps. I don't know about building bridges, but I'm old enough that I cut my teeth on the KJV, and I think that having that background and familiarity is extremely valuable due to the enormous amount of cultural references that come from the KJV's centuries of English language dominance. These days if you say "mote and beam" you may get a roomful of blank expressions. So I'm glad to have the background, but I only infrequently turn to the KJV these days unless it is one of those rare instances when the NASB fumbles the "literal translation" ball and the KJV is able to recover. One clear example is Rev. 13:8, where the NASB committee caved-in to a textual canard that has become the contemporary fashion. Comparing Rev. 13:8 NASB with Rev. 13:8 KJV, the KJV retains the EXTREMELY LITERAL interpretation "lamb slain from the foundation of the world" in favor of a translation that does clear violence to the Greek but is similar to a verse four chapters away (Rev. 17:8 NASB). The NASB chooses "written from the foundation of the world in the book". The KJV gets it right because its interpretation is EXACTLY what the Greek says...PLUS there are at least half-a-dozen other verses in the Bible that confirm the idea of the Lamb's death being an established prophetic fact from before creation. So kudos to the KJV (and NKJV) in this case, but overall the NASB is a more literal translation, and since prophecy relies inordinately upon word choice, I prefer the NASB in almost all cases.
David, I'm also old enough to have grown up with the KJV, and like you I tend to prefer the NASB now. But for purposes this discussion I'd rather not get into a debate over which translation is "best." In my opinion, the KJV-only debate has generated far too much ill-will and mistrust. We would all benefit from a better understanding of where the other "side" is coming from - whichever side that might be.
I have been following this thread a bit because my background is KJV-Only. (I will bring this to Logos eventually) I was raised in an IFB KJVO church that was in Group 4 and may have at times slipped into Group 5. I went off to a KJVO bible college and began to wonder about some of the things but by and large accepted it.
I got out of college, planted a church and eventually by God's grace felt the need to dig deeper into the word (I was out of gas in my preaching) I got some various books, but somehow came across Logos and bought a package and began studying Greek. (Really Louw-Nida)
The flashpoint was evangelism, I had serious doubts about the easy-believism that I had been taught now that I was in the ministry. All my life I had seen reports of 100's saved in a weekend but never anything come of it. Using Logos I began to see that the KJV did not teach easy-believism nor did many of the well known teachers that I now had access too. (Spurgeon's sermons etc)
The problem with KJVO in my world was the version was a "badge of orthodoxy" but it was not opened and exegeted. This is what supported a lot of the crazy beliefs, I still have family in the movement, I honestly don't think they grasp what the KJV says. They swoop in to get their proof texts but don't really follow the logic of a text etc. Topical preaching supported by strong personalites is what provided the authority in this world.
Once I started trying to expound the text I continually found myself translating the KJV to the same type of language the ESV used. I remember when I went to the Christian bookstore and bought an ESV, I came home and read the entire NT through in one sitting. I told my wife, it felt like I had been slurping water off a rock all my life and now I could wade in and dunk my head under the water and drink till my heart was content! I get emotional just thinking of how this first felt.
Logos Bible Software played (and still plays) a huge role in my life & ministry. It was a window to good resources and teaching at a time when I was drowning and did not know what to do. Praise God!
I do find the whole debate tedious now, I rarely wade in and engage KJVO people. I rather eat the fresh bread than argue over which one is more fresh!
here is the video done as a result of my stud into this. https://www.joshhunt.com/2018/12/07/niv-vs-kjv/
