OT: Some thoughts on the KJV

A few weeks ago, I posted an article on the new NIV. Today I ran across this article on the KJV - not so scholarly, but very practical.

http://bit.ly/KJV_Guthrie

Just to be honest, I am not a proponent of the KJV, I use the ESV when preaching from the pulpit - but I found Stan Guthrie's comments worth reading. I hope you do too.

I prefer the Nestle-Aland translation of the KJV and the BHS translation of the KJV for OT. [H]

The KJV has been a wonderful translation for 400 years, and has brought countless multitudes the saving Gospel and Word of God. For that we should all be thankful. We should recognize its enormous contribution.

However, it can be a obstacle to communicating that same Gospel and Word of God today. It's archaic language now confuses as much as communicates. The New Testament was written in the Greek of the street so that the common man could understand. If the popular common language of the common man was good enough for Saint Paul, it is good enough for me.

In fact, the KJV came into being in order to communicate to the people of 1611 in their common everyday language. How sad if we use the KJV to do just the opposite today. We insult the heritage of the KJV by deifying the KJV.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235009#Comment_235009

The New Testament was written in the Greek of the street so that the common man could understand. If the popular common language of the common man was good enough for Saint Paul, it is good enough for me.

Almost, but not quite. It was indeed common Greek. It was not the Greek of academia, but it was slightly better than the "Greek of the street." Let's say that it was the Greek of the popular writers.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235009#Comment_235009

We insult the heritage of the KJV by deifying the KJV.

Same could be said for Shakespeare on all points.

But I know of no grad school awarding Doctorates of English Literature for dumbed down Shakespearean studies. With all the functional illiterates holding High School diplomas in the USA is it about time we abandon the written word of God in favor of a picture book? They did print the Manga Bible and the Picture Bible for people who have a hard time reading the KJV. But twelve of my thirteen kids came to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ reading the KJV. (The little guy can't read yet.)

I'm sure some genuinely have a hard time with the vocabulary but there are millions who won't read the Bible no matter what version you lay on their coffee table.

All that said, I agree with you. Let us get busy sharing the gospel rather than fighting over the versions.

Robert M. Warren

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235009#Comment_235009

My favorite KJV moment is finding "Easter" instead of "days of Unleavened Bread" in Acts 12.

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235109#Comment_235109

Here's another interesting read

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/28/tiny-church-finds-original-king-james-bible/?hpt=C2

I found it interesting that the way they could tell which printing it was under was from printing errors :-)

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235022#Comment_235022

Well, Matthew C., isn't that just peachy. My favorite version, being a 'literalist' is the BrickTestament (http://www.thebricktestament.com/). Now you're saying I need to learn how to read. Actually I'm impressed with your kids!

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235109#Comment_235109

My favorite KJV moment is finding "Easter" instead of "days of Unleavened Bread" in Acts 12.

Robert! Peace to you!

Thank you for sharing that! For some strange reason I've never noticed that before.

From now on I will never be able to forget it! *smile*

Giovanni Baggio

KJV has curse words in it. [e.g. expletive, expletive, etc.] [;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235125#Comment_235125

KJV has curse words in it. [e.g. expletive, expletive, etc.]

Offhand, I don't recall that. I do know, however, that there was a printing know as the "Wicked Bible" which dropped the "not" from the commandment regarding committing adultery.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235109#Comment_235109

My favorite KJV moment is finding "Easter" instead of "days of Unleavened Bread" in Acts 12.

I do assume that you are aware that "days of Unleavened Bread" is correct, and that the term "Easter" did not come to be used until much later.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235130#Comment_235130

My favorite KJV moment is finding "Easter" instead of "days of Unleavened Bread" in Acts 12.

I do assume that you are aware that "days of Unleavened Bread" is correct, and that the term "Easter" did not come to be used until much later.

Of course, George, of course! Indeed!

That's what makes this "anachronism" so very precious! *smile*

Peace!

"12　Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. ²　And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. ³　And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) ⁴　And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. " Have you come across any "quaternions," lately?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235125#Comment_235125

KJV has curse words in it. [e.g. expletive, expletive, etc.]

I'd call most of them vulgarities rather than curse words. I once heard a KJV only sermon where the preacher replaced a few of the words to clean it up for the lady folk. But from my understanding the KJV is not any more vulgar than the original languages. And the Brick Bible is just as vulgar, but in a graphic sense. (I've perused it extensively....)

And there is the time when a shepherd boy decapitated a giant for the glory of God.

I 'm not being sarcastic when I say the Bible is a fascinating read.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235022#Comment_235022

But I know of no grad school awarding Doctorates of English Literature for dumbed down Shakespearean studies.

Matthew are you saying that an accurate translation of the scripture in today's English is a "dumbed down scripture"?

Surely, we want the common person - even the "plough boy" as Mr. Tyndale put it - to understand the scripture?

Same could be said for Shakespeare on all points.

I am not opposed to studying 17th Century English literature, but I hardly see the relevance of your comment on Shakespeare to communicating the Word of God. Surely, you don't think only the intellectuals deserve the Gospel?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235248#Comment_235248

Matthew are you saying that an accurate translation of the scripture in today's English is a "dumbed down scripture"?

I am saying Tyndale's plough boy was more literate than the average American. (I don't know how the rest of the English speaking world is faring.) It is the populace that has been dumbed-down. Just because they are ignorant does not mean they don't deserve a Bible they can read. Yet Martin Luther did not attempt to print a picture Bible in his day. Instead Luther advocated schools to teach the commoners how to read so they could access the scriptures. Any translation of the scriptures is useless to a people who can not understand it. When the New Century Version was published they bragged how it was written at a 5th grade level so it would be accessible to all. Last year my daughter hired a high-schooler who could not fill out the job application. It was soon discovered the new-hire could not even tell time on an analog clock. That 5th grade reading level is beyond some high school graduates today.

Many missionaries have to educate prospects in how to read before they can give them a Bible in their own tongue. The written language of the Vietnamese was created by a missionary. And Judson had to do similar groundwork for the Burmese (today Mayanmar.) I just think the KJV gets a bad rap for the general failure of modern education.

I hardly see the relevance of your comment on Shakespeare to communicating the Word of God. Surely, you don't think only the intellectuals deserve the Gospel?

Just the opposite. I think the average believer deserves all the richness to be found in the Word. If you poll the congregation on Sunday morning on their religious vocabulary how many could define "theophany", "propitiation", or "atonement"? Rather than continuing to re-write the scriptures at lower & lower literacy levels, how about educating our people in the grammar of the Gospel? I did not know what a "grommet" was until I was hired by General Motors. They required me to call it a "grommet" after tolerating my "that rubber thingy that keeps wires from getting cut on sharp metal as they pass through the firewall." terminology for about 5 minutes.

Since it is impossible to have all Christians go off to seminary, we can do the next best thing. Teach them how to read and introduce them to Logos Bible software. ( [;)] Had to make it relevant somehow!) Many people have been saved reading the KJV. Many have been saved at Bible camp. More than a few have been saved listening to a TV Evangelist. And a lot by reading a simple tract. So I am not against appropriating the Gospel in an understandable medium to every person alive. The amazing thing to me is after a person has that relationship with God there seems to be a quickening in their heart enabling even commoners and uneducated persons to learn deep things of spiritual nature.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235853#Comment_235853

I am saying Tyndale's plough boy was more literate than the average American.

No, he wasn't.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/235853#Comment_235853

I am saying Tyndale's plough boy was more literate than the average American.

Your supporting evidence ...?

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/236884#Comment_236884

I am saying Tyndale's plough boy was more literate than the average American.

No, he wasn't.

Well, not more literally "literate", just more spiritually "literate." Tyndale did not desire the boy would read, only understand Scriptures better.

The plough (plow) boy functioned better in his 16th Century society than the victims of modern American educational malpractice function in the 21st Century.. Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld, author of "New Illiterates and How You Can Keep Your Child from Becoming One", correctly points out a person has to attend school to become a functional illiterate. They are made, not born.

A simple child-like faith is all that is needed to receive the Gospel. But once received, we are expected to grow in maturity. That is what the other 99.9% of the Bible is written for. Editing it to a third grade vocabulary will rob the new Christian of deeper teachings in God's word. Just imagine ancillary works like Stephen Charnock's writings diluted to a third grade level, or John Calvin's or Martin Luther's. You could toss out whole disciplines including textual criticism , socio-rhetorical commentary, discourse analysis, systematic theologies, and Bible backgrounds including Archeological and Near-Eastern studies. (I am not putting these on equal footing with the Biblical canon..)

I believe there is a place for simple language Scriptures. If our goal were only to get everybody saved that would be all we need. But the Great Commission also says to make disciples and teach them. That will require the meat of the Word to follow the milk.

Thanks for reading all that. Now I will agree with you, neither the plough (plow) boy nor American high school graduate are well versed in the Scriptures. Logos is determined to help the latter group change that. [:D] And at least the plough boy had a job!

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/236894#Comment_236894

Your supporting evidence ...?

http://pi.library.yorku.ca/ojs/index.php/cws/article/viewFile/11719/10802
(OK, that was talking about female literacy and not quite as low on the social scale as farm hands.)

" Precise knowledge about levels of literacy in different times and
different places is notoriously difficult to ascertain, for two major
reasons. First, it is not always clear what should count as "literacy":
what level of ability at reading or writing should we designate as
literate? The concept of functional literacy has been developed to deal
with this semantic problem: .... "

read the rest of it here: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ke-Me/Literacy.html

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/236920#Comment_236920

I would stand by my statement that "In fact, the KJV came into being in order to communicate to the people of 1611 in their common everyday language. How sad if we use the KJV to do just the opposite today. We insult the heritage of the KJV by deifying the KJV."

I would also say that to use the KJV today is contrary to the spirit of the original Greek which the authors of the New Testament used. They did not use classical Greek. They wrote to be understood.

I would also say that the KJV has been a great and wonderful gift of God's grace. I celebrate its anniversary.

By the way, most of the Pilgrims rejected that modern KJV. "If the Geneva Bible was good enough for St. Paul..."

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/236925#Comment_236925

read the rest of it here: http://www.faqs.org/childhood/Ke-Me/Literacy.html

The obvious inaccuracies that first caught my eye in this reference makes me highly suspicious. For example, the ability to sign one's name was not an appropriate measure of literacy. Reading and writing were taught as two separate skills - many could read who could not write. From the invention of chimneys on prayer books were written to be read by women - women of leisure or of religious orders. Read a history of private prayer books or of influential women of the dark ages / medieval times and you'll be questioning this source as well. Actually, there's a chance that reading a book on the book publishing industry from Roman times on would do it too.

And personally, I'd want to give credit to all those who memorized vast quantities of scripture even if they didn't read it.[;)]

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/236945#Comment_236945

And personally, I'd want to give credit to all those who memorized vast quantities of scripture even if they didn't read it.

In one of Plato's dialogues (Timaeus?) he tells a tale of a man who made an invention and went to the god Thoth with great excitement attempting to explain what a wonderful aid to the memory he had invented. The god calms him down and gets him to explain what he has invented rather than jumping immediately to praising its utility. He explained that he had invented writing. The god then states that what he has invented is not an aid to the memory but an aid to forgetfulness since once something is written there is no need to remember it. The ancient epics were largely memorized by a few and recited to the many. The stereotyped epithets and descriptions were aids to the memory in enabling the memorizing of the progress of the narrative. This was the case with Homer and with the Icelandic sagas. The capacity of the human mind to retain large amounts of information is prodigious if properly trained.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/236945#Comment_236945

the ability to sign one's name was not an appropriate measure of literacy. Reading and writing were taught as two separate skills

That is the same point the source is making. " The second problem is that our evidence for the historical distribution
of levels of literacy is limited, based in the main on marriage
registers and other legal documents. In using this evidence to generate
best guesses about literacy levels, we pay special attention to the
ability of bride, groom, and witnesses to sign marriage registers, and
other individuals to sign other legal documents. Such evidence may lead
to an overestimation of literacy levels; individuals may be able to sign
but have little else in the way of literacy skills. Conversely, the
same evidence may lead to an underestimation of literacy skills; writing
requires a productive proficiency that reading does not, and therefore
those who cannot sign may be able to read, and yet would be in danger of
being classified as illiterate. With these warnings in place, what can
we say about the historical character of literacy in the West? " (emphasis mine)

A more humorous yet accurate handling of the literacy question in 1632 is found here

And personally, I'd want to give credit to all those who memorized vast quantities of scripture even if they didn't read it.

My choice of the word "literate" was poor since Tyndale's expressed desire was to increase understanding of the Scriptures not reading levels. Higher reading ability does not result in one desiring God. John Bunyan warned of the temptation to be drawn away from God through reading. Martin Luther encouraged schools for enabling spiritual pursuits and warned against educating for education alone.

the common people appear to be quite indifferent to the matter of maintaining the schools. I see them withdrawing their children from instruction and turning them to the making of a living and to caring for their bellies.

Luther, M. (1999). Vol. 46: Luther's works, vol. 46 : The Christian in Society III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (219). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

J Hale

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237029#Comment_237029

In Tyndale’s day, it was a luxury for a plough boy to be able to read; now it is necessary for everyone to have the ability to read. I use the KJV, but I do understand how some of the words in it are obsolete, or have changed in meaning to the opposite of what they once meant. The newer, ‘dummed down’ bible versions, may be written for today’s readers, but lose a lot of the original meaning, and tone of the scriptures. There are bible versions that I like since when there is a word or phrase that is hard to understand, it uses (…) to explain the word, or phrase.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237043#Comment_237043

In Tyndale’s day, it was a luxury for a plough boy to be able to read; now it is necessary for everyone to have the ability to read. I use the KJV, but I do understand how some of the words in it are obsolete, or have changed in meaning to the opposite of what they once meant. The newer, ‘dummed down’ bible versions, may be written for today’s readers, but lose a lot of the original meaning, and tone of the scriptures. There are bible versions that I like since when there is a word or phrase that is hard to understand, it uses (…) to explain the word, or phrase.

Yes, if it was good enough for Moses, it's good enough for me.

Give me that old King James Version,
Give me that old King James Version,
Give me that old King James Version,
It's good enough for me.

It was good enough for Moses,
It was good enough for Moses,
It was good enough for Moses,
It's good enough for me.

It was good for Paul and Silas,
It was good for Paul and Silas,
It was good for Paul and Silas,
It's good enough for me.

(To the tune of "Give me that old-time religion")

BTW: ‘dummed down’ bible versions' should be "dumbed down bible versions." Perhaps the poster needs a dumbed down version.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/236931#Comment_236931

If the Geneva Bible was good enough for St. Paul..

[8-|] I prefer the Geneva Bible over the KJV. [C] It is just a little difficult to use in responsive readings in church. And my discussions with KJV-Only friends get derailed when I "mis-quote" verse by slipping into Geneva Bible, NASB or NIV renderings. The whole discussion reverts to the version argument. [:(]

deifying

deifying? I know what you are saying. But demanding the retirement of the KJV because you don't know people who read "archaic" English seems extreme. Logos offers the King James Bible Word Book for those who wish to increase their literacy.

The proliferation of modernized Bible versions can only be explained by these motives. Either the translators are:

Convinced all previous versions were poorly done, fraught with error &/or
only had a shelf life of 12 years..... &/or
They know public domain translations can't be licensed for a profit but their new & improved version constitutes another roll-out of profitable merchandise. &/or
they want to rewrite important doctrines out of existence. or all of the above.

I give the benefit of a doubt and settle on the first motive. But by so doing I wonder what makes the current bevy of scholars so trustworthy when all previous translators did so "poorly"? I can't remember who to attribute it to but; if a believer reads and follows only the teachings common to all versions, they would become a good disciple.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237084#Comment_237084

5. language usage has changed and a translation has therefore become problematic

6. a significant subgroup of the translation's language speak a dialect that needs a more appropriate translation

7. the "best" current translation does not read well so that Scripture read in church is not understood

8. For psalms and canticles, a version that chants well is needed (KJV is not the Psalter of the Anglicans for a reason)

9. ... etc.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237138#Comment_237138

9. The very Words of God have their greatest meaning/impact when read/heard in the language one thinks in.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237142#Comment_237142

9. The very Words of God have their greatest meaning/impact when read/heard in the language one thinks in.

One must be able to think for the Scriptures to be understood. If the vocabulary of one's mind is only single syllable and grammatically simplistic they will have an elementary comprehension, at best.

I can teach someone about love by singing this song from Barney, the purple dinosaur:

[8][8]

"I love you,
You love me,
We're a happy family..." [8][8]

OR I can read them this:

1 Corinthians 13

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of
prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I
have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not
charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity suffereth long, and
is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not
puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is
not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but
rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things,
hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth: but
whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be
knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we
prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that
which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a
child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I
became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a
glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then
shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope,
charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

KJV [:D]

spitzerpl

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237142#Comment_237142

9. The very Words of God have their greatest meaning/impact when read/heard in the language one thinks in.

Are you saying the Word of God is only for those who think? Well, that explains why fewer people are heeding it these days.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237171#Comment_237171

One must be able to think for the Scriptures to be understood. If the vocabulary of one's mind is only single syllable and grammatically simplistic they will have an elementary comprehension, at best.

Oh no - what does this say about the Chinese [8-|] Burmese is also monosyllabic but I don't know it's grammar.[*-)] Can Korean be printed in the women & children script? [;)] Now I have a whole other set of theological concerns ... but at least they relate to linguistics which I love[:D]

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237171#Comment_237171

One must be able to think for the Scriptures to be understood. If the vocabulary of one's mind is only single syllable and grammatically simplistic they will have an elementary comprehension, at best.

By this you seem to be implying that all modern translations are simplistic. You might be right if you're thinking of the Good News Translation (a.k.a. Today's English Version), designed for people for whom English is a second language. But NIV, NRSV, LEB, NET and others are not "dumbed down" just because they don't use words like asswage, bolled, bruit, collops, durst, gat, holpen, trow, and wist. These were simple words in a bygone era, but they are not even in a modern collegiate dictionary like Merriam-Webster's, or if they are, they are marked "archaic," or "15th century," or some such. The Bible should be accessible not dumbed down. Anyone who has been a lifelong English speaker today should be able to pick up an English translation and read it without the assistance of a specialized dictionary. With the KJV that is not the case. Not that it can't be read and understood with some preparation, or can't become quite familiar to those who read it regularly or grew up on it (as did I). But I see no reason to persist in using it as a primary version when it keeps 21st century people away from God's Word by its archaic feel. Yes, Shakespeare also requires some study to understand, but let's face it: life would still be meaningful and the gospel available without being able to read Shakespeare. The Bible is a whole lot more important to be able to read and understand.

1 Corinthians 13 is not a fair example of when the KJV can be inscrutable, because it's mostly well-known words (even if they've got the older endings, most English speakers can figure them out), and is even read in the KJV at many weddings so many people have heard it and understand it. There are plenty of other verses that are cited as being difficult to understand for today's readers, even well-educated ones. I'm sure you've seen both sides of the argument before, so I'm not attempting to persuade you.

The KJV is still a beautiful translation and I refer to it often. But I don't like to see people bashing the modern translations in exaggerated ways, because they have their purpose too.

Paul Golder

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237171#Comment_237171

1 Corinthians 13

Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of
prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I
have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not
charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 4 Charity suffereth long, and
is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not
puffed up, 5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is
not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; 6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but
rejoiceth in the truth; 7 Beareth all things, believeth all things,
hopeth all things, endureth all things. 8 Charity never faileth: but
whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be
knowledge, it shall vanish away. 9 For we know in part, and we
prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that
which is in part shall be done away. 11 When I was a child, I spake as a
child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I
became a man, I put away childish things. 12 For now we see through a
glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then
shall I know even as also I am known. 13 And now abideth faith, hope,
charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

So, if I'm understanding the words correctly, as long as I give money to charities, I'm OK with all the stuff in the list?

(sorry, had to do it)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237171#Comment_237171

[:)] [:D] [6]

I've been busy away from the computer so this thing is starting to snowball.

Here goes an attempt at the impossible...................

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237172#Comment_237172

Are you saying the Word of God is only for those who think?

No, I have met many a mindless Bible reader.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237207#Comment_237207

Oh no - what does this say about the Chinese

The first Japanese Bible printed was done completely with Chinese script. (I own one.)

Can Korean be printed in the women & children script? Wink

I don't know about Korean but I also have a Japanese Bible written in strictly the women's script.

(See how I am avoiding your real question? [;)] )

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237211#Comment_237211

By this you seem to be implying that all modern translations are simplistic.

I did not intend to slam all modern versions. I actually find great value in a few of them. I was only intending to address the dilution of meaning in the simplified versions. I do like the Emphasized Bible and the Amplified Bible (sorry George) as well as NET & ESV. I start to recoil at gender neutralized, politically correct and paraphrased "versions. I think The Message might only be useful witnessing to old hippies or members of The Children of God. But that is just my opinion.

1 Corinthians 13 is not a fair example of when the KJV can be inscrutabl

I concede, it was not fair.

There are plenty of other verses that are cited as being difficult to understand for today's readers, even well-educated ones.

I guess I could make a lot of money "modernizing" the old classic commentaries into today's English for all those smart people who have trouble understanding Matthew Henry, JFB, Clarke, and so on. [H]

But I don't like to see people bashing the modern translations in exaggerated ways,

I'm sorry. i just don't think we need to retire the KJV just yet.

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/237213#Comment_237213

(sorry, had to do it)

Sorry, me too. Just for fun, here is a modernized KJV word list for 1 Corinthians 13:1-13

tongues= not even seminary graduates can agree on this Biblical definition
charity = foodstamps & food pantry
sounding = submarine depth radar
tinkling = one of those KJV vulgarities??
bestow = alternative pronunciation for a cofflee shop
goods = another KJV vulgarity??
burned = insulted
***eth = s
Doth = Goth's twin brother
Beareth = streaking
perfect = Bo Derek
childish things = Playstation2
"see through a glass" = "last call"