Changes

A recent attempt to "update" the King James Version was the New King James Version, which most notably modernized pronouns such as "thou" and verb forms such as "art".  

A recent attempt to "update" the King James Version was the New King James Version, which most notably modernized pronouns such as "thou" and verb forms such as "art".  

Some Christians believe that the original 1611 Authorized Version of the King James Bible is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible. These Christians believe that certain verses, or even groups of verses, in the Bible are contradictions in modern versions but are not so in the King James Version of the Bible. For example, the King James Bible says in Isaiah that Lucifer fell from Heaven for wanting to be like the most high. The New International Version of the Bible claims that Jesus in fact fell from Heaven for wanting to be like the most high, an incredible heresy. <ref>http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.html</ref> This is referred to by some Christians, especially those who do not hold to this viewpoint, as the "KJV-only movement".  On the other side of the debate, many Christians avoid the King James Bible because of its archaic language, advances in scholarship's understanding of ancient languages, and discovery of (arguably <ref>[http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html Maurice A. Robinson, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority'']</ref>)  more reliable manuscripts.  Note that the King James Bible uses British spellings like "favour" rather than "favor" (Acts 2:47).

Some Christians believe that the original 1611 Authorized Version of the King James Bible is the only acceptable English translation of the Bible.<ref>http://www.isitso.org/guide/kjvonly.html</ref> This is referred to by some Christians, especially those who do not hold to this viewpoint, as the "KJV-only movement".  On the other side of the debate, many Christians avoid the King James Bible because of its archaic language, advances in scholarship's understanding of ancient languages, and discovery of (arguably <ref>[http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html Maurice A. Robinson, ''New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority'']</ref>)  more reliable manuscripts.  Note that the King James Bible uses British spellings like "favour" rather than "favor" (Acts 2:47).

The King James Version uses a total vocabulary of only about 8,000 words.<ref>See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]].</ref>  In contrast the [[English Standard Version]], published nearly four centuries later in 2001, draws upon a larger English vocabulary that developed in the interim and uses nearly 14,000 different words.

The King James Version uses a total vocabulary of only about 8,000 words.<ref>See [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]].</ref>  In contrast the [[English Standard Version]], published nearly four centuries later in 2001, draws upon a larger English vocabulary that developed in the interim and uses nearly 14,000 different words.

The King James Version contains some arguably feminist language, such as "prophetess" (Luke 2:36)<ref>though it refers to a rebellious Jezebel women in Rev. 2:20 as such</ref> and gender neutral language for "man" (see, e.g., Luke 3:4; Luke 3:16; Mark 9:17)<ref>where gender specific language is absent.</ref>  Also, the KJV uses "children of God" perhaps as a gender neutral version of "Godly men," with some seeing that neutralizing the gender has the effect of inserting a connotation of submission that might be more characteristic of Islam than Christianity.  Modern versions picked up on this, and use "children of God" far more pervasively than the KJV did.  In Luke 4:34, the KJV refers to "Holy One of God" rather than "Holy Son of God."

The King James Version contains some arguably feminist language, such as "prophetess" (Luke 2:36)<ref>though it refers to a rebellious Jezebel women in Rev. 2:20 as such</ref> and gender neutral language for "man" (see, e.g., Luke 3:4; Luke 3:16; Mark 9:17)<ref>where gender specific language is absent.</ref>  Also, the KJV uses "children of God" perhaps as a gender neutral version of "Godly men," with some seeing that neutralizing the gender has the effect of inserting a connotation of submission that might be more characteristic of Islam than Christianity.  Modern versions picked up on this, and use "children of God" far more pervasively than the KJV did.  In Luke 4:34, the KJV refers to "Holy One of God" rather than "Holy Son of God."

One sect of Christians believe that the King James Version translators did not have access to earlier ancient manuscripts that were discovered in the 1800s.  As a result, the King James Version includes passages that are not in the earliest ancient manuscripts. Other sects of Christians disagree with this belief, holding to the idea that the most accurate manuscripts have all the text that the King James Version has (save the Apocrypha) and that other versions (particularly out of Alexandria) have taken this text out.

The King James Version translators did not have access to earlier ancient manuscripts that were discovered in the 1800s.  As a result, the King James Version includes passages that are not in the earliest ancient manuscripts.

The translators were predominantly literary types, such as poets, without much input from scientific types who might have recommended some wording having more physical connotations, or linguistic scholars who could point out the details of scientific terminology.  For example, "owph" is translated as "fowl" rather than the linguistically and scientifically correct "winged creature."

The translators were predominantly literary types, such as poets, without much input from scientific types who might have recommended some wording having more physical connotations, or linguistic scholars who could point out the details of scientific terminology.  For example, "owph" is translated as "fowl" rather than the linguistically and scientifically correct "winged creature."