Lovest thou the King James?

  I have blogged about this before, but had some more thoughts on it. And they may be somewhat inflammatory thoughts, but you'll have that.

  I was raised on the King James Version of the Bible. We used it in church, at school, at home. When I memorized Scripture, it was from the KJV. For most of my childhood and teen years, I didn't know there was any other version.

 I can still remember the time I was in a Christian bookstore around the age of 17 and an employee was explaining the New King James Version differences to them. I felt it was heresy.

 Then I went to Bible College and met the NIV. I had a college professor who was very pro-NIV. I bought one at his urging, and 24 years later, I am still not a big fan of it, but I have gone on to enjoy other versions. I have more than one. My two favorites are the New King James Version, and the one I used the most: The New Living Translation. I believe there are benefits in using more than one translation, especially when reading familiar passages that you almost have memorized in one translation. I never use the King James Version at home. It is still what we use at church, so I do use it there, but that is the only place.

  I have run across a lot of "King James only" people across the years. Some just prefer it, and that is OK. I do thing KJV only people are depriving themselves by sticking to one translation, but that is their prerogative. And then you have the group of people who bug me: the "King James only, and you're a heretic going to hell for using any other version" people. Well, they may not say outright that you're going to hell, but you can almost feel it radiating off of them as they pull their righteous robes around themselves. They scornfully look at even the New King James Version of the Bible and consider you a heretic for using even it.

  I had a Sunday School teacher who spend half of the lesson one time decrying the evils of the NKJV. I was offended, and thought it was out of place. Is it his prerogative to like only the KJV? Of course, but not to tell his Sunday School class what they should or should not use.

  Here is the ironic part, and where I believe these people are hypocrites with a double standard.... or does having a double standard make them a hypocrite? Anyway, they are condemning others for what they are doing. What do I mean? I'll tell  you:

   The NKJV is basically the KJV without the archaic language. The KJV uses words like "thou, lovest," and many others that we don't use. Other than that, it is very close to the KJV. So why is that hypocritical? Because that is what the KJV did. Yes, really. What people hold so sacred is not the original KJV Bible. It was put in more modern English so people could read it better. Sound familiar? It should, because that is what the NKJV did.

  I was shopping at one of my favorite stores the other day, and ran across something I bought as a novelty: a 400th Anniversary edition of the King James Version of the Bible. The original 1611 edition. It was only $3.99, and I will never read it, but it is cool to have. I will never read it because the English in it is 1611 English. Almost impossible for me to understand with my 2013 English. Good thing someone made one in more modern English. Wish someone would do that with the KJV we have now..... oh wait..... they did! Its called the New King James Version!

  I seriously don't have issues with people sticking to the KJV. But they do need to realize that it is what the NKJV is. The same version with more modern English. And no, the KJV is NOT the version the Apostle Paul used.......