Well, I was being a little facetious, but this what writers do. The King James Version of the bible is extraordinarily beautiful, and there are many aids (Strong is very old and won't help much with comprehension) to help decipher the antiquated language. So, if your goal is either a literary or historical one, nothing can match the King James Version; and you may also have theological reasons why it is irreplaceable.
But if your goal is comprehension of the most accurate available translation, the King James Version just won't do. The New Testament contains numerous translation errors from the Greek texts; and those considerations are independent of latter discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found long after the 1611 edition was published. At that point, picking the most objective compilation becomes a tricky business.
So, really it comes down to your objectives. No serious contemporary scholar would consult the King James Version for serious study of the biblical period; and no one concerned with producing beautiful prose would ever consider looking elsewhere.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-12-05 11:23 pm (UTC)But if your goal is comprehension of the most accurate available translation, the King James Version just won't do. The New Testament contains numerous translation errors from the Greek texts; and those considerations are independent of latter discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found long after the 1611 edition was published. At that point, picking the most objective compilation becomes a tricky business.
So, really it comes down to your objectives. No serious contemporary scholar would consult the King James Version for serious study of the biblical period; and no one concerned with producing beautiful prose would ever consider looking elsewhere.