Why 'Force' People To Learn Another Language (KJV)?

Before I move on with this article I want to make something clear.  There are certain feelings I have about the whole "King James Only" issue that will not apply to this article, and therefore the reader may wonder where I stand, based not so much on what I say but on what I don't say.  That is fine, but please judge righteously.  Following are a few arguments I will try to avoid in this article, regardless of my feelings on the matter:

1.  The argument that Satan, from the beginning, has had an agenda to twist the very words of God and to challenge them.
2.  The argument that God has promised to preserve His words perfectly, and that the preservation of those words seem unlikely to be present only within a variety of versions that disagree with one another.
3.  The argument that modern versions use corrupted manuscripts whereas the KJV uses only the pure, preserved manuscripts.

As with all my posts, I also don't want to pretend to be any kind of an authority on the subject.  I simply want to express my feelings and engage the minds of my readers to search their feelings on particular subjects.  Lord bless you for taking the time to read this article.  I hope that it brings honor to His name and no dishonor.

---

I recently posted a link on my Facebook page to an article that taught a quick lesson in Seventeenth century English (the era of Shakespeare), and recommended that people who have a difficult time reading the King James Version of the Bible take time to learn some basic rules that will help them to understand the KJV.  In return, I was asked a very reasonable and honest question from a friend who is not only in favor of the use of modern versions but very much against those who promote the "King James Only" position.  The question was this, "Why force people to learn another language when there are plenty of good translations out there?" 

Now, I don't believe that a certain level of comprehension of the English language is the crux behind the Bible version controversy, but I believe this is a very fair and reasonable question to ask.  Therefore I want to give a few points that lay out my feelings in regards to any answer I might give to this question.

1.  No one is "fluent" in any language
I just read a great article by a teenager that taught himself 20 foreign languages and was considered "fluent" in each of them.  He explained how he learned these languages by listening to music, watching movies, and spending time around people who spoke those languages.  The point of the article, however, was that no one is actually fluent in a language.  I tend to agree.

An engineer, a rocket scientist, a medical doctor, or just about anyone in any field of study could be speaking English to me and I would likely not know many of the words they use.  Therefore, I would argue that any study of the Bible (in any English translation) is most likely going to require someone to learn some new phrases and rules.  When I first started going to church as a 7-year-old little boy, I certainly didn't speak "King James English"...but I picked it up fairly easily.  

2.  An older form of English is not another language.
I will agree that "Old English" is incomprehensible to English speakers today.  For example, here is a copy of Beowulf in Old English

I would also agree that "Middle English" is a different language.  Here is a sample from the Canterbury Tales from the end of the fourteenth century:"

"Whan that Aprill, with his shoures sooteThe droghte of March hath perced to the rooteAnd bathed every veyne in swich licour,Of which vertu engendred is the flour;Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breethInspired hath in every holt and heethThe tendre croppes, and the yonge sonneHath in the Ram his halfe cours yronne,And smale foweles maken melodye,That slepen al the nyght with open ye(So priketh hem Nature in hir corages);Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimagesAnd palmeres for to seken straunge strondesTo ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;And specially from every shires endeOf Engelond, to Caunterbury they wende,The hooly blisful martir for to sekeThat hem hath holpen, whan that they were seeke."

We are not just talking about a different font or typeset, this is not even really readable for us today.  However, even if you go back to 1611, when the Authorized King James Bible was first completed, it was written in what we call "early modern English."  Other than a few changes in grammar, spelling, and the definition of some words, the language remains the same.

Example:

Notice in the example above that an "s" was written like an "f" and the usage of the "v" and the "u" were switched.  Otherwise, it is fairly readable.  Still, changes have been made over the years, and even those who are "King James Only" today still use an updated version of the 1611.  In today's KJV (1769 is the edition that is typically used), some spelling, punctuation, and capitalization changes have been made.  Even these minor changes have been the source of some debate among KJV Bible scholars.  However, the words (never mind the spelling of the words) are still the same.

3.  If you trust that the KJV is God's words, who do you trust to update those words?

A commentary on the Bible is one thing.  That is why a modern "paraphrase Bible" or a "devotional Bible" is not as big of an issue to me as long as it is clear that it is NOT the word of God.  It some cases,  they are slightly more than Hollywood movies depicting Bible stories.  However, I would be very careful not to shape my belief system off of a man's "artistic license." 

However, a word-for-word translation is quite another issue.  If these are claiming to be the very words of God, I would want to be very careful who I trusted concerning the revision of those words.  For hundreds of years, the KJV was basically the only English translation of the Bible available for the common man.  The KJV was used in a mighty way in spreading the gospel, making disciples, and evangelizing the world.  It wasn't until the 1940's that men found it necessary to revise the words, and as a result many would argue that the words have been watered down, it's beauty marred, and it's purity sacrificed.

It is for the above reasons (along with other reasons not spelled out in this article) that I recommend everyone learn a little bit of "King James English" and study a King James Bible.  If you come across words that are confusing, ask your pastor or teacher to explain them.  If they are not sure, they can study and get back to you.  You can even learn how to conduct the same word studies your pastor does through the use of Old dictionaries, Greek and Hebrew lexicons, and by "comparing scripture to scripture (in other words, the Bible interprets itself in most cases)." 

In closing, if I understand right, schools are now teaching Shakespeare's works in modern translations.  I agree, that is a totally different subject, but it is sad to me.  So much is lost in modernizing that which is timeless, whether it is music or literature.  All other arguments aside, teaching people to appreciate the King James Bible is not advocating that they learn a different language in order to understand the Bible (I don't even necessarily advocate learning Latin, Greek, or Hebrew).  If for no other reason, teaching people to appreciate the King James Bible is teaching them to appreciate History and Culture.