You cannot read English Lit thoroughly without a good working knowledge of the KJV. Many authors will just assume that on their readers' part . . . Anthony Trollope is an example - he just tosses Scriptural references in in passing, and you had better know what you're looking at (he also gives the Book of Common Prayer a workout, so while you're at it . . . )
With that said, the compilers of the Authorized Version did not have access to all the manuscripts we have today. There are some translation errors. The 17th century English is also full of pitfalls for those who are not familiar with it - many words have changed meanings, and some are now the opposite of what they used to be (e.g. "let").
But of course there are many, many worse translations out there. Leaving aside all the weird stuff like the Teen Bible and the Gospels in Gullah . . . I have to say that the NAB is an awful translation and I wish the bishops would burn it. Prefer the Douay, although it can be just as obscure as the KJV for the same reasons, plus it is rather Latinate (no surprise). My personal favorite at the moment is the Knox Bible, which is brilliantly translated, especially the Hebrew . . . what "dynamic translation" is SUPPOSED to be.
But when I quote off the cuff, I generally quote KJV.
**I have to say that the NAB is an awful translation and I wish the bishops would burn it.**
Agree with you since in my searches I found that this translation was done by committees of those Bishops appointed during the Jadot and Bernardin era.
Don’t forget the translations of common animals into magical creatures from Greek mythology (e.g. Psalm 92:10, where “unicorn” substitutes for “wild bull”) . . .
I am posting my reply to this thread as a reply to your post since your description of the literary significance of the KJV needs to be mentioned.
I grew up on the KJV and all my memorization is done with that text. My church moved on to the NASB, the NIV, and is now using the ESV. My son and I currently use the ESV as our primary reading Bibles, but we both like the NKJV for reasons of familiarity.
There are four major issues with Bible translations (1) language, (2) literary and cultural significance, (3) textual sources, and (4) textual accuracy. AnAmericanMother dealt with #2 adequately above. I will discuss the others briefly in reverse order.
Earlier in this thread posters have mentioned problems where the English meanings of words have changed since the original translation. While examples of this exist, they are few and I would suggest that none of them affect major doctrinal issues. The translators of the Authorized Version were careful and most scholars that I have read do not raise major objections centered around the accuracy of the translation.
Instead, the concerns of modern churchmen center on textual sources and language. There were multiple "pools" of New Testament Greek manuscripts from which to draw. Since the translation of the KJV (Authorized Version) older manuscripts have been located. Greek scholars have attempted to make the case that the older manuscripts are more reliable while the adherents to the KJV maintain that these older manuscripts come from a geographical area tainted by bad doctrine as evidenced by Pauline admonitions within the New Testament.
For me, the differences in meanings are academic distinctions which would not be noticed by most folks in the pew. Clearly, the Gospel (The Good News) of Christ's sinless life, atoning death for our sins, and subsequent Resurrection is a message which comes through loud and clear.
The reason that I have moved on to the ESV is the first item on the list: language. Let me tell you a story.
There are several variants of ancient Greek. The New Testament was not written in the same language style used by the philosophers or many other writers. In fact, not only was the style different, but scholars had identified many words which did not even appear in any other texts. They referred to the distinction in language by asserting that the original texts were written in "Holy Spirit" Greek.
Then, the archeologists went to work in the late 1800's and started digging. They located these words in common letters and even street signs like what you would see in the window of a barber shop. At that point they realized that the style of Greek employed was "street Greek". Since then they have referred to the Biblical manuscripts as being written in Koine Greek or common Greek.
Now, remember that even though many of the authors were not highly schooled, the most prolific New Testament author was Paul who had a formal education. Yet, he also chose to write in "common" Greek.
If God wanted the original texts to be produced in the language of the man on the street, then I think it is our duty to maintain it in that fashion. God's word IS for the man on the street and there shouldn't be an entrance barrier for the understanding of His Word.
Could you elaborate on this point? -- i.e. does "Let not to the marriage of true minds admit impediment" by Shakespeare mean other than what it seems to say today?
You haven't lived until you've read The LOLcat Bible
Matthew 16:5 when they went acros teh laek, teh disciplez forgot 2 taek bread.6 "be careful," Happy Cat sed 2 them. "be on ur guard against teh yeast ov teh fariseez an sadduceez."7 they discusd dis among themselvez an sed, "it cuz we didnt brin any bread."8 aware ov their discushun, Happy Cat askd, "u ov lil faith, y r u talkin among yourselvez bout havin no bread? 9 do u still not understand? Doan u remembr teh 5 loavez 4 da 5 thousand, an how lotz da basketfuls u gatherd?10 or teh 7 loavez 4 da 4 thousand, an how lotz da basketfuls u gatherd? 11 how iz u doan understand dat i wuz not talkin 2 u bout bread? But be on ur guard against teh yeast ov teh fariseez an sadduceez."
When Charles II saw St. Paul’s cathedral for the first time he described it as awful and amusing. And it at the time that was high praise.
Have you read from the Joseph Smith translation of the King James Bible?
I noticed reading a piece on translations that the NAB is a dynamic equivalent version where the Douay is a literal or formal equivalence version.