Reviews - What do customers think about Bible: KJV Large Print: Burgendy HB?
Respectable Version, But... Nov 19, 2006
In 1611, the Church of England published the "King James" Bible. It is beautifully written and highly respectable. If you like Shakespeare, you'll probably appreciate the Elizabethan English in this version. My father was old school Anglican, so naturally, this was his favorite version. But that said, this is probably not the best version to learn on. It is my opinion that one should not try to learn the text of the Bible while simultaneously trying to learn the Elizabethan English. One major problem with this version of the Bible is that some words that appear in the "King James" version are commonly used today, but now carry different meanings. 'Let' in that time meant hinder; 'prevent' in that time meant precede; and 'comforter' in that time meant guide. Another problem with the "King James" version is that while Isaiah and Elijah keep their names in the Old Testament, they change in the New Testament. Isaiah becomes Esaias, and Elijah becomes Elias. (So, there is some potential confusion there.) Eventually, the Anglican Church (that wrote this Bible) felt there were enough problems with it to warrant a revision. Very quickly, by the late 1800s, the Anglicans wrote the "English Revised" version. The Americans produced a cousin of it. (The "American Standard"). The American version was similar, but there were some notable differences. Eventually, the changes in the "American Standard" were rebuked, and a decision was made to revert back to the English roots. This is when the outstanding "Revised Standard" came to be. So, while I certainly have respect for the "King James" version, the reality is that even the church that wrote it does not see it as the most accurate version. I'll conclude by saying that the "Good News" version is the best to learn on; the "King James" version is a beautiful piece of history; and the original "Revised Standard" is probably the most theologically accurate version.