If you were raised only reading the KJV Bible…

[GracieJane]

…did your children do the same? 

I love the KJV Bible. But I worry it is difficult for children to comprehend and I care most that my kids love and understand the Bible than memorize meaningless terms. Am I overthinking this? Will they be in therapy someday lamenting the thees and thous?

[Slache]

Not what you asked, as I was not raised Christian, but my kids do fine with it. First we do children's Bibles, then KJV. We do it together and they start independent Bible around 8, but that's after years of reading it together first.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Slache

[Rosie_0801]

Not Christian at all, but I don't find the KJV difficult. I think Anne of Green Gables is written at a higher reading level.
You should share the bible you love with your kids, because it's something you love.

[Carol in Cal.]

I’m old enough that when I was growing up only the KJV Bible was used in church and in religion classes at my Lutheran school, until I was in 6th grade or so, at which point our church switched to a more modern version.

I don’t use the KJV for study anymore but just about all of the Bible memorization that I have locked away is in KJV.  This was extraordinarily helpful in high school English studies, because I caught Biblical allusions that subtly pervade all English language literature written before about 1960 that no one else recognized in my classes.  If I’m looking for a passage now, I go onto Bible Gateway and enter the KJV phrase, find the reference, and then switch it to English Standard Version.

What I found in transitioning was a big loss of gorgeous poetic language but also a big increase in ‘big picture’ comprehension between reading the whole Bible in KJV vs. ESV.  For instance, in the KJV I missed the parallels between Ezekiel and Revelation, and also the overarching logic of the moral teachings of the Epistles.  Instead I tended to know stories and passages very well but discretely from each other in KJV.

Early in DD’s religion studies at home I would read her passages in KJV and ESV so she would be exposed to both.  Eventually that got a bit onerous and I gave it up, but I think that it was helpful in establishing a knowledge of familiar KJV quotes and also a better sense of the poetry in the Bible.  Although KJV is much more accessible than Shakespeare, being 100 years later, I think it also helped her a bit with Shakespeare comprehension later on.  I would not suggest limiting your child’s Bible knowledge to KJV though.  Vernacular study of God’s Word is too important for that.

[Zoo Keeper]

3 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

...
You should share the bible you love with your kids, because it's something you love.

^ This. 

A love for God can come through any translation. 

[vonfirmath]

18 hours ago, Carol in Cal. said:

I’m old enough that when I was growing up only the KJV Bible was used in church and in religion classes at my Lutheran school, until I was in 6th grade or so, at which point our church switched to a more modern version.

I don’t use the KJV for study anymore but just about all of the Bible memorization that I have locked away is in KJV.  This was extraordinarily helpful in high school English studies, because I caught Biblical allusions that subtly pervade all English language literature written before about 1960 that no one else recognized in my classes.  If I’m looking for a passage now, I go onto Bible Gateway and enter the KJV phrase, find the reference, and then switch it to English Standard Version.

What I found in transitioning was a big loss of gorgeous poetic language but also a big increase in ‘big picture’ comprehension between reading the whole Bible in KJV vs. ESV.  For instance, in the KJV I missed the parallels between Ezekiel and Revelation, and also the overarching logic of the moral teachings of the Epistles.  Instead I tended to know stories and passages very well but discretely from each other in KJV.

Early in DD’s religion studies at home I would read her passages in KJV and ESV so she would be exposed to both.  Eventually that got a bit onerous and I gave it up, but I think that it was helpful in establishing a knowledge of familiar KJV quotes and also a better sense of the poetry in the Bible.  Although KJV is much more accessible than Shakespeare, being 100 years later, I think it also helped her a bit with Shakespeare comprehension later on.  I would not suggest limiting your child’s Bible knowledge to KJV though.  Vernacular study of God’s Word is too important for that.

I was raised KJV only and have branched out as an adult. But I still prefer to memorize in KJV. I think it sticks better because it sounds slightly off from just speaking. Even as a kid, though, the thees and thous did not get in the way of understanding.

Edited December 7, 2021 by vonfirmath

[PeterPan]

On 12/6/2021 at 3:16 PM, GracieJane said:

…did your children do the same? 

I love the KJV Bible. But I worry it is difficult for children to comprehend and I care most that my kids love and understand the Bible than memorize meaningless terms. Am I overthinking this? Will they be in therapy someday lamenting the thees and thous?

I went from KJV to NASB, but I got my dd an NIrV when she began reading. If you google reading levels of the versions, you'll see why you might want to consider some of these other versions. These days I read the NLT and find it works well to read aloud to my ds with ASD2 and language issues. 

I think you'll find that a modern translation will, in general, solve some of the vocabulary issues and hoops you have to jump through with the KJV. I get liking it for the beauty of the language and the familiarity. Some people continue to read the Psalms in KJV even when they branch out into other translations.

I find in my friends who continue to be KJV only that being so adamant on that translation *delays* their children's ability to read the Word for themselves. Seems kind of counterintuitive to insist on a translation that is hundreds of years old and syntactically so complex that it translates at a 12th grade reading level (yes, the KJV) when you have options that come in more like 7-8, 6th, or even 3rd (NIrV). My big goal was to have them in the word and the differences aren't major enough to quibble over which translation. If a translation gets them in the Word, I'm in favor of it. If a translation keeps them from reading the word and delays making it easily accessible to them, I'm not in favor of that.

https://www.christianbook.com/page/bibles/about-bibles/bible-translation-reading-levels

You could consider some balance, like giving them a very accessible version for their personal reading (something close to their reading level like an NIrV, ESV, NLT, etc) and then reading to them from the Psalms and Proverbs for a daily reading time to let them hear the beauty of the language. This doesn't have to be an all one way or the other.

 

Edited December 8, 2021 by PeterPan

[smfmommy]

I read only KJV when I was younger.  My kids first Bible has been a large print NKJV.  I prefer the rhythm to the KJV and still read it.  While I prefer my kids read a literal translation, as long as they are reading the Bible on their own, I really don't care.

As a positive to understanding the KJV, I found Shakespeare not as daunting in high school.  🙂

 

[lulalu]

Not me, but a family member was raised KJV only. At 40 they have just changed churches and the ESV is used. This the first time this family member has used something other than KJ. The children have said how much easier it is to follow and understand and so has the adult family member. 

I think (personal opinion only) the KJV is readable, but the verses are choppy and being that it isn't split into paragraphs and doesn't use modern punctuation, it becomes difficult to follow the whole picture. So memorizing verses is easy (maybe even easier than modern translations) but overall understanding is more difficult. So, for our family we study using ESV, but we listen to the KJV in the evening for the language development. I find I want my DS to understand scripture inside and out, and not be lost in the structure of the KJV. I don't think the thee, thou, ye, art and all that are all that hard to grasp, I think the difficulty is in the sentence structure and verses being verse by verse instead of paragraphs. 

[Ellie]

On 12/6/2021 at 2:16 PM, GracieJane said:

…did your children do the same? 

I love the KJV Bible. But I worry it is difficult for children to comprehend and I care most that my kids love and understand the Bible than memorize meaningless terms. Am I overthinking this? Will they be in therapy someday lamenting the thees and thous?

Children have been "comprehending" the KJV for many generations. If you explain terms to them, those terms won't be meaningless, will they? It is better to have them read and memorize and study KJV than it is to use some of the modern "translations" which have done terrible things to the Word of God.

[Xahm]

42 minutes ago, Ellie said:

Children have been "comprehending" the KJV for many generations. If you explain terms to them, those terms won't be meaningless, will they? It is better to have them read and memorize and study KJV than it is to use some of the modern "translations" which have done terrible things to the Word of God.

The translators of the KJV and other translations of the time wanted the English people to have a translation that was immediately understandable to regular English speakers, whether listening or reading. While I imagine they would have lots of opinions about which modern translations follow what they'd consider best practices, I think they'd be appalled by the KJV only insistence. 

Yes, people can learn to understand the KJV. It's not out of reach of most people, and the language is beautiful. It has the benefit of requiring thought to be understood, helping us pay attention while we read. I sometimes read scripture in a foreign language to get that benefit. However, handing an elementary student a KJV Bible when there are so many clearer versions is hindering their ability to access the word of God. 

Small example: I grew up in a very Biblically literate home that favored KJV but wasn't exclusive. I was in a high school foreign language class before I learned that "thee" was the informal rather than formal second person singular. All those years of studying scripture and hearing hymns and prayers at church had led me to believe that "thee" was specifically used to show the majesty and grandeur of God, even in fact it was supposed to show the closeness of our relationship. 

Sad example: I knew, via a summer job, an older woman  at a KJV only church who was nearly illiterate, having grown up in an orphanage and not had the chance to attend high school. She was utterly dependent on her pastor to know the will of God and trusted this man completely, even though her reports of what he said didn't make sense. She was terrified that she was bound for hell because she couldn't do all the pastor said she should be doing, and if he "churched her" (kicked her out of the fellowship) as he'd apparently threatened, she knew no other way to salvation. She wouldn't listen to any of us who tried to give her biblical comfort because we used false Bibles "not written by the apostle King James." She couldn't understand the KJV well enough for us to read that straight to her and have her understand its message of grace.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Xahm
Someday I'll learn to check for autocorrect errors before hitting post

[Ellie]

11 hours ago, Xahm said:

The translators of the KJV and other translations of the time wanted the English people to have a translation that was immediately understandable to regular English speakers, whether listening or reading. While I imagine they would have lots of opinions about which modern translations follow what they'd consider best practices, I think they'd be appalled by the KJV only insistence. 

Yes, people can learn to understand the KJV. It's not out of reach of most people, and the language is beautiful. It has the benefit of requiring thought to be understood, helping us pay attention while we read. I sometimes read scripture in a foreign language to get that benefit. However, handing an elementary student a KJV Bible when there are so many clearer versions is hindering their ability to access the word of God. 

Small example: I grew up in a very Biblically literate home that favored KJV but wasn't exclusive. I was in a high school foreign language class before I learned that "thee" was the informal rather than formal second person singular. All those years of studying scripture and hearing hymns and prayers at church had led me to believe that "thee" was specifically used to show the majesty and grandeur of God, even in fact it was supposed to show the closeness of our relationship. 

Sad example: I knew, via a summer job, an older woman  at a KJV only church who was nearly illiterate, having grown up in an orphanage and not had the chance to attend high school. She was utterly dependent on her pastor to know the will of God and trusted this man completely, even though her reports of what he said didn't make sense. She was terrified that she was bound for hell because she couldn't do all the pastor said she should be doing, and if he "churched her" (kicked her out of the fellowship) as he'd apparently threatened, she knew no other way to salvation. She wouldn't listen to any of us who tried to give her biblical comfort because we used false Bibles "not written by the apostle King James." She couldn't understand the KJV well enough for us to read that straight to her and have her understand its message of grace.

Well, ok, but I didn't "insist" on the KJV. That wasn't the point of my comment at all, although I strongly disagree that giving a KJV to an elementary student is "hindering their ability to access the word of God." There's far too much proof of just the opposite, regardless of the fact that some people were abused by others in the name of Christianity.

[katilac]

Why not have two available? We would read Dante, Milton, and Shakespeare in 'plain English' versions to help with speed and comprehension, but we would have been missing a lot if that was all we read. Sometimes we read the plain English before, sometimes after. The beauty of a more complex translation was worth it. 

[Xahm]

10 hours ago, katilac said:

Why not have two available? We would read Dante, Milton, and Shakespeare in 'plain English' versions to help with speed and comprehension, but we would have been missing a lot if that was all we read. Sometimes we read the plain English before, sometimes after. The beauty of a more complex translation was worth it. 

I think this is a great idea, but we have to remember that with Shakespeare and Milton, you are reading the original when you read that complex language. With the Bible, you are still reading a translation. Jesus used language that was clear and direct, words that could be understood by common people of the day. 

[Dianthus]

Memoria Press had this great article, Archaic on Purpose. 

I didn't read the other comments, and I dont have time to discuss, but IMO, KJV reading is necessary for a well rounded, dare I say classical, education. 

[SKL]

I'm a KJV girl, but the first Bible I loved reading was the Living Bible when I was little, and then the Revised Standard Version.

I still prefer KJV for memorizing even for younger kids, but for reading enjoyment / joy for young kids, you might want to just look at one of the above versions.

[kiwik]

Sorry I thought reading the KJV bible and nothing else at all.

[Curious_Papaya]

 

Some interesting info about the KJV:

https://margmowczko.com/7-things-about-the-king-james-bible/

Based on how the KJV was made and the manuscripts they used, I wouldn't use it for study.  But I probably will have my kids read some passages in KJV when we cover that section of history.  I'm more concerned with my kids knowing the big picture of scripture and I think that's easier with a modern translation. I grew up with NKJV and even that was a bit difficult for me to understand as a kid.

[Ting Tang]

I was not, (the Good News Bible was mine) and I started reading it with my children last year.  I found it pretty difficult.  But we are at it again this year, and I have a much better appreciation for it.

[Brittany1116]

I don't recall anyone ever talking about versions through my childhood. We all read KJV because it was widely available, and I had no issues with Thee/Thou etc. I didn't see any other version until I bought a "pretty" NIV in college, which I didn't like.

For daily reading, I now prefer ESV. However, I constantly cross-reference with KJV. I will also on occasion glance at NLT and another which escapes me now, via the YouVersion "compare" button. 

My kids have new ESV Bibles now. We have a few others in the house, as well. One church we attended for a while recommended NIrV but we never looked into it. 

[Grace-Faith JF]

I taught my children to read the KJV version and they were able to grasp it easily. I also use the Strongs KJV Bible Concordance with my children as well.

[Lecka]

My childhood Bible was KJV but I was happy to change to NIV.  My husband was both raised with KJV and raised with it being a really big deal to use KJV.  He has turned out to be fine with NIV, because there is too much distraction for me with KJV.  I appreciate this is a non-issue for many people but it is the case for me.  
 

What is awkward is my ILs made it such an issue that we know what they think about it, but I cannot choose what translation to read based on their preferences.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

I was raised with KJV but prefer NASB for myself and also for the Bible teaching that I do for children.  I personally think that NASB adheres better to the more original manuscripts.  I also think that despite the beauty of some of the KJV (which I admit that I tend to revert to when I'm remembering things from memory because that's the version I learned it in), the NASB is more accessible to more people.  Neither KJV or NASB are "easy" translations though.  The NASB is rated at an 8th grade reading level, I believe. 

[goldenecho]

I was not raised reading soley the KJB.   My mom's "big family bible" was one with four different translations in it.  I tended to read from one of the other ones.  When, as a teen, I got interested in the Renaissance fair, what I did do is use the KJB to help teach me Elizabethan English (or close enough...I guess "King James" English...which was just slightly after that, but still).  I would at least have the NKJB or another more modern version available so your child can cross reference when they don't understand the meaning of an antiquated phrase.

My understanding is that the KJB is actually not the most accurate translation though (since the KJB we've learned more about translation and also found some older copies of the books of the Bible since the KJB was written, and those were factored into many newer translations).

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by goldenecho