Strengths of the King Jame's version as a public domain bible

[runningdude]

When looking for a freely available bible passage, I tend to find that the King James usually has the clearest phrasing to the modern ear. For comparison, the Douay-Rheim’s (though theologically accurate throughout), seems use more obscure the language, making it difficult to parse a quick-quote.

I bring this up because CA uses the D-R for its bible quoting feature, and I usually end up quoting another version, such as as the NAB for a clearer version of the passage. Using non-public domain sources though, I have to limit myself to briefer quotes than I might otherwise.

Anyone else have similar experiences?

 

[LoyalViews]

No, I like the DR better. If I don’t understand it, I just check another version like the RSV-CE or NRSV-CE, and maybe the Knox as well to get a better understanding. The KJV does have many strong points though, such as the beautiful Psalms, even if some of them are intentionally scewed.

 

[bmullins]

The only thing I like about the KJV is the poetic nature of it. I think both are about the same on a level of understanding, but I like the RSV-CE for my own studies.

 

[Crumpy]

It was a favorite English version for centuries, some of that popularity was political correctness – that it was NOT a Catholic Bible.

I do like some of the language and imagery in it.

One of its strenghths to this day, even in Catholic circles, is the availability of Strong’s exhaustive concordance. Even modern word-search software versions do not necessarily exceed the usefulness of Strong’s concordance.

I also like the Hebrew and Greek dictionaries.

The american standard version and then more recently the revised standard version were based on KJV. So, thereto, its usefulness is established, even though it is so only indirectly through the more modern versions.