King James Version

The King James Version Bible was translated in 1611. The Bible had been translated into English before that, but never the way the King James Version was. Many people have attacked the character of King James, and, to be honest, he was something of a character. One of the last people that you would expect to be interested in the Bible, but, it had come to his attention that his subjects wanted a Bible that they could trust, and there were various arguments against each of the existing translations. At the same time, the Roman Catholic Church made it very clear that the Bible should be studied in the original languages, Greek and Hebrew. This did not sit well with a lot of people. This would mean either going to school and learning ancient languages, or depending on religious leaders to explain what the Bible said. Some believed that was exactly what the church intended, for people to remain ignorant except for what their local parish priest taught them. This could, conceivably, give a lot of power to the church. In Great Britain, of course, that would be the Church of England, not the Roman Catholic Church, but, still. James gathered together the most learned men of the ancient tongues at Oxford, Westminster, and Cambridge and gave them a mandate: Produce an accurate translation of the Bible in English. James himself went to a number of rare book auctions and purchased the oldest texts that he could. 56 men, renowned scholars of Greek and Hebrew, divided up into groups and began translating. Much time was spent debating on what was the best English translation for this term or that term in the original language. It didn't get put into print until they had reached an agreement. The king had commanded them to produce an accurate translation, so they put their best into it. It’s an interesting thing. In Spain, a similar outcry had been made a few years earlier (perhaps influencing the uproar in England), and an evangelist named Casiodoro de Reina translated the Bible into Spanish in 1569 (at least, he is normally credited with it; many scholars who have studied the work have concluded that it was a collaborative effort, they just don't know who else was involved). Later another man named Cipriono de Valera oversaw a revision of the work in 1602. This became known as the Reina-Valera Santa Biblia (Reina-Valera Holy Bible). In Germany, Martin Luther not only started his own protestant church, but used the education that he had received from the Catholic Church to translate the Bible into German. Luther published the complete Bible in German in 1534. This became known as the Lutherischen Bibel (Lutheran Bible).I do not know for sure, because I am not a linguist by any means, but I am told that these three Bible translate directly back and forth between them with no contradiction. I have looked at the 1602 Reina-Valera Santa Biblia, and attempted to compare it with the King James Version, and, from my limited knowledge of Spanish, it holds up very well. I thought I had found a couple of discrepancies, but, both times, it involved words that have changed meanings since the early 1600's. Of course, as I said, my Spanish vocabulary is extremely limited, so I am not the best person to be making such comparisons.
The point is, although a lot of people attack the KJV, it is known to be an accurate translation. Some people prefer more modern translations, because the language is easier to understand. I haven't gone through every one of the modern translations; there may be some that are quite accurate. I have been less than impressed with the accuracy of those that I have checked. I also have a tendency to be suspicious of the motivations of people trying to produce new translations. It may be that they are simply trying to put the Bible in more modern terms, to make it easier to understand, but, it may also be that there is something, or perhaps several things, in the King James that they don't like, so, producing a whole new Bible, using contemporary language as an excuse, but changing those things that they don't agree with. My feeling is that, even though the language of the King James is awkward sometimes, it can be understood; it just takes a little prayer and effort. So, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And, if there really is a problem with the King James, how many tries does it take us to fix it? There are a whole lot of modern translations out there, and there are more on the way. If one of the existing modern translations is accurate, then what purpose would be served by producing another one?