The King James bible has some of the most beautiful poetry in the English language. I will always prefer it to any other translation. Of course don't believe the religious parts and little of the history so I can choose poetry over accuracy of translation.

I am Typo Boy.

Erin, I wasn't worried about an eating disorder. I just pester people about getting enough protein. It's a thing.

I am doing laundry and watching Who. And I'm going to look up my health insurance stuff to see if I can do any appointments this month.

Remember the Good News Bible? It was popular in the 1970s, I think, and written for non-native English speakers, et al, and in "everyday language".

So gross. I can see the point of it, but I hated it.

Amy, that's the version we were given in 4th grade. Oddly (or maybe not so), I'm not sure where that and my NRSV are.

Was it printed in the Methodist Hymnal or something?

If it was just a reading, that's not something dictated by the Methodist church conference or anything - a pastor, or lay reader for that matter, depending on how much control the pastor wants, can choose among Bible translations.

I completely agree that shall not want is prettier language and can't imagine choosing a different translation for that Psalm, though.

Oh, monster, it was just a general FYI, spurred by mom.

And no, the steak may be accompanied by dish with butter and followed by chocolate dish, but not all squished together!

(Delurking for real)

Sox (and others), I'm with you regarding the Psalm 23 translation. And it's not just a question of pretty language. There's a difference between "I shall not want" and "I have all I need." The first suggests that God will make sure we want for nothing, because God is our shepherd and will look after us. The second suggests that we already have what we need. But if that's the case, why would we need God? I've sung the updated version in contemporary settings of the psalm, but I've never liked it.

My wonderfully liberal church denomination, thanks to its commitment to use inclusive language in hymns and liturgy, came out with a revised hymnal many years ago. I don't mind most of the revised texts, but they took out all the "thees" and "thous"! I've never understood why -- there's nothing sexist about "thee" and "thou," is there? It's especially irksome in the Christmas songs. It's all wrong to sing "shall come to you, O Israel" instead of "shall come to thee." I always sing the original words anyway. 'Cause I'm a rebel.

Thee and thou are not gender specific; they are archaic usages of "you." They're gender-neutral and like "you," can be used as 2nd person singular and plural.

Nothing sexist about 'em.

I know! I've never understood why removing gender-specific language from a text means removing the poetry as well. The editors of our hymnal had good intentions but also tin ears when it comes to language. (Which is not to say I want to go back to all the "he's" and "hims" and "good will to men" and all that. But an occasional "thee" and "thine" would be nice.)

The King James Bible is also informs the language of most English-speaking writers until into the 20th century. It was the only book most households owned. Not being familiar with the language handicaps any student of English and American literature.

I agree - shall not want is forward looking. I have all I need sounds like a fixed point in time. I should have said, maybe, more evocative language. Now, I actually don't know which translation is closer to the original intent of the author, but I prefer the first idea, which is more fluid and forward looking.

I'm unclear whether the reading was from a Methodist text, like the hymnal, or just a particular Bible translation chosen by the celebrant, was my main point.

Not being familiar with the language handicaps any student of English and American literature.

Too true.