[pbhjpbhj]

>the "King James" version is considered the standard within the Anglican churches in the UK

I don't find this to be true. Even at high mass ('bells & smells' type communion) you get more modern versions. To my recollection NIV would be most common. Obviously not a representative survey. Also, it might be at traditional/formal services you get [N]KJV as I've been to less of those.

Amongst very old people you see strong support for KJV because that's what they learnt 70 years ago. It sounds very archaic to modern ears. I'd say KJV hasn't been favoured this side of the millennium.

Just my impression.

[celebril]

A bit of correction: the version you'll most likely see being used across the Church of England nowadays is NRSV. It's the scholarly translation.

NIV is the preferred translation for the low-church side, the evangelicals, so definitely won't be used by the bells-and-smells high church crowd. KJV is preferred by a niche who also prefers the Book of Common Prayer liturgy over Common Worship. Usually this is either an older population, a certain ethnic subgroup with calcified traditions, or old-school low church folks (so not modern evangelicals) who prefer the old ways and even the Thirty-Nine Articles.

[devilbunny]

> It's the scholarly translation

And even then, only written at IIRC ninth-grade level (don't know the UK term; ages 14-15). I bought one in college because it was the highest-reading-level Bible they had at Barnes and Noble (major US bookseller; think Waterstones) and I wanted a decent text for some religion classes.

[pbhjpbhj]

You're right re [N]RSV in CoE. But I think of Anglican - perhaps wrongly - as extending outside CoE to encompass a range of reformed Protestant communions. I've seen NIV used in CoE too, but yes NRSV too and more often.