Is the KJV the best translation available?

Question

Amidst all the bible translations is there one I can really trust?

Answer 1

All the recent translations that you'll find in a Christian Bookstore are good. Some are meant as thought-for-thought or paraphrased translations to make for easier reading. Word for word translations more accurately represent the original text.

The most accurate word for word translation would be the NAS and NASU. Most people consider the KJV to be very good, but it can be hard to understand in places. The NIV translates with a dynamic equivalent approach, more of a thought for thought interpretation.

It is best not to argue over translations, but to read the Bible and live its teachings. There are no major differences between the recent translations that would affect any orthodox Christian doctrine. Even the most accurate translation is not helpful if you cannot understand what it's saying.

I personally like the NASB (New American Standard Bible) for study and for fun I like to read The Message (this one was translated in just how we speak today but is not a good one for study).

After reading some of the replies about the KJV I had to post more:

Question: "KJV Only movement? Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use?"

Answer: Many have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500's. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based the Textus Receptus, just at the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - http://www.kj21.com/ All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus.

Perhaps the ultimate proof of this fact is that KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way, shape, of form. It is undeniable that the KJV contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. Other than the KJV21, this has not been done...and the KJV21 definitely has not been accepted. Any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in attacks of heresy and perversion of the Word of God by KJV Only advocates. When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not how they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. Why should English speakers and readers today be forced to use a Bible translation that is not translated in the English they read and speak? The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change.

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every translation contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. In my study and teaching, I use several of the different translations in addition to studying the original languages. By comparing and contrasting the different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. My loyalty is not to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Answer 2

The KJV was a great effort 500 years ago. It was translated into modern English then, but the language has changed so much that the KJV is often hard to understand.
Try the English Standard Version - it is very consistent with the original Greek.

This isn't to say that other translations can't be trusted - the translators have different goals. Some try to do a word for word translation, like the KJV and the ESV. The NIV is very popular and does more of a phrase by phrase translation, because Ancient Greek and Modern English are so different from one another. Then versions like 'The Message' and 'Today's English Bible' can't really be considered translations, but more like 'thought for thought' interpretations, trying to shed light on the intent of the original authors in ways that modern readers can understand.

Happy Reading!

Answer 3

Try www.bible.org

It is the home of the New English Translation which is free to download. (there is also an excellent article by a leading Greek Scholar and Christian leader on why the King James is no longer a good translation (Dan Wallace)).

Calling the King James the best translation is deceptive at worst and misinformed at best. Most scholarly translations these days translate from the best manuscripts from the original language. Those who claim that other tranlations "attack" the divinity of Christ are on some really shaky ground, considering the fact that more evangelical Chrisitians Don't use the King James.

Also, I don't think that the original Translators of the King James would support the idea of using it today. Consider the fact that when the King James version came out centuries ago, many criticised it for being too easy to understand. These days, people REVERE it because it is hard to understand (they won't even trust a NEW King James Version!).

Most of those who Believe in the King James only have a substandard education or are committed to an agenda. They seem to think that they are the holiest of all Christians... which is always suspicious (considering that we are all equally sinful!)

:)

Answer 4

It is one of the few I trust the most. I have tested this version many times against the Greek textus receptus and does very well, for the most part.

I would stay away from paraphrases, such as, The Message, Good News Bible, New Living Translation, etc. They may seem innocuous, however, they contain the author's personal interpretation of the text.

If you prefer an easy reading Bible, try the New KJV.

Answer 5

I have a BA in Theology and am half way through my Masters.

The best translation for biblical study---my professors all INSIST that we have it is : RSV.

For every day reading? NASB is pretty good---although as a good theological doctor said once, "The best translation of the bible is the one that you WILL read".

You may want to read into the philosophy behind any given translation. Some want to be as close literally to the original greek+ or hebrew----some want to try to get to the best english 'phrase' and are not so concerned about exact wording.

Of course, there are nuances that we will never fully appreciate because of the english translation from the ancient languages. My Hebrew proff was showing us instances where there was some very funny things written that do not translate----based on that they rhyme in hebrew but not in english. One great example of this has to do with Issac's name----in Hebrew his name means 'laughter' because Sarah laughed at God as he was telling Abraham inside the tent that his old, dried out wife would concieve a son.......

Answer 6

King James is still the best. The reason I adhere to this is that until other "versions" came into being that were supposed to be so much better - there was not confusion amongst the "Christians" as to what a verse meant, how it translated, and who or what its reference was. Everyone quoted the scriptures in the same way, etc. I personally find all the versions to be a great tool of Satan to divide the "Christians" from one another with separatist ideas and to divide the Word of God with misnomers and rumors of contradiction and error. When people whine about its outdated and it doesn't relate, then I seriously doubt they have asked the Holy Spirit to reveal unto them what it is they need to know. We do not understand the Old English at times, but when God is ready for us to understand something, He makes it so clear, we go "how did I miss that all these years?" Until He's ready for it's knowledge to be revealed we just keep reading and praying and understanding what he does give us. Understanding God's Word is just like growing up. You do not understand all words and their meanings as you start school compared to what you understand as you graduate.

Answer 7

KJV is the best. If you have ever studied where all the bibles came from you will know how KJV came about. Many men women and children was martyrd so that we could have the KJV. These new versions such as NIV and NKJV leave so much out and they want you to think it is easy to read. They take the thees and thous out, Well it does more than that. It takes out Jesus's name so many times and God's name. Man times where it calls Jesus God's Son they leave that out. If those bibles are so easy to ready why leave out whats important, but I do encourage you to read up where all the bibles came from.

Answer 8

The KJV is the one I use because it's the closest to the 1611 version of God's word. The KJV is God's Holy Word....God breathed and came to the writers from inspiration from God. There are soo many translations out there....and sad enough to say, they all take words out that were there originally. Pray about it...are you a believer? If not, I would love to lead you to Jesus! :)

Answer 9

Many of the Modern Translations are much better than the "KJV". WHY?

People in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version more than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.

Do these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?

The purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.
From almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”

The translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.

The reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.

King James Bible has already been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.”

So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version!

What, then, of the objections raised by persons who say they do not want the King James Bible changed? Since the King James Version has already been changed, they lie on a crumbled foundation. If these persons do not want it changed, then why do they use, instead of a copy of an edition of 1611, an edition that has been changed?

They appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. They do not like the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; they do not want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it. Thus improvement, when needed, is appreciated, even by those who say they object to any changing of the King James translation.

One of the major reasons the Authorized Version is so widely accepted is its kingly authority. There seems little doubt that, had not a king authorized this version, it would not today be venerated as though it had come direct from God

Answer 10

Yes, The King James Version is the Holy Inspired Word of God. Others are man's interpretations of the Bible and fall short of the mark.