Why do people still read the KJV knowing that this commissioned translation is flawed at best?

Question

Why don't more people read The New Jerusalem, or the NIV, or any other translation that isn't the King James?

What scholars? I think that any linguistics scholar would argue that point.

Answer 1

(:-o)
it still serves a purpose
in conjunction with the Strong's Concordance, it permits a person to check the scriptures to see if the translation they prefer stands up to the original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek.

Answer 2

The people who say that the KJV is the closest translation to the original are just wrong, and there are objective reasons for this.

First of all, the KJV was published in 1611, since then we have more transcripts to work from, including the dead sea scrolls which help scholars do a better jobs of resolving the minor differences in the text.

Secondly, we know ancient languages much better than the scholars of 1611 did. Remember that Hebrew was a dead language that was revived in the 20th century. The scholars in 1611 didn't know Akkadian, an early Semitic language that pre-dates Hebrew. As a result, modern scholars can do a much better job of translating the Old Testament than the scholars of 1611 could. I just finished a years worth of graduate level biblical Hebrew in Divinity School so I know what I am talking about here.

The KJV is a good translation, but it is not, as many argue, the best translation. In class, the translation we use the most often is the New Revised Standard version. It does a great job of pointing out all of the translation issues and discrepancies in the text.

And one more point for the folks who talk about the changes that have been made to the text, are you aware that the great Isaiah scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 50's is an almost word for word copy of the book of Isaiah we use today.

Answer 3

1st off the NIV leaves verses out. The bible tells us not to add or take away from Gods word. Try to find these scriptures in your NIV-Matthew 12:47 Matthew 17:21 Matthew 18:11 Matthew 21:44 Matthew 23:14 Mark 7:16 Mark 9:44 Mark 9:46 Mark 11:26 Mark 15:28 Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) Luke 17:36 Luke 22:44 Luke 22:43 Luke 23:17 John 5:4 John 7:53-8:11 Acts 8:37 Acts 15:34 Acts 24:7 Acts 28:29 Romans 16:24 I John 5:7
It removes meaningful, well-known Bible words like Calvary, Lucifer, new testament, regeneration, etc. Most of the modern Bibles line up very closely with the NIV--and so does the New World Translation--the Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses which predates the NIV! People don't you get it that Satan doesn't want you to learn Gods word.



Amen Mr Mister

Answer 4

Its not flawed. It was translated by 51 scholars, university professors. It was translated from ORIGINAL greek and hebrew documents. The men worked in groups and in shifts to translate it. They were spicifically instructed not to add foot notes, or words. This took them 7 years to do. The KJV is the most accurate translation, was not made to meet a chusrch ideal, such as Tynsdales translation was. You should learn more about it before you make such assesments. I have researched it, and other translations.

The NIV that you state IS the KJV, updated. Just easier to understand. KJV is the closest translation on the market.

Answer 5

The best version is the Scholar's Bible: the New Oxford Annotated Bible. This has the most recent translation, using the oldest texts available, and it used a team of scholars. Any debate is in the footnotes, which are detailed and extensive. (This version is used in academic study.)

Some people like the KJV because of its poetic qualities. It's comparable to reading Shakespeare, yet as difficult because the phrases and terminology is more difficult that just switching "thou" for "you." Other people use it because (I am not kidding when I say this) their church leaders believe that the KJV is the Bible that Paul used!

Answer 6

Most top biblical authorities acknowledge that all versions of the bible have gone through revisions, both formal and informal, and that no current translations can claim to be "pure." Much of this finds its way back to the transcription process before that advent of the printing press. Individual scribes often reworded, added and/or deleted material they thought would "improve" the book. Selection of the gospels of the Bible by the Roman Catholic Church were for their own political and theological reasons, there being many more gospels than those gathered in the Bible.

So, read the version that speaks to you and let others do the same.

Answer 7

Actually, the KJV is considered by most scholars to be more accurate than NIV or any other english translation. It's just harder to read for most people.

Answer 8

The Bible is just a man-made play script, with several actors God, Devil, Jesus, Satan, Adam, Eve etc, and of course some intriguing imaginary places like Heaven, Hell, Purgatory and Limbo.

I certainly don’t believe in the Bible and I doubt any reasonably intelligent person would either. However, if you view the Bible as a man-made play script, with several actors God, Devil, Jesus, Satan, Adam, Eve, Noah, and so on, then you can certainly start to see a clever interwoven plot, that the audience is unaware of. It’s really just a drama thriller with clever twists.

You see, if you seriously think about it in an unbiased manner, then clearly the actor God in the Bible could really be the Devil, and the audience (religious believers) are being sucked into being the bad guys, who then use religion to get everyone fighting each other.

On the other hand, the more intelligent audience (Atheists) spot the plot and try their best to teach believers that this is just nonsense, stop getting sucked in. Some people have over time decided that the play is real. That's very sad.

The Bible is really just a fake story, perhaps a bit like the Loch Ness monster tales.

When we pass on information to another (example: story, joke, description of something etc) by the time these details are passed on by word of mouth, interpreted by others, and then written down, the final details are typically quite different than the original information.

Since the Bible is just a man-made story passed down over many years in various forms, the chance of it being accurate in any shape or form is remote.

There are people who swear blind that the Loch Ness monster exists regardless of all the evidence to the contrary, but a fence post bobbing up and down in the Loch does the trick. Similarly there are people who swear blind that God exists and the Bible is fact, yet there isn’t one blind bit of evidence to support such theories.

Biblical tales are really no different than Loch Ness monster tales, just the era is different.

Answer 9

Good ???, it's the worst translation on the Earth.

Because they think it's God Sent, it has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.
.
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 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

It was one of the first Bibles.
It was the one printed on the Gutenberg press, you know the press that Gutenberg said that Bible would never be printed on.
It is time honored.
The NIV is OK.
I don't know about the NEW JERUSALEM.
I know of 11 other translations and I read them.
If you know how I could procure the original manuscripts, I would read them. You gota do the best you can with what you have to work with.

Answer 11

Flawed just scratches the surface. Almost the whole of KJV is a work of errors.

Pick up "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D. Ehrman. Google the book and read the synopsis.