I'm currently reading a King James version of the bible?

Question

and find that its difficult for me to comprehend is there other translations that would be easier to understand.

Answer 1

The New World Translation is widely used and is a wonderful translation to present God's Word in modern English.
It is the only translation which uses the name of God (Jehovah) over 7,000 times like it was in the oringinal transcripts. The King James Version only uses the name of Jehovah is a few places such at Psalms 83:18, Genesis 22:14, Exodus 6:3, Exodus 17:15, Isaiah 12:2, Isaiah 26:4, and Judges 6:24.
All other places the translators substited the name of Jehovah for LORD, which is a title, not a name.

Answer 2

The New American Standard Bible and the New International Version are both much easier to read than the King James.

The New World Translation that was translated by Jehovah's Witnesses is also much easier to read than the KJV and as already been mentioned, it uses the name "Jehovah" about 7000 times whereas it is only used a few times in the King James.

It is a bit of a misrepresentation, though, to give the impression that the New World Translation correctly translates YHWH as Jehovah in all of those 7000 places. It is true in most of those scriptures that the Hebrew Tetragrammaton appeared in the original. But over 200 Scriptures where you read "Jehovah' are NOT where God's name appeared in the original manuscripts, but have been changed from "god" or "lord" to "Jehovah" by the Jehovah's Witness translators

Keep in mind that the NWT was translated BY Jehovah's Witnesses who had strong opinions about some things, and sometimes their opinions influenced the way certain scriptures were translated. For example, because JW's believe that Christians MUST engage in a door to door work in order to be saved, they added the word "work" to several scriptures in the book of Revelation, even though the Greek word for work is not to be found or indicated in the original Greek. (See Rev. 6:9, Rev. 12:17, Revelation 19:10)

Answer 3

Please read these quotes:

Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version,
New American Standard Bible,
New International Version,
New Revised Standard Version,
New American Bible,
Amplified Bible,
Today's English Version (Good News Bible),
Living Bible,
and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1


Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University


Example at Phil 2:6 "did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, "

The Greek word for 'grasped' literally means
"robbery, rape, or plunder." which is a big difference from grasped.

What Paul was really saying is that Jesus did not want to steal something that belonged to Jehovah, his Father.

Answer 4

Check out the New King James version. It has basically the same thing in it but instead of the thees and thous, it will have the way you would talk today. If you go to the NIV or some of the other versions it will take you off base sometimes so can be getting you off what is really supposed to be there but as you go you will see the best one for you.

Answer 5

Any version, including the King James and New International, will not be as accurate as a translation. A version is strictly that, version of another version or translation or many, that states the information differently, but without any reference to the original greek and hebrew. Try a good translation that hails back to the original greek and hebrew like the New World Translation.

Answer 6

Trying to understand the Scriptures reading only the English translations is like repairing a 747 Jumbo Jet with a Volks Wagon
manual...it can't be done.
To gain insight into the dark saying and parables the words used to translate the Hebrew must explain the Hebrew Laws and life styles. When you read the word commandment in the English it comes from the Hebrew word Debar, which means LAW.
Ask the average Christian what the definition of sin is, see what they say.
Now if you knew that to break a Laws was sin as 1 John 3:4 states you would know that you should learn the Law so you will not sin.

Check out this great copy of the Hebrew Scriptures to English that is very faithful to the Hebrew Manuscriptes.

http://www.yahweh.com/bookofyahweh.htm

May Holy Spirit that inspired the Hebrew prophets and apostles to write to us bless your understaning in your search for truth.


Obadhawk

Answer 7

Any modern speaking language Bible would be better than the King James Bible.
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?

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, 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 8

I would recommend a parallel Bible, that is one where the verse is presented in 4 different translations, i.e. KJV, NKJV, NIV, and NASB. If one is not available, the NIV or the TEV, sometimes called the Good News version are both printed in modern English and easily understandable. I prefer the KJV as it is the most accurate translation.

Grace and Peace

Answer 9

From comparisons, the KJV is the best translation. It might not be the easiest to understand but once you get past the old english it renders the word of God in its best english form.

Another interesting version in modern english is the Complete Jewish Bible. It brings back the original Jewishness of the Bible and uses some of the Jewish words like Shalom and Adonai.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Jewish-Bible-Testament-Hadashah/dp/9653590154/sr=8-3/qid=1159036536/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-4091606-6306352?ie=UTF8&s=books

The old english is not so archaic but if you have any trouble there is a great KJV dictionary with up to date definitions and word usage to help understand the word in todays language. You will find that most of the words are still used everyday in many books and magazines.

Here is the amazon link to the book.
http://www.amazon.com/Archaic-Authorized-Version-Laurence-Vance/dp/0962889849/sr=8-1/qid=1159036354/ref=sr_1_1/104-4091606-6306352?ie=UTF8&s=books

Check out this video on Google video. It compares and shows the differences between the KJV and the newer versions. This video really shows why the KJV should be the Bible you use.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=42385501735388990&q=prophecy+club

Answer 10

Go online to www.blueletterbible.org You can bring up a chapter and change to one of several versions and you can have it read to you. Then you can see what works for you. I think the King James version is the better.