Is KJV an inferior translation to NASB?

Answer 1

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 2

In terms of academic integrity - without a doubt. The textual tools and archaeological finds between the 2 are overwhelming.
In terms of literary merit - probably not. As the first English Bible, the KJV is embedded into the language. NASB while good, will forever be "one more translation."

Case in Point: I'm reading commentaries on Numbers, Proverbs, Amos, and Matthew. When working w/ a difficult text - after the original languages, no commentator turns to the KJV even if they do compare other English translations.

Answer 3

No, it truly is not inferior. KJV, is harder to study, and they say it reads on a larger grade aspect quite. NIV, is a lot less annoying, to study. it truly is extra gentle. KJV, is eye-catching, and older formed, yet wonderful. i recognize the recent King James also. no longer inferior besides the undeniable fact that. It helps comparing the distinct translations in bible study, or in case you go back for the era of a verse it truly is slightly puzzling. Having some distinct variations, do not substitute the meaning, yet can lead them to extra sparkling to you.

Answer 4

Only in one way I can think of. It is based on "newer" (written later than some), and fewer manuscripts. The New American Standard is the closest to the original languages, yet written in english bible we have. Since the King James version was put together, there have been so many more discoveries of even more manuscripts, and more complete ones, etc. They are still boththe word of God. Actually, there is an updated NASB, that is even better. King James is awesome though, and is so beautiful, and what so many grew up with, and memorized with.

Answer 5

No. The KJV is widely accepted by scholars as a more accurate translation than other English versions.

It still helps to learn Hebrew and Greek to better understand the original text.

Answer 6

Absolutely. The KJV was done with a particular agenda and is loaded with purposeful mistranslations to fit what the powers that be at the times wanted it to say rather than what it actually said. Of the farious translations the KJV is the MOST innacurate one I have seen.

Answer 7

NASB has a Protestant axe to grind. KJV is inaccurate, often incomprehensible, and full of errors.

Go witht the RSV, the New Jerusalem, or the REB.

Answer 8

No. King James is great. So is New King James.

A friend who is a serious Bible student also likes the New Living Translation for its accuracy.

You'll never go wrong with the King James, though.

Answer 9

The KJV has unicorns in it. All other translations use the word "Bull" instead. You be the judge.

Answer 10

KJV is the most acurrate translation