When it comes to translation accuracy, how come the Bible is the exception to the rule for KJV advocates?

Question

Translations are transfers of text from one language to another. As in any field of expertise, you will use the tools available at that time to accomplish the project. With all that said, I do not understand how a translation made with rather "aged" translation techniques could be superior to a translation made in our modern times with up-to-date resources and insight into ancient culture. If you would apply the KJV-Only mentality to any other field of study and our civilization would be severely "retarded" in development. Applying the KJV-Only mentality to the medical field would still have us using leeches to treat the flu. I do not understand what makes 21century linguists inferior to dark ages linguists. Why can't our generation produce a worthy translation? What makes those Old English scholars so special? Is this just another of case of "tradition hampering development." I haven't had any dreams latetly of God telling me the KJV is His "Inspired Word". Have you?

Answer 1

Well, it's a very well known fact that King James changed portions of the Bible to suit his own paranoia and beliefs. For instant, it is not "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." It is "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." King James was dealthy afraid of being cursed by witches, so he changed that to justify witch hunts.

KJV adherents like that book because of the changes, which you will not find in modern translations, since modern translations generally don't respect what Jamie changed.

)O(

Answer 2

No, you are correct here and most conservative Bible students will agree with you. I have a KJV and use it, but probably the least amount. I use the NIV more than any translation, then NLT, and NASB, and ESV. There is no question that the modern translations are far more accurate that the older ones. The KJV is most definably a serious scholarly work of translation art. Especially considering the conditions surrounding its writing. But, today with the availability of so many manuscripts and prior writings, along with the computer as a translation tool , the KJV must take its place on the back seat. It is still usable, but it is not the Bible for English speaking people as it once was. Some will hang on though until they die. And, for them-its okay.

Answer 3

I like the King James Version. It reads beautifully and is an adequate translation. That being said, I believe the manuscript evidence behind more recent translations is superior. They place more emphasis on the antiquity of the manuscripts than the sheer volume. I also think that modern scholars have a better understanding of how to render a particular word or phrase than the KJV translators. Bottom line is, the KJV was an admirable first attempt; but has been improved upon in the RV, ASV, RSV, NASB and, yes, even the NIV.

Answer 4

Touche' I don't have any problem with the King James Version. I have a problem with people saying it is the only one. First you go back to the Hebrew and the greek, and the KJV falls short of describing the words that were used. In Hebrew and in greek, one word represents a color, smell, feeling, sight, etc. The King James worked with what it had to work with. Newer translations do a much better job of the descriptions of the Hebrew and Greek words.

It's not suprising though. Look at most of the churches in America. A lot are restricted to 18th century pews, and 19th century hymns. Or something like that. Warren said it in purpose driven church. Our "tradition" has practically turned into doctrine. If you want to know what i mean by this, enter a KJV only church with pews, and only hymns and try changing those things! I know because my husband and I are in the process of doing it. Several churches have come very close to becoming Pharisee in nature with their traditions. don't lost hope though:

I used to be a King James only person. Rest assured that there is hope that they can be delivered from their mindset. LOL

Answer 5

The KJV was a beautiful literary translation, to begin with.
And though it does have errors in it, it is actually more accurate in many cases than the modern versions.
I admit that the English language is changing to such an extent that King James English is becoming hard to understand. We need modern translations. But we do not yet have one that will really rival the KJV in overall quality.

Answer 6

Pryor to the KJV Bible of 1611, the Bible had been translated from Hebrew to Greek, to German, and then to English. So from the point A to point D much of the accuracy had been lost in all the different translations.

King James took the original Hebrew scrolls along with more than a dozen scholars, and they translated it from Hebrew to English. It is the inspired word of God.

Answer 7

Oh the power of man to cover up. Do you realize the absolute wars that would happen if you tried to change the bible? No offense to anyone but Christians do not like you to mess with their Bibles. I agree with you 100% we know for a fact that the Bible is poorly translated and yet we still throw verse after verse as arguments for things we want to go our way. This is why I go by what I feel God wants and not by a book, a book written by MAN no less. I think if we ever got the true story people would not be happy. Let God guide you not a book.

Answer 8

There is nothing sacred about a translation, it is the concepts recorded that make it the living word of God.

The King James was a standard for 300 years, a lot of theology is tied up in the KJV, perhaps erroneously so. (No example given, just a speculation)

With our age of computers we can have dozens of English translations, dictionaries, and commentaries, many online. We should give serious attention to our resources available now.

May God bless you in your quest.

Answer 9

You have to remember that the KJV of the bible was done with a specific agenda and there are things within its texts that are deliberate and purposeful mistranslations. THAT is why that version is the way it is. They were quite able to translate it more accurrately, however, they wanted to reinforce certain moral and spiritual ideas and the best way to do taht was to purposefully translate things in such a way as to use the bible itself to uphold those ideas on even a poitical front.

Answer 10

I use the KJV, not becuase it is the most accurate translation, it isn't. I use it because it gives clearer picture of where the translaters changed things then any other version I have come across. It does this in many ways, one of them being the italic text used for added words.