For those that do, why do you study the KJV bible?

Answer 1

Dear Space Guy,

While the KJV is the first Bible that I received, like Lion of Judah, I use several translations of the Bible. My minister uses the NKJV for reading in church but in Sunday school and Bible study people use a variety of translations.

I have a copy of the Precise Parallel NT with 8 versions. I can't read the Greek but the other 7 translations say the same things.

The book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth by Gordon D. Fee & Douglas Stuart has some very interesting things to say about the KJV in case you want to do some reading.

Reading and studying God's Word in almost any translation is the thing that is of primary importance. I do not include the NWT in the "almost".

Answer 2

Unless you go back to the Hebrew and the Greek, the KJV is the most reliable. It was translated from the "Textus Receptus" or Received Text.

They are the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. It is from these manuscripts that the King James Bible was translated in 1611.

The more "modern" translations are from the Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts, many times, do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are part of this group. These are the manuscripts on which Westcott and Hort and the modern versions rely so heavily. Therefore they are not reliable in most circumstances.

One other item to consider is that most "modern" Bibles, including the NIV are copyrighted. In order to copyright a translation from previous workl, it has to be changed enough not to be mistaken for the original work. The NIV, for example, removed 17 entire verses and over 64,000 words in order to qualify for a copyright. There are other examples as well in which verses have been changed so drastically that they leave the verses unreadable.

Can you still be saved by following the newer translations? Yes, the basic elements to salvation, for the most part, are still in tact.

It is safer, though to study from the KJV.

Answer 3

I tried several different versions before I settled on the New KJV, then after awhile I switched to the KJV. It's hard to explain why, but when I tried the others, I either couldn't understand them, ( I would read the same paragraph over and over but just couldn't grasp it) or with some (I won't say which one so as not to offend anyone) I actually had a bad feeling about it. When I picked up the NKJV, it felt right in my hands- comfortable, and kind of warm- and I knew it was the right one for me. Later I joined a church that also uses the KJV.

Answer 4

I do not just Study the KJV only, but the NIV, NKJ, NLT, NASB and use a Strongs and Vines concordance while studying it.
Understand, the KJ Bible was written in the year 1611 translated in Old English, this is the reason we hear words like Thou, Hast, thee's and such, this is not how the anc ient hebrews or greeks talked but how the Old English people talked in 1611, the newer versions of the Bible use more commonly used words known today, some versions are not word for word, but meaning for meaning, like the NIV for example.

Answer 5

I am a Muslim;active in InterReligious Dialogue.I prefer KJV for protestant-studies and the JerusalemBible for Catholic studies. The reason: Good,classical English language.Reads like a Holy book if compared with 'revised' 'standard' versions, on the criterion of language-style only. Also, KJV presents Christianity as we Muslims believe it to be like.

Answer 6

It is the oldest English translation of the bible directly from the original Greek and Hebrew. It is often considered the "traditional English bible". It is the most widely accepted English version (making it easier to discuss with someone who doesn't go to the same preacher).

There are newer versions, but the KJV is considered classic literature and all newer English translations are spin offs of the KJV.

Answer 7

I've wondered that myself. It is full of deliberate errors. James instructed the translators to remove " anything that smacks of popery". Small example in Luke Chap 2 vs 14:
KJV: "Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth , goodwill to men."
Should read ".............peace on earth, to men of good will." Think about it....big difference

Math Chap 6 vs 11. In the KJV the words " for thine is the kingdom etc. were added for poetic purposes. Were the words of Jesus not poetic enough. When it was translated in 1611, there was a lot of animosity surrounding religion so nothing from that period should be held as "Gospel" truth. RSV is a very good translation. Personally I use "The Jerusalem Bible".

Answer 8

It is the early Modern English translation. It is the language of Shakespeare's era, and is the only English source quoted more often than Shakespeare. As for it being a word for word translation, that is an outright lie. The translation was politically adjusted for the era and there are numerous word choices that are contextually inaccurate.

Answer 9

You know that's funny. I had the Good News Bible (I dunno what version) when I was a kid. (Hey. Private schools do that. Kudos 4 learning WORLD history back then.) So I never really paid attention to that. But some LONG YEARS later, by chance, picked up a KJV. It's interesting to me in various ways.

Answer 10

It is the most enduring version and the one that has had the most amount of research of the canon/original languages applied in an effort to provide the most accurate translation of the original languages, so that the common man could read and understand it.