Why is the old KJV better than a contemporary translation?

Question

Why do the rules change in innovation when it comes to Bible translations?

Why do some feel the KJV is the inspired version?

If the KJV is inspired, are there other inspired versions for each language on earth? Wouldn't it be unfair if it wasn't?

How can a modern person be more sure of the ancients than he can be of his own contemporaries when it comes to translations?

Do you think God wants his written word to be unfamilar in grammatical form with the people it's trying to reach?The ancient Jews had it in their contemporary grammatical form. Why shouldn't we?

Why are there a large number of Trinitarians in support of the KJV more than any other translation.

Are KJV-Only advocates really a cult? Why or Why not?

Answer 1

QUESTIONS ON KJV BIBLE

Q#1.Why is the old KJV better than a contemporary translation? [ Familiarity counts ].
Q#2.Why do the rules change in innovation when it comes to Bible translations?
Q#3.Why do some feel the KJV is the inspired version? [ 1110 years O.T. inspired ];

Answer #1. KJV Bible 1611 published, at 303 years is 1914 after Christ is an excepted translation by law of man and God, WHAT DID THE WORLD DO WITH THIS INFORMATION RELEASED TO IT IN 1611 TO 1960 AFTER CHRIST?

Q#4. If the KJV is inspired, are there other inspired versions for each language on earth? Wouldn't it be unfair if it wasn't? [ 1110 years O.T. inspired BC, to 100 AD ].
Q#5.How can a modern person be more sure of the ancients than he can be of his own contemporaries when it comes to translations? [ 1960 to late for most people ].

Answer #2. At 1110 years O.T. 39 books done, 443 before Christ in Roman Empire # 6. N.T. 27 books done, 50 to 100 years after Christ, this is time inspired, forever.

Q#6.Do you think God wants his written word to be unfamilar in grammatical form with the people it's trying to reach?The ancient Jews had it in their contemporary grammatical form. Why shouldn't we?

Answer #3. People born 1611 to 1960, where was the choice they had, if the KJV had any improvements in this period of time, I am sure all were grateful, learning is more successful if a person clings to what is familiar, no matter what else is available.

Q#7.Why are there a large number of Trinitarians in support of the KJV more than any other translation.

Answer #4. KJV Bible does not teach trinity. John 17:3,5,24; Col.1:15-17; Rev.3:14; Matt.3:16,17; 16:16,17; John 14:13-15,26,28; 17:1-16; 20:17; Acts 2:27-31; Matt.22:30-40;

Q#8.Are KJV-Only advocates really a cult? Why or Why not?

Answer #5. The Amplified, The New Living, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Learning Bible, that are used a very few years compared to all the years the King James Versions was available, and all bibles are just about the same. Any one is so much better off to have learned the most difficult translation first, having scripture at the finger tips because of years of familiarity is very important.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the KJV Bible 1611 translation, [ no matter any errors or difficulties ], and it is what God made available to the world as promised at Dan.8:12-14 [ 2300 years after Babylon Empire #3 [ was 606 BC ], Word of truth circulating, not trodden underfoot any more, but in the world 1694, so what else was in the world 1694 after Christ?

Learning a religion out of the thousands, any one of the religions learned, is different than learning the bible. Any one that has a desire to know the bible, has got to study religions and compare them to the bible. This is all the protection one needs from a sect or cult involvement or just plainly involved in repeating and acting on something some man said, that absolutely is not scripture.

Answer 2

Of course modern English is better. The King James is poetic. With so many translations, it helps to have something to compare them with. Really, some of the new stuff is so great, but some are horrible. Too many are exaggerated King James', if you know what I mean. They aren't an improvements, but attempts too use the KJ too perpetuate myths. So to say the KJ is worse, or all new translations are good, is not so.
Some do make a cult around it and there are dead bodies to prove it. In the end if an angel leads you to God, you would expect him then to step aside so you can see the full glory. The bible is a tutor and not God.
As for why trinitarians like it? It's because the translators where trinitarians, when they had to choose between English words to use, they used words that could be taken two ways, even if it was a poorer choice although not exactly incorrect.
I suspect some feel it ' the only inspired version, because they have seen some bad stuff in the modern ones. Often I think they are just used to and converted on it and don't know much about either that well, except for some quotes out of context. And there are a lot of other reasons. The newer ones expose their doctrinal errors. They're afraid to look at anything new for fear they will be corrupted, which would be funny if it weren't so sad. If you in a box, any way is out. We were told to "Try all things, hold fast to what is fine." "Test me and see that I am good." Wouldn't looking at the world impartialy be, "the spirit of truth"? How can you get at the truths in the bible, if you already have your mind made up from tradition? The mind is so small and He is so great, how can we say we know until we do and the type of behavior your talking about shows some more spirit is needed. They don't realize that truth does make sense. Don't worry. These are the times for the truth to come out and some will get it quicker than others. Be patient with them, they are under a lot of stress as are Muslims and even Atheists. It's a unique time in history.

Answer 3

I think it depends on the version. Some, such as the NIV, are researched and translated by teams of highly quailfied people. They look to the original greek and hebrew text and do a really good job.
Other. such as the Message, are done by one person and in the end are more of a comentary than an actual Bible.
I have no problem with using more modern language, but I do have a problem with people trying to put the Bible into their own words.
Although strictly using the KJV does not make you a cult, it is typical of several cults. It may be a good warning sign, but not 100%.
The Bible was written to be understood by anyone who would want to read it, but at the same time a translation should not distort the original meaning

Answer 4

The KJV is a masterpiece of human effort translate Gods word. But, thats all it is.
The NIV is a much better read. The HCSB and NASB are much better that the KJV in accuracy, but not in reading.

Those who believe the KJV is the only Bible for English speaking people today are either in a cult or close.

There is nothing wrong with the KJV, it is an excellent translation, but written for another time.

Answer 5

Why are there a large number of Trinitarians in support of the KJV more than any other translation.

I can answer this one. It has to do with the Johannine Comma, which was inserted in to the 1611 KJV. It is the only real support for the trinity in the whole bible, and it was literally created a few hundred years after the bible was written and inserted in the one of John's Epistles.

The link below has good info on it.

Answer 6

The Septuagint Version (285 BC) – This was a translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Probably done in Alexandria. The Samaritan Pentateuch BC?) – A copy of the Hebrew text done in Samaritan characters. The Peschito or Syriac (1st or 2nd Century AD) – A common language translation of the entire Bible used in parts of Syria. The Codex Sinia us(330 AD) – A manuscript that contained the Greek Bible. It was purchased from Russia in 1933 by Great Britain and is now housed in the British Museum. The Codex Vatican us (340 AD) – this manuscript is currently housed in the Vatican library in Rome. It originally contained the whole Bible, but parts have been lost. The Vulgate (400 AD) – A Roman Catholic scholar in Bethlehem by the name of Jerome translated the entire Bible into Latin. This Bible became the standard in the Catholic church for well over 1,000 years. The Codex Alexandrinus (425 AD) – This Bible is another Green translation. It is currently housed in the British museum, complete except 40 leaves. Early English Versions All of the earliest attempts at translating the Bible into English were fragmented. For example, Bishop Aldhelm of Sherbourne translated the Psalm into Old English around 709. Venerable Bede, a monk at Jarrow, translated a potion of the Gospel of John. By 900 AD all the Gospels and most of the Old Testament had been translated into Old English. John Wycliffe (1380) – was the first to plan a complete English translation of the Bible from the Latin. His translation was based on the Latin Vulgate. He completed the New Testament prior to his death, and his friends completed the work after his death.

Answer 7

I used to be a part of a KJV-only movement, and one of the reasons I left is that to argue so much about a translation REALLY seems to be missing the forrest for the trees.

If idolatry is anything that takes the place of God, even the Bible can be an idol. If that's true (and it is), KJV-onlyers are putting more trust in the Bible than in God when they say that God's Spirit can/will only work through that translation.

Answer 8

Conservative denominations and pastors cling to the KJV because it uses language that they like. It's not so much a matter of preferring the most accurate translation as preferring the one which supports their theology more.

NIV is similar -- it was indeed translated by Biblical scholars, but was intentionally translated to conform to conservative Protestant doctrine. The KJV is mostly just old, and the translators had fewer resources on their hands.

Answer 9

There are those Christians that hold so tight to conservativism that they want to insist that this Bible is the true translation, and that if modern people translate it, there will be too many errors, in spite of the fact that it will no doubt be easier to understand God's word if it is written in modern English.

Not to mention there are so many modern translations that they might actually have to make a choice. OH NO!

Answer 10

KJV IS THE MOST GRAMATTICALY INCORRECT TRANSLITERATION OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES ON RECORD.HE ONLY ACCEPTED 66 BOOKS FROM THE 81 ORIGINAL CANNONICAL BOOKS DUE TO ENGLANDS WRETCHEDNESS OF SLAVERY AND PLUNDERING IN 16TH CENTURY .IT WAS RE WRITTEN 46 TIMES AND RE TRANSLATED TO SUIT EUROCENTRIC IDEAS,NOT EDITED FOR PEOPLE OF COLOUR.KING JAMES HAD MANY WIVES AND WAS ONE OF THE LAST WESTERN RULERS TO MAKE THE BIBLR LEGAL IN BRITISH SOCIETY AFTER BURNING TYNDALE A BRITISH TRANSLATOR AND HID HIS BIBLE VERSION SO HE FORMED ANGLICAN CHURCH AND BANISH THE RULING CATHOLIC CHURCH WHICH DOMINATED EUROPE.FRANCE WAS PRINTING BIBLES BEFORE ENGLAND WHO OUTLAWED BIBLES,ONTHE OTHER HAND ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN BIBLES WERE IN OTHERLANGUAGES PROPERLY TRANSLATED.THERE ARE MORE THAN 40 DIFFERENT EDITIONS OF THE BIBLETRANSLATION AND THE CATHOLIC ENGLISH BIBLE IS ONE OF THE MOST ACCURATE IN ENGLISH TO THE ORIGINAL TONGUES PRESERVED IN ETHIOPIAN CHURCH TODAY.PSALM 87 STATES HER FOUNDATION IS IN THE HOLY MOUNTAINS WHILE KING JAMES SAID HIS FOUNDATION IS IN THE HOLY MOUNTAINS ....SO KING JAMES WAS PATRIARCHAL AND DID NOT BELIEVE IN MATRIARCHICAL RIGHTS OR WOMEN RIGHTS...