How can people claim that the King James version of the Bible is 'not accurate'?

Question

Surely, being an earlier version, it's more likely to be like the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures than later versions (which have all be modernised anyway)?

If the Word of God is for all time then why change how it is written to make it more pleasant?

Answer 1

Why would the KJV have any MORE validity than any later translations? It was not translated by the best of the scholars, and was indeed not even translated from original manuscripts, but from Latin, which was the language of the Catholic Church at that time. The Latin texts had been translated from the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

I don't know about all later translations, but the NIV is much more based on original manuscripts where they were available. Many of the original texts were destroyed following the Nicene Council, so in those cases, the revised translations merely reflect more modern usage of English. (KJV was translated more than a thousand years after the Nicene Council.)

I am amazed every time I hear of someone who actually believes that Jesus and his followers spoke King James English.

Answer 2

The Hebrew/Greek Scriptures are the best way to understand the original meaning but even then you need to weigh the context of the times as well as the lingo, styles, influences, etc. So sure, the Word of God is for all time, so why don't we all learn Greek so we can read the scriptures in the Koine Greek...

The KJV Bible was written in the "common man's language" in the 1600s. Do we still speak like this on a daily basis? It's translated in more modernized ways to communicate the correct concepts that were in the Hebrew and Greek hopefully FROM the Hebrew and Greek.

Granted there are so many translations now-a-days to chose from (no doubt influenced to copyright laws and such) but the main desire is for people to understand what God is communicating in a way we could understand.

Answer 3

1. It is not entirely faithful to the original languages the bible was written in.

2. the original 1611 version of the KJV included the Apocrapha, which is not recognized as cannon scripture.

3. Much of the KJV is a rewrite of the earlier Coverdale translation, which is based on the Latin Vulgate and other earlier sources.

4. Which KJV did the German and French Protestants use?

5. The Pilgrims and the Puritans did not use the King James. They used an earlier translation of the Geneva Bible.

6.God speaks to people in their own languages, so they might clearly understand Him.

7. The King James translators did deliberate violence to some passages because the original languages did not fit their preconceived ideas of what Scripture should say. Their are several examples.

Answer 4

There is no modern version of the Bible, including King James which is absolutely correct, without blemish. Not even what some consider to be the original Greek and Hebrew. I'm sorry, but the original texts just are not available, no matter how much anyone tries to convince you otherwise.

There are error in the Bible. But for the most part, those errors do not change the core doctrines that can be found there.

Answer 5

King James Version and the New International Version are the only two Books that does not appear to be biased to a particular religion. The main purpose of writing it in the modern language is to make it easily understandable for many not necessarily for pleasurable reading. There is just a danger that some important messages may be lost in translation. However, we trust that the translators shall be inspired enough that the Words of God will be written correctly.

Answer 6

The biggest crime of the KJB is what they did to God's name..
The translators chose to avoid the divine name, using it in just a few verses. In most instances God’s name was replaced by the word “LORD” or “GOD” to represent the Tetragrammaton.

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 use a present-day edition of the King James Bible because it is far easier to read. 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.

The text at 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version is used to support the trinity doctrine, but the words do not appear in the reliable and oldest manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures; thus most modern versions leave the words out entirely.

Answer 7

Acts 12:4 has done a lot of harm over the centuries by way of masking the true import of Christ as Passover. Also many time the word "world" in the NT should have been translated "age" meaning a long period of time, not the planet Earth. So then if you read the letter written to the reader by the translators of the original KJV you will see they strongly urged everyone to take account of the original languages for themselves and not trust any translation of man. The Strong's Concordance is the best and is keyed to the KJV making them an invaluable tool when studied responsibly in combination.

Answer 8

Yikes, Well for one, you are putting your faith in translations made by priests who were afraid to do so prior to King James making an edict that made translations from Latin OK. Was King James a Godly man? I think if you read history you will find that he wasn't. So the established church ruled that translating the Bible would cost you your head until James came along and said, never mind that, go ahead. I think that you will find that there are many books in the NT that have been miss translated, and even added too. The book of Mark ends at Jesus' death in early manuscripts. Why is it that the KJV has several verses talking about his actions after Resurrection, if the original manuscripts end at the Crucifixion? Maybe to make the Resurrection more believable.... You can read about this in various places on the Internet, but I am afraid that it may be very threatening to your faith. Imagine finding out that there is little to no evidence from early manuscripts stating that Jesus was seen alive after the Romans killed him?

Changes the story a little doesn't it.

Answer 9

Kindly realize that the King James version is a translation of original texts, which were written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. It was not the first English translation, nor was it the last. I think one reason that people say it is not accurate is that earlier manuscripts of original texts were found, and these have been used for newer translations, such as the New International Bible.

Answer 10

Here is what I heard.

Back in the day of old King James the guys who were going to translate the bible into english took all of the available manuscripst and decided what was most important based on what they saw the most of. Newer "real" translations (not Living Bible etc.) took all of the same manuscripts and used primarily the oldest documents, not necessarily the most commonly appearing text and wrote modern day translations. It is assumed that the older text are more true to the actual writings of the apostles and other writers of the Bible.