Since the language is very outdated by many centuries, why do many people continue to stick by the KJV?

Question

Are the modern English translations such as NIV et al not valid as the true Word of God in comparison?

Answer 1

I have learned hebrew and retranslated parts of the Bible myself. Both versions you mentioned take great liberties. Someone needs to do an unbiased translation to modern english.

Answer 2

Some people are picky about the source documents used.

To try to make a long story short, the KJV was translated from the Byzantine (Greek Orthodox) Bible.

Liberal critics argued for years that the Emperor Constantine edited the Bible, so many of the newer translations are based on pre-Nicenen documents. Any verses which appear in the official Byzantine Bible, but not in the older manuscripts, are moved into footnotes, rather than the body of the text. This appears to be done simply as an attempt to be honest about the fact that the exact wording of certain passages in the original documents are hard to determine, especially of some New Testament books. It doesn't seem to be any big deal, since the number of verses in dispute are very small in number.

Some people think that this is tampering with the word of God, so they refuse to read the newer versions.

For these people, there is the new King James Version.

Answer 3

The KJV is the closest to the Textus Receptus (Received Text) of all the Bible versions that currently exist. I read it because, even though it uses Shakespearian English, I can still understand it. If you want a version of the KJV that removes all the "thee's" and "thou's" and replaces them with modern equivalents, I would suggest the NKJV. There are other versions of the Bible, but some are different translations, and some are paraphrases. There are some, like the NASB, that contain copyist errors when compared with the KJV. Some versions of the Bible are taken from the Alexandrian manuscripts. These texts, although older, are actually discarded copies of the Textus Receptus, which is why they lasted so long - nobody used them! The original scrolls upon which Scripture was written were repeatedly rolled and unrolled until they wore out, so new copies had to be made. The scribes who copied them had to be EXTREMELY careful - they even checked every single letter of every word forwards and backwards. They had to make sure it was a PERFECT copy. Occasionally, errors would be made, and these copies would be discarded. The Alexandrian manuscripts are just such copies. They were less worn out because they were not used, and thus lasted longer. Unfortunately, along the line, someone decided to make a version of the Bible out of them, and thus led many people astray and formed new, bizarre cults.

Answer 4

Other translations are valid but some people like the language of the King James. (I did renaissance faire and know how to talk like that) And some people think that it is the most true to the original greek and hebrew. However, the modern translations do very well with sticking to the original greek and hebrew.

Answer 5

I studied the KJV first and feel more comfortable with it however these newer texts are written in an easier format this I must agree with but the staff used by King James in his translations were ordered to bring forth the most exacting translation possible and these were leaders in their respective areas which gives this text a more reliable substance.

Answer 6

I actually like it as a study Bible--I think the language is beautiful and poetic. (I'm an ex-Christian with three Bibles in the house.) However, archaeology and translation have improved since then, so I don't see why a newer version would be *less* accurate. I don't get the "KJV only" thing at all.

Answer 7

Old English is not that hard to understand. Almost every Jr. High kid in the nation reads Shakespeare in their English class.

Besides, even the best intentioned translations are going to loose some crucial meanings. A friend was reading to me a modern version of Proverbs the other day, and I noticed that they changed the word "foolish" to "stupid" and I thought about how those words have a subtle but important difference. To be stupid means lacking in intelligence, to be foolish means making unwise decisions. An intelligent person cannot be stupid, but an intelligent person can be foolish. So would an intelligent, well educated, person read that modern version, and not think it applies to them?

Answer 8

I find the King James Version of the Holy Bible is very powerful and full of spirit.

Check the Scripture Genesis 2:7, if do not say and man became a living soul. Understanding how important the living soul is to mankind,I would get KJV.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Answer 9

1 King James Version was never copywrighted, and never meant to be sold.

It is a word for word translation where NIV claims to be thought for thought.

They come from different texts. The NIV from the Vatican/ Alexandrian. The King James from the Textus Receptus (received text).

I'm sticking w/the KJV

Answer 10

I use the KJV as my main translation but i use others where I don't understand the meaning.

The KJV is unsurpassed for the beauty of the language, the rhythms or cadences of the phrases. Although sometimes obscure, it is wonderful for memorization.

god bless