How many Christians read the King James Version Bible?

Question

I'm a teen and I read the King James Version and I understand it. Why do some Christians insist on reading other versions? The KJV has depth to it. I have read the other versions and they're so watered down it makes me sad. Does anyone else feel the same way?

Answer 1

I DO ,I read it every day.I love the Word of God.
Most versions have changed the word of God.
God said this is a no-no.<><

Answer 2

I think once you familiarize yourself with the KJV of the bible, it's okay to read other versions without getting confused. I am by no means an extremist, as are some people. I've read the bible through some 19 times already, in several different versions. No where does it say that you must read the KJV. Whatever helps people to understand God's Word is definitely beneficial. One thing i will say is that even though I read different versions, when it comes to memorizing Scripture, I always memorize from the King James. I just like the way it sounds.

Answer 3

Well, I don't really know which way you are trying to twist the truth, so I'll start picking away at your false statements and see where it leads. 1) The kjv only crowd doesn't care what the early church read. They have declared that perversion of the scriptures to be inspired and ignore the thousands of points where it does not accurately represent the Hebrew or Greek original documents, the fact that it includes ADDED PASSAGES,... The "authority" for such statements was clearly invented. 2) I probably read something many times closer to the "Bible" of the apostles and the early Christians than anyone else active in this forum. My PRIMARY BIBLE for the last 25 years has been Greek. 3) The "Septuagint" (usually denoted LXX) Greek "Old Testament" was used and quoted by almost all of the New Testament's writers. It is probable that only Paul among the apostles was HIGHLY LITERATE in Hebrew. - That is not to say that none of them could read it, but that training beyond the basics was usually reserved for those who would become teachers or copyists, and it seems that none of the others had any such training. 4) Incomplete, part1, Old Testament: Here, we run into the fact that the LXX was not translated FOR the Jews, but for the Greek library at Alexandria. As such, it includes documents which the Jews did not consider authoritative, but were included for their historic or philosophical value to the Greeks. The LXX then became (with no recognition of this distinction) the primary OT standard for Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation, which became the "official" Bible of the church of Rome. Thus, the "catholic Bible" includes those ADDED PASSAGES. Incomplete, part2, New Testament: While there are many works that some claim were "removed" from the Bible, most are KNOWN TO BE FORGERIES, written to support some heresy. There were a great many so-called gospels penned by the second-third century Gnostics in an attempt to gain support for their ideas. The Muratorian Canon, the oldest listing of New Testament writings, dated at about 170 A.D., though fragmentary, clearly enumerates FOUR Gospels, naming Luke and John. Since earlier writers include quotes from Matthew and Mark, there is no question that these were the first two listed and that group represents ALL of the Gospels known and accepted by the early church. ========================== You didn't seem to understand. The Septuagint ADDED numerous books and passages (Ps 151, ADDITIONS to Daniel & Esther... as well as the history and wisdom added books) which were NOT part of the Hebrew scriptures and were NOT considered authoritative by the Jews or the early church. In simple terms, the predominantly Jewish Christians of the earliest church KNEW the history of individual documents within the LXX AND TREATED THEM ACCORDINGLY. The earliest Gentile Christians were likely taught to consider those books through the same hierarchy. "Removing" these is NOT changing the text, BUT RESTORING ITS PROPER CONTENT.

Answer 4

New King James for 30 years.

Answer 5

I belong to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and we use the King James version of the Bible. Since it's the one I've studied all my life, I'm comfortable with it, and love the beauties and cadence of its language. But it is, after all, written in Renaissance English, which we stopped speaking by about 1700. I understand why people have trouble understanding much of it, and feel bad that it keeps them from Bible reading.
I suppose the truth is, that we all mentally "translate" the King James English into modern English as we read. It is of little use to know that God gave Adam a "help meet for him," unless we understand that "meet" means "appropriate," so God gave Adam a helper appropriate for him.
In other words, though I prefer the King James version, and it is the official version used in our church, I don't know that it is any "truer" a translation than those in modern English and other languages, though I may be willing to argue that it is more beautiful. I'm grateful for all the good translations of the Bible that help people learn who they are, and what their relationship is to God and His Son. And of course, as long as we read with the help of the Holy Spirit, the meaning in any translation can be clear to us.

Answer 6

I like it for sentimental reasons. But for real study it is unrealiable.

For instance: The King James uses the word "Hate" a lot. And it uses it as a feeling that God would express at times. Our current understanding of this word contradicts the nature of God(who is love).

There are many other ways that the Kings English is misunderstood by people of the 21st century.

Answer 7

I am a Catholic teenager and I read the New American Bible. I can give you a long explanation on why Catholics do not like the KJV if you want, but right now I am just too tired. Just go into my profile and email me. I'd be more than happy to share my knowledge with you.

God Bless!

Answer 8

I agree the King James is the most accurate. I have an NIV also but they have added extra things to it. for example they added at the end of Mark 7:19 (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.") Which is not what Jesus meant because Jesus did not eat unclean meat himself. The KJV does not have this in it.

Answer 9

I have numerous bibles including KJV, which I read alot, but I also have my Catholic Bible which has 7 more books then the KJV.

Answer 10

Sorry, don't read that one. I read the New American Bible.

I find that the KJV is missing several books and several passages from a number of other books.

I prefer the entire Word of God.

Answer 11

I have not read the KJV in a long time. I like the NIV. However, I do own a KJV , NKJV, and NIV.