Christians: Do you believe that the KJV is the only reliable translation?

Question

I've seen many Christians pick fights over Biblical translations, only to find out that they don't really understand the KJV at all. What's the point of reading a Bible if you have no idea what it says? (Disclaimer: there are some people who have no problem with it. But you probably aren't one of them.)

Keep in mind, Shakespeare was writing his stuff around the same time that the KJV scholars were translating. Do you understand Shakespeare?

Answer 1

Many versions of the bible existed before the King James and the advent of mass printing.
See: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

For an analysis of the various translations of the bible see:
http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html

For accurate translations of the bible at the literal level I recommend you use the NASB or ESV translations.

Answer 2

The language itself doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if you say, "he hath begotten ______" or "he became the parent of ___" it is the same thing just in different styles. But no, I think the KJV is far from "the only reliable translation" because several new manuscripts have been discovered since the KJV was authorized, and certain verses have been misinterpreted by the KJV until older manuscripts showed the truth. Just for instance, the verse "I and the Father are one" in John chapter 10 does not appear in any manuscripts until the 16th century, thus it is really not historical unless it is discovered in much older manuscripts.

Also the KJV just seems to chose really poor words when they translate. Whoever the translators were, they do not appear very good. I took one year of Greek and could translate much better than them.

Answer 3

Erasmus replace into no longer the “author” of the KJV, and he did no longer "invent" the Textus Receptus, He mearly revealed a small number of what replace into already very nearly all of Greek New testomony Manuscripts. The KJV New testomony replace into translated from the Textus Receptus (gained text fabric) sequence of the Greek texts, which had forty seven of the perfect biblical pupils and linguists of the day. The previous testomony replace into translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text fabric. confident, I understand the factor yet as a count of certainty that critics can discover fault with something, or every physique. Even Westcott and Hort. even if, the significant ingredient to bear in mind right that's the certainty that there is truly few transformations between the two texts and what transformations do exist do no longer replace any of the doctrines of the N.T. Edit: @Carl, your quoting from the previous testomony which isn't even part of the Textus Receptus and your additionally Quoting and comparing 2 distinctive ENGLISH Translations of the comparable Masoretic Hebrew text fabric.

Answer 4

The original KJV was one of the worst translations ever made, with more than 3,500 translational errors. The Revised KJV is better, many of the errors having been corrected, but some of the most obvious mistranslations still remain, such as translating the Hebrew phrase for "horned beasts" as "unicorns", instead of the obvious accurate translation found in every other Bible version - "cattle".
.

Answer 5

The KJV was translated under order of King James, a superstitious man who was a notorious misogynist and hypocrite. The language is poetic and beautiful which adds to it's ability to inspire, and with a decent education it is perfectly easy to understand while remaining open to interpretation, which makes it a useful translation.

Nonetheless, the KJV contains mistranslations of the original Greek, Hebrew and Latin, sometimes accidental but all too often purposeful, to skew the beliefs of the Bible's readers more toward what the king wanted. Sections have been translated against women which were, originally, neutral.

Sections have been altered to completely change their original meaning simply by choosing one translative word instead of another. Choosing "Curse" instead of "Swear" changes the meaning of the text. Choosing "Witch" instead of "Evildoer" changes the meaning of the text.

The KJV is a useful translation, but it is not a reliable one.

Answer 6

Hey, if the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me.


Seriously, though, when the KJV came out it was the best of the English versions of its time. However, as older documents are found, there are times when the KJV just isn't correctly translated. But overall, the KJV is a good translation.

Answer 7

Actually, the KJV is probably the least reliable translation.

Answer 8

personally, I choose the NLT. I have read shakespeare, even visited his home in England... but prefer to study in the language that we speak today in the USA. any version that is directly tranlated from the greek/hebrew is good.... i don't like paraphrased versions where it is one person's opinions on how it should be translated

Answer 9

No I do not feel it's the only "reliable" translation. There are many of them. I prefer the NIV because I can understand it!

Answer 10

No, but the most closest, Some translations, had good intentions on trying to change some of the wording to make it easier to understand, but when read, it changed the meaning completely