Why do you think the King James is the best translation?

Question

I mean, really. Do any of you know of any historical evidence to show that KJV is more accurate than any other translation? Seems to me that in the last 400 years, maybe we've learned a little more and have a better grasp on the ancient languages then we did back in the 1600's when the KJ was originally translated.

Answer 1

Exactly right, David! The New American Standard Bible is the most accurate translation, (not interpretation), today. It was transcribed word for word from the original texts, Hebrew, Chaldee, Aramaic and Greek into modern English. The NIV (New International Version), is also an excellent translation, and widely recognized as particularly accurate.

Answer 2

To this point and time, it has been the most meticulously translated. Commissioned in 1604 by James I, it took a panel of 50 Koine Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin scholars 7 YEARS to get a grammatically correct lingua franca English version that was 100% accurately proofread! In other words, if the scholars (especially the Hebrew ones) got an edition proofread to Revelation 22:21 (Bible's last verse) and found a grammatical error let alone a misinterpretation of some sort, they didn't simply correct that. They trashed what they had done and started over again! This is why it has been the most enduring translation of the last 400 years.

Answer 3

Are the new translations going back 400 years (or longer)and using those orginal writings or are they translating form the KJV. I feel that the more things are written and rewritten, we lose some of the meaning. But you have to consider, I am an old person and don't approve of a lot of modern ways and new translations. (I am on my way out so it really doesn't matter.) lol

Answer 4

We have learned more.
We have indeed gathered more to learn about the Bible from.

The translations of the 1800's such as the American Standard Version, the Darby, the English Standard Version, and others, are far more accurate the the KJV, the Douay, and other Clementine Bibles.

Answer 5

It isn't. Even the translators state in their preface that they often had to discuss what a meaning might be - and then went with the best guess.

Oddly, this introduction is missing from the modern printings of the KJV.

Answer 6

Simply do a bit of research into the people that assisted with King James Translation of the holy text and compare with any other newer version and read the one that makes you feel the most comfortable with.

Answer 7

If your primary language is English, it is the best translation. Many people insist that the Bible be taken literally, but most will aggree that some of the Bible is allegorical, and even poetic. Some poetry works better in some languages, better than it does in others.

Answer 8

KJV is the most acuate version... u can refer to gen 1:28

KJV: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth... (replenish means to fill something up AGAIN) there was a little life still before adam, but they lived in total darkness

NIV,AMP,NKJV: Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth.. (fill up means for the first time)

alot of information is been hidden in a non KJV.

Answer 9

The King James Bible was written in a manner that espoused King James' doctrine's as far as religious doctrine is concerned. It was written to make it appear that the trinity is a Biblical teaching

Answer 10

Translations are for wusses. Jews and Muslims have to learn Hebrew and Arabic to be considered Grown-ups in their religion.
When will Christians do the same?
..Bloody hell, at LEAST Latin. The Latin stuck for, like, 1200 years.