Christians: Do you use the King James version of the Bible or the New Internatonal Version? Why?

Question

In our church, we are taught that the KJV is the truest form of the Bible, and that NIV has been ammended/changed too much (although easier to read). Who has the authority to make these changes? I thought God was very specific not to add a page or take away a page from the Bible? Thanks.

Revelations 22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Answer 1

I always use the King James.

When comparing the two, and this is done often in Bible study at church if a new person bring a different Bible, you'll find that often in a lot of passages you lose the meaning.

I'd say of all the translations I've read the NIV would rank 3rd to me for accuracy. With the NKJV 2nd and the KJV 1st.

I always study the KJV of the Bible. this is the only book I really read. But often If I have trouble explaining a scripture in modern terms, I'll check the NKJV to see how it compares. (just for speaking terms)

I have confidence in the KJV. I've put it to the test and it has never failed me.

Answer 2

The King James Authorized Version is a trusted translation, but even it has it's translation problems. ONLY if you can read Greek and Hebrew, is it perfect, but the Amplified Version is pretty good and explains lots more.
The NIV is from an entire set of "originals" and if you are a scholar, it persents some issues that aren't intended in the Hebrew and Greek. The NIV actually leaves OUT some verses and parts of verses found in the original accepted texts.
If you will keep your KJV and read the NIV and Amplified and the New Living Translation (NOT THE Living Bible), you will get the entire message. The Bible says that "His ruth endures to ALL generations" so just believe it.
Ask God the hard questions and he will tell you the truth and the real answers.

Answer 3

Actually, if you compare the NIV to the KJV, they still say basically the same thing.

AND when the KJV was written, many of the Hebrew words were lost in translation, because they didn't have a word in English that meant the same thing.
Also, we were not in possession of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so there were parts of the Bible that were missing.

The NIV was translated directly from the oldest texts available. The oldest copies available when the KJV was translated were from the 6th century, I believe. The oldest copies available when the NIV was translated were from the late 1st century/early 2nd century at the latest.

BOTH versions are pure. Neither have taken anything away from the Bible.

And actually, that law was in reference to the prophecies in Revelations, not the Bible as a whole. The Bible as a whole didn't even exist when Revelations was written, though all the books DID exist.

To answer your question though, I use both. I also reference them with the original Hebrew (which I'm trying to learn to read), The Message, The NKJV, and The Living Bible.

Answer 4

The NIV is a good translation; however, your church is right. A cult known as the Alexandrians, got a hold of the Bible and made the NIV, and then this was translated into other forms (Catholic Bible etc.).

The KJV is the truest form, now the changes that the Alexandrians made were not that big, but nonetheless they took out and shorted some things that they did not agree with, or disliked. The Alexandrians are the group that argued with Stephen (the martyr) in the Bible.

So i do trust the KJV more than the NIV. If you'll notice, the NIV has some actual contradictions in it based on the wording.

So i would go with the KJV

Answer 5

Okay, let's remember that the KJV, the NIV, the NASB, etc are all translations from the original Greek and Hebrew. The KJV tries to keep to the English as it was used in 1611 when it was commissioned by King James. However, every ten years it has to be updated to fit modern language. Language is like a living thing. Words come in, words go out, and words change their meaning. Sometimes grammar changes as well. The people who translate Bibles try to translate from the ancient languages into modern English. For that reason, I'd have to say that the NIV is actually truer to the original scriptures. It is certainly easier to read. Which brings me to a crucial point. I have seen many people try to read their KJV and be completely lost. They can't understand it because the language is archaic. Use a modern translation for purer understanding. Even better, there are bibles with references to the Greek and Hebrew. They more clearly illustrate what the original was saying. God doesn't change what He says.

Oh, and if the people at your church don't believe that the KJV has changed, challenge them to get a copy of the original 1611 version and try to read it. Pretty much you can't.

Answer 6

Neither.

I use the English Standard Version. It's better than either of those. It has the accuracy and precision of the New American Standard, with the fluidity and readability of the NIV.

Here's some information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Standard_Version
http://www.esv.org/
The ESV website gives feedback and comments from many respected teachers and Christian leaders who use it.

You need to sit down and actually read the introduction parts of the NIV and the ESV to see the translation committees' translation philosophy.

I used the KJV when I was a new Christian because it was the Bible that happened to be in the house, but I don't use it by choice for two reasons:

1) it's in 17-century English, and living languages change a lot in 400 years. Most average people nowadays (unless they study Shakespeare) don't understand a lot of what it says because words have become obsolete or their meanings have shifted (for example, in 1611, the word "conversation" meant 'actions or conduct" -- now it means "talking casually with someone" NOT the same at all!).

2) There are MANY more original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts available to translators, as well as better translation methods, than they had in 1611.

3) King James (James VI in Scotland, and James I in England) had an agenda, and the translation in places reflects that.

The book you need is this one: by James White: The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? (www.amazon.com)
http://www.amazon.com/King-James-Only-Controversy-Translations/dp/1556615752/ref=sr_1_1/103-7128262-9356634?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179948490&sr=1-1

Answer 7

The NAB is the one I use. I also have an NIV and a KJV, but dont really like them.

The KJV is highly overrated, and it wasn't even the first English translation (that was the Tyndale Bible). But, if you're into 16th Century English, have fun with it.

God never said or wrote anything about adding to or taking away from the Bible. You are referring to one sentence in the Book of Revelation.

For all you 'sola scriptura' folks out there, always remember that for the first 400 years of our faith there was NO collection known as the Bible. The book now known as the Bible was compiled by the one true Catholic church who, guided by the Holy Spirit, decided which books were canonical and which weren't .

Luther in the 1500's unilaterally gave his opinion on the Deutero-Canonical (apocryphal) books, which were actually included in the original KJV, albeit in the back. Luther also wanted to remove James from the Bible, in particular James Chapter 2.


P.S. God didn't write Revelations. John (not the apostle) did.

Answer 8

There are MANY other versions other than just the KJV and the NIV. You are taking only what you are hearing at your church. What about all the people that were christians before KJV was ever out? Are they just up the creek? There are Bibles before the KJV. Did you know that?

I read the NRSV because I find it great for study purposes. I want to suggest something to you before I send this answer. I suggest you look at the words of God not as an idol in and of themselves. The words ONLY have power if you take them and use them in your life. That is something NO ONE can alter or change. It is up to YOU to see what power they have in your life.

Answer 9

The KJV is a horrible translation. In fact, it is a translation of a translation in and of itself. The original Bible was Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

Many ancient documents have been recovered since the KJV was written, providing more accurate and reliable translations than anything from 1611. The KJV is certainly not the "truest form of the Bible."

Answer 10

I use the NIV because the KJV is hard to read. All versions are slightly different because translating is not an exact art. For this reason I often look up the same text in different translations. Biblegateway.com is an easy way to do this.