Which Bible??

Question

I believe that the King James Version is the true bible without adaptions. The other ones like NKJV, NIV, and any more have been re-wrote to say that what people want to do is okay. I truly believe that the King James Version is right....Whats your opinion? Which one do you read?

Okay I understand what you all are saying so far, so what is a good study bible..and where could I go to look up more info on the translations??
Thanks

Answer 1

There was a time when I had a hard time understanding the Bible (KJV). Once the spirit started to draw me I found a strong interest in the word of God. (Notice my screen name) I began to read the King James Version and the Lord Jesus began to open my eyes to things just a short while before I could not even comprehend.

By the power of the Holy Ghost my eyes were opened to the Word of God. Now it is easy to read I do not notice the old english. The KJV has so much power in it one it is revealed it does not compare. To alter or change one word can lose so much meaning.

Check most all bibles 1 John 5:7 many will totally omit this scripture. NIV, NASB and many more.

Some bibles say in Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not murder." The KJV says "Thou shalt not kill." There is a big difference in these two words.

Answer 2

For some excellent answers to this, please read some of the articles on this website:

http://aomin.org/kjvo.html

You will find rebuttals of a lot of the King James Version-Only advocates on this site. And if you click on the bookstore on the left side of the page, you can find a book called "The King James Only Controversy" which is excellent and a very in depth discussion of the issue including going back to the original Greek and Hebrew.

The ESV and the NASB are the most accurately translated Bibles we have today. They use earlier manuscripts than the ones used to translate the King James Version.

In response to the person that pointed out that some verses are "omitted," that is because they are ADDITIONS in later manuscripts that aren't there earlier. But if you look at the rest of the Bible, no doctrine is removed by these verses not being there. To say that they have been "omitted" makes the KJV the standard by which all others should be judged. Why not use the Geneva Bible which was translated before the King James?

Answer 3

You seem not to have done much research on this subject. The King James version was made in 1611 based on the best manuscripts available at the time. Why would you think an older translation, in a form of English that was spoken then but is not today, is the "true Bible without adaptations"? Even the King James version is an English translation, and there is no such thing as a translation that loses nothing in the process. No two languages have a complete one-to-one correspondence between all the meanings and nuances of all their words.

If you cannot read the original languages, the best way to get a sense of the texts' meaning is to read more than one translation.

Answer 4

You may not like my answer, but here goes. First, the King James version of the Bible has obviously been adapted. It has been adapted into English from the original Greek and Hebrew. And that's where part of the problem comes in.

The KJV was translated in 1611. To put it mildly, its old. Why should this be of concern? Two reasons. First, thanks to archaeological and other discoveries we now have many, many more transcripts that are better copies than those the KJV was based on. For example, the Greek transcript that was used for the KJV version of Revelation was based on an earlier transcript that was missing some parts. So, a scholar filled in the missing parts by translating those parts from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. With more copies of a text, Biblical scholars can do a better job of getting closer to the original text, and they can also point out where transcripts differ.

The second reason we should be concerned about the age of the KJV is translation skill. It is only logical to assume that scholars have learned something about Greek, and especially Hebrew in the past 400 years. Scholars have learned more about the languages that preceded Hebrew and on which Hebrew is based. This allows them to increase their understanding of the language the OT was written in.

I believe that our human knowledge is also a gift from God, and he expects us to use it. There are many biblical scholars who are engaged in honest prayerful attempts to provide the best translation of the Bible possible.

Personally, I read the NRSV most often, but I regularly compare translations and muddle through Greek and Hebrew. I firmly believe there is no "perfect" translation. Anyone who has studied Biblical languages understands that. In my divinity school classes, we are only able to use the KJV as a secondary source because of the problems listed above.

Please understand, I am not being critical of the translators of the KJV. They did the best they could with what they had. We just have more resources and knowledge available to us today.

If you want to read more about this, pick up a copy of the book Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman. He does a great job of explaining how and why texts have been changed and how scholars attempt to determine the most likely form of the original text.

Check the link below for a translation guide. I would recommend either the NIV or TNIV Study Bible, the New Interpreters Study Bible, or the New Oxford Annotated Reference Bible. (last two are NRSV.)

Answer 5

Most of today's popular bibles are pretty much the same.
The KJV is not a good one IMHO because of the old English. Many words meaning has changed since then. I mean totally changed.
And there were many versions way before the KJV that are accurate although they don't have chapters and is very hard to read.

I read one called, "The English study bible"which is very close to the Greek's NT. You can't buy it anymore. It's out of print.

But basically they are the same.
Get a book on bible history or a movie, I did and it's very interesting. It showed how the men who helped translate the bible had to go into hiding to do this. It was against the law to translate the bible and one could be executed for doing so!

†

Answer 6

The King James is just as incorrect as any other Bible. Those who put their faith in the Bible alone are not truly wise.

King James edited his version of the Bible. The name "James" mentioned in the Bible is not a correct translation of the original texts. The true name would be translated Jacob. King James wanted his name to be in the Bible so, since he was the King, he made it happen.

Another keypoint about the concept of the true Bible is one might believe that God Himself directed which books to be placed in the Bible which is also incorrect. A council of cardinals and bishops of the Laodacean church are the one who decided which books of the Bible were "holier" than others. So, as far as which Bible is the true adaption or not is going to be based on opinion. Do I personally believe that God or Jesus speak with an Elizabethian English accent, no. However, God speaks to all individuals to a way in which they understand.

If you want a "true" Bible translation you need to learn to speak Aramic, Greek, and Hebrew. But, please don't tell me that you think an English Bible is the true translation.

Here's another fact that will blow the roof off your beliefs: when the original texts of the Bible were written, they were written without spaces and without consonants, or punctuation. Now, tell me that any translator is going to be able to get an exact translation from that.

However, I do read the Bible. I prefer an Amplified Bible translation. I believe that God can speak to me by divine inspiration whether the Bible is "true" or not. My salvation is not obtained by following a book, but rather by obeying the voice of God as He speaks to me.

Answer 7

I disagree. Just because it says Savior instead of saviour or uses modern words instead of King James talk, does not make it any less the Word than that written then. Besides the KJV that we think of as the KJV is not the original. You do know, since you like the KJV, there is the NKJV (New King James Version) don't you?

Answer 8

I like the original NIV, it leaves a lot of the original idioms in. Also the Living Bible and new Living Bible though these were designed to explain the original thoughts in american english more than to be word to word translations. the KJV is fine, but it's not always easy to understand.

Answer 9

I agree with you on that, but the KJV is hard to read and it takes along time to understand waht you are reading. What does your church use? You can always get a devotional to read that will help you understand what you are reading. I think that the NKJV is good, easy to read and is just the same but put into our times words. As long as you are praying for understanding of God's word before you study each time, the message will come accross.
I truly believe that God can get talk to you through any message as long as you are listening. Good luck and just keep praying that you can hear him....( Not in the literal since of hearing, I mean understand what you are reading)

Answer 10

I think they are all pretty accurate. the KJV was the first english translation but since then we got the NASB which is suppose to be the best as far as strict translation from the hebrew and greek texts but lacks in readability. All the versions out there are pretty accurate, some just use other synonyms so the reader can read it smoother.