Some Christians stand by the King James Version of the Bible as the ultimate authority, but others revile it suggesting that it has too much of King James' bias in the translation.
What is it about the KJV that these other Christians don't like? Could you provide me some examples of what wasn't translated properly? Anything important left out, or anything extra added? I just want to know why some have a problem with it. Thanks.
2007-07-21 18:46:42 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It's not a bad translation.
It just isn't a real good translation.
I have spent a lot of time studying the original languages (at least the Greek), and comparing the different versions.
If anybody practices one tenth of any version of the Bible, they will be 95% holier than any other people on the planet.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy mind and all thy soul and all thy strength and love thy neighbor as thyself comes out about the same in all the versions.
Do this and you will live.
2007-07-21 18:58:08 · answer #1 · answered by wefmeister 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The King James has the most complete text and the closest translation to the original Greek. That's why it lasted so long. By the way the only thing the King had to do with it is ordering a commission to do so because the people no longer trusted the Vulgate.
If you want to study use KJV. If you want an easier read for yourself or to teach with the NIV is OK. There are lots others. Try bibleresources.com
God Bless!
2007-07-29 10:54:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The king james actually is the best translation and gets the most accurate meaning across from the greek as a whole. Any translation is going to have very minor flaws with just simple words because that is the problem with translation sometimes you dont necessarily have a word to describe something in the other language so you have to choose the best one to get the idea across. Many will say the bible has been altered but not the main ideas and points and stories we are talking about simple words that if it is so necessary anyone can have the option to use a greek concordance or learn greek themselves to understand what the word is saying. I think it is the best and the best way to refer back to the greek for the original meaning. No nothing important was left out. People mainly have a problem because they dont understand it and that is because they dont want to take the time to study the bible they want an easy read so they prefer a modern translation in which you lose some meaning but still not the main ideas and points of the bible. Use the KJV if you are serious about studying the bible and taking time to refer back to the greek.
2007-07-22 01:56:03 · answer #3 · answered by disciple 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I can't imagine not using the KJV. There is no way to know what the original language is. The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance is the biggest reason. It is only keyed to the KJV. To not use the works of Tyndale, Dr Strong, and Dr Bullinger is a real shame. For comparing read the dedication page of the KJ by Tyndale and the reason he was martyred and compare it to the dedication of the NIV. Do you know that there was a pro-homo contingent allowed on the translation panel when they translated in in the '70's? That is far different than the KJ.circumstances.
2007-07-29 21:40:11 · answer #4 · answered by copperhead89 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The KJV of today is not the same as when it first came out. It does keep changing. King James lived in a time when Divine Right Monarchy was being questioned so when he commissioned the translation to be made he stipulated that it emphasis the rights of Kings as chosen by God to rule their countries. This version is fairly accurate but tends to use authoritarian terminology where the original language was much more benign. NIV is easier to understand, closer to the original meaning and prints questionable interpretations in footnotes so the reader can decide for themselves.
Blessed Be!
2007-07-22 01:54:51 · answer #5 · answered by ♥Gnostic♥ 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The KJV was written in the way people spoke in King James' era. There is nothing different in the translations of today's Bibles except that they use the language spoken in the world today. Can you imagine trying to write the KJV in Russian or Chinese? God has made certain His Word will reach all peoples of the world.
2007-07-22 02:04:32 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1st I own several KJV, one was a gift from my Grandmother.
The differences:
Number of ancient manuscripts available,
In 1611, KJV used as their master text the Latin Vulgate.
Oldest Hebrew and Greek text available at the time 800 CE
Today: Hundreds of Hebrew, some dating back to 200 BCE, and Greek, dateing back to 200 CE
*Language change:
Gen 39: 8But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;
(When was the last time you wotteth?)
8 But he would refuse and would say to his master’s wife: “Here my master does not know what is with me in the house, and everything he has he has given into my hand.
*Added / deleted verses
Because of the number of ancient manuscripts we now can create master texts, by comparing and noticing which verses have been changed.
Examples:
KJV
1 John 5:7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
7 For there are three witness bearers,
*Why is the KJV so popular (in English, most of the world has never heard of it) ?
It’s the bible most people grew up with.
It’s the bible ‘paid’ clergy use to keep their flocks in darkness.
Notice what one translator of the NIV said:
Why did the recently published “New International Version” (NIV) of the Bible fail to use the name of God where it appears about 7,000 times in ancient Bible manuscripts? In response to a person who inquired about this, Edwin H. Palmer, Th.D., Executive Secretary for the NIV’s committee wrote:
“Here is why we did not: You are right that Jehovah is a distinctive name for God and ideally we should have used it. But we put 2 1/4 million dollars into this translation and a sure way of throwing that down the drain is to translate, for example, Psalm 23 as, ‘Yahweh is my shepherd.’ Immediately, we would have translated for nothing. Nobody would have used it. Oh, maybe you and a handful [of] others. But a Christian has to be also wise and practical. We are the victims of 350 years of the King James tradition. It is far better to get two million to read it—that is how many have bought it to date—and to follow the King James, than to have two thousand buy it and have the correct translation of Yahweh. . . . It was a hard decision, and many of our translators agree with you.”
Even though they knew the truth, they still mistranslated the bible for ‘money’ and from pressure from people who still believe the KJV is the ONLY bible.
.
2007-07-22 09:41:49 · answer #7 · answered by TeeM 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
As a Christian I was brought up on the KJV and still remember many verses from it. I find nothing offensive about it and it still conveys the same message of salvation. However, many Churches in the UK now use the NIV or Good News Bible and I use the English Standard Version and NASV. I think that people find these easier to read.
2007-07-22 02:02:47 · answer #8 · answered by cheir 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
In my opinion....KJV is probably the closest we have to the original. The dead sea scrolls have shown to be almost completely a dead on match with the biblical books it contained when compared. Personaly...I really don't care much for the others....though I would suggest reading whats available if KJV isn't or is found to be a little confusing due to the periods language,,,,,except the latest translation that they made gender neutral.....less offensive to those who find the original a little too offensive.
2007-07-22 02:00:01 · answer #9 · answered by Daniel and Nancy 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is a wonderful version based on the Latin Vulgate that was based (the Old Test.) on the Septuagint .That was the reigning version at the time of Christ.
If King James had any influence,he would have taken out the references to homosexuality.He was a flaming Homo himself.I think it is the best only because world wide it is has the easiest availibility.
2007-07-22 01:54:27 · answer #10 · answered by AngelsFan 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋