Why do you not use the King James Version bible?

Question

Revelation 22: 18,19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 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.
Now of course some people are going to say how do you know the KJV is the first true bible? Well I am not supper smart about that topic, but I do know that the NIV is very recent let alone the many other versions that have come out. So therefore the KJV is way before those ever were established.

Yet I mention I used to have a NIV bible and my pastor gave me a list of about 20 some questions. So I went home and tried to look them up couldn't answer any, which is common sense because they took words out. But when I got to this one question, for example it said something like go to luke chapter 2 verse 15, well I tried and the whole verse was taken out. Now how do you explain that? If I can find that questionaire I will post it later on.

Answer 1

I personally prefer the King James Version, but there are some people that don't understand Elizabethen English. That is the reason for the attempts to provide the Word of God in the ordinary language of the people. What we did be cautious about is whether what we are reading is a true TRANSLATION or is it paraphrased. When paraphrasing the Bible to many strange ideas can be presented because of the individual interpretations of the text. A true translation must be from the original language, in the case of the Old Testament, Hebrew. The majority of the New Testament however, was written in Greek so it would take a Greek scholar to translate that portion of the Bible.

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible by the Church of England begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. The New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) edition of the Greek texts, so called because most extant texts of the time were in agreement with it. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX).

The 1611 Bible is known as the King James Version in the United States. In the United Kingdom, it is commonly known as the Authorized Version. Neither name is superior. King James did not literally translate the Bible but it was his authorization that was legally necessary for the Church of England to translate, publish and distribute the Bible in England. King James and the Bishop of London wrote the brief that guided the translation, such as prohibiting the marginal notes found in the Geneva Bible and ensuring the position of the Church of England was recognised on various points. While the new Bible did replace the Bishops' Bible in the Church of England, there is no extant documentation to suggest that it was ever formally 'authorized'. However, from 1662, the Epistle and Gospel texts in the Book of Common Prayer were taken from this Bible; and as such were 'authorized' by Act of Parliament.

The NKJV translation project, which was conceived by Arthur Farstad, was inaugurated in 1975 with two meetings (Nashville and Chicago) of 68 interested persons, most of them prominent Baptists but also including some conservative Presbyterians. The men who were invited to these meetings prepared the guidelines for the NKJV. The New Testament was published in 1979, the Psalms in 1980, and the full NKJV Bible in 1982.

The aim of its translators was to update the vocabulary and grammar of the King James Version, while preserving the classic style and beauty of the 1611 version. Although it uses substantially the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the original KJV, it indicates where more commonly accepted manuscripts differ.

Amplified Bible (AMP) is an English translation of the Bible produced jointly by The Zondervan Corporation and The Lockman Foundation. The first edition was published in 1965. It is largely a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, with reference made to various texts in the original languages. It is designed to "amplify" the text by using a system of punctuation and other typographical features to bring out all shades of meaning present in the original texts.

The Amplified Bible was published in six stages:

* Gospel of John (1954)
* New Testament (1958)
* Old Testament Volume Two (Job-Malachi)(1962)
* Old Testament Volume One (Genesis-Esther)(1964)
* Complete Bible (1965)
* Updated Edition (1987)

I also agree that the NIV omit scriptures and this produces confusion.

gatita_63109

Answer 2

On the Jeopardy TV Program about 2 weeks ago, in the Category "Bible" the question was: "What is the most accurate translation of all Bibles?" The correct answer was "NEW WORLD TRANSLATION" that Jehovah Witnesses use. King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611. From almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.” King James Bible has been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611, It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made, The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.” So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version! What, then, of the objections raised by persons who say they do not want the King James Bible changed? Since the King James Version has already been changed, they lie on a crumbled foundation. If these persons do not want it changed, then why do they use, instead of a copy of an edition of 1611, an edition that has been changed? One of the major reasons the Authorized Version is so widely accepted is its kingly authority. There seems little doubt that, had not a king authorized this version, it would not today be venerated as though it had come direct from God

Answer 3

There's a lot to cover if your question is really going to be answered. I'll *try* to keep it brief, but you will have to do further research on your own to verify the facts given. Except where noted, all information is taken from the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 1996.

1st, let me talk about what the KJV actually is and is not.
The King James Bible (KJV) (first printing 1611) is not the first complete English translation of the bible. That honor goes to the Coverdale bible (1535). The KJV is neither the first nor last "authorized" bible. The honor of first goes to the Matthew Bible (1537). The last is probably the Revised Standard Version (authorized in 1937). The KJV is not the first English bible translated from the original languages. That honor goes to the Geneva Bible (source: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible#History )

So, KJV is not the first, the oldest, the first or most recently authorized, or the only one translated from original languages. If you read the "translator's foreword", written by the *actual translators* of the KJV http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref1.htm , you will see that their purpose for making a new translation was, first and foremost, to produce a translation that was in modern (accessible) English, and second, to improve the accuracy of the translation while they were at it. It is *invaluable* for those who believe that the KJV is the best bible that they read this foreword (link given above). There is no denying that the translators succeeded admirably in both of their goals. *Nevertheless*, these same translators make *very clear* that their translation is not perfect, they even considered it *necessary* to provide alternate translations in the margins, and it is certain that they would eschew such an ancient version today - not because of its lack of worth, but because *it defies* the *very purpose* for which it was translated - that is, to modernize the English and make it more accessible to more people.

Quoting Rev 22:18-19 is logically worthless, as this verse is present in all modern bibles. And, of course, in the original Greek.

Does that mean the KJV is worthless? Absolutely not! The translators themselves stated that *all* versions were worth studying! *And* they were absolutely right!!!!! (Read that foreword!)

So, is the KJV better because it is older? *Absolutely* not. Indeed, the translators, if alive, would tell you that it is of *less* worth because of its age! The English language has changed, and our bibles *need* to change with it! That was the reason for the KJV in the 1st place!

So, what bible *should* you read? Look at my answer here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlD81sQajop9mNBETCxRv7Dty6IX?qid=20070904112711AAumKmB&show=7#profile-info-B2NeUMphaa to help you decide. This is not by any means the final word, but it should guide you along the proper method for choosing a proper version for yourself. Any help that I can give, I will give gladly. Just e-mail.

An important note about "literal" bibles: you will note in the above link references that measure how literal a bible is. A very literal translation (often called a word-for-word translation) is very good for bible study, but literalness is *not* a measure of a translation's accuracy. For example, if you were to translate the phrase "he's a dog" to a foreign language, many could assume that the writer was literally speaking about a dog. This is just one of innumerable examples of a break-down that occurs in a literal translation from one language to another. A rather ribald German phrase translates literally as "she has a large balcony". Needless to say, the speaker is not talking about the size of someone's domicile! Be careful of those who imply that literal = accurate. They are *not* the same thing!

Nevertheless, literal *does* have advantages in bible study, as I mentioned previously. It is particularly useful when others are using varying versions, and I almost always refer to the New American Standard Bible when quoting verses here on Y!A. Nevertheless, it is not the most accurate bible in my estimation.

I hope this helps.

Jim, http://www.life-after-harry-potter.com

Answer 4

I do use the KJV version. Admittedly, I don't study the bible, I simply use it as a literary or cultural reference and I appreciate the beauty of the language used in that translation. As a work of literature and a model of the beauty of the English language, I think it is difficult to go beyond the KJV. Modern versions, to me, are limp, lacklustre things with little appeal.

Answer 5

The KJV is a translation from latin to english.

The main text for the KJV is the Latin Vulgate.
The only Hebrew and Greek text the translators used were dated from the 8th century A.D.

Today we have many Hebrew and Greek texts that date back to the 2nd century A.D.

By comparing these ancient texts we have found many mistakes in the KJV.

One scholar placed the errors at 20,000.

Add to this, the language has changed, our understanding of the ancient languages have improved,

Though the KJV was the best available bible in it's day in english, It is not the best bible available today.

.

Answer 6

Are you aware the KJV was written about 1500 AD? Christ & apostles were around before 100 AD. Was the KJV the original, or just a decent translation into English?

Answer 7

I study the bible, not merely read it. So I use a parallel bible which includes the King James, NIV and New Living Translation. I top all that off with a Concordance.

Answer 8

It was translated into old english and as such has lost much of its meaning. It would be like having some of the words in latin. You just would lose the meaning of rest.

I don't care much for this one either , but at least they made it a lot easier to read.

Answer 9

Because the Word of God is the LaVey bible.