is the KJV Bible the best version of the Bible there is?

Question

I personally doubt it. but if you think it is, why? if you don't think so, why not?

Answer 1

It's poorly translated.

Answer 2

No, the KJV Bible as published in 1611 after christ became the first to be popular, but from 1620 with the colonies, and a new land being organized to mean that the whole world involved, so that in 303 years there can be a WW1.

A translation can have words that at age 300, comply with the law of the land, thereby also with the law of God, so in English Exodus 6:3; 17:15; Judges 6:24; Psam.3:18; Isa 12:2; 26:4; Jehovah is the name of God John 17:1-26;
Matt.6:9-13; 22:39-40; John 14:13,14,28; 20:17; KJV Bible has its value.

1611 after Christ and 396 years to 2007, for many translations to be done, all should be very close to the same in meaning, maybe easier to read ect.

Answer 3

When I was a new Christian--I had many different Bible versions. I would compare them all to get a better understanding of what I was learning.
I had a real block to the KJV. It was almost like a foreign language when I attempted to read it. I couldn't concentrate on it either--it was awful. Then I asked for prayer at my church so that I could better understand the scriptures.
The difference was night and day. Whatever block I had against reading KJV dissappeared and after that I have almost exclusively read KJV. When the Holy Spirit brings verses to my mind and heart it is always in this version--I have never had a verse come to my mind from another version.

That's my experience. IF you'd told me ten years ago I would have only been exclusively reading KJV I'd have thought you were nuts. We can not always understand why God takes us in the direction he does but His Word is life!!!

Answer 4

I think that it is one of the best versions that there is because it doesn't change over time like other translations that keep getting revised.

The language in it has a beauty that is missing from more modern translations.

It is a word for word translation so when you read it you don't have to worry about the translators picking words that fit what they conclude was the actual idea that the original author was trying to convey like in a dynamic equivalent translation.

The texts used to make the KJV include passages that more critical modern scholars have decided on their own assumptions don't belong in the Bible for different reasons that may or may not be true since they are making their "best guesses" about why some passages are found in some ancient textual sources and not in others.

One classic example of the last point is this passage found in the KJV that has been chopped down in more modern versions because it doesn't appear that way in what the scholars consider the "more reliable older texts".

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma.

Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost.

There is also reason to believe that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote,

"Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F. Hills concluded, "It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church."

Answer 5

Humans like tangible things, and so many like to think and to say that the KJV is the best, and it certainly has been one of the best over the centuries. However, God always out thinks man and has better ways than we can ever come up with. God knew that there would be many nations seeking Him and there would be many languages and translations etc so He devised a better way to get the truth to Mankind. He gave us the Bible, but along with it He sent the Holy Spirit to indwell people and lead them into the truth. So a poor version of the Bible with the Holy Spirit will give the truth, but the best version of the Bible ever written without the Holy Spirit is a closed book.

Answer 6

The best would be the originals:

Today we can only use the most accurate translation we can find.

I have found the NWT to be the most accurate.

Old Testament:
In fact, the New World Translation is a scholarly work. In 1989, Professor Benjamin Kedar of Israel said:
"In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translation, I often refer to the English edition as what is known as the New World Translation. In doing so, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this kind of work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew....Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain."

New Testament:

While critical of some of its translation choices, BeDuhn called the New World Translation a “remarkably good” translation, “better by far” and “consistently better” than some of the others considered. Overall, concluded BeDuhn, the New World Translation “is one of the most accurate English translations of the New Testament currently available” and “the most accurate of the translations compared.”—Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament.

“Here at last is a comprehensive comparison of nine major translations of the Bible:

King James Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Amplified Bible, Today's English Version (Good News Bible), Living Bible, and the New World Translation.

The book provides a general introduction to the history and methods of Bible translation, and gives background on each of these versions. Then it compares them on key passages of the New Testament to determine their accuracy and identify their bias. Passages looked at include:

John 1:1; John 8:58; Philippians 2:5-11; Colossians 1:15-20; Titus 2:13; Hebrews 1:8; 2 Peter 1:1

Jason BeDuhn
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair
Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion
Northern Arizona University

(Please note that according to Dr. Jason BeDuhn, only the NWT translated John 1:1 correctly)

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.”

Concerning the NIV:

Bruce Metzger: (NIV) "It is surprising that translators who profess to have 'a high view of scripture" should take liberties with text by omitting words or, more often, by adding words that are not in the manuscripts."

.

Answer 7

I think so. Perhaps you could restate it as "One of the best". The King James Bible was authored in 1611 at the direction of King James, of course. What the King said and thought publicly was that there were too many Bible versions and he didn't want God's word lost in translation, so, at great personal expense, King James brought together the most renowned Bible scholars and translators of his day and used the oldest manuscripts they could lay their hands on and the King James Bible is the result.
Although the Bible has been under attack since before it was written and many people think of it wrongly, the Bible has never in history been misproven. The King James Version has been ridiculed with the best of them, and the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did nothing to the King James except validate it.
The history behind the authorship is why I like it; but I'm aware that many people today have difficulty with all the "thee, thou, cometh and goeth" wording in the King James which is 400 year old english.
My wife prefers her RSV, and there are many other fine translations available. Why not buy 26 of them and use them for wallpaper?
The important thing is to read and study: 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
"Study" is a VERB. I have about 12 translations (ASV,CEV,ESV, Geneva, GNB, GW, ISV, KJV, KJV+Strong's, LITV, MKJV, RV) and 5 commentaries (Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible, Adam Clarke's commentary, John Gill's Exposition on the Bible, Matthew Henry's commentary, and Jameison, Faussett & Brown's Commentary) loaded in my laptop as a Bible Software Program. I have the Full version which I paid for, but you can download a smaller, FREE version here if you like: http://www.e-sword.net/index.html

I would say the MOST IMPORTANT thing is to read something YOU'RE COMFORTABLE with.
In His Service,
John the Baptist

Answer 8

Aesthetically it is. The poetry of the Psalms, Ecclesiastes etc is just fantastic. Tho' it's not immune to dropping the ball once in a while, for example, Revelation 14:2 says "...and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps" which makes me piss myself laughing every time.

EDIT: Oh, for Christ's sake, Yahoo, P I S S isn't a rude word! It appears in the King James Bible six times!

Answer 9

It is if you want the version of the bible fit for a king. Sorta of hypocritical, but the fact is the highest bidders got their books published in that fairy tale. I personally don't bow to a king. I have read that farce and think it has some cool stories, but I like non fiction writing a whole lot more.

Answer 10

I don't think so, added to the fact I can't understand it, so I don't use it. Now there are some "bad" translations these days, you have to read the fine print in the beginning and see how they translated it, the big two are "word for word" and "thought for thought". If you really want to study the bible, you need to learn Greek & Hebrew :-)

Answer 11

"Best" is frequently a personal preference rather than a comparison to a measurable benchmark. Especially when it comes to spirituality, which is the most personal of all pursuits, the "best" holy book, regardless of faith, is the one that you feel the most comfortable with. Ranking the various versions really shouldn't matter.