Why should Christians discard KJV versions of their Bibles for contemporary versions?

Question

"No longer am I tempted to drink all the cough syrup in my medicine cabinet since I've switched from KJV to NIV"---Pastor.

Answer 1

Why change when you have the most correct copy of the God's word?
Silly!

Answer 2

You don't toss off the KJV. It still has a place. Sometimes it brings out a point better than contemporary versions. Usually I use a modern translation so I can bypass the translation step.

A classic example is in 1Corinth. 10:25. What is a "shambles"? See what I mean by a translation step? More modern translations show it to be a "meat market".

The famous quote of England and the USA being separated by the English language is true especially when it is English of the 1600s.

I am hoping no one on R&S believes the KJV is the original language Jesus and the prophets spoke as some do. That would just be too sad.

Answer 3

It is best to consult numerous bibles and not put to much trust in only one.

Scholars have pointed out that the KJV has 20,000 mistakes.

and the NIV:

please note these comments:

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."


How To Choose Your Bible Wisely, by A.S.Duthie, recommended the NASB, NWT, or the RSV for serious students of the bible, because they are the most literal.

We need to stop being victims and strive to find the most accurate translation currently available.

.

Answer 4

KJV is in 16C-17C english: sometimes the meaning of a word used then has changed (same written word, different nuances now). It is in very beautiful english as that was the time when English really flowered as a language.

KJV is based on a limited set of Greek manuscripts, brought together into the 'textus receptus' by Erasmus. These are good manuscripts, and he only had to patch in a few missing verses from the vulgate - a translation of the Bible into Latin made by St Jerome. But now we use a bigger manuscript base (5000), and greater and fuller studies have been done to get the most authentic original we can. (The Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is the authoritative work on the New Testament source - it has Greek text as best as can be ascertained currently according to the scholars with many notes on all significant word variants and adjustments.)

The text is entirely reliable of course in terms of paragraph meanings, and muslim criticisms are inevitably vague since evidence of wholesale change as claimed by Mohammedan scholars is wishful thinking (and a lie which will have to be accounted for at the Last Judgement) on their part.

Answer 5

If you are a student of the bible, you probably realize the importance of different versions of the scriptures. This is because different bible versions use different wording which allows you to gain a clearer understanding of scriptures of interest. The difference in scripture wording might even cause you to ask and seek answers to questions like: Does the KJV version give credence to the "Divine right of kings" or: what does the bible really teach about the word "hell" or: is God's name important and many other interesting questions. There is a surprising amount of truth that can be gained by studying many versions and translations of the bible.

Answer 6

NIV for example was compiled with more reliable manuscripts by better educated scholars who could communicate around the world with their peers in real time, etc.
The KJV is mostly taken from earlier English versions itself.
The idea that the KJV is the one true bible version and all others are not is a satanic lie.

Answer 7

I don't think people should discard the KJV. It's a nice Bible. And some people still use it and that's great for them. But, there are more translations out there that incorporate more recent scholarship (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls) that the KJV translators didn't have access to. So, we shouldn't turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to those things. I believe we should have more than one translation of the Bible for study purposes and I also believe a lexicon here and there can't hurt, either.

Answer 8

The KJV has stood the test of time. I am old enough to remember when that was pretty much all we had......and all the verses I memorized were KJV......and those verses continue to inspire and direct me. I do like the newer versions though ! They are much easier to understand,. I would never toss out a KJV Bible..

Answer 9

Christians should not discard their King James versions ,the NIV is easier to understand,it has the same meaning people should use what works for them

Answer 10

I'm not discarding my KJV for anything else, I love this version
and I'm sticking to it.
I have read other versions, but I always go back to KJV.

God Bless You

Answer 11

Because the KJV is in the English that Jesus used.

You laugh; I've heard it used straight.