How accurate is the King James Version Bible?

Question

Please share any facts regarding anything in this version of the bible .. no snide remarks please. I truly thank the Lord for those that laboured to put this version forward for us.. but I just wanted to find out from some who have done some research about any inaccuracies in this version of the Bible.

ty so much for taking the time to put any verses forward and for any research..

A sister in Christ
sandy

Answer 1

The KJV is pretty accurate.

The KJV is based on a set of Greek manuscripts known as the "textus receptecus". This manuscript base though is not near as reliable as the manuscripts we have found since the 1600s.

Over the past 400 years we have found manuscripts that are more much more reliable.

Reliability is how close are the manuscripts to the original. Many times they will equate an older manuscript to be more reliable.

One example is 1 John 5:7 in the KJV which is not found in any of the modern committee translations because scholars are pretty much unanimous that this does not date to the original text.

Answer 2

My honest opinion as a christian...NONE OF THE ABOVE. The bible was put together by a council many many years ago, this council decided what books would go in and which ones would not! I say read what ever one you can but know that there is more there you don't know about... either way it's not our fault. As a side note, some web sites will say stuff like this... "Again, it is crucial to remember that the church did not determine the canon. No early church council decided on the canon. It was God, and God alone, who determined which books belonged in the Bible." This is complete BS, religious people trying to maintain that god did it! God didn't say yes that goes in, or no that doesn't go in...MAN DID! Here is more information...I am not wrong here.. The first “canon” was the Muratorian Canon, which was compiled in (A.D. 170). The Muratorian Canon included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John. In A.D. 363, the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (A.D. 393) and the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) also affirmed the same 27 books as authoritative. The councils followed something similar to the following principles to determine whether a New Testament book was truly inspired by the Holy Spirit: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the Body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?

Answer 3

Unfortunately there really is no straight answer for this question. It really depends on who you ask. One Hebrew and Greek professor may say the KJV is very accurate, while another may say it s horribly inaccurate.

But for me, after researching the Bible for over 15 years, I came to the conclusion that the King James Bible is about the most accurate translation you can get your hands on, with the New King James version coming in second. I know about as many professors who are pro KJV as there are who are anti-KJV.. Pray and ask God to guide you!

Answer 4

This is a debate that goes way back. I have read many versions of the Bible. It's how it is interpreted to our language that causes the problem. The ancient language of the Bible used the same word and it is translated differently. Like the word, pharmacia (not sure of the spelling) which means witchcraft. It is the word English used to get the word Pharmacy. It is used in the Bible for witchcraft and for medicine.
Did you know that the King James Version is the only one that you can put into print because it is no longer copyrighted. All other versions still have copyrights. I think that's why many written things use it. I have many versions of the Bible I use for reference material but I read the KJV regularly. The American Standard Bible, now called something else, includes things (in the side footnotes) that the KJV left out. Political correctness goes back a long, long way!

Answer 5

It depends on where you look.

Example:
Psalm 8:2
Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength

That's a translation from the King James translators who derived the verse from the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was combined using some unfriendly copies of Masoritic texts, which were from certain Jews who resented Christianity and along with Jesus as a Messiah. They referred to Christians as 'schismatics'.

But what gave the future translators a clue that something was wrong with the translation, was the fact that Jesus is reported as using this verse here:
Matthew 21:16
And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?

Where was the 'perfected praise' part like it said in Psalm 8? What was Jesus quoting? So after a Septuagint (which was the preferred opinion of most theologians anyway) was found, the words in Psalm 8:2 could be verified.

The Masorites resented any intrusion into Judaism by making Jesus look good. So it is thought that they changed the text in order to fool the 'schismatics' into thinking that the verse had nothing to do with Him.

Now I love my copies of the King Jame's Version. I have an oxford version of it, and a Mormon version of it. I use them. But what I don't do is attempt to exclude all other versions in a rabid attempt to tell everyone that it is the only one. The New International Version has it's own problems. But I like that one too. And the New Living Translation has it's own problems, but I like that one too.

The real issue is that many Christians get caught up in worthless arguments like they are cheering for a football team,. And if anyone is serious about following Christ, they ought to get a Strong's concordance and many commentaries, and leave the idiotic arguing to those who won't grow up.

ALSO, English is a terrible language to translate to. That has been shown to me. So no English translation is really the 'true word of God' . The true Word of God is in heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father.

Answer 6

In its accuracy to the original Scripture, pretty good. The problem is that if they only translated the words that are in Scripture, it would be unintelligible as the sentance structure in ancient greek and hebrew is very different from modern english. That is why you will find most Bibles have a lot of words in italics. The italics are words that the editors had to add in in order for the sentence to make sense in english.

Further complicating things is the fact that the KJV is written based on 17th century english. Word meanings and usages have changed over the past several centuries.

Answer 7

In all the modern, "Buy Me I'm easy to read translations", literally hundreds of versus are corrupted when compared to the King James of 1611; including the NKJV. I must vote with CJ on this. It's easy to see if your English goes beyond "See Spot run."

You might enjoy version comparisons by Dr. Ken Matto at http://www.scionofzion.com/kjv_1611_yahoo.htm

Scroll down and click on a few versus to see what is really taking place. Well worth the read for any Christian who is not into Greek or needs practice with the Kings English.

Answer 8

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#errors

My mother started out her faith reading a paraphprased Bible now she reads and NIV. She is the most Godly person I know. I believe that it is the Holy Spirit that speaks to us through the Bible. The only version of the Bible that should be taken as correct is the original in Hebrew and Greek.

The KJV was translated by christians but largely from a translation and not the original manuscripts. So it went from Latin to English. The NIV was not written by christians but it was written by scholars who were striving(or claimed to)towards a literal translation. In any version you will lose some meaning as there are 4 words for love in Hebrew/Greek and only one in English. Between these two sites it should give you loads of what you are looking for.

http://www.ibs.org/bibles/translations/#KJV
Matthew 5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

I have to assume that much more than jots and tittles were changed in translation.

Answer 9

The King James Version is an excellent translation---for its time.

Its language is archaic and translators have learned a lot about reconstructing the Hebrew (etc) and Greek original. (You can safely ignore CJ's comment about Westcott and Hort.)

There are places where the theological concerns of the translators comes through.

You might want to read F. F. Bruce's "History of the Bible in English." Or at least something like it.

I personally like the Revised Standard Version and the Jerusalem Bible, the latter for its treatment of the Apocrypha. But there are newer translations equally as good.

Answer 10

Sandy,

Twenty six years ago I wasn't sure wether to read the Bible or not. I thought it would be like the game telephone. All distorted. I prayed to God for a sign if I should read the Bible.

Were not really suppose to ask for signs. However in my ignorance God gave me the sign. It really startled me. It was so unusual my request, that I knew it was from God.

It was the King James Bible, I had. Until recently it was the only one I trusted. It is my favorite. I believe you can trust the King James version.

Answer 11

Inaccuracies can be of at least two kinds:
- Translational inaccuracies. Notorious examples: the use of the word "virgin" for the Greek for "unmarried woman", and "kill" for "murder" in the Commandments. The newer versions are better, the translators having had access to more of the old texts.
- Factual inaccuracies. These are rife; there are hundreds of discrepancies between any version of the bible and the known facts. Perhaps the most obvious is visible to anyone with a shovel and the ability to count: the Antarctic ice cap is several million years old, and proves that there was not, during that entire time, a global flood.