KJV of the Bible vs. other versions?

Question

What do you think about Bible versions other than the KJV? I am a KJV only person (well, actually a textus receptus only person), but I just wanted to hear what everybody thinks.

Thanks so much for all your answers! It's really interesting to read them all. Since many of you shared your reasons for your view, I'd like to do the same. Some of my reasons are:
1.) The KJV came from the texus receptus manuscripts, while all other versions came from the Alexandrian texts and other texts which have been found to be corrupt and inaccurate
2.) The NIV, which was one of the earliest translations after the KJV, was trnslated by Westcott and Hort who were involved in occult, and other ungodly practices. I don't want to trust a translation to people like that.
3.) The Bible says that we are not to add to God's Word or take away from it, and that is literal. In fact, many translators lost their ability to speak and many have realized that what they did was wrong and have repented of it
4.)The new versions continually water down the love, deity, and holiness of God. They have become muddled and unclear.

4.) cont... Look at the difference between the I Corinthians 13:1 in the Message and in the KJV:
MESSAGE: If I speak with human eloquence and angelic ecstasy but don't love, I'm nothing but the creaking of a rusty gate.
KJV:Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
In the Message version, they take the very simple phrase "tongues of men and angels" and replace it with the words "Human eloquence and angelic ecstasty". It's so much harder to understand in the Message...it's like they just stick in some big words with the hope of making it sound better. (also, as a teenager in today's society, the first thing I think of when I hear "ecstasy" is either drugs, or extreme happiness, neither of which are the correct meaning...but "tongues" in the KJV is very clear and to the point.)
While this is only one example, it is one of may examples of horrible mistranslation in new versions.

So, anyway, that's some of the reasons why I use the KJV and only the KJV. If another texus receptus translation comes along that is just as good as the KJV, I will use it. But until then, the KJV is the only Bible.

Oh, yeah...one other thing...the Message Bible has an author on the cover...since when is anyone but God the author of the Bible!!!!?????

Todd,
I looked into the comments you made and found that Acts 12:4 did use the word "Easter", although Hebrews 4:9 did not. So, I looked up the history of Easter and the passover and I found this: Easter was a pagan holiday at the time. It came shortly after the passover. The word "pascha" used in the original text could have mean the passover or the Easter holiday. So which did it mean? Well, the passover was celebrated, then the days of eating unleavened bread occurred, which is not considered part of the passover. Verse 3 of Acts 12 says that Peter was arrested DURING the days of unleavened bread, which is AFTER the passover. The word "pascha" would then have to mean the pagan holiday of Easter (which is what it says) and not the passover.
http://theholidayspot.com/easter/history/easter_history.htm

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158_02.asp

Also, as for the brass issue, an article in Wikipedia (Which is probably the same article you read) says that many of the references to "brass" in the KJV refer to a bronze alloy or COPPER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass

Answer 1

I'm with you. All of the other versions were created with ine thing in mind...the almight dollar. The KJV is public domain. All other versions are copyrighted and bring in a profit, not to mention the fact that they change a lot of stuff too, which is a definite no no. Did you know that many of the men that created the NIV ended up losing their ability to speak shortly thereafter? God will not allow His Word to be defiled without punishing those that do so!

Answer 2

The KJV was a good Bible for it's time--truly revolutionary. The texts used for translation though were not older than 1200 AD. Since then we have had the dead sea scrolls and hundreds of years to find more manuscript fragments. There are a few translational errors in the King James that are problematic (which is why a translation is not the goal, but focusing as much on the original language should be the goal).

Known Translation Issues:

The word "Sabbath" is dropped in Heb 4:9; in Acts 12:4, the KJV says "Easter" where the Jewish holiday of Passover is being referred to. Further, in Deuteronomy 8:9 the King James Version has Moses describing the Promised Land as having hills where "thou mayest dig brass". Brass is an artificial alloy of copper and zinc and cannot be found in nature. The correct translation should be 'copper'. (gleaned from Wiki because I'm too lazy to go to my library)

For english translations I prefer the NASB for study (closest word-for-word translation). For devotional reading I like the cadence of the ESV.

Each translation will have a few issues in it, but for it's time again the KJV was a phenomenal accomplishment (though a bit outdated today with modern language--and that should be dealt with since the point of translation is to accurately convey and communicate the message).

Edit: Not to be argumentative in any way but when I go to my resources here's what they say about the Acts 12:4 verse

This passage is not talking about Easter. How do we know? The word translated Easter is the Greek word pascha (derived from the Hebrew word pesach; there is no original Greek word for Passover), and it has only one meaning. It always means Passover—it can never mean Easter! For this reason, we find a Hebrew word used in the Greek New Testament. Once again, this Hebrew word can only refer to Passover. And other translations, including the Revised Standard Version, correctly render this word Passover.

Now, of course feel free to go with whatever view you would like.

Best,

Todd

Answer 3

Seriously, while I somewhat understand the motivation behind it, I think the whole debate is silly - a diversion, especially considering that the arguments used against "modern translations" echo the arguments used against the KJV when it first was published (Jerome's Vulgate was the "preferred" translation at that time).
Are there some differences between translations? Yes - but in regard to the vast majority of translations, those differences actually increase our understanding. Understanding the science of translation - the difficulties of going from one langugae to another - helps us to understand the necessity of those differences. The serious student of Scripture should use several English translations - along with a good Bible Dictionary and Lexicon - to help them grasp the full meaning of the text.
The choice of a particular English translation is a personal choice. A lot of factors can - and should - go into your decision - but one thing that should NEVER be a factor is intimidation. You should never have to wonder if you're going to be accepted by others if you use an NIV rather than a KJV - or visa versa! Fellowship should NEVER be based upon which translation a person studies!
It saddens me to think that the sharing of the Gospel is being disrupted by this issue - and I think it should give every Believer more than just a passing concern.

Answer 4

The King James Version is beautiful, poetic, and "sounds like the Bible" for a lot of people.

This doesn't change the fact that it's archaic, difficult to read, and often inaccurate. Much has been learned about ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek since the KJV. Many older manuscripts discovered, etc. This only improves translators' ability to convey the true meaning of the scriptures and our ability to understand it.

It is also not true that modern translations were all done for profit. The Revised Standard Version (a descendant of the KJV) translation was sponsored by the National Council of Churches becaused they perceived a need for an accurate, understandable translation and as a way to fund ministry around the world. For every NIV (and variants) sold, money goes to the International Bible Society for the purpose of spreading the word of God.

For those literalistic readers of the KJV out there, how do you handle the words in the KJV whose meanings have changed since the translation was done? What good is trying to follow the Bible if you can't understand what it really says? How many of you choose to read other books from the 1600's and expect to understand them clearly?

Every translation has a place and a purpose. The beauty of the KJV, its familiar rhythms and wordings have value for many. But as a primary Bible for reading and study, there are far better choices.

Answer 5

KJV has over 20,000 known mistakes:

http://www.thedcl.org/bible/diaglott-nt/ed-prefac.pdf

See pages 6 & 7.

KJV was written with many bias, especially those of King James.

Example 1 John 5:7, was known to be inserted into the Text Receptus in the 1500's by a Catholic priest.

"How To Choose Your Bible Wisely", by A.S.Duthie recommends for serious bible students

New American Standard Bible
Revised Standard Bible
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

Of these three (and I use all three) I have found the NWT to be the most accurate and most faithful to the original Text.

.

Answer 6

I generally use all translations. I have found some of the wording in the simple Good News Bible to be the most clear. Different working reaches out to me at different times. I think it is important to get a broad understanding.

I have heard that all fall short, though, and that much was lost in the original translations that produced the KJV. I once glanced at a Bible called the "Greek Key" Bible which elaborated on key words as originally written in Greek language. I would like to get that Bible.

As a new believer several years ago, I was really drawn to the NLT because I could understand it. Then I became enthralled by the KJV. I find value in all of them, but have noticed some of them leave out some details.

Answer 7

I love the KJV. Beautiful language and a solid translation. You really can't go wrong with the authorized. Lately I've been considering the New American Standard Version. They say it's the most literal translation from the original Greek.

Answer 8

If you are truly religious you should endeavour to determine from various sources if the translation accurately reflects what the original language wanted to say. The KJV is a translation--it was translated by a group of men-who "agreed" on what it said. One mistranslation is "thou shalt not kill". A little reflection would tell us that when David killed goliath--he broke the commandment, and should have been put to death himself-this would make me suspect the translation. On following this up one discovers there is no single english word which relfects the intent of the original language. What it really means is don't commit first degree murder (premeditated) unless it is in time of war. As the Jews and the Phillistines were fixing to have a war-David did not break the commandment.

Answer 9

With many it is a matter of personal choice. If while doing research you find concern with the version you use, you may find it to be in error.
The New World Translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses has brought high praise and acclaim from scholars world wide. It comes in many foreign languages and was prepared by people who's language was native to the translation.
Thus assuring the proper understanding of God's word and intent, only Jehovah can know all languages.
Since it's original KJV printing in 1611 thousands of changes have been made in it, more than 7,000 in the last century alone.
The entire point as stated in Proverbs, is wisdom, and obedience to God's commands.
Also bear one thing in mind........Jesus did NOT speak 16th century English. As far as we know he spoke Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew, also there is a possibility in his travels with Joseph, he may have acquired other languages as well in the course of business

Answer 10

With all due respect...What do you mean I am a KJV person? The Bible as nothing more than a collection of unclear, outdated, outmoded stories that hold little if any meaning in today's world; certainly not to be taken literally. Of course I respect you're wanting to read a version, but let's face it, there wouldn't be so many versions if the book were clear and specific which it is not. I submit that you read other works instead of the Bible...you'll be the better for it. PEACE!