-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is King James bible THE best bible? Why?
- Thread starter Me Myself
- Start date
Bob Dixon
>implying
It's certainly the most popular and I like reading it because it has an almost sing-songy feel to it. It's very readable and quite nice.
Is it the absolute best scholarly translation? No. The translation was done hundreds of years ago. You'd have much better luck with a good modern translation that takes the context and history of all the passages into account.
I think, for accuracy and brilliance, this is third best:
The Cockney Bible - Knowledge Content: Christianity
Second best is the original.
First is, of course, a true, personal revelation straight form the mouth of God.
Is it the absolute best scholarly translation? No. The translation was done hundreds of years ago. You'd have much better luck with a good modern translation that takes the context and history of all the passages into account.
I think, for accuracy and brilliance, this is third best:
The Cockney Bible - Knowledge Content: Christianity
Second best is the original.
First is, of course, a true, personal revelation straight form the mouth of God.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Humm but wouldn´t the oldest one be the less "perverted" form? I mean, the form that has suffered least ill-transaltions?
In any case thanks for replying! I hope more people do this thought o.o
Heh, with that I would agree
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
It is certain that all Bibles contain errors.
The king James has stood the test of time, but does not include the latest scholarship.
The New revised standard version. includes all the latest scholarship up to a few years ago and is approved by a wide range of churches. It is also easy to read and understand.
The king James has stood the test of time, but does not include the latest scholarship.
The New revised standard version. includes all the latest scholarship up to a few years ago and is approved by a wide range of churches. It is also easy to read and understand.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I have done some comparisons.
The list is of length.
But sticking to those items close at hand.....
King James would be the best.
The English may be dated but it is usable.
I might concede the construction of King James to be 'church worthy',
but that isn't really the point.
Newer versions and rewrites have more bias.
I've seen one copy that strips the cover of any wording...
strips the title of Genesis and the name of Moses from the first page...
and then declares Chapter Two is a retelling of Chapter One.....
It was obviously a bible with an agenda.
It might be said of King James....'an agenda'....
but the text still holds enough structure to discern the intent.
As any tool...how you handle the tool makes all the difference.
The list is of length.
But sticking to those items close at hand.....
King James would be the best.
The English may be dated but it is usable.
I might concede the construction of King James to be 'church worthy',
but that isn't really the point.
Newer versions and rewrites have more bias.
I've seen one copy that strips the cover of any wording...
strips the title of Genesis and the name of Moses from the first page...
and then declares Chapter Two is a retelling of Chapter One.....
It was obviously a bible with an agenda.
It might be said of King James....'an agenda'....
but the text still holds enough structure to discern the intent.
As any tool...how you handle the tool makes all the difference.
JacobEzra.
Dr. Greenthumb
I admire your reading skills! I think the KJV is anything but readable. I mean, I can understand it, though some words are just confusing.
My three favorite are NAB,Douay-Rheims and then the New Jerusalem.
Many of us are reading for different purposes in our lives. Some are being introduced to Christian theology; some are scholars looking looking for answers to their studies, anti-christians may be looking for weaknesses, some historians may simply be looking at early texts from an academic historical standpoint.
For many english speakers, the King James formed our initial introduction to the christian tradition. I think the King James has wonderful language (borrowed heavily from Tyndale’s bible) but that beautiful language is archaic and unclear and there are too many errors for biblical scholars to be interested in it's use for use in earliest textual criticism (i.e. what the original sacred text actually said).
I think that christian textual scholars tend to avoid bibles that are based on Textus Receptus greek texts such as the king james since, in creating the Textus Receptus, Erasmus and Froben used few and poor greek manuscripts as their basis (they were based on 10th and 12th century manuscripts) rather than earlier (and better) manuscripts. For example, the 4 main uncials we have are from 4th - 5th century periods and are, I believe, superior to the later manuscripts for use in textual criticism (i.e. trying to determine what the earliest texts might have said) and textual history. Erasmus, in his third edition, takes us a great deal of space telling us why he included spurious text (the johannine comma) into his bible, yet he includes it. So does the King James (based on the T.R. text) while Luther's translation correctly omits it.
Using multiple language texts (i.e. polyglots) are helpful in that the nuances and frank differences found when one is reading, creates a multitude of thoughts and considerations and nuances of meaning that a single language doesn’t seem to generate in the reader.
I agree with several of the posts that opined that the King James is useful, but NOT the most correct of english bibles.
Clear
sivioi
For many english speakers, the King James formed our initial introduction to the christian tradition. I think the King James has wonderful language (borrowed heavily from Tyndale’s bible) but that beautiful language is archaic and unclear and there are too many errors for biblical scholars to be interested in it's use for use in earliest textual criticism (i.e. what the original sacred text actually said).
I think that christian textual scholars tend to avoid bibles that are based on Textus Receptus greek texts such as the king james since, in creating the Textus Receptus, Erasmus and Froben used few and poor greek manuscripts as their basis (they were based on 10th and 12th century manuscripts) rather than earlier (and better) manuscripts. For example, the 4 main uncials we have are from 4th - 5th century periods and are, I believe, superior to the later manuscripts for use in textual criticism (i.e. trying to determine what the earliest texts might have said) and textual history. Erasmus, in his third edition, takes us a great deal of space telling us why he included spurious text (the johannine comma) into his bible, yet he includes it. So does the King James (based on the T.R. text) while Luther's translation correctly omits it.
Using multiple language texts (i.e. polyglots) are helpful in that the nuances and frank differences found when one is reading, creates a multitude of thoughts and considerations and nuances of meaning that a single language doesn’t seem to generate in the reader.
I agree with several of the posts that opined that the King James is useful, but NOT the most correct of english bibles.
Clear
sivioi
Last edited:
fallingblood
Agnostic Theist
The King James Bible is a nice Bible. I like it for the language. It contains some very beautiful verses, and like Bob Dixon said, can be sing-songy. The scholarship though is out-dated. This is important because since the production of the King James version, there have been some very important textual discoveries. For instance, since the King James version was produced, the Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered. The Dead Sea Scrolls are earlier than anything we had before them. In addition, we have also found New Testament manuscripts etc that predate what was available at the time of the King James version. Basically, we have better sources today then we did at that time.
The top versions today, at least in my opinion, are the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible. They both take advantage of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is a must now. They also rely on better Greek sources than the King James Version.
The top versions today, at least in my opinion, are the New Revised Standard Version and the New Jerusalem Bible. They both take advantage of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is a must now. They also rely on better Greek sources than the King James Version.
pwfaith
Active Member
I think it depends on what one considers "most accurate". Is "most accurate" a translation that is exactly word-for-word of the original language or is "most accurate" the one that conveys the message intended?
I think the most accurate "literal translation" is the ESV or NASB, and the most accurate "meaning-based" translation is the NIV (meaning it is the best translation for balancing the literal and meaning). I find the Amplified to be among the most accurate too.
pwfaith
Active Member
Depends on what the other translations are based upon. For example if the KJV is the first translated version into English and every translation thereafter were translated based upon their translations, this could be true. However, those translations that are not based upon an another translation, but rather the translators used the earliest manuscripts as their basis. Such as the NASB. It is not the oldest translation we have but it is often considered the most accurate today. It was translated based upon the earliest manuscripts we have available, not another translation. Does that make sense?
Read, Realms of Faith: Comparing Bible Translations Now, that is a very long but worthwhile piece on Bible versions, you might just want to jump to the conclusion of it, Realms of Faith: Comparing Bible Translations, Conclusions
By the way, for the two links above it first pops up with link which takes you to the above link, so don't be put off by what you first see, though nothing offensive by the way.
Now, for those who have made their minds up for supporting the KJV or for that matter, the Geneva Bible, there are no real discussions on the matter then is there? Just arguments
But it has to be pointed out, RESTATING THE OBVIOUS ABOUT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS even lovers of the KJV should insist that it be put into contemporary English!
1 Corinthians 14:9
So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.
11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me.---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB
Last edited:
IsmailaGodHasHeard
Well-Known Member
No it, is not. It was the best Bible of that time, but it has been replaced by better, more literal Bibles. The King James Version, and the New King James Version omit something from Matthew 24:36. I personally believe that the New American Standard Bible, The Amplified Bible, the English Standard Version are all good Bibles that I trust with the New American Standard Version being my favorite because it is the most literal. Let me know if you want to know more.
Now Awoon, I bet you don't even have a copy!
So, this what you read Awoon?
The Syriac Bible
:slap:
The person that I quoted from, has a good taste in what his favorite Bible is:clap
1 Corinthians 14:9
So also you, unless you utter by the tongue speech that is clear, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air.
14:11 If then I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be to the one who speaks a barbarian, and the one who speaks will be a barbarian to me. ---Scripture Quotations Taken from the NASB
For anyone looking at different Bible translations look over the article, Comparing Bible Translations. Yes, it is a long article but it does various sections in it that you can directly link to, if you want to skip some of it.
Last edited:
javajo
Well-Known Member
Joking aside, I will say I like the KJV, because I read it for all my life and I can recall verses and words and phrases easily which helps me look up and find verses quickly. I like that it uses the Received Text, the over 5,000 texts of which 95% agree together. I think it is an accurate English translation of God's Word. I like to use other translations as well to help get a clearer understanding the of Word. Like some translations use the proper words like the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades for the grave, (and Hell) and Tartarus and Gehenna, which all have different meanings, whereas the KJV just uses Hell, (which is fine) except once in 1 Cor. 15 where it uses "the grave". So one has to use the Concordance (and context) a bit.Not if you don't know English.
The Kings James Bible is not the most accurate translation. As mentioned in other posts, many manuscripts discovered after the KJV was published help obtain a more accurate translation. The KJV bible contains spurious additions to verses, such as 1 John 5:7.
The divine Name Jehovah is used only a few times in the KJ bible, despite the fact the tetragrammaton (the 4 hebrew letters representing God's name) appears thousands of times in the original texts. The KJ translators replaced most instances of the divine Name with LORD or GOD in all capitals.
It also suffers from being published in 1611. It was published 400 years ago this year! The changes in the English language since then have made understanding passages in this Bible difficult.
A modern literal translation of the Bible can aid greatly in understanding God's Word, such as the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.
pwfaith
Active Member
I personally disagree that the NWT is an accurate or good literal translation
Jehovah's Witness Bible Translation Examined
I understand that the Churches attack the NWT as inaccurate in an attempt to discredit this translation. Please note the following quote:
g 11/07 p. 14WHICH TRANSLATION SHOULD I READ?
Some linguists have examined modern Bible translationsincluding the New World Translationfor examples of inaccuracy and bias. One such scholar is Jason David BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States. In 2003 he published a 200-page study of nine of the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world. His study examined several passages of Scripture that are controversial, for that is where bias is most likely to interfere with translation. For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and he looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. What is his assessment?
BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation. While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared. He calls it a remarkably good translation.
Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.
BeDuhn points out that the general public and many Bible scholars assume that the differences in the New World Translation (NW) are due to religious bias on the part of its translators. However, he states: Most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation. While BeDuhn disagrees with certain renderings of the New World Translation, he says that this version emerges as the most accurate of the translations compared. He calls it a remarkably good translation.
Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, made a similar comment concerning the New World Translation. In 1989 he said: This work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. . . . I have never discovered in the New World Translation any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.