Is King James bible THE best bible? Why?

[pwfaith]

O.K., however I must state that when I did compare the NIV to the KJV in a few verses I found the KJV to be just as if not more clear than the NIV. Anyway, as long as the translations are accurate, either one should suffice.

I agree, in some areas it is, but overall generally it's not as easy to understand as the NIV. I did a google search for "KJV outdated phrases" and came up with a site that had a few listed:

In I Samuel 30:31 the KJV says, “Where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.” Five times the KJV uses the expression, “Fetch a compass” (examples: II Sam. 5:23; Acts 28:13). In Matt. 27:44 it says, “They cast the same in his teeth.” In Mark 9:18 the KJV says, “And pineth away.” In Gal. 4:24 it says, “Which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” In James 1:21 we are told to “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness.

​

NIV comparison:
1 Sam 30:31 - "where he and his men had roamed."
2 Sam 5:23 - "“Do not go straight up, but circle around behind them and attack them in front of the poplar trees."
Acts 28:12 - "From there we set sail and arrived at Rhegium."
Matt. 27:44 - "In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him."

I'd say "men had roamed" is a bit more understandable in today's world than "wont to haunt" as is "circle around behind them" & "we set sail and arrive" rather than "fetch a compass" Or "heaped insults on him" instead of "cast the same in his teeth" But that's just me lol I've never been a big fan of writings from that era. It's good for those who do enjoy that kind of literature, but I doubt that is probably the majority of readers in today's society As I said, I don't have a problem with the KJV, it's not a bad translation or anything, but as far as "literal" balanced with "meaning" translations go, the NIV is more accurate.

The site I got the phrases from is http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_obsolete_words_1.html They also have a list of words that were probably very common back then but not so much today. Like: AGONE is an outdated word for “ago"; ALLEGE today means merely to assert. In the sixteenth century it meant to produce evidence and to prove; ANGLE meant “fishhook” to the KJV translators; BEWRAY meant to reveal or disclose; CHOLER once meant anger, etc They just aren't words typically used today but are used in the KJV. Again, it's not wrong that they are, it's just not as easily understood to the common reader, imo.

 

[Desert Snake]

I agree, in some areas it is, but overall generally it's not as easy to understand as the NIV. I did a google search for "KJV outdated phrases" and came up with a site that had a few listed:

In I Samuel 30:31 the KJV says, “Where David himself and his men were wont to haunt.” Five times the KJV uses the expression, “Fetch a compass” (examples: II Sam. 5:23; Acts 28:13). In Matt. 27:44 it says, “They cast the same in his teeth.” In Mark 9:18 the KJV says, “And pineth away.” In Gal. 4:24 it says, “Which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.” In James 1:21 we are told to “lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness.

​

NIV comparison:
1 Sam 30:31 - "where he and his men had roamed."
2 Sam 5:23 - "“Do not go straight up, but circle around behind them and attack them in front of the poplar trees."
Acts 28:12 - "From there we set sail and arrived at Rhegium."
Matt. 27:44 - "In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him."

I'd say "men had roamed" is a bit more understandable in today's world than "wont to haunt" as is "circle around behind them" & "we set sail and arrive" rather than "fetch a compass" Or "heaped insults on him" instead of "cast the same in his teeth" But that's just me lol I've never been a big fan of writings from that era. It's good for those who do enjoy that kind of literature, but I doubt that is probably the majority of readers in today's society As I said, I don't have a problem with the KJV, it's not a bad translation or anything, but as far as "literal" balanced with "meaning" translations go, the NIV is more accurate.

The site I got the phrases from is http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_obsolete_words_1.html They also have a list of words that were probably very common back then but not so much today. Like: AGONE is an outdated word for “ago"; ALLEGE today means merely to assert. In the sixteenth century it meant to produce evidence and to prove; ANGLE meant “fishhook” to the KJV translators; BEWRAY meant to reveal or disclose; CHOLER once meant anger, etc They just aren't words typically used today but are used in the KJV. Again, it's not wrong that they are, it's just not as easily understood to the common reader, imo.

Yeah, I get it, although I might compare verses regardless, to make sure the meanings stay the same.

 

[Desert Snake]

Interesting comparisons.

 

[pwfaith]

Yeah, I get it, although I might compare verses regardless, to make sure the meanings stay the same.

Oh, totally! If I'm doing a deep study I usually compare several translations. Typically NASB, Amplified, KJV, NIV, NIrV, Living & Message. For just everyday fun reading, I actually prefer the NIrV.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Now compare the KJV with its older brother Douay–Rheims

 

[Gaura Priya]

Now compare the KJV with its older brother Douay–Rheims

...and give us this day our supersubstantial bread...

:angel2:

Everyone knows that the Douay-Rheims received Anglicisms from the King James, and the King James received latinate vocabulary from the Douay-Rheims... God forbid the Catholics and Protestants actually worked together for once!

 

[Protester]

...and give us this day our supersubstantial bread...

:angel2:

Everyone knows that the Douay-Rheims received Anglicisms from the King James, and the King James received latinate vocabulary from the Douay-Rheims... God forbid the Catholics and Protestants actually worked together for once!

. . .the impulse for producing the King James Bible (or, as it is frequently called in England, the Authorized Version) initially came from two groups, one religious and the other political—both of them at the top of their respective food chains. It is not altogether unfair to say that the motive to produce this grand work was more to protect the status quo than to meet the needs of the people. In this respect, the King James Bible resembled the Roman Catholic Rheims-Douai version rather than its own Protestant predecessors of the sixteenth century. . . .
. . .perhaps most surprisingly, the Rheims-Douai version had some impact as well. The Old Testament was completed only a year or two before the KJV was published—it was thus too late to have an influence. But the New Testament of the Catholics had appeared in 1582, and it made its way into the Authorized Version in a few places. Besides using some of the language of the Catholic New Testament—especially Latinisms, or traditional ecclesiastical terms—the KJV also follows the textual basis of the Rheims-Douai—that is, the Latin Vulgate—in nearly 100 places. In ten places, the Authorized Version “abandons all known Greek manuscripts for the Latin Vulgate.”

---Dr. Daniel Wallace

Yes, you have a point Guara as the excerpts from Part II: The Reign of the King James (The Era of Elegance) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

One of the best complaints about the KJV comes from a Canadian Church, "KJV Only" advocates refuted! perhaps many of you have already seen it. It really isn't all that long, but it does cover a lot of ground. Just go with the the NASB and you'll have the most accurate Bible that is currently available in the English Language.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh, totally! If I'm doing a deep study I usually compare several translations. Typically NASB, Amplified, KJV, NIV, NIrV, Living & Message. For just everyday fun reading, I actually prefer the NIrV.

Sure! I just don't think I'd have to reference the NIV very often, if at all, to get the original meaning.

 

[javajo]

Oh, totally! If I'm doing a deep study I usually compare several translations. Typically NASB, Amplified, KJV, NIV, NIrV, Living & Message. For just everyday fun reading, I actually prefer the NIrV.

That's me. I like to use many translations for study, and I enjoy the NirV (the New International Reader's Version), as it is for children and is very easy to understand. I enjoy the KJV as my primary Bible that I read most, because I remember verses better and because of the beauty. Besides, I have used it so long, I don't have trouble understanding the older words.

 

[Protester]

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?

. . . . I would suggest you look over John MacArthur's comments a famous expositor of the Bible and seminary leader who points out a slightly more eclectic approach in, The Biblical Position on the KJV Controversy* --* John MacArthur The NASB is the Bible he prefers by the way. While he does make some remarks about the NKJV, it is a very readable Bible, if one remembers that the most accurate translation of bible verses are really in the marginal notes (located in the center of the pages. ) rather then the main text itself -- it is one of the most accurate ones as well, when one does bother to read the marginal notes.

So, Javajo you would probably find the NKJV much to your liking.

 

[pwfaith]

Sure! I just don't think I'd have to reference the NIV very often, if at all, to get the original meaning.

Nothing wrong with that This is why "what bible translation is right" is purely based on preference. Depends on what is right for the individual. (although I understand we've been discussing accuracy - which again depends on if we're looking at accuracy of thought-for-thought or word-for-word translations but as far as which is "right" per individual, that totally depends on the individual's preference).

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Sure! I just don't think I'd have to reference the NIV very often, if at all, to get the original meaning.

As far as the Christian NT Greek Scriptures goes,
an 'Interlinear Translation' helps discern the original Greek into English.

 

[Desert Snake]

As far as the Christian NT Greek Scriptures goes,
an 'Interlinear Translation' helps discern the original Greek into English.

Ah.....Good advice. I don't have an actual Bible right now but if I pick one up that would be the version I'd go for.

 

[pwfaith]

Ah.....Good advice. I don't have an actual Bible right now but if I pick one up that would be the version I'd go for.

Biblegateway.com is a great resource. It offers several english translations from the Interlinear to the Message.

 

[Desert Snake]

Biblegateway.com is a great resource. It offers several english translations from the Interlinear to the Message.

I've used that to find verses. It's a good site for translation comparison.

 

[Protester]

I've used that to find verses. It's a good site for translation comparison.

Some interlinear sources are better than others, this one would not be considered very good, Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures (ref, The New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses--Part 4) If you want to see various translations, with the Greek without any cost? This site will give you excellent comparisons along with the Greek, One example:

NETBible: John 1:1

Considering this thread started out as asking about the King James Bible, there is the James Strong Hebrew to English, and Greek to English Concordance designed to be used with the KJV. You can get a download of the KJV and The Sword Bible program from The CrossWire Bible Society - Free Bible Software - Bringing the Gospel to a new generation and I do believe that concordance will come with it.

 

[gdemoss]

KJV + Strongs Concordance + Websters 1828 = A great time studying.

2000 years after the birth of the church it is completely corrupt. And that doesn't even depend on the version they are using. They can be blind to the true message of any version.

 

[kepha31]

KJV + Strongs Concordance + Websters 1828 = A great time studying.

2000 years after the birth of the church it is completely corrupt. And that doesn't even depend on the version they are using. They can be blind to the true message of any version.

With the church completely corrupt, it's comforting to know there is at least one that sees the true message of any version.

 

[javajo]

There is corruption and deception in the Church for sure. But all are not corrupt. There are some slightly corrupt 'versions', as well (only need a small % of poision to kill a rat), but there are excellent ones, too. Truth is more than 95% of our Bibles are in agreement, with some minor differences in wording and such. I think God was faithful to preserve his word in a way we could understand it as he promise.

 

[Villager]

There is corruption and deception in the Church for sure. But all are not corrupt. There are some slightly corrupt 'versions', as well (only need a small % of poision to kill a rat), but there are excellent ones, too. Truth is more than 95% of our Bibles are in agreement, with some minor differences in wording and such. I think God was faithful to preserve his word in a way we could understand it as he promise.

Then God failed miserably, because his word was totally hidden for a millennium. When it finally came to light, in England, it was twisted and circumscribed, in England, largely by the so-called King James translation, which inured millions to God's word for another four hundred years, though by the 20th century it simply put people off Christianity because it sounded nonsensical, if not absurd, and certainly old-fashioned. Modern translations are far more slick, but also just as thick with heresy as the KJV, if not more so. One needs only one word, either slipped in, or altered, in a key sentence to change the whole meaning of a Bible teaching. A variation of 5% is more than enough for those who would change God's word to man's.

For those who would find out what the Bible says, the only solution is the use of original languages.