• 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!

Should I use the KJV ?


Well-Known Member
Surely the bible is the message, not just the bits of the bible that suite you?


I've never bought in to the "all or nothing at all" narrative personally, no. The Bible is an anthology of literature compiled over centuries. I regard much of it as allegory and myth (there's a lot of truth in allegory and myth but, as with the world around us, things may not be as they seem).

If I was sent to a desert island I'd take Ecclesiastes, The Psalms, The Gospels and Revelation. Along with Paradise Lost, War and Peace, and The Master and Margarita.

I do find some verses in the Gospels a bit challenging; Jesus spoke mostly in riddles, and they're not all easy to figure out, for me anyway.

I'm agnostic about the resurrection, which you might say automatically disqualifies me as a Christian - Leo Tolstoy was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church for less, and that wasn't so long ago. But it's not a deal breaker for me. I have discussed this with Catholic and CoE priests and they weren't appalled.


New Member
Obviously it would be wonderful to have the original writings of the prophets and apostles, unfortunately outside of Papyrus 46, Pauline, we don't and what we have is man's interpretations based on other interpretations. When interpreting biblical texts from one language to another you occasionally come up against a word for which there is no corresponding word that means the same. Hence you frequently alter the original meaning. This has resulted in a plethora of Christian religions all with their own understanding of what is contained in the Bible. How can one Christian religion believe it is easy to qualify for God's kingdom and another believe that it takes great effort when both are studying from the same Bible? Of course another part of that is the false prophets warned about in Matthew 7:15, people who are in it for selfish reasons like money, power, prestige, etc.

For me it must come down to a few of things. One is that you don't trust in man for your knowledge of God. (Many are Matthew's ravening wolves among the flock) Another is you learn to really study the Bible yourself, become intimate with it. (For some words it is necessary to look at the original Hebrew for that word to really understand what was meant, remember, none of it was originally written in English) And lastly, you seek out God's spirit for His wisdom and knowledge. John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Spoken to the apostles but if the apostles who walked and talked with Jesus needed this source of help for understanding, how much more we need it now with so many distractions and philosophies of man to pull us to and fro and who might only know Jesus from the teachings of others.

Find yourself a church that doesn't have an obvious agenda like accumulating wealth or constructing grand buildings or lavish lifestyles for the inner circle...but one that teaches faith in the Lord Jesus, compassion, repentance and obedience to God and His Son.


Active Member
The KJV is predominantly based on the TR. Which is not based on a critical text that has some textual criticism used on it. For example, the KJV has a lot of the interpolations that came with the TR. Like the long ending of Mark, the pericope adultarae, etc, etc.

Thats the pertinent criticism applied. Not just a translation.

Good informatin, thank you.


New Member
Good informatin, thank you.

Thanks Neuropteron.

I use the KJV only because it is the most familiar to those who might be visiting here but would personally never rely on only it for truth. I use the Hebrew Bible and older references such as the very old Greek Septuagint and others. Anyone who considers themselves a serious scholar of the Bible would be missing so much by relying on any single source of Bible doctrine.

But again, so too would one's scholarship be lacking without going to THE source, God's Holy Spirit, the one and only place for all truth.

One of my pet peeves is that there are so many blind sheep leading the flock advocating things like...I digress, I don't wish to offend anyone here. ( It may have been one of Paul's as well.) 1 Corinthians 3:18-21

18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;


Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Repeatedly we hear that the best translation is the KJV bible. Sometimes, that it is the only bible inspired of God. Without a doubt its ubiquitous, and thus impossible to ignore.

Let's start with comments about the person of King James himself:

King James became the first earthly monarch to successfully sponsor and encourage the distribution of the entire Word of God in the daily language of his people. (King Alfred had made an attempt centuries earlier).

William Tyndale, the Father of the English Bible, had been ostensibly used by God to bring an early translation of the Bible in English. For this "crime" he was declared to be a heretic and was burned at the stake.
His last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."
It seems his prayer was heard because subsequently a born again English king sponsored an English Bible, produced openly on English soil for English Christians.
This was of course was King James who appointed 54 learned men to make "one more exact translation of the Bible." King James encouraged financial gifts to this project and set the example by agreeing to underwrite the salary of several of the translators himself.

Even though the official name for this translation would be the Authorized Version, it was soon known as the King James Bible. It was uniquely made accessible and promoted by the King of England himself. Laymen now had no more fear of owning their own Bible.
Historian Steven Coston Sr. makes following comment about King James: "King James was, no matter what tales some may tell, a virtuous man of good intentions, who did the best he could as God gave him strength."
In view of such an inspiring beginning why would anyone not predominately use the KJV ?

King James Weakness:
Regardless of his good intentions and excellent character references (sometime criticized. But who isn't?) King James had one weakness. This particular foible was a trait many Kings had, namely a delusion of grandeur. We could argue
that it's not a "delusion" when a person is actually the most elevated person in the country, so why even mention it?
It is mentioned because of his affectation regarding the "importance of the King" and the King's position as ordained by God,
He was insulted by the Geneva Bible's translation of Matthew 2:20 which seemed to brand all kings as tyrants.

Thus King James exerted his influence on the translators to reflect his hierarchical perspective in their translation work. This was done despite the translators unsuccessful objections, after all he was the one paying for the translation to be done.
Its dedication read: "To the most High and Mighty Prince James, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith.

Another issue revolves around inerrancy.
the average Christian may not be aware of the debate regarding various translations and may indeed receive the impression that the Bible favored in his or her church is inerrant.

In the words of evangelical Christian Gary Amirault:
“At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the ‘Inerrant Bible’ doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of God and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the “Alexandrian cult” and the Roman Catholic Church.”
David Sorenson, even goes so far as to deem “apostates” those who follow the “critical text,” such as the Revised Standard Version, as opposed to those who maintain the inerrancy of the “Received Text,” i.e., the basis for the KJV. He said “It is my belief that the King James Bible, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is God’s word in the English language without admixture of error.”

In reality these claims are diametrically in opposition to the truth.
Instead of being inerrant the KJV is replete with errors. (errors relative to the original texts)
Why can that be said?

Perceptive scholars point out that a translation can only be as good as it's source. The best basis for a translation are the extamt Hebrew, Aramaic and Coine Greek Manuscripts.
The Authorized Version (KJV) however took a shortcut. Instead of using these original mss, the translators used a mix of preceding translations, namely the Textus Receptus (TR) some new Greek texts (12 to 15th century) and the Latin Vulgate.

The original Textus Receptus was hurriedly put together and contained “thousands of typographical errors,”
It then was eventually reissued by Parisian printer Robert Estienne, whose edition was the basis of the KJV, with a significant amount of the same problems unchanged.

Scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman remarks:
“…The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’s edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us!…In fact, the Greek text that the KJV largely followed is now considered a seriously flawed composition, “hastily compiled” by Desiderius Erasmus, who pieced it together using a single Greek text from the 12th century and a few other manuscript portions, producing the “Textus Receptus” or “Received Text.”

And that is the crux of the matter.
The KJV is replete not only with translation errors, but an outdated language. These errors are the basis for a constant flow of assumption that the bible is illogical, incomprehensible and contradictory.

We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to recover the original wording of the Greek text. That means today's translations can be (not always) much better than one written in 1611.

One more thing needs to be said. If a person reads a translation as a panacea for the problems of life, by all means the KJV might with it's poetic and traditional language be the perfect solution.
However when attempting to find out the original meaning inspired by God a more modern translation is generally recommended.
The serious reader should even consider a good word for word translation, whilst difficult to read it is more accurate.

Lots more could be said, perhaps you could add some additional comments or point out reasons you think I'm wrong.
Note: Keep in mind that ingenious remarks such as "you are so wrong...(and similar)" whilst amusing, reveals more about the one making the remark than the one receiving it.

Since I'm certain the more inquisitive amongst you, will be asking some example of errors, here is a short list. Of course not all versions have the same ones.

Some verses with English words that have changed meaning since the KJV include:

replenish -means- supply fully
closet - means - private or a secret room,bedroom
compelled - means -threatened, urged, or pushed -
conversation - means - way a person travels through life
cousins- means -related (anyone outside of immediate family)
doctors- means -Teacher
bewitchment - means -leading astray
instant- means -insistent or -urgent
carriages- means -luggage
leasing- means -deceit
meet- means -fitting,proper

John 1:17
KJV Bible: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Better Translation: "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
Comments: This is another instance of a poor preposition. Moses did not proclaim his OWN law, but the law that GOD gave him to proclaim.

KJV Bible: "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water . . . And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
Better Translation: "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water . . . And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
Comments: Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

Acts 12:4
KJV Bible: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Better Translation: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Passover to bring him forth to the people."
Comments: The Greek word pascha (Greek: πάσχα, Strong's Concordance Number #G3957) in this verse has been inaccurately translated as Easter. This word should be translated as Passover, which agrees with the translation of pascha as Passover as found in Matthew 26:2 and other verses.

KJV Bible: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. "
Comments: This verse should NOT have the italicized words "it were." It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. They need to be on guard!

1Corinthians 7:19
KJV Bible: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. "
Comments: This verse actually NEEDS some italicized words to make the meaning clear, such as: "For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, rather the important thing is the keeping of the commandments of God."

Keep in mind the KJV wasn't necessarily always wrong at the time it was written, just many words are outdated, and can have a completely different meaning today .
We should take care not to read into each and every word meanings used in today's English without checking it out.

What are the ERRORS in the King James Version Bible
Errors in the King James Bible
Are there Errors in the King James Version (KJV)? | PeterGoeman.com
A Brief History of the King James Bible - Stellar House Publishing
First of all, ANY translation, by its nature, is inferior to the original language text. This is because any time you translate a document, you lose something of the original meaning. It is inevitable. There is no such thing as an exact translation. It just doesn't exist. The best you can do is a reasonable approximation.

Now let's consider the KJV. This version used as its source, among other things, the Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Bible). IOW, it used as a source, a Latin translation of the Bible. It also used the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation. In other words, the KJV is to an unusual degree a translation of translations. It's like making a photocopy of a photocopy. The more steps removed you get from the original, the worse the copy is going to be.

So not only is the KJV inferior simply by being a translation, it is inferior compared to other translations.

I would rather recommend to you a translation that uses as its sources ONLY the original language documents as its sources from which it translated, such as the New American Bible. It's trueness to the original Hebrew is especially notable.