Christians: King James Version Only?
I have an ESV version, and while I agree the KJV is a good translation, I simply cannot read it well. It hinders my learning.
Is it really that big of a deal, so long as you have a good commentary? For example, the Macarthur Study Bible (ESV) is what I have, and I think it is awesome.
It just seems to me that if you are going to be that fanatical about a version, shouldn't we ONLY read it in Greek and Hebrew, and not use a translation at all?
English Standard Version. It puts it in modern english. It is a different tranlsation than KJV.
- lilAngelLv 79 years agoFavorite Answer
New King James is easier to read, and is the most accurate. My husband and I have a Macarthur study bible, and it is good for most things, but keep in mind that John Macarthur is a five point Calvinist, and this can skew some of his observations.
- ?Lv 79 years ago
As a student of Church and Bible History, it is not hard to prove that the "King James Only" people are all wet. Their understanding of what the Bible is, Church History, and Bible History is tweaked. Read the English Bible in whatever translation which feels comfortable to you, other than those which are trying to pull you into some sort of denominational direction (in my opinion those are the bad ones, including The Message, The New World Translation, etc.).
Often I will use the New International Version or the New King James, and sometimes the New Living Translation, just to cover some territory. For deep study I still use the King James Version because I have so much in other applications which are built around it (lexicons, concordance, and commentaries which are what the commentators used).
I would suggest you just go with what feels natural to you, because there is no such thing as a perfect translation (at least, I've never see one), especially in English!
- 9 years ago
I am a Jew. I believe in Yeshua as God, as YHWH. I've studied Hebrew. And I will tell you the KJV is a fine translation but NOT the most accurate English translation. The most accurate English translation is The HalleluYah Scriptures. The KJV replaces YHWH or Yah (YHWH's nickName used about 30 times in the Bible) with "the LORD." The LORD is not His Name. The LORD is a fine title but not true to the original Hebrew. Also, the KJV does not correct for the Emendations of the Sopherim or the Tiqqune Sopherim. These are fancy terms for verses in the Bible that were directly CHANGED by Jewish scribes back in the day. The HalleluYah corrects for these and puts in what the original Hebrew said. Yah loves you.Source(s): http://biblepresentations.webs.com/
- LindaLv 79 years ago
John - The KJV is known to have over 30,000 errors of translation. The amazing thing is that the truth is still in it. In fact this is one of the things that proves the bible's authenticity.
Satan has tried his best to destroy the bible but God is in charge and the truth can be found in any version of the bible. The newer translations are much easier to read and understand. The New World Translation is probably the best.
I myself am a bible student and find it interesting to compare different versions. Despite all of it's problems, I must admit that the KJV is beautiful in the poetry of many passages. For example, the 23rd Psalm.Source(s): JW
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 9 years ago
The kJv is heretical anyway. In Luke 14:10 it says man can have worship violating the 1st commandment.
The New American Bible is a simple translation easy to read.
The Christian bible is the complete bible with all 73 books. The Protestant bible only has 66 because Martin Luther removed 7 of them.
The books Protestants will call the Apocrypha are actually called deuterocanonical books Tobit,Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 & 2 Maccabees. The Catholic bible also include chapters in the books of Esther and Daniel not found in the Protestant Bibles. They will say Catholics added them but they have always been in the Bible.
They can be found in the Greek Septuagint bible used by Jesus and the Apostles and the Codex Sinaiticus bible, the oldest surviving bible. http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
The Greek Orthodox Church has had these books in their bibles since their split in 1054, 500 years before the council of Trent. They are also found in the dead sea scrolls from the 2nd century B.C. Kind of hard to say Catholics added them when they have been there all along.
Even the original king James 1611 Bible contained 73 books.
The only record of Hanukkah is in the deuterocanonical books of 1 and 2 Maccabees.
1Machabees 4:56 And they kept the dedication of the altar eight days, and they offered holocausts with joy, and sacrifices of salvation, and of praise. 57 And they adorned the front of the temple with crowns of gold, and escutcheons, and they renewed the gates, and the chambers, and hanged doors upon them. 58 And there was exceeding great joy among the people, and the reproach of the Gentiles was turned away. 59 And Judas, and his brethren, and all the church of Israel decreed, that the day of the dedication of the altar should be kept in its season from year to year for eight days, from the five and twentieth day of the month of Casleu, with joy and gladness.
And they kept eight days with joy, after the manner of the feast of the tabernacles, remembering that not long before they had kept the feast of the tabernacles when they were in the mountains, and in dens like wild beast.
New American Bible Bible
Peace be with your spirit
- 9 years ago
All King James did was have the scriptures translated into the English that was spoken in his day. It only makes sense to use a translation translated into a modern language you understand.
- Anonymous9 years ago
The ESV is very good. I think that there are several better Bibles available in English, but that is still a very good one.
- ex arcamLv 69 years ago
I happen to think that Christians who believe the bible is 100% literal word of God are stupid. Not, you understand, stupid in a general way -- many are probably otherwise quite intelligent -- but deliberately stupid in that one narrow area. Because it doesn't take very deep examination of what's written in it to see that it's an insult to God to accuse him of writing it. A thing can be 'inspired' and still subject to human error when implemented. In fact, everything is.
But those who say KJV only -- that's not just stupid; it's a whole higher order of deliberate obtuseness. Please ignore them.
It actually doesn't matter whether those who wrote it were inspired when they wrote it. It matters a great deal more whether you are inspired when you read it.
- Anonymous9 years ago
you do mean english version.
because i am in germany.