Is The King James Version of the Bible the only correct translation?

[Major]

It has been 414 years since the KJV of the Bible was produced. The battle over Bible versions in general, and the battle for the KJV in particular, has been a significant issue within some segments of Christian Church.

At the worst, some have come to regard American Christian fundamentalism as closely associated with the “KJV Translation.”

The debate has reached the point where non-fundamentalists think the movement is cultish. Worse that that, some people within the Church itself itself think that God is the One Who personally “authorized” the KJV as the Bible for the English-speaking world.

Those who advocate "King James" as the only correct Word of God takes two approaches.

1. They argue that the KJV 1611 is the most accurate rendering of the original manuscripts for the English-speaking world.
2. Others advocates are more dogmatic, advocating a range of peculiar views, for example, that the KJV is the perfect Word of God, able even to correct Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves.

Now...... Most KJV-Only Christians are just trusting their pastors, who have told them that.......
1) the KJV is the only truly trustworthy translation, and
2) the KJV is the only Bible translation based on the pure Hebrew and Greek texts.
3) Bad people are secretly ruining the Bible!
The actual facts are that those things are not true!

Now before you post your opinion, remember.......The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking.

Then the question must be----Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Second question......IF the KJV is the only correct Word of God, how in the world did people get saved before 1611????

 

[bobinfaith]

Good morning, Major;

I'm with you on this, Major. I just wanted to share my personal thoughts to your good thread.

Is The King James Version of the Bible the only correct translation? is a good thread to share one's personal translation that they use to study the Word of God, including the KJV.

We should take careful note of what you posted, "Now before you post your opinion, remember.......The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking."

With that said, I encourage all serious students of the Bible to reference 2 or 3 good translations in their personal and group studies.

Those who adhere to the KJV Only study is their personal choice, however, it's also correct to respect the choice of other brothers and sisters which translation they choose to study.

As far as "English focused in its thinking" I encourage students of the bible to separate attitude (personal thinking) from what God is instructing us.

I will admit there have been some poor translations of the Bible that made it past the scholars, theologians and publishers. But some of these poor translations died out in circulation. An example was from the Jesus People movement in 1970 but I forgot the name of that Bible and will try to dig it up.

I feel many Christians are new to the study of the Bible but "aren't there yet" to distinguish between a good and poor translation. Therefore, it's reasonable for need and guidance from their Pastor or Bible / Sunday school teacher which translation is acceptable, not my personal opinion.

I can guide but am not qualified to instruct the disciple and decide the correct translation for their study. My position does not overpower the anointing of the Spirit as God speaks to them. I know serious students of Christ that have effectively shared the Gospel from using the Message, the NIV, ESV and others.

If their choice of translation helps them grow and share the Gospel with others, let's give them a chance as God does.

God bless you, brother.

Bob

 

[Major]

Good morning, Major;

I'm with you on this, Major. I just wanted to share my personal thoughts to your good thread.

Is The King James Version of the Bible the only correct translation? is a good thread to share one's personal translation that they use to study the Word of God, including the KJV.

We should take careful note of what you posted, "Now before you post your opinion, remember.......The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking."

With that said, I encourage all serious students of the Bible to reference 2 or 3 good translations in their personal and group studies.

Those who adhere to the KJV Only study is their personal choice, however, it's also correct to respect the choice of other brothers and sisters what translation they choose to study.

As far as "English focused in its thinking" I encourage students of the bible to separate attitude (personal thinking) from what God is instructing us.

I will admit there have been some poor translations of the Bible that made it past the scholars, theologians and publishers. But some of these poor translations died out in circulation. An example was from the Jesus People movement in 1970 but I forgot the name of that Bible and will try to dig it up.

I feel many Christians are new to the study of the Bible but "aren't there yet" to distinguish between a good and poor translation. Therefore, it's reasonable for need and guidance from their Pastor or Bible / Sunday school teacher which translation is acceptable, not my personal opinion.

I can guide but am not qualified to instruct the disciple and decide the correct translation for their study. My position does not overpower the anointing of the Spirit as God speaks to them. I know serious students of Christ that have effectively shared the Gospel from using the Message, the NIV, ESV and others.

If their choice of translation helps them grow and share the Gospel with others, let's give them a chance as God does.

God bless you, brother.

Bob

Agreed Bob.

I was raised on the KJV. I haven't looked lately but I probably have 6 0r 7 KJV Bibles. I also have the ESV and the ASV and the NASB and in fact several others. If I were rate translation they would in my opinion be............

1. New American Standard Bible (NASB): It is well known that it is a literal translation that stays closer to the original Hebrew & Greek.

2. English Standard Version (ESV): It is balanced and readable and is both literal and elegant.

3. Revised Standard Version (RSV): Also literal to the originals and is easy to read.

4. New King Jams Version (NKJV): Updates the archaic wording of the KJV but retains its stylistic nature.

5. King James Version (KJV): Well known for its historical significance but its language is difficult to read and understand.

Of course, this is like choosing a wife/husband, Choosing the "most accurate" Bible translation can depend on personal preferences and likeability for the long run. For in-depth study, the NASB and ESV are excellent choices. Ultimately, each translation has its strengths and can serve different purposes in understanding the Scriptures.

 

[Panda]

Agreed Bob.

I was raised on the KJV. I haven't looked lately but I probably have 6 0r 7 KJV Bibles. I also have the ESV and the ASV and the NASB and in fact several others. If I were rate translation they would in my opinion be............

1. New American Standard Bible (NASB): It is well known that it is a literal translation that stays closer to the original Hebrew & Greek.

2. English Standard Version (ESV): It is balanced and readable and is both literal and elegant.

3. Revised Standard Version (RSV): Also literal to the originals and is easy to read.

4. New King Jams Version (NKJV): Updates the archaic wording of the KJV but retains its stylistic nature.

5. King James Version (KJV): Well known for its historical significance but its language is difficult to read and understand.

Of course, this is like choosing a wife/husband, Choosing the "most accurate" Bible translation can depend on personal preferences and likeability for the long run. For in-depth study, the NASB and ESV are excellent choices. Ultimately, each translation has its strengths and can serve different purposes in understanding the Scriptures.

I was using the NASB for quite a bit of my personal base. ESV and RSV are respectable. I'm using ESV more now than RSV simple because the newer RSV brach has started going....well, woke for some reason with some of the newest revisions. It really depends on the specific reason that one or another is used. Relying too much on any one text is dangerous.

My opinion is kinda simple. The "best" Bible is the one you will read. Preaching or Teaching should go quite a bit deeper than any "version". But even the literally direct Words will do very little good if they aren't read and understood.

 

[Major]

I was using the NASB for quite a bit of my personal base. ESV and RSV are respectable. I'm using ESV more now than RSV simple because the newer RSV brach has started going....well, woke for some reason with some of the newest revisions. It really depends on the specific reason that one or another is used. Relying too much on any one text is dangerous.

My opinion is kinda simple. The "best" Bible is the one you will read. Preaching or Teaching should go quite a bit deeper than any "version". But even the literally direct Words will do very little good if they aren't read and understood.

Absolutly on the same page.

 

[YeshuaFan]

It has been 414 years since the KJV of the Bible was produced. The battle over Bible versions in general, and the battle for the KJV in particular, has been a significant issue within some segments of Christian Church.

At the worst, some have come to regard American Christian fundamentalism as closely associated with the “KJV Translation.”

The debate has reached the point where non-fundamentalists think the movement is cultish. Worse that that, some people within the Church itself itself think that God is the One Who personally “authorized” the KJV as the Bible for the English-speaking world.

Those who advocate "King James" as the only correct Word of God takes two approaches.

1. They argue that the KJV 1611 is the most accurate rendering of the original manuscripts for the English-speaking world.
2. Others advocates are more dogmatic, advocating a range of peculiar views, for example, that the KJV is the perfect Word of God, able even to correct Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves.

Now...... Most KJV-Only Christians are just trusting their pastors, who have told them that.......
1) the KJV is the only truly trustworthy translation, and
2) the KJV is the only Bible translation based on the pure Hebrew and Greek texts.
3) Bad people are secretly ruining the Bible!
The actual facts are that those things are not true!

Now before you post your opinion, remember.......The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking.

Then the question must be----Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Second question......IF the KJV is the only correct Word of God, how in the world did people get saved before 1611????

The supreme irony on this discussion are that the 1611 translators were NOT themselves KJVO, as saw their translation improving prior ones, but not inspired nor perfect.
And many Kjvo rail against modern versions for using those "tainted catholic texts" like Aland, but the 1611 took over into their bible meanings from Vulgate and Rheims Duoy, both very catholic sources

 

[YeshuaFan]

Good morning, Major;

I'm with you on this, Major. I just wanted to share my personal thoughts to your good thread.

Is The King James Version of the Bible the only correct translation? is a good thread to share one's personal translation that they use to study the Word of God, including the KJV.

We should take careful note of what you posted, "Now before you post your opinion, remember.......The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking."

With that said, I encourage all serious students of the Bible to reference 2 or 3 good translations in their personal and group studies.

Those who adhere to the KJV Only study is their personal choice, however, it's also correct to respect the choice of other brothers and sisters which translation they choose to study.

As far as "English focused in its thinking" I encourage students of the bible to separate attitude (personal thinking) from what God is instructing us.

I will admit there have been some poor translations of the Bible that made it past the scholars, theologians and publishers. But some of these poor translations died out in circulation. An example was from the Jesus People movement in 1970 but I forgot the name of that Bible and will try to dig it up.

I feel many Christians are new to the study of the Bible but "aren't there yet" to distinguish between a good and poor translation. Therefore, it's reasonable for need and guidance from their Pastor or Bible / Sunday school teacher which translation is acceptable, not my personal opinion.

I can guide but am not qualified to instruct the disciple and decide the correct translation for their study. My position does not overpower the anointing of the Spirit as God speaks to them. I know serious students of Christ that have effectively shared the Gospel from using the Message, the NIV, ESV and others.

If their choice of translation helps them grow and share the Gospel with others, let's give them a chance as God does.

God bless you, brother.

Bob

I have no issue with any preferring to use the Kjv exclusively, but big issues when the claim it to be only one, and perfect and inerrant

 

[YeshuaFan]

I was using the NASB for quite a bit of my personal base. ESV and RSV are respectable. I'm using ESV more now than RSV simple because the newer RSV brach has started going....well, woke for some reason with some of the newest revisions. It really depends on the specific reason that one or another is used. Relying too much on any one text is dangerous.

My opinion is kinda simple. The "best" Bible is the one you will read. Preaching or Teaching should go quite a bit deeper than any "version". But even the literally direct Words will do very little good if they aren't read and understood.

That is the common complaint for many modern versions, as both the Niv and nrsv went "woke", and even the new Nas to a smaller degree

 

[YeshuaFan]

Agreed Bob.

I was raised on the KJV. I haven't looked lately but I probably have 6 0r 7 KJV Bibles. I also have the ESV and the ASV and the NASB and in fact several others. If I were rate translation they would in my opinion be............

1. New American Standard Bible (NASB): It is well known that it is a literal translation that stays closer to the original Hebrew & Greek.

2. English Standard Version (ESV): It is balanced and readable and is both literal and elegant.

3. Revised Standard Version (RSV): Also literal to the originals and is easy to read.

4. New King Jams Version (NKJV): Updates the archaic wording of the KJV but retains its stylistic nature.

5. King James Version (KJV): Well known for its historical significance but its language is difficult to read and understand.

Of course, this is like choosing a wife/husband, Choosing the "most accurate" Bible translation can depend on personal preferences and likeability for the long run. For in-depth study, the NASB and ESV are excellent choices. Ultimately, each translation has its strengths and can serve different purposes in understanding the Scriptures.

And the :best" version would be the one can read with best understanding and application
And nothing beats the Hebrew and Greek texts

 

[bobinfaith]

The supreme irony on this discussion are that the 1611 translators were NOT themselves KJVO, as saw their translation improving prior ones, but not inspired nor perfect. And many Kjvo rail against modern versions for using those "tainted catholic texts" like Aland, but the 1611 took over into their bible meanings from Vulgate and Rheims Duoy, both very catholic sources

I have no issue with any preferring to use the Kjv exclusively, but big issues when the claim it to be only one, and perfect and inerrant

That is the common complaint for many modern versions, as both the Niv and nrsv went "woke", and even the new Nas to a smaller degree

Hello YeshuaFan;

There's always something new around the corner. I have yet to hear any of what you've heard or witnessed in the Christian community.

Please give me some examples of Churches that have announced they are a KJVO only Church. Unless the NIV and NRSV were just revised I haven't heard anything negatory as of "woke."

Like I said, there's always something new around the corner. If these have already been around, I just haven't heard.

God bless you.

Bob

 

[Panda]

Hello YeshuaFan;

There's always something new around the corner. I have yet to hear any of what you've heard or witnessed in the Christian community.

Please give me some examples of Churches that have announced they are a KJVO only Church. Unless the NIV and NRSV were just revised I haven't heard anything negatory as of "woke."

Like I said, there's always something new around the corner. If these have already been around, I just haven't heard.

God bless you.

Bob

The most recent NRSV (NRSVUE I believe ) is oddly non gender conforming. I don’t really know about the issues with the NIV, but it isn’t a word for word translation and falls roughly in the same category as Hollman’s Own. Which I’m not really a fan of, but I hear really good things about the CSV which is a revision of it. Great for reading, but not my favorite for reference in anything very deep.

 

[Major]

And the :best" version would be the one can read with best understanding and application
And nothing beats the Hebrew and Greek texts

Now how many people do you know that reads Hebrew and Greek in their original form???

The NASB and ESV are known to be the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

 

[YeshuaFan]

The most recent NRSV (NRSVUE I believe ) is oddly non gender conforming. I don’t really know about the issues with the NIV, but it isn’t a word for word translation and falls roughly in the same category as Hollman’s Own. Which I’m not really a fan of, but I hear really good things about the CSV which is a revision of it. Great for reading, but not my favorite for reference in anything very deep.

They were translated in a way to make sure the "bias of male headship" was watered down, as well as "specific roles for the genders in churches"

 

[YeshuaFan]

Now how many people do you know that reads Hebrew and Greek in their original form???

The NASB and ESV are known to be the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek texts.

Usually just Pastors and some Teachers, as while i can read the greek alphabet, to me hebrew still might as well be Chinese

 

[BibleLover]

Most KJV only people appear to be insecure in their faith and need a lot of guidance; they seem to have an inability to think critically and independently.

 

[Major]

Most KJV only people appear to be insecure in their faith and need a lot of guidance; they seem to have an inability to think critically and independently.

That is what I have observed also.

 

[Major]

Usually just Pastors and some Teachers, as while i can read the greek alphabet, to me hebrew still might as well be Chinese

I would argue my dear brother that the % of Pastors who read and understand the Hebrew and Greek is less than 1 %.

I would guess that I personally know several humdred Pastors and I do not know of ONE who can read, and understand either one.
Now they can and do look up the meaning of words and use the phrase in a sermon of ......"The original Greek says", but that is done so as to look more educated than they are.

 

[YeshuaFan]

Most KJV only people appear to be insecure in their faith and need a lot of guidance; they seem to have an inability to think critically and independently.

Their "movement" is devoid of really critical thinkers, and have really few textual scholars to support their cause

 

[YeshuaFan]

I would argue my dear brother that the % of Pastors who read and understand the Hebrew and Greek is less than 1 %.

I would guess that I personally know several humdred Pastors and I do not know of ONE who can read, and understand either one.
Now they can and do look up the meaning of words and use the phrase in a sermon of ......"The original Greek says", but that is done so as to look more educated than they are.

The trick with both hebrew and Greek would be to keep using them, for if "you do not use them, lose them" My senior pastor reads in Hebrew his daily devotions and does His NT studies pretty muh off the Greek texts fully, but he also has to earned Phd in Nt Theology and Church management

 

[Major]

The trick with both hebrew and Greek would be to keep using them, for if "you do not use them, lose them" My senior pastor reads in Hebrew his daily devotions and does His NT studies pretty muh off the Greek texts fully, but he also has to earned Phd in Nt Theology and Church management

I have said this before, I also was forced to study Hebrew and Greek while in Seminary. I hated it totally!

I skated by with a D- grade and never spoke or read or used in the next 50 years. WHY?????

NO one understood what was being said!!!!!!!

They are simply a tool for a Pastor or teacher to use in order to clarify or better understand a specific word used by the original writer.

An example would be the word in Greek......LOVE. We use it to mean one thing but when Paul used it, it had 3 different meanings.