KJV only?

Despite the title of this thread, I'm in no way trying to put down anyone who may think that God's only revealed truth in the English language is through the KJV. In fact, I have to admit that I also hold concerns about the differences between KJV (and NKJV) and the other versions. There are passages in the KJV which are not to be found in the text of the other versions but rather in the footnotes. I understand their reasoning for doing so--using another set of Greek manuscripts to translate from. Nevertheless, at least some of these passages seem to make particularly key statements. Of course, it's easy to become extremely legalistic about this and insist on only one version. For me, since I too have concerns about these discrepancies, my own policy is to have either a KJV or NKJV on hand just in case "questions should arise". I will not, however, go so far as to outright condemn the other versions, except perhaps for the gender-neutral one. That one's a little weird! At any rate, what are your thoughts on the differences in the texts? Do they matter? If so, where to draw the line on what's acceptable and what's not?

I use an Amplified/KJV parallel Bible in study and ministering.

I supplement both with the Kenneth Wuest translation of the New Testament.

I look for the most literal translation. I also use the Strong's quite a bit.

__________________

The Inheritance is yours,
riverpastor

Galatians 3:19 - What then was the purpose of the Law? It was added because of transgressions and [to make men more conscious of the sinfulness] of sin; and it was intended to be in effect until the Seed (the Descendant, the Heir) should come, to and concerning Whom the promise had been made.

The Wuest Expanded NT Translation has been an incredable blessing for me. Not easy to get used to, but really comes in handy for places where I'm just not getting the gist of the text.

It can be a real eye opener when it comes to the subject of Grace.....

Grace, Mercy, and Peace,
Asaph

To really open a can of worms....

The KJV we have now is only part of the original KJV. The early KJV's also include books of the Apocrypha in it. Remember it was written in England for the Anglican Church, which accepts the Apocryphal books as books of wisdom from the early Church. So if someone insists on KJV only, ask them where to find the Book of Maccabees or Sirach. That'll really mess up the conversation.


With that being said... different people argue over which translation is the 'truest' to the original-- the answer usually being whichever version best supports their pet theology. I think it is good to use a couple of different versions to compare some of the differences, as well as looking at the original languages if at all possible. My personal favorite translations are the NIV for ease of reading, the NASV for accuracy in translation, and the NAB for when I need to reference an Apocryphal book.


For anyone who may not be aware, www.crosswalk.com has the Bible online in about 15 translations, fully searchable with the original languages and several commentaries. GREAT RESOURCE!!!

__________________

I am a firm believer that the Authorised Version of 1611 is the inspired Word of God.

__________________

I don't have any problem with the differences in the texts . I only care about what the Lord says to me . When reading the Scriptures or listening to a person or simply the Spirit speaking to my spirit , only what He is saying matters . So , I am not too interested in the text itself except that it is the language that I use . I don't care which translations other people use - that is their call . I won't use KJV because I don't speak the language that Jim used .

I believe that it is up to the individual to decide what text fits them best. For me, when I see a text such as the NKJV sitting next to one such as the NIV and see this David and Goliath type thing goin on, I get a little... "iffy". So I read the NKJV myself but always remember that no matter what you pick up, you are reading a translation of an original so pray about it, and see where you go from there

New Amercian Standard (updated) Wonderful! With great big type!

By chance is that the one that contains the Apocrypha? I'd read somewhere (actually a Chick Bible tract) that one of the first editions had those books.

The different translations have different methods, and schools of though even, with translation. These methods of translation can be more or less effective, dependant on how far along a person is with the Lord.

The best translation I have found myself, I think, is "The Scriptures," translated by the Institute for Scripture Research. Their school of thought apparently is "Let us translate the scriptures as literally as possible, leaving all theological ambiguities, as well as names of people, places, and God, in the original language. Then the reader can research the culture, and understand what is being said with more purity."

So, where the Scriptures say "kidney" in hebrew, they don't translate it to "mind" or "emotions." They translate it literally. For example:
It is then up to the reader to find out what in the world Yahweh meant when he said these things. This allows us to more efficiently get to the root of the Word, instead of taking the opinion of a scholar, though it is usually correct, and brush it off without looking it up, thinking that there is less to the scriptures than there really is. Optimally, I think this translation should be coupled with the bracketed expansion idea of the Amplified Bible. This would probably provide the best one-glance insight to what the scriptures are saying, with CLEAR decifering between what is literally translated, and what is the well-educated opinion of the translator on what the literally translated words mean. Then the reader's lexicon time can be spent diving deeper. The more efficiently ideas are conducted, the better the reader can understand.

But should a new believer read this Bible? I think someone who grows up in our culture, let alone a pagan culture, would have trouble reading "Set-apart, Set-apart, Set-apart, Yahweh El Shaddiah!" if he hadn't had some studying under his belt. And while he's fiddling with the pages trying to understand, he may be lead astray by spirits of confusion, and his guard might be let down to the attacks that so swiftly come. A weaned believer has been battle hardened--he knows Satan's tricks of fatigue. What's more, he's probably studied the Bible longer and understands the Hebrew culture better. So for a new believer, I think "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty" is a better translation.

The NIV gets jumped for using the "translate by the idea, not the word" method, but I think, for the MOST PART, it is an excellent resource for a man who just met the savior yesterday and knows nothing about the culture of the Jews. Hey, in many places it's more literal...and more correct...than the KJV. However, when that baby christian grows up, he needs to find out what the word that was translated "Holy" means. And he needs to find out that once the grave and Gehenna were translated as "hell," they have been distorted by antiquity and western culture. He needs to know that "God" is an English word, not a Hebrew word, and he needs to know what the Creator was called by the Hebrews, and why. There are lots of things an experienced Christian needs to know, that would only bring confusion, and too much information, to a new believer.