Have you read it?

[TwinCrier]

Most discussion on bible versions end up being King James readers against everyone else, so I'm curious, how many have actually read the King James Bible.

 

[SumTinWong]

The actual 1611 version? I have it for the e-sword. No I have not read it. But did read the updated version which is known as the KJV.

 

[Cright]

My first (and only bible until last year) was TEV. I switched to NIV because that's what my church uses. I use KJV often, but only for reference. I don't 'read' from it on a regular basis or for study.

I voted "I think any version is fine" but really I don't... there are a few that distort the scriptures to the point where the meaning changes. Those I would not read. These days I reserach a version before I read it.

I do think mine is 'better' than KJV not because one is translated better than the other, but because it works best to teach me what I need to know in the circumstances I'm in... if I went to a church that read from KJV I'd think it was better ... because it would be better suited for my purposes.

Carina

 

[eldermike]

I have read the bible several times through. It's hard enough to encourage people to read thier bibles, I can't see giving them such an assignment, I am gald to see one of my small group members reading a whole chapter of the message.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Most discussion on bible versions end up being King James readers against everyone else, so I'm curious, how many have actually read the King James Bible.

According to the results so far, most of the discussions on bible versions ends up being King James Version Only/Textus Receptus Only readers against King James Version readers.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I voted "I think any version is fine" but really I don't... there are a few that distort the scriptures to the point where the meaning changes. Those I would not read. These days I reserach a version before I read it.

Agreed. I picked the "any version is fine" option because the "my version is better" option wasn't really true either.

There are many versions that are fine but many that are not fine. Of the versions that are fine, some are better than the KJV at some aspects of translation and the same version may be worse than the KJV at other aspects of translation. Translation quality is not something that can be measured by a number on a scale.

 

[rural_preacher]

I use the Hebrew & Greek for sermon preparation along with KJV, NKJV, NIV & NASB. Then I preach from the KJV (congregational preference).

For personal reading and studying I use the NIV.



--

 

[ZiSunka]

Someone gave me a copy of the 1611 version and I don't have a clue what it says. It might as well be in dutch.

I also have copies of later versions of the KJV and I still find it hard to read because the meanings of words have changed so much in 400 years that I can't trust that I understand what it means. I bought a copy of God's Word to the Nations translations and it ticked me off and I almost threw it away because I thought it was full of errors until I compared what it said the the koine lexicon and discovered that my understanding of the KJV was all wrong. For instance, I always thought in John 1 where it says, "but the world didn't comprehend him," that it meant the world didn't understand him or know who he was. But GWN translates it, "but the people didn't accept him," which, turns out, is the correct meaning. Time after time, when comparing my understanding of the KJV and GWN, GWN was correct and my understanding of KJV was wrong. Ticked me off, but now I use GWN along side my NKJV.

I think the Bible was written to serve the people and the people were not created to serve the Bible and so it ought always be translated into the language of the people. We don't speak Elizabethan anymore, so I am grateful that there have been newer translations written in my language.

By the way, did you know the word "offering" meant "challenge" and not "a gift"? I guess if we were to only use 1611 version, we would be obligated to give God our tithes and challenges. The word "old" meant "fine or beautiful." "Weak" meant "awe-inspiring beauty." To "take up" something meant to "buy on credit." So let's take up the armor of God. It's on me, I've got mastercard!

 

[bjenks]

Yeah, I've read it but I prefer the NKJV, because it is easier to read, for me that is.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

Yes, but the version I use now is better.

I switch between the ESV (Primary), The NASB, and the NIV. The ESV, NASB are for personal devotions and study; the NIV (depends on the age group) for teaching.

I like to listen to the KJV, but to read it drives me crazy, the meaning of the words has changed. Just like the KJV translators translated the greek/hebrew into the English of that day, so we do today. No big change. The problem comes in when you embrace the man-made tradition that the KJV is inspired.

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, All

I have a reprint of the 1611 version and of course the one most refer to as the "KJV", and use both versions, but love the foot notes in the reprint of the 1611.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Maeyken]

I've read parts of the KJV, but I prefer the NIV or another more recent translation because I can understand it much easier.

I didn't vote, cuz I didn't particularly like any of the choices. I think each person should choose the version they are most comfortable learning from (as long as it is correct). Ideally, I think it would be great if we could all read from the original scriptures, but I don't know Hebrew of Greek so that's a little tough to do!! So far, I've learnend the Greek alphabet!

 

[lucypevensie]

I grew up with the KJV, and didn't want to switch because I was so used to it, had memorized lots of verses and passages, didn't want to mess up all that memorization. Then one evening I went to my weekly Bible study with the singles group from church. I absentmindedly forgot my (KJV) Bible at home, so someone lent me a spare copy of the Bible, which happened to be NIV. That evening I sat and read the passage in Genesis with an understanding and fascination like I'd never before had. Shortly after that I got my own NIV. I still have my beloved KJV. BUt the NIV is so much easier to read.

 

[Peke Utchoo]

I read KJV only and would read the Hebrew & Greek text only if I spoke either one of those languages. I can't see what is so difficult about understanding the KJV. If there is a word I don't understand I look it up in the dictionary or bible dictionary. It's quite simple and my loyalty to KJV is solidified by the fact that other versions omit key verses.

 

[unimportantbuthisnameis]

Personally I read several versions, that way I get a complete understanding of the text, but I generally preach out the KJV to avoid conflict with KJV onlyists.

 

[aReformedPatriot]

So far, I've learnend the Greek alphabet!

qats a start

(just trasnliterate that back into english.... and the "S" should be different on the end, but cant figure it out..)

 

[seebs]

I haven't read an actual 1611, because I can't read that variety of English, but I do have a fairly nice slightly more recent ~1880 KJV. Which is what most people mean when they say they're looking at the 1611. (The 1611, for one thing, had all 73 books in it!)