Is the KJV good?

[GraceC]

Hello, I've been a Christian for a couple years now. I've really struggled with all the different Bible translations and which to use for my primary reading Bible. I know all translations are the word of God and I'm not asking which is more accurate. All have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm considering using the KJV as my primary reading Bible. In light of the wealth of modern translations available is it still recommended for Christians to use the KJV as their main Bible? Will I be doing myself a disservice using the KJV as my main reading bible?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Hello, I've been a Christian for a couple years now. I've really struggled with all the different Bible translations and which to use for my primary reading Bible. I know all translations are the word of God and I'm not asking which is more accurate. All have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm considering using the KJV and my primary reading Bible. In light of the wealth of modern translations available is it still recommended for Christians to use the KJV as their main Bible? Will I be doing myself a disservice using the KJV as my main reading bible?

Depends. The KJV is definitely poetic, with breathtakingly beautiful prose. So, aesthetically it's be a fantastic Bible.

Though there's been nearly 250 years of scholarship since the last time the KJV was revised; as such it's not going to be as good, academically speaking, as translations made in the centuries since.

So again, it depends on what you're wanting most. If I wanted a serious study Bible, I wouldn't use a KJV. But it wouldn't be bad for devotions, again, the beauty of its prose is hard to surpass.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GraceC]

Though there's been nearly 250 years of scholarship since the last time the KJV was revised; as such it's not going to be as good, academically speaking, as translations made in the centuries since.
-CryptoLutheran

See, I never really understand this about scholarship? What does new scholarship actually change? If doctrine is the same in all the Bibles what is really being advanced? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm seriously asking cause I really don't get it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

See, I never really understand this about scholarship? What does new scholarship actually change? If doctrine is the same in all the Bibles what is really being advanced? I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm seriously asking cause I really don't get it.

We have far more, and far older biblical manuscripts today than we did several hundred years ago.

In 1611 when King James I of England authorized a fresh, and authoritative, translation of the Scriptures, there wasn't much to work with (compared to today), but they made use of what they could. Namely (speaking of the New Testament) they worked with several critical Greek editions that were made in the preceding century. They took them, compared them, and made educated decisions on which readings from these critical Greek texts best reflected what was probably the original. The same way we do translations today, only we have far more, and far older manuscripts to work with when making critical editions and choosing which readings are likely more reliable.

Here's an example:

Three of the source texts used by the committee which made the translation of the King James Version (I believe it was three at least) were made by Desiderius Erasmus, one of the most preeminent scholars of the 16th century. Erasmus worked with many manuscripts, though most were only a few hundred years old, and put out several editions of his critical text, updating the text to fix errors he may have made. I believe in his lifetime he made five editions in total.

In a particular case, 1 John 5:7, the generally accepted Latin text contained an addition that was rather recent, probably due to a scribal error inserting a marginal note into the text proper at some point. In the first several editions of Erasmus Greek text, he did not include the additional portion because he was unable to find any manuscript support for it. However there was pressure to add it, so Erasmus agreed that if a manuscript supported it, he'd add it. A very, very, recent (and some argue forged) manuscript did turn up and Erasmus then added the additional portion to his Greek text.

It's known as the Comma Johanneum, it reads (KJV):
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

(Underlined portion showing the Comma).

Because Erasmus added this to his later Greek editions, and later translators were dependent upon Erasmus' work, the Comma was included in the original KJV 1611, and was retained in the revisions made in 1769 (the KJV we have today is the 1769 revision).

The Comma was considered suspicious five hundred years ago, with the wealth of manuscripts we have today we know for a fact that it was a late, medieval addition.

That is perhaps the most obvious example I can think of, but it gets the point across. That is why better scholarship means more reliable translations. More manuscripts, older manuscripts, better scholarship, means better translations. Or, at least, ideally it should. There's still the fact that every translation contains the personal biases of those who did the translating, since translation is always approximation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[GraceC]

So besides removing versus that older manuscripts don't have what does modern scholarship actually change concerning Biblical doctrine? If modern scholarship doesn't actually make any actual changes to the biblical text than what is the point other than to prove that the bible we have been basing our faith from for centuries is actually true and accurate? If we can't trust our bibles by now what's the point.

 

[ptomwebster]

Is the KJV good?

Yes, but only if you pick it up and read it with understanding. And some KJV's are better than others. King James Companion Bible, a KJV By E. W. Bullinger published by Kregel Publishing is the best.

 

[prov1810]

What ViaCrucis said is excellent as usual.

I use the KJV as my everyday Bible. I had read several other versions, switching to a new one each year with my reading plan. But then I wanted to pick out one version and stick with it, so the words would sink in better. And that's a decision that made itself: the beautiful KJV.

If you need help with understanding antiquated words, here's a King James Dictionary.

 

[abcdeedee]

We have far more, and far older biblical manuscripts today than we did several hundred years ago.

...

That is perhaps the most obvious example I can think of, but it gets the point across. That is why better scholarship means more reliable translations. More manuscripts, older manuscripts, better scholarship, means better translations. Or, at least, ideally it should. There's still the fact that every translation contains the personal biases of those who did the translating, since translation is always approximation.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks for the info ViaCrucis. I didn't know those things about the KJV.

My mom actually bought a box of a bunch of different bibles from some charity bookfair a long time ago (before me). When i started to get interested in Jesus I found the box which was lucky. I got a board and made a little shelf for them.

Right now I use the NKJV. Is it a good one?

 

[childofdust]

Is the KJV good?

One word: No.

More words: I'll start a post pretty soon where I take a single, small, little, tiny biblical book and point out all the places where the KJV has totally screwed up god's word. Then you can see for yourself how “good” it is. It's not going to be pretty.

See, I never really understand this about scholarship? What does new scholarship actually change? If doctrine is the same in all the Bibles what is really being advanced?

The extremely odd thing about this question is how people only seem to ask it about the Bible. They DON'T ask it of everything else in their life (probably because they already know the answer). Sure, you COULD drive a Ford Model-T as your main automobile. I mean, it's pretty much the same as any other car today—it's propelled by gas, it has a brake, it's uses the same type of engine... But NOBODY does. And NOBODY would consider that except as a novelty. And, sure, you COULD choose to ride a dandy-horse instead of a bicycle. I mean, they both have two wheels. They both require you to balance, can go fast down a hill, and get you from point A to point B by using your feet. But nobody would even think of using a dandy-horse instead of a modern bicycle. Surely a bible is more important than a bicycle!

For goodness sakes, ask yourself the same question about anything. Why shouldn't you wash all your clothing by hand instead of using a washing-machine? Huh? Why not? You know the answer. Because we've gotten better as washing clothes (as long as you do it right and don't use one of those cheap commercial ones). Well, we've gotten better at translating and understanding the bible. So why WOULDN'T you want to take advantage of something like that when it comes to the Bible if you're ALREADY AUTOMATICALLY doing that with everything else?

So, really, I have to ask the honest-to-goodness question here—if you don't think about anything else in your entire life based on the idea that what was around 100-500 years ago is probably all you really need, then why in the WORLD would think that when it comes to something so much more important like the bible, that suddenly you should?

 

[Keachian]

So besides removing versus that older manuscripts don't have what does modern scholarship actually change concerning Biblical doctrine? If modern scholarship doesn't actually make any actual changes to the biblical text than what is the point other than to prove that the bible we have been basing our faith from for centuries is actually true and accurate? If we can't trust our bibles by now what's the point.

There are still some that claim that we can't trust our Bibles though, notably KJVO and Atheists.

 

[ptomwebster]

There are still some that claim that we can't trust our Bibles though, notably KJVO and Atheists.

Isn’t it nice that we all have the choice to read whichever Bible version we choose?

 

[ebedmelech]

So besides removing versus that older manuscripts don't have what does modern scholarship actually change concerning Biblical doctrine? If modern scholarship doesn't actually make any actual changes to the biblical text than what is the point other than to prove that the bible we have been basing our faith from for centuries is actually true and accurate? If we can't trust our bibles by now what's the point.

Verses are not removed! That would be a misnomer.

What you have is called "textual criticism"...but don't get caught up in the words. "Textual criticism" is the method by which the manuscript evidence points out differences in other manuscripts.

ViaCrucis gave you the example of what is called the "comma Johanneum", which is in 1 John 5:7, 8.

That's a good example to use...so I'll show you how that works with translations:

The KJV gives you no indication whatsoever that a portion of this verse doesn't appear in older manuscripts...so when you read the KJV...it reads like this:

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

You as the reader have no idea that "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit", doesn't appear in all manuscripts. Therefore, if you come to a modern translation and read that verse, you would think the text was changed. Really the fact is that nothing is changed...there's a portion of the verse is not in the earliest manuscripts.

The NASB (what I use), shows the correct reading of the passage, but also shows you that there are manuscripts that add to a portion of the verse:

7 For there are three that testify:
8 [j]the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are [k]in agreement.

Note the [j] at verse 8. The footnote for that says:

1. 1 John 5:8 A few late mss add ...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that testify on earth, the Spirit

You, as the reader, now understand that there are manuscripts that don't contain that portion of the verse. Since the earliest manuscripts don't contain the phrase, the NASB tranlates based on the earliest manuscripts.

Other translations use a different method of informing the reader of this difference.

Here's a link about the "comma Johanneum", which is a contentious point for "KJV Only" types:

The Johannine Comma

The point I want you to get is no verses are omitted in the modern translations, they simply point out the differences in the manuscript evidence.

I hope that doesn't confuse you...

 

[texian]

Many who get into a discussion or argument about the huge number of English translations of the New Testament assume that all these translations are from the same Greek text.

In fact, very few recent NT translations are from the Textus Receptus. The New King James Version is said to be from the Textus Receptus, but it has problems. Young's Literal Translation is from the Textus Receptus.

Historically the Tyndale, Geneva and King James Version are from the Textus Receptus.

The British English Revised New Testament of 1881 is the first in a long list of new translations that were not from the Textus Receptus. It was from the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881, which they put together from two Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. Both are Alexandarian texts, meaning the texts are believed to have been created in Alexandria, Egypt. They are thought by Bible scholars to be older than the
Byzantine Greek texts available to Erasmus when he compiled the Textus Receptus.

The Textus Receptus of 1516 was compiled by Erasmus from several manuscripts from the Byzantine text type, which were a large number of manuscripts and fragments originally protected by the Eastern Orthodox church from the Roman Catholic church's efforts to destroy them. These Byzantine Greek texts were not available in Europe until after the 1453 conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire. Christians fleeing from the East to Europe made these manuscripts accessible to western scholars.

Largely because the Egyptian Greek texts were in a dry environment, they, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, survived while the Greek texts copied by the Byzantine scribes did not survive in the more humid climate where they were used and kept.

Westcott and Hort set out to overthrow the Textus Receptus. They put together a rationale for doing so, which is largely a set of assumptions about which Greek texts would be closer to the original writings of the Apostles.

One of their assumptions was that the older the Greek manuscript, the closer it must be to the originals.

There are other and different assumptions that can be made. For example, one might assume that the more a Greek manuscript is used, the shorter its life, and that a Greek manuscript that was not used very much would have survived since the 4th century.

It is also possible that the Byzantine scribes who copied the Greek texts down through time, when an older copy was worn out by use, were faithful and highly accurate in their copy work. The high amount of agreement between the Byzantine manuscripts now available supports this idea.

Finally, the argument of Westcott and Hort against the Textus Receptus for being a late version is outdated by evidence turned up since the late 1880's when Westcott and Hort wrote, though seminaries and some Bible scholars still stick to the old Westcott-Hort assumptions. There is evidence, Bible scholars say, from Papyrus fragments of Greek New Testament books which show that the verse wordings typical of the Textus Receptus existed before Westcott and Hort thought existed in 1881, and that both types of verse wordings - Textus Receptus and Alexandarian - existed in the third or second centuries.

There are some verses in the Textus Receptus and in the Westcott-Hort or the Nestle-Aland text, largely based on Alexandarian Greek manuscripts, which are identical, some almost identical, some which differ in wording, but not different in meaning, and for some verses the Alexandarian Greek texts are so different from the Textus Receptus that they teach a different doctrine.

 

[EGordo]

I use the Word of God Study bible at swordbible.org.
I feel like the Holy Spirit led me to it since it was the first bible I bought when I became Christian. It has helped me tremendously especially with the old English. If you want to see why the translations miss out on some of the meanings read this book I am about to link for you. You can read it for free online at the Ancient Hebrew Bookstore. The website uses the "honor" system. You can read for free or you can pay if you like it. Here is the link to this book title His Name is One which breaks down a lot of the meanings of words missing through the translations.
There are cultural differences from Hebrew which are hard to translate into English.

Here is an excerpt from that book.
"Let the land produce living creatures".
Genesis 1:24


"and the man became a living being".
Genesis 2:7


From these passages the reader could conclude that
animals are classified as "creatures" and humans as
"beings" (The KJV uses the word "soul" here). When the
Hebrew text is uncovered, we find that the above
"interpretation" would never have occured as we find that
the phrase "living creature" in the first verse and the
phrase "living being" in the second verse are two different
translations of thesame Hebrew phrase "nephesh chayah".
Because of the translator’s opinion that there is a
difference between men and animals, the translation of
these verses reflects the translator’s opinions. The reader,
not knowing the Hebrew background to the passages, is
forced to base his interpretation on the translator’s
personal opinion."

Even with these differences, I believe the KJV does a wonderful job at displaying what God wants us to know. I believe it changed my heart from a heart of stone into a heart of flesh. Even if the original Hebrew meanings might be lost.

 

[GraceC]

Thanks everyone for the info but I really didn't want to get into textual criticism and debate. I simply want to know if the KJV is a good translation to use as a primary reading bible, right now I use the ESV but giving some serious thought of switching over to the KJV. I'm not against modern translations and still plan to use them in my studies and I frequently look up multiple translations when I need a passage clarified.

And me saying I don't understand textual criticism/scholarship and questioning it doesn't mean I'm a KJVO or don't believe it should be used today in Bible translation...it simply means I don't get it. I'm just your everyday average Christian who doesn't know about these things.

 

[branchofthevine]

Thanks everyone for the info but I really didn't want to get into textual criticism and debate. I simply want to know if the KJV is a good translation to use as a primary reading bible, right now I use the ESV but giving some serious thought of switching over to the KJV. I'm not against modern translations and still plan to use them in my studies and I frequently look up multiple translations when I need a passage clarified.

And me saying I don't understand textual criticism/scholarship and questioning it doesn't mean I'm a KJVO or don't believe it should be used today in Bible translation...it simply means I don't get it. I'm just your everyday average Christian who doesn't know about these things.

The problem is that sometimes these seemingly complicated issues are necessarily underlying factors for simple answers.


I suppose, yes the King James version is alright, albeit a few hundred years out of date with the English we use today, and wasn't translated with the same level and availability as we can today.

the ESV is fine, but if you want to use a KJV use it. When reading the Bible the important part is understanding what it says, which is why modern translations are often the easier to learn from compared with the KJV because some terms are out of date, or changed.

 

[Keachian]

The British English Revised New Testament of 1881 is the first in a long list of new translations that were not from the Textus Receptus. It was from the Westcott-Hort Greek text of 1881, which they put together from two Greek manuscripts, the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. Both are Alexandarian texts, meaning the texts are believed to have been created in Alexandria, Egypt. They are thought by Bible scholars to be older than the
Byzantine Greek texts available to Erasmus when he compiled the Textus Receptus.

It's not that they were believed to be created in Alexandria, but that the first with the distinguishing features of the Alexandrian text-type were found in Alexandria. Sinaiticus is so named as it was found in an EO Monastery on Mt Sinai, it is believed to have been copied in the 4th Century and was still in use when it was found in the 17th/18th Century. Vaticanus is so named because it was in the Vatican Library, Erasmus had knowledge of this text and in the Comma Johanneum debate after the publication of his first NT he asked his friend Bombasius to check this particular manuscript to see if it was there.

 

[ebedmelech]

If one really wants to understand this issue...do yourself a favor and purchase any a great book on manuscript evidence of scripture...like F. F. Bruce "The Cannon Of Scripture:

The Canon of Scripture: F. F. Bruce: 9780830812585: Amazon.com: Books

I have this work...and it is thorough...maybe not the best, but certainly one of the best.

A very good site to read up on the manuscripts is here:
Home

Do your own research and draw your own conclusion! This is the the "information age"...all one need to do is put in the work.

This is Daniel Wallace, a fine textual critic speaking on "Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then?"

Daniel Wallace: Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Part 1 - Biola Chapel - YouTube

 

[Joy4Him]

Hello, I've been a Christian for a couple years now. I've really struggled with all the different Bible translations and which to use for my primary reading Bible. I know all translations are the word of God and I'm not asking which is more accurate. All have their strengths and weaknesses. I'm considering using the KJV as my primary reading Bible. In light of the wealth of modern translations available is it still recommended for Christians to use the KJV as their main Bible? Will I be doing myself a disservice using the KJV as my main reading bible?

I think the KJV is a valuable resource. If you understand easily enough I don't see any reason not to use it as your primary Bible. If you struggle with understanding what you read more often than not I would suggest using a modern version as your primary bible and use the KJV for enjoyment/casual reading. I just recently chose the ESV to be my primary Bible and I love being able to understand and grasp what I am reading.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

The KJV is good, but today, we have better.

I grew up with it, and love the language; the Psalms are so beautiful and lyrical.

It also was responsible for bringing many millions of people to Christ.

Thanks for the info ViaCrucis. I didn't know those things about the KJV.

My mom actually bought a box of a bunch of different bibles from some charity bookfair a long time ago (before me). When i started to get interested in Jesus I found the box which was lucky. I got a board and made a little shelf for them.

Right now I use the NKJV. Is it a good one?

The NKJV is very good from both a word for word and thought for thought standpoint. Some find it a little laborious to read. The ESV is a good compromise in that it is also good from both a thought and word translation, but is written a bit more simply.

While our Church has selected the ESV as the translation for the liturgies (with one exception which retains the KJV English) and lectionairys; Sem. students use the ancient texts; when they use English, it is the NKJV.

Thanks everyone for the info but I really didn't want to get into textual criticism and debate. I simply want to know if the KJV is a good translation to use as a primary reading bible, right now I use the ESV but giving some serious thought of switching over to the KJV. I'm not against modern translations and still plan to use them in my studies and I frequently look up multiple translations when I need a passage clarified.

And me saying I don't understand textual criticism/scholarship and questioning it doesn't mean I'm a KJVO or don't believe it should be used today in Bible translation...it simply means I don't get it. I'm just your everyday average Christian who doesn't know about these things.

Here, on my computer desk, right in front of me, is my NKJV.