Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today

[Winston]

By Daniel Wallace

First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

My love for the KJV is not based on anything you said.  It is based on the fact that it changed my life, and the life of multitudes of others.  Period.  I use other versions, but still love the KJV the best.

 

[wheatpenny]

Despite it's flaws (every translation has those), I still think the KJV is one of the best translations out there. I'm no longer a KJVO but I still love the KJV, just not to the total exclusion of all the other versions.

 

[Ransom]

The KJV: "Better Than Nothing, Since 1885!"

 

[Izdaari]

The KJV was state-of-the-art in 1611, and of course it is a literary classic. It's still good enough for those who like it, but it has the manuscript issues pointed out in the article, and the archaic English is not very accessible to modern readers... unless they're English majors or grew up with it. It rates maybe number 10-12 on my favorites list.

 

[Ironman]

Why I Continue To Use The King James Bible

David C. Bennett, D. Min.

The King James Bible is still the supreme Bible translation in the English speaking world.

From 1611 A.D. to 2002 A.D. the King James Bible has been read, taught, and preached from in the entire English speaking world. It is the Bible of the great revivals and the Christian missionary movement.

Many Bible believing Christians are firmly convinced the Holy Spirit of God providentially superintended in bringing together this magnificent English translation which has become known as the Authorized Version. There are now seventy or more English translations of the Bible in part or in whole but the King James Bible continues to be superior to all these versions for four reasons; its (1) Superior Hebrew and Greek Texts (2) Superior Translators (3) Superior Translation Technique and (4) Superior Theology.

(1) The Texts underlying the King James Bible are the Masoretic Hebrew Text for the Old Testament and the Received Text for the New Testament. As to the Masoretic Old Testament Text the late Dr. Robert Dick Wilson, Princeton Seminary, said "I can affirm that there

 

[biscuit1953]

The KJV: "Better Than Nothing, Since 1885!"

Since leaving KJV onlyism I started using the New King James Version.  The pastor and members of the Southern Baptist Church I now attend overwhelmingly use the NIV.  It took me some time to accept it because of the thought for thought translation but I now believe it is very good.  I'm curious if you would have some kind of list of translations you believe have crossed the line.  Other than cult versions do you warn about any particular ones?  Thanks. 

 

[wheatpenny]

Since leaving KJV onlyism I started using the New King James Version.  The pastor and members of the Southern Baptist Church I now attend overwhelmingly use the NIV.  It took me some time to accept it because of the thought for thought translation but I now believe it is very good.

I go back and forth between the KJV and the NRSV and lately I've been taking a look at the HCSB because I'm considering getting the Apologetics Study Bible which is only available in that version.

 

[FSSL]

If churches are going to effectively reach 2012 English speaking people, then those churches will preach and teach from texts clearly understandable in 2012.

I agree with Wallace... abandon the KJV.

99% of the churches we attend use modern versions. They use a variety of translations and it is great to be exposed to different ways the same truths are communicated.

 

[Izdaari]

The KJV: "Better Than Nothing, Since 1885!"

Since leaving KJV onlyism I started using the New King James Version.  The pastor and members of the Southern Baptist Church I now attend overwhelmingly use the NIV.  It took me some time to accept it because of the thought for thought translation but I now believe it is very good.  I'm curious if you would have some kind of list of translations you believe have crossed the line.  Other than cult versions do you warn about any particular ones?  Thanks.

I can't think of any that are outright bad, other than the New World Translation, used by JW's. It's bad because it's dishonest, with some passages altered to conform to JW doctrine.

Some like to diss The Message, but I don't think it's a bad translation, but instead a good paraphrase, with of course the limitations of any paraphrase. I wouldn't substitute it for a real Bible, but I like it as a supplement, a kind of commentary. 

But the ones I prefer to use are: ESV, NRSV, RSV (that is, the whole RSV family), TNIV and NIV 2011, NASB (when I want the most literal popular translation), HCSB and NKJV. I also like the NEB and REB, British translations, not so well known this side of the pond. The NET is worth having for its very extensive translation notes.

 

[Bob H]

First off I'm not a KJVO so I don't want to hear it. I'm a FETO {Formal equivalent translation only}..................which leaves out most of them  It's our job to interpret scriptures not the translaters. They translate we interpret

If churches are going to effectively reach 2012 English speaking people, then those churches will preach and teach from texts clearly understandable in 2012.

I agree with Wallace... abandon the KJV.

Excuse my French but Thuppppppppppppp! The KJV is not the problem. It can be preached and taught and understandable. The problem is with the reader/studier. I'm not down playing reading cause the Bible opens to reading and the more one  reads it the more it opens up no matter WHAT translation one uses.  But the Bible also if not more so is meant to be studied. A  person needs study helps and if "one" is to lazy to use them using the KJV then that "one" will be to lazy to use them no matter what translation they use. The Elizabethon language excuse is just an ...............................excuse.



I highly recommend this book:


http://www.amazon.com/The-Word-God-English-Translation/dp/1581344643/ref=la_B001H6S2UG_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1340040187&sr=1-12


{BTW he was on the ESV translation committee}

 

[FSSL]

First off I'm not a KJVO so I don't want to hear it.

Then why state it? If your position is for all practical purposes different than the KJVO position, it would be very clear and you would not need to begin with this caveat. But, with that in mind... I will not accuse you of being a KJVO, just a defender of their particular tradition.

I'm a FETO {Formal equivalent translation only}..................which leaves out most of them  It's our job to interpret scriptures not the translaters. They translate we interpret

To make this claim means that you have never translated from the Greek and Hebrew. If you have, you know very well that translating (formally or functionally), you will need to interpret. ALL Bibles have interpretations including the KJV and ESV.

Excuse my French but Thuppppppppppppp! The KJV is not the problem. It can be preached and taught and understandable. The problem is with the reader/studier... The Elizabethon language excuse is just an ...............................excuse.

The word of God has never been intended to become obscure in a language that the people no longer use. Even the KJV translators recognized this.

I highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-Word-God-English-Translation/dp/1581344643/ref=la_B001H6S2UG_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1340040187&sr=1-12 {BTW he was on the ESV translation committee}

I highly recommend the ESV... The preface to the ESV states: "Archaic language has been brought to current usage and significant corrections have been made in the translation of key texts."

Since the ESV is more consistent in its formal equivalent approach than the KJV, then "God forbid" why defend the KJV?

To suggest that we are to stay with the KJV in 2012 means that you are given to a tradition, rather than bringing the word of God to current usage and making the much needed significant corrections.

 

[Bob H]

quote author=FSSL link=topic=391.msg10871#msg10871 date=1340041542]

First off I'm not a KJVO so I don't want to hear it.

Then why state it?
[/quote]


Cause I would of been accused of it. I know how the KJ haters work 

I'm a FETO {Formal equivalent translation only}..................which leaves out most of them  It's our job to interpret scriptures not the translaters. They translate we interpret

To make this claim means that you have never translated from the Greek and Hebrew. If you have, you know very well that translating (formally or functionally), you will need to interpret. ALL Bibles have interpretations including the KJV and ESV.

Right. Even formal equivalent translations use some dynamic "translating" in their translation. Any moroon knows that. But all translations will use mainly one method in translating {either dynamic or formal}. And they'll tell ya. I'll use and recommend the formal equivalent ones

Since the ESV is more consistent in its formal equivalent approach than the KJV, then "God forbid" why defend the KJV?

To suggest that we are to stay with the KJV in 2012 means that you are given to a tradition, rather than bringing the word of God to current usage and making the much needed significant corrections.

See........ That's why I clarified that I was not a KJVO. I didn't "defend" the KJV and you have no idea which translation I prefer. I never suggested no such thing

 

[FSSL]

Functional translations are not given to more interpretation than formal.

Even Leland Ryken does not prefer the KJV.

Does your church use the KJV as its text?

 

[Bob H]

Functional translations are not given to more interpretation than formal.

Even Leland Ryken does not prefer the KJV.

Does your church use the KJV as its text?

Duh!  Ryken was on the ESV translation committee. But the book deals with translation method {not the text issue}. He shoots down the dynamic method. I recommend it. Our preacher uses the NKJV mainly. We really have no official "church" translation.

 

[FSSL]

Since you have not translated anything from the Greek and Hebrew, you are just taking Ryken's word for it. A functional equivalent vis-a-vis formal equivalent approach both have their weaknesses and strengths. Both are valuable contributions to the translation world.

Your church uses the NKJV. What word do you prefer to use of your church since you do not like the word "abandon?" I have yet to find anyone give me an acceptable alternative, politically correct word.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=FSSL]A functional equivalent vis-a-vis formal equivalent approach both have their weaknesses and strengths. Both are valuable contributions to the translation world.[/quote]

While I am as opposed to your militancy against the KJV as I am opposed to KJVO-sim (even though I agree with a lot of your reasoning), I do think the point you make here needs to be emphasized.

I would even include paraphrases as valuable contributions.

 

[FSSL]

[quote author=FSSL]A functional equivalent vis-a-vis formal equivalent approach both have their weaknesses and strengths. Both are valuable contributions to the translation world.

While I am as opposed to your militancy against the KJV as I am opposed to KJVO-sim (even though I agree with a lot of your reasoning), I do think the point you make here needs to be emphasized.

I would even include paraphrases as valuable contributions.
[/quote]

Clarification: I am not opposed to the KJV. I just think our preaching and teaching should move away from it for clarity and accuracy sake.

Paraphrases do help. I appreciate the Amplified as well. They are the word of God.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Bob H]

Since you have not translated anything from the Greek and Hebrew, you are just taking Ryken's word for it. A functional equivalent vis-a-vis formal equivalent approach both have their weaknesses and strengths. Both are valuable contributions to the translation world.

Well, I had my opinion before I read Ryken but it's a most excellent book. I have many translations and reference them in my study. That's fine and dandy. But the bottom line I prefer and recommend  the formal. As a layman, if I have a problem  I'll go to the greek and interpret the passage myself rather than trusting some functional translators interpretation. I guess I'll end it here my friend. We'll agree to disagree. Least you were quite civil about it. Some KJV haters get hot and bothered about this 

 

[FSSL]

Least you were quite civil about it. Some KJV haters get hot and bothered about this 

I hope you think so. I just put things out there and let them fall where they may. If you want to see some kooks in action going hard after me, visit the other fundamentalforum...