Which Bible Version should a Christian read?

[Preacher of KJV]

Which Version of the Bible shoul This is an article from my pastor.

Now, as you can probably tell from my signature and profile, I'm only a KJV reader. I'm sure we are all believers that God would never make a mistake, correct? We believe 100% that God is perfect. I'm sure you also believe that the Devil mimics God and attacks in quiet ways. Just because it says "Holy Bible" on it, doesn't mean anything. It's called a wolf in sheep's clothing folks. It's the content, and many of these other versions can be pretty perverted.

I'm just trying to open some eyes here, but as I said, I am only a KJV reader.

[Zipster]

Could you then, by chance, answer some questions for me regarding the KJV and it's supposed infallibility?

- Which KJV is inspired? It's a known historical fact that it has been revised four times - the last one being in 1769? Why would something infallible need revised?

-Even if we go with first 1611 version as the only inspired bible - 1611 is quite late within human history. What about everyone before that? What Bible should they have read? Was the bible they read inspired?

- Do you accept the Apocrypha as part of the Cannon? Do you consider it to be inspired? If not, how do you reconcile that the one of the marginal references cites the Book of Maccabees?[Edit: added text] Not to mention, the Apocrypha was part of the original KJV. [edit: end of added text]

- Why are there marginal notes in the KJV offering other translation possibilities? This seems unnecessary if the KJV is completely without error - one would think that, if this is the case, no other possible translation is necessary to be given.

-Why were all the marginal notes and additional readings removed from the KJV Bible, along with the Apocrypha, the opening dedication to James I, and a introduction titled, "The Translators to the Readers?" If the KJV is inspired, then weren't all these things that were in the original KJV also inspired? And, isn't this like taking things away from the Word of God?

- What about the italics found in KJV? Standard Biblical Translation practice uses italics for words that do not exist in the original manuscripts. If you believe fully in the KJV inerrant word-for-word translation, then why are these italics necessary and present?

- When there is a difference between the TR Greek and the KJV English, which one is supposed to be accepted? Is it not ridiculous to say the source of a translation has error, but the translation itself is innerant? Isn't it a bit illogical to assume that the more modern Bible language is more accurate than the language the New Testament was written in?

I have other questions, and arguments against the King James Bible as the only translation a Christian should use - but, I think we can start there. I'm not saying the KJV is evil or anything - it's a beautiful translation, but there are demonstrable errors within its history and its text; and if there are demonstrable errors within it, then it is logical to say that it is not inerrant.

[Chrs]

I like the directness of your question, so I shall answer it similarly directly:

All of them.

Taking the body of Christians as a whole they probably will read all of the different translations. This is a good thing, since we can share the insights gleaned from each. Huzzah for different perspectives!

Off-the-cuff interpretations also have their place. Summarizing a passage helps one to understand it, so you get translations into modern English such as The Version of Ben. They are like The Message, but yet more fun.

[Brandi]

I think you should read whatever version makes sense to you. God will still speak to you, you will still learn his truth, just in a way that clicks for you. If you cant understand half of what you read ( a problem for many with KJV ) then what good does reading it do?

[JesusIsHardCore]

I personally use a variety of different translations. Take for example, 'The Message', it's not really a translation, but more a study help to break it down into something that anyone can understand.


The only way to know what the Bible really says and not worry about translations, is to learn the original languages and get copies of the books in those languages.

I have met, and I know some people that came from Israel and Greece, when they read their Bibles (not translated) and break it down there is much more depth to the verses. There are terms that cannot be expressed at their full meanings in English, words where there is no total substitute in English.

Most notably, we had a couple of sessions with a Jewish Rabbi at our church, he went through sections of the Bible, compared the literal meaning with King James, and showed us how much got missed during translation.

[Preacher of KJV]

Originally Posted by Brandi

I think you should read whatever version makes sense to you. God will still speak to you, you will still learn his truth, just in a way that clicks for you. If you cant understand half of what you read ( a problem for many with KJV ) then what good does reading it do?

The KJV has a 5.6 reading grade level, that's the lowest of any other Bible.

Zip: 1611 and God preserved his word for us, a specific generation. If you don't mind, I would like to get back to you on the other questions you asked until I have researched yours a bit more.

[Zipster]

Originally Posted by Preacher of KJV

The KJV has a 5.6 reading grade level, that's the lowest of any other Bible.

Zip: 1611 and God preserved his word for us, a specific generation. If you don't mind, I would like to get back to you on the other questions you asked until I have researched yours a bit more.

Okay. Take your time. But, I'm going to run with what you said here.

You say that the original 1611 Bible is the only inspired Translation, correct? If this is so, then it can be said that the 1611 KJV is inerrant; if it is inerrant, then it is without error; meaning, If one error can be found within the 1611 KJV Bible, then it is not inerrant, correct?

This must be so since the word "inerrant" means "free from error."

So, as I said, there are demonstrable errors within the KJV Bible that I'm going to now point out:

As I had mentioned, I had the privilege to go to the National Apologetics conference in Charlotte, North Carolina last year. It was a fantastic experience - one I wish all Christians could go to. While there, they had a room for ministries to try to get themselves known and whatnot. One ministry booth was more of an advertisement for a company that sells antique Bibles or something. They had, on display, the very original 1611 King James Bible. The very first one printed. It was massive, with pages of linen - it was really an interesting and fascinating thing to behold.

Naturally, I took pictures on my handy-dandy-cell phone. I've attached the two pictures of importance to this post. I, honestly, don't know how attachments work on here, so I don't know if the pictures will viewable or not. I'll figure that out later.

The second picture has a little thing of information about it. Unfortunately, it's a bit blurry - but, it's still readable. In case the pictures don't show up, I will type what it says here:

The Original 1611 King James Bible

First Edition, First Printing, "He" variant

The 1611 Edition of the KJV was only done in this large pulpit size.

In Ruth 3:15 there was a printing error, reading "...and he went into the citie" (This passage obviously refers to Ruth, and this printing error postitively identifies this as the first printing)

(Subsequent printings corrected the error to properly read "...and she went into the citie." Those early KJVs are called "She" Bibles.)

Fewer than 200 original printings of the 1611 are known to exist (and out of that number, fewer than 50 are complete "He" variants).

"The most important printed book in the history of the world"

So, before me was the very original 1611 King James Bible - first edition, first printing (worth millions of dollars)... and it had an error. Ruth was called "He" in Ruth 3:15.

Is it a significant error? No. Is it an error? Yes. Therefore, the 1611 King James Bible is not inerrant. If it is not inerrant, it is not infallible - for it has made an error in calling Ruth a "he." Therefore, it can be said that because the Original 1611 edition of the KJV has an error, it is not 100% accurate, and is thus flawed.

[Steven Thompson]

Originally Posted by Preacher of KJV

The KJV has a 5.6 reading grade level, that's the lowest of any other Bible.

How can a "dead" language be understood by kids going into the sixth grade? I don't know of anyone of that age that can truly understand the meaning behind the KJV, which is not reflected by the reading level. That reflects the words, as individuals, not entire phrases and comprehension of them. But I am not here to attack the KJV, as that isn't what the spirit of this thread is about.

I personally read many versions, and treat them all as God's word. For comprehension and study, however, I tend to use literal translations in conjunction with the NIV, NLT and KJV. My opinion of translations is this: They miss all but a few of the meanings. They treat many of the words as interchangeable with synonyms because they are accurate enough. And in all reality, each translation is correct if each word shares a definition with the word it was translated from. For depth however, I agree that only learning the original language can convey the full meaning behind each and every word.

[Queen Esther]

(Just butting into say---that is a GORGEOUS Bible!)

I don't believe any one translation in inerrant but the autographed copies of scriptures (as in the written original copies) are flawless and the true words of God. Not one translation can capture the essence of what God means since the Greek and Hebrew words cannot be exactly pinpointed and conveyed in English. Therefore no translations are going to be "perfect". Different translations serve different purposes for me. I personally like the ESV or NASB for Bible study and "The Net" Bible because it has footnotes galore from the original text. I like the NLT when I'm reading for fun or The Message when I want to get just the essence of the passage. I memorize in KJV or NKJV because I always memorized in that as a child so that's what most familiar to me.

[Preacher of KJV]

Can I ask everyone here one question....?

Do you believe God has ever failed us?

Another... do you believe God is perfect... thus if so... shouldn't his Word also be perfect? At least one copy of it?

Last one... do you believe God has ever, at one time, made a mistake?