What is the best version of the Bible? Is there a “best” version? Personally, I believe that unless your are going into the pulpit or into your study with the original languages in hand, you are only reading a translation; KJV, or not. Some, on the other hand, believe that the Authorized King James Version is actually the inspired, infallible text. To some, the KJV exists to correct the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Seriously?
Now, I am not a scholar, so my mind could be changed with a little evidence based on proper textual study and a little common sense. The problem is that the KJV that most hold so dear is only a translation. For that matter, most that say “King James only” don’t even have in their possession a real copy of the 1611 KJV. The one they do have is an updated and revised version that makes it more readable and understandable. Amazing.
One thing that I find a little strange is how so many people who hate to study Shakespeare carry a King James Bible. Now, I loved reading old Will’s sonnets and plays. On the other hand, much I did not understand until a professor in literature explained certain words and nuances. Ironically, the language of the King James Version is exactly the same. Shakespeare’s writings are the foundation for many modern works, yet so few read him anymore because it is “too difficult to understand.” Sad, isn’t it? I wonder how many more people would enjoy reading the Bible if they didn’t have to constantly consult a dictionary. Has everyone forgotten that the Bible was written in common languages of the day so that the average person could read it? Have they forgotten what “koine” means?
Do I have a preferred version? For the most part, I now use a Holman Christian Standard (HCSB); but in reality, I try my best to go back to the origianal languages in all the study and sermon preparation I do. In my HCSB Minister’s Bible I regularly note where changes to the KJV have occured, and where neccessary, revert back to that option. Where changes have been made that seem to say something different, I write the word as used in the Greek or Hebrew with a simple definition. My opinion is that a translation is only a translation. Jesus did not speak Old English, nor Modern English.
What are your thoughts on the subject?
Finally! Someone who has neatly summarised my own conclusions on the matter.
Nice one.
Thanks! And hey, I checked out your site and was very impressed. The “Screwcap Letters” were ingenious.
Good to know that there are like-minds on the other side of the pond.
Nice summary. I usually read the NIV, but also like the NLT and the RSV for just straight reading. My first Bible was a KJV, but I hardly ever open that one up. For study, I have a New American Standard Version that is a Greek/Hebrew study Bible with dictionaries in the back. If I could actually read Greek or Hebrew I wouldn’t have to read any translation, but since I don’t I’m content to read various translations and rely on the Holy Spirit to help me see the big picture of God’s grace. Peace, Linda
Nice explanation! Have you heard of http://www.BibleWebApp.com? If not, it is definitely worth checking out! Gives you a choice of translation and it holds the original language in parallel so you can see both at once. You can then hover over each word and when you click on that word, the definition pops up, along with the option to view the other occurances of that same word are!
As for my translation preference – though I did LOVE studying Shakespeare- I prefer either the NASB, NIV, or (brace yourself) the AMP. I’m so OCD though that a lot of times for sermon prep I’ll also check KJV, NKJV, NLT, & ESV just to get a richer understanding of the text.
I have always wondered why people hold so tightly to the King James, but I couldn’t articulate my argument well enough to bother arguing. I like your analysis.
As for me, I use the NIV for general reading/study, but if I’m teaching on something I compare with the King James and look up the words that are different in a lexicon.
Anthony, I have read several of your postings on your site and really enjpy the thoughts, stories,
humor, and insightfulness that has gone in to each
subject. While I have not examined the entire site,
I have found that your study of the scriptures, observations of people and subjects, shows a GOD
driven, righteous life and preaching of living for a Loving Heavenly Father.
Thanks, Carl. That means a lot, especially now. A little word of encouragement can go a long way.
A.C.,
Once again, great post (even if I’m a few weeks late).
I wholeheartedly agree, you’d really need to know ancient Hebrew and 1st century Greek, and perhaps a little Aramaic before you can be extremely literal.
That being said, I happen to like the KJV…a lot. I use a NKJV for modern study or services, but keep an older translation around too. Why? The poetry of it, like Shakespeare.
I’m an historian by trade and training (which is why I lampoon history on my site for fun) and have studied 17th century Britain. I will say the story of the translating of the King James is fascinating, and I LOVE the language of that period. But again, I read that stuff ALL the time (used to work at Jamestown), so it’s not a challenge for me.
There’s a nice little oh 200 page book, a secular author, I believe British, called “God’s Secretaries”. A very nice read. And the author I remember summed it up (paraphrasing)…
although there are more accurate or better modern translations, the poetry of the KJV is perfect for recitation, ritual, or on ones tombstone.
There is a beauty in tradition….but there also comes a point where you have to reach people in through the Gospel in THEIR language. I may be a humble layman, but I do believe that is a major point to the Great Commission.
In other words, church is not a Renaissance Fair.
Regards,
Southern Blogger
Well Well Well, I only have this to say, there is no real difference between the 1611 or the current 1727 KJV. The only difference and thank God for it, is the font change which makes the f like s’s look like an s like s’s. And of course the typeset corrections the type setters made while setting up the arduous task of printing the pages which were set up one letter at a time, I think I would mess up a few words myself. Lastly (not the correcting, but unifying) making the spelling differences from the different regions of England the same. These changes were not to the text nor to the context. But only to the errors produced by the typesetters and the minor spelling differences which were prominant in that time in England. And no ensample is not the same word as example. Look at the greek and you can see they are two differet words. So sorry to burst your bubble, but I do have an original 1611 and can read it fine. I love the KJV, only people who want to live loosely want so badly to be rid of it.
I don’t want rid of it, either. I still use it. But when it comes to verses like Isaiah 36:12, I’ll change “piss” to “urine,” for I think God would approve.
Now, if you are capable of understanding King James English (1611-1727), then I would hope you take the time to expound on “ensample,” for I would bet a dollar to a donut most IFB’s don’t know the difference. While you’re at it, do a quick survey of what kind of “husk” the prodigal wanted in Luke 15:16. It wasn’t corn, you know.
I also have a 1611, along with just about every other translation, good or bad; but, “loose” I am not.
Anthony Psalm 57:2
Sent from iPhone.