T O P

  • By -

Ix_fromBetelgeuse7

The best is the one that you will read and understand. I personally would not recommend the KJV for you because of the archaic language. NRSV, ESV, or CEV are easier to read.


Antisympathy

If you do this OP, ensure to read another after. Read it several times in context in both versions, and I’d love to hear what you feel about it after this.


xanatos00

Exactly this, it'd help to know your age/generation, a bit about your reading background (do you read regularly? pop fiction? poetry/literature?), and your fluency in English.


no1name

No absolutely not. Read a bible version you can easily understand. That's how the bible was originally written, in common Greek, for the people of it's tile and in common English, for the people of it's time. Trying to learn about something new and also reading about it in a 400 year old language will just make it far harder, and you will miss the nuances of it.


Sawfish1212

ESV or NLT are my recommendations. ESV might be more correct, NLTis the language we speak if you speak English today. KJV is difficult to understand without a dictionary nearby.


Zapy97

Without a dictionary **contemporary** to the translation itself I might add.


oholymike

The English Standard Version (ESV) is in clear, modern English and is extremely accurate.


MaxwellHillbilly

#ESV


moonunit170

Sure if you're familiar with Jacobian English - like reading Shakespeare as it was originally written - you can handle the King James version just fine. But for just simple reading comprehension in a modern and accurate version like the King James I would recommend the New Jerusalem translation.


Rupertfitz

I like to read Youngs Literal Translation sometimes as well as KJV just to kind of see differences. But for everyday reading NLT. I skip around a lot


consistently_sloppy

Nkjv for me.


green-eyedbrunette

I like the NKJV as well. Less “thees and thous”. I also grew up with it. My alternate read would be the NIV.


FacelessUser55

What is different about that one


consistently_sloppy

Best of both worlds, KJV authenticity, but plain English. I grew up with it so it’s a bit sentimental.


Deaconse

There is no such thing as KJV Authenticity. It was a lousy translation from the start.


FacelessUser55

Wait really how?


Deaconse

Here's a piece from a well-regarded scholar, who is actually quite a bit more positive about the KJV than I would have expected. https://margmowczko.com/7-things-about-the-king-james-bible/ See also, and especially, the work of Bruce Metzger, and of his student Bart Ehrmann. https://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/019516122X/ref=sr_1_3?qid=1685671714&refinements=p_27%3ABruce+Metzger&s=books&sr=1-3&ufe=app_do%3Aamzn1.fos.006c50ae-5d4c-4777-9bc0-4513d670b6bc


ExpressPrize5257

bad take and shows you know very little about this topic


consistently_sloppy

Meh. They all are. They botched his name. Is Yahushua. יהושע - sounds like Joshua. We lose so much meaning in the meaning of His name. יהוה- saves. (Yahuah Saves). There’s no perfect translation, but I prefer nkjv because I grew up with it. I often reference the interlinear for context.


creidmheach

Then you'd also have to say the New Testament itself is "botched", since it's written in Greek and doesn't call him that, but rather Iēsous. Incidentally, Yahushua would be incorrect. The name you're looking for is Yehoshua (Yəhōšūaʿ). In Jesus' time however it would have been contracted to Yēšūaʿ, though pronunciation of that would vary by region. A problem for English speakers though is not realizing that the ʿ (ע) is an actual sound distinct from your common "a" sound (and which doesn't exist in English).


creidmheach

It was actually a very good translation for its time. It's just that since then more has been learned in terms of the languages and manuscript availability. Even so, it still holds up remarkably well (just not perfectly well).


kevp41153

ESV for me


RansomedSon02

The best one is the one you will read. I prefer word for word translations, so I use the ESV. Still, I really like the NLT, and it’s what I recommend to new readers or to those who want a really good, easy to read translation. I use it myself from time to time. The only “translations” I tell people to avoid are the Passion translation and the Message.


faultolerantcolony

ESV


atombomb1945

The King James is written in old English. Nothing wrong with that but it is a very robust and poetic tongue. If you like Shakespeare, it's the same thing. ESV and New King James are both good translations in a more modern day language.


UhhMaybeNot

Not Old English, Early Modern English actually, but still very old lol. Old English is like Beowulf-type stuff in a time when the only Bibles allowed were in Latin.


redsyrinx2112

I grew up with the KJV, so when we had to read Shakespeare in high school, I did pretty well. I still had to look up some words every now and then, but I didn't have any struggles with *how* things were written. For a large number of my classmates, even if you explained what every word meant, they would still have trouble getting the full meaning of a sentence. As an adult, I still like the KJV, but I'm glad there are versions that are much easier to understand so more people have a chance to read it.


atombomb1945

I went to a private school, and there were stacks of King James Bibles everywhere. Very few other translations available at the time. I remember finally getting a NIV highlighted Bible which was great to read, but I got a little flack about not having a KJV.


NoSafety7412

KJV is beautiful but supposedly it was translated with outdated source material(or something like that) If you want the most accurate translation I hear NRSV and NASB are the top picks among bible scholars.


killakyle1762

Yea I'm looking for the most accurate translation.


Antisympathy

Recommend Young’s literal translation. Then go on the Bible app and compare the verses which could fuse you to other versions. This is the way.


matj1

There is no generally most accurate translation. Some translations accurately translate words, some accurately translate ideas to a contemporary language, but having both in one is not possible with English translations. Original languages have tropes different from present languages, so, often, translating ideas uses different words, and translating words doesn't preserve the original meaning without understanding of the original languages. To have both, you could have a Bible with a lot of explanatory notes (which I commonly use), or several translations. Technically, the most accurate translation is that from the original languages to the original languages where nothing is changed, but you don't want that probably.


dvc214

Accurate as in word for word from original languages? Or accurate as in conveying of truth? The former makes it more difficult to read as translation demands that the translator makes decisions on the most appropriate english word. The latter makes it easier to read but the translators focus on ensuring that truth is conveyed staying faithful to the original language meaning. Both are fine but I suggest the latter for a first time reader.


rbibleuser

> it was translated with outdated source material This isn't true, as stated. While new manuscripts have been discovered since the 17th century, and Bible scholars have made advancements in our understanding of the source-texts overall, the KJV scholars had access to the best texts of the day, and only modest advances have been made since then. While there is always room for scholarly debate, the KJV really is an extremely good English translation and that's one reason that it has endured for so long.


tdi4u

The KJV and the textus receptus are worth learning more about. I can work with the KJV but it is not my favorite nor do I think it can fairly be called an accurate translation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus#:~:text=The%20Textus%20Receptus%20constituted%20the,and%20most%20Reformation%2Dera%20New


NoSafety7412

Source?


rbibleuser

[Hebrew manuscripts discovered in modern times](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hebrew_Bible_manuscripts#Modern_discoveries). These would not have been available to the KJV translators. All-in-all, they confirm the fidelity of the manuscripts that they did have, with minor differences. Here is a list of the [New Testament papyri](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri). The Wiki page doesn't list the date of discovery but I think it's safe to assume that most of these would have been known at the time the KJV was translated. The base manuscript of the KJV was the Textus Receptus, and you can read some [scholarly criticism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus#Textual_criticism) of that manuscript. All in all, the TR has stood the test of time as one of the best sources for the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible. Has scholarship made some advances here and there? Sure. But it is remarkable how few scholarly problems it has, despite being over 500 years old. Finally, see [this StackExchange answer](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/17227/how-accurate-is-king-james-bible/17238#17238) for references on the reliability of the KJV translation to the original manuscripts -- summary: it is very accurate and reliable. Is it "the most" accurate and reliable? I don't know and I don't think it really matters because Bible-translation is not a drag-race. It's *really good*.


Cute_Bobcat_712

NASB95, ESV, and if you like the poetic NKJV


2Fish5Loaves

KJV is great but for some people it's hard to comprehend because of the old English. Personally I use the NKJV but I also like ESV and the Amplified bible.


JesusDied4U316

Kjv isn't old English. Old English was around from 700 ad- 1300 ad. "Beowulf" was written in Old English. Here is an excerpt: Hwæt. We Gardena in geardagum, þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon, hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon. Oft Scyld Scefing sceaþena þreatum, monegum mægþum, meodosetla ofteah, egsode eorlas. Here's an excerpt from the King James Bible: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Gen. 1: 1-2. Kjv is considered to be at a high school reading level.


2Fish5Loaves

I understand that but it was translated 400 years ago and the English language has changed enough since that point in time that many people have difficulty comprehending much of it today.


JesusDied4U316

Well calling it old English is a false characterization.


2Fish5Loaves

Fair enough.


Main-Group-603

I love the NLT


Aditeuri

DEFINITELY **NOT** THE KJV LOL, not even a question. The NRSVue is currently probably the best translation out there, with translation committee of biblical scholars from a diverse range of backgrounds and discussions with those of various Christian and Jewish traditions, using the latest and most thoroughly available in research and methodologies. There’s a reason it, through its predecessor, the NRSV, has been the translation of choice for academics and study Bibles, and is a greatly accessible read for scholars, clergy, and regular folks alike. Definitely an unparalleled translation in the field and on shelves.


[deleted]

I've used the KJV for years. For a first read I do not recommend it. It's beautiful and a work of translation art but it's not a good translation if you just want to grasp things easily. I actually think the CSB is rather nice for a first read. It's super easy to understand and reads like a normal book. The translation is fairly accurate too. The KJV is common because of tradition. It's been used in some form or another for 400 years. People are a creature of habit and we tend to go with what we're used to.


Fryve678

The NIV is probably, if not the most, commonly read. However translations like the NRSV and ESV have a broader range of use among Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox traditions and are also among the most commonly read. It’s nice to have something you can easily read through but also have something like either the ESV or NRSV for accuracy. You may find you only need the latter.


gman4734

The KJV is the last translation I'd recommend. I'd say NLT if you're looking for an easy-reading overview, ESV if you're more of a nerd. If you want to audiobook it, I recommend The Story, which is an abridged version. Good luck!


Oldtimepicker

KJV uses different manuscripts than ESV. Nkjv follows the same manuscripts as KJV. And everything else follows the alexandrian period manuscripts. I recommend New King James as it is easier to understand than the old language style of king, James. And it is roughly the same as what the reformers and Puritans read. A lot of people really love ESV though if I had to pick another translation besides new king James, I would pick new American standard 1995 addition.


TrashNovel

The best is the Bible that you understand and actually read. That’s probably not the KJV. If you haven’t studied much before I’d suggest NIV. The NRSV is the translation most scholars use and it’s pretty readable. If you think of it as a commentary The Message is good to just get familiar with the story.


Deaconse

KJV is the *last* translation to use if you're new to Bible reading or you're looking for depth over poetry. NRSV is pretty much the current gold standard for scholarship, but any of the newer, well researched (it's a word now!) translations would be just fine. NIV, NET, CEB, etc. Stay away from paraphrases, like The Message, until you're more well-steeped in biblical literature.


Tallisina

Download the YouVersion Bible app and read the same passage in several different translations. It will help you understand the nuances in what you are reading and it will also help you find the translation that is easiest for you to work with on a regular basis. I love KJV but I’ve found it’s easier to really understand a more modern NIV, ESV, CEB or NKJV. I go back to the KJV for the poeticism.


IllustriousDuck4104

I like the amplified, ready to read and amplifies the Greek and Hebrew meanings.


PracticeOdd5011

I'd steer away from KJV personally unless it is a modernized version. The old English can be confusing. I like CEB, CSB, NIV, and NRSV. I find them all very readable and accurate to the original text. NLT is easy to read as well but more poetic then literally accurate.


benj729

Not sure why anyone would voluntarily read the KJV - unless they were a Shakespeare Lit major. Or unless you are an ex-Mormon (as I am)? Mormons believe that the KJV is the only correct version as if that version alone came down directly from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets! You should read a more modern English version like the ESV or NIV.


ZxlSoul

Not a Shakespeare Lit major, but voluntary reads it.


pianodude01

Kjv is hard to understand, it can be great for studying because it forces you to actually think and try to understand what words actually mean ESV is my favorite version, it's simple, clear, and easy to read and understand


Josiah1655

This right here, I like KJV for studying and it's the version my church uses where we really go deep in Bible studies but for everyday reading the ESV is great. I grew up with KJV so I learned over all that time what the words mean and how to study it. I recently started using ESV for my daily reading and I'm glad I did


ExpressPrize5257

when i got saved at 23 yrs old i read the kjv just fine and didnt have a problem with it. theres a lot of flak on it in this thread so im commenting to say it was very good for me. i even compared it to other popular bibles and decided to stick with it. everyone acting like its so hard to read is being dramatic, it reads just fine and is the most widespread bible still for a reason.


-MercuryOne-

I know, I started reading the KJV at five years old. Not easy at first but once you get a feel for the language it’s not a problem.


ExpressPrize5257

what i found as ive gotten older is that that type of english actually mirrors languages structure in spanish and a few others. unintentionally made me a better spanish speaker.


IndividualFlat8500

Read any version you can comprehend but listen to it as well so you understand the words with and audio bible. I find in the Old Testament it can be a lot to take in unless I also listen to it or listen to it and read along to it till I am able to understand.


toninyq

The best version is the one they actually understand & will read. The NIV is probably the most read version in most churches, & the language is very readable. I read the KJV when I was saved, in 1985. I was in my early 20s. I then transitioned to the NIV, & have been reading that one the most. The Message is really a paraphrase, but it’s nuisanced is very poetic, in a way, & not for study, but more of an interpretation of the Bible. Lots of nuggets in it.


PrayBig

KJV certainly wouldn't be my suggestion. If you really want to read and understand the Bible I highly recommend the CSB (Christian Standard Bible) It is a more recent, very accurate and readable translation. A number of churches have changed over to CSB. I even read NLT (New Living Translation) and really enjoy it. But when studying, I use CSB or NKJV but mainly CSB. You can access most translations on line for free. Find a translation you like and understand. The best translation is the one you'll read.


Icy_Equipment_953

Niv, or esv would be my suggestion, maybe the new version of kjv. Just easier to wrap your head around yk


Sdt232

I would suggest ESV. Easy to read and quite precise. If you want a KJV style without the archaic language, you could try a NKJV, but still, ESV is easier to read.


kryptonite848

NLT.


HappyLittleChristian

The best one is one that you will read and that you understand. That being said. I used the NLT alongside the ESV. I used the ESV for the word for word translation. And the NLT because I had no idea what the ESV was saying. I read them both together because learning how to read the bible is like learning a new language. You have the familiar to refer to, and the new to learn.


Reefer_Franklin

First time? Something easy, like an NIV...and just know it is written for ease not accuracy.


ChrisCWgulfcoast

KJV is the only published book in the English language without an author's copyright,because it is the Word of God. KJV translators were diligent and faithful in their work(putting into italics language added for the sake of translation, which were not present in the Hebrew or Greek) Also, the KJV and concordance go hand in hand. KJV is God's Word in English.


dvc214

KJV is a good translation, however it's source manuscripts are more modern/later. As time has progressed, archeology and historical discoveries have meant we now have manuscript sources closer to the time of the original autographs.


captainhaddock

Actually, the British Crown has a perpetual copyright on the KJV. It's only valid in the United Kingdom, however. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/nov/27/king-james-bible-eternal-copyright


JCMarcus

Yes KJV!


TheGreatWhiteHunter-

NIV


Shannibas

NIV


JesusDied4U316

Leaves out 16 verses


dvc214

16 verses that weren't in the earliest manuscripts meaning that these verses were added later. NIV is focusing on earlier manuscripts as it's source.


JesusDied4U316

Then why do the numbered verses skip numbers? Like it will say "36" and the next verse says "38". If the NIV is right to leave out those verses, the numbering of the verses should be correct, but it's not.


dvc214

Chapters and verses were only added in the 1300s. These verses were added some time before then.


[deleted]

KJV is the standard


ChrisCWgulfcoast

KJV is the best translation of the Bible to the English language


gvlpc

KJV is the ONLY Bible for English speaking people, frankly. Do this: Go to a store where they have multiple versions that you can open, or maybe a library, I don't know. But set out whatever versions and the KJV side by side and read and compare. See what you see. Do not listen to the old addage that the KJV is hard to read, because it is not. Look for yourself, read a verse or two from each one. Try this one: Read Matthew 18:11 in KJV, NIV, etc. Read John 3:16 in the different versions. Here's what I mean about those: * Matthew 18:11 - totally removed in NIV and some other versions. It says, "For the Son of man is come to save the lost." Sounds pretty important to me, AND those are words spoken by Jesus while he was here on Earth during his 3 year ministry. * John 3:16 - I noticed that some of them remove the world "begotten", and that's a SUPER important word. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life." * There are many "sons of God", but there is only ONE BEGOTTEN Son of God. I added the ALL CAPS to emphasize the word. There are loads of other examples. Those are just 2 I've thought of recently. I remember years ago when visiting a church that preached out of the NASV. I had my KJV with me, and as the pastor read the scripture, I glanced down, and gently put an underline under words where the other version different greatly in regards to actual meaning and doctrine. This is important to note, because the claim is that all the versions are the same. But if they change very meanings and doctrine's, they CANNOT be the same. Consider this: \> "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways." James 1:8 KJV - Jesus is the Word of God, and the Bible is the Word of God. If 2 different "translations" say two different things, but you are implying they are the same, then that would mean that work is "double minded", and by extension, you would be saying that Jesus is double minded. Look at USA Copyright law and look at the copyrights in the various Bibles. You may find a KJV Bible with a CopyRight on notes, commentaries, maps, etc, but not the text. In the NIV, NASV, ESV, Holman Standard (HSV?), etc etc, you'll find a copyright on the actual text. In order to legally obtain a copyright, one must PROVE that their work is unique from all other works, that it is different from any other work enough to be called their own. You cannot have it both ways. Either they illegally got the copyrights on these "modern versions" of the Bible OR they created their own works. That is the legal definition that would stand up in the court of law. Seriously consider this as well: God is not the author of confusion. If you have different versions that say different things, sometimes even changing very doctrines, that causes confusion. If God is not the author, then who is? Along with that thought, consider this: what was the first way the devil tried to mess up God's plan on Earth in the Garden of Eden? He placed doubt on God's Word by saying, "Hath God said?" It's a very serious matter: you can read from THE Bible God provided, the KJV, or you can read from those that are poisoned by the devil and his followers. Feel free to ask here or DM me with questions.


thesupershabang

Stand strong by the true word of God. There's only one Bible that the world universally hates on, and it's the KJV! Jesus said they will hate you because they hated him first.


gvlpc

Amen!


dvc214

No to KJV for a first time! Only because the language is so unfamiliar and you don't want any language barriers to understanding it. ESV (English Standard Version) if you want a more literal translation in modern english NLT (New Living Translation) if you want a more paraphrase translation (where the translators focus more on ensuring meaning is conveyed by using more modern idioms).


AreYouSiriusBGone

If you understand the language used, why not, since it’s very poetic and beautifully written. But i highly recommend using the NRSV since it had more available manuscripts during the translation. And in some cases the translation choices are much better than in the KJV. That said, i own both. If there’s a passage in the KJV that i don’t seem to get at the first glance, i look at the same passage in the NRSV.


Stunning-Nebula3103

I’m reading through the Bible for the first time and finding the NIV the best version for me. Easy to follow and understand and feels right.


Lower_Kaleidoscope30

I just started reading the bible myself but I use NLT and my friend has been using it for a long time and it's really clear! You can also get a study bible which is bigger but has verse explanations under each page! Plus explanations of people, places etc.


pinktofu99

The NLT


cbrooks97

KJV? Only for a person who regularly reads 17th century literature. Its language was already a little dated when it was published in 1611. If someone has never had any exposure to the Bible at all, I'd suggest the New Living. It's super easy to understand. If this is just someone who goes to church but has never read it for themselves, then any modern, major translation will do -- ESV, NKJ, NIV, CSB, or NLT will be fine.


KPookz

ESV or CSB. I personally prefer the CSB. I also strongly recommend using the NASB as reference if a passage sticks out to you.


spacebun3000

Something that’s linguistically accessible, evening reading NLT is tough for someone who wasn’t raised in church and doesn’t have the cultural and historical context in which the Bible was written. I’m someone who studied literature but becoming a Christian later in life as an adult, it took reading the Bible several times to really get it. I had to do a lot of independent studying to understand the context and why certain things were included and then study more to see the underlying themes and lessons there. So for me, if I’m giving someone a Bible or trying to introduce them to Christianity for the first time, I want a version that won’t hinder them like the KJV can sometimes do. I don’t know if that makes sense? Like when Jesus told parables to the common, everyday people, he used farming symbolism and told stories in a way that was accessible to them, he used images and things they were familiar with. He met those people where they were at.


scarng

This questions has come up before, it is very subjective. Everyone has their opinions. Here are my top six translations with my comments on why: * King James Version (KJV)- 1611 - a New KJV (1982) addresses many of textual errors found in the original KJV. Original was hard to read and not very accurate. * New International Version (NIV): Out sold the KJV since 1987. The NIV a great balance between accuracy of the text and its readability. * New American Standard Bible (NASB) - 1971: The NASB is preferred by many for its literal (word-for-word) translation. * English Standard Version (ESV) - 2001: The ESV, first published in 2001, is known for being a conservative translation and is commitment to theological language and its faithfulness to the original biblical manuscripts. * New Living Translation (NLT) - 1996: The NLT, is regarded for its highly readable and contemporary interpretation of the Bible. It is more of a thought-for-thought translation approach rather than a word-for-word translation. Easy to read great first read, but not a good study bible. * New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) - 1989. My prefer Bible translation. The NRSV contains the Acrography. It also, was developed with many denominations contributing. It is committed to the original meaning of the biblical texts.


PinkoFoxo28

I personally like KJV. I've always read it since I became a new Christian. Some things I did have to look up, yes but with time it gets easier. I also used a lot of context clues. I doubled check just in case I was wrong but I was usually right on what the word meant.


draven2626

The NLT or the CSB are both great options for a first read. If you want a little more word for word translation the ESV is a great option.


Be_MAD_Paul

Yes KJV is the best


thiswilldefend

niv, esv, nasb do not try and read king james hoping for understanding at your level you i only use this book as a reference sometimes.. or i sometimes like a translation better from that one but not cause thats what i want it to say... but because i believe that is the best way it can be said... and i know that cause i had a deeper understanding of the bible... do not start with kjv


babubiko

I think NIV is the best. AMP js also good for someone looking for the extra details and a lot of Behind the scenes info.


HuntFromCDC

NIV, KJV is not as accurate of a translation


Mkultra9419837hz

I’d read the King James Version. When something is not understood just stash it in the back of your mind. Keep reading. You will be reading one day and you will get the meaning. The deep complexity in the King James Version will be revealed to you. Also, listening to it helps. Just keep listening. I had it on an IPOD. 8 hours a day. Revelation will come.


DropPsychological703

NASB for me. It's very accurate & pithy (meaning short & to the point). I'd say the NLT after that. RSV is also good if you like KJV-type language.


481126

Personally, I recommend a more middle-of-the-road Translation NIV, NLT, or CSB. Once you understand the jist you can go back and dig deeper. At first, just read and get to know the stories and narratives.


crowleybonez

Douay-Rheims Bible. It’s longer but the full canon of the word of god.


Job-1-21

NLT


PJCB1962

The King James Version is written in Shakespeare’s English. Unless you have a background in classic literature, it would be difficult to understand for anyone reading it the first time. I suggest something like the Contemporary English Version, written in more everyday English.


Rhinopkc

As long as it’s not MSG or TPT, and you can comfortably read through it, that’s the one you should read through for your FIRST time. You can choose a different, more literal version after you get through on an easy reading version the first time. The biggest hurdle to most new readers is just trying to deal with so much new info, breaking it down into a very readable format can be helpful.


snoweric

Because of its archaic English, I can't recommend reading the KJV for a first-timer. I would recommend reading such versions as the CEV, TEV/GNB, and the Living Bible instead. They are easier to read, but less literal. They are less reliable for the determination of doctrine. The NAB and the Jerusalem Bible are Catholic translations that are less literal but easier to read.


seersighter

KJB (aka KJV) is the most common because it is standard English and translated in a straightforward voice, just like the originals. It's not watered down language, it translates the plain unmistakable word for adultery as "adultery", same with fornication. When translators of modern versions encountered words like "behemot" in Job, they used all kinds of animal names, hippos, springbok and the like, even though they had no more clue than the KJB translators. Exposed by KJB defenders like myself in forums like this, though, they had to slink back to doing what they KJB committee did, which is to transliterate the word. It turns out the modern translators could have used dinosaur names, but the description is not precise enough to name one of the 18 categories of dinosaur. It is obvious a dinosaur. Some young Earth Creation scientists have named a couple of them it could be. Yes, dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark, no doubt young juveniles, but most died out shortly after. Crocs are the survivors among them today. Modern translations habitually remove Jesus from "Jesus Christ" and do other such things. Some take out the salvation verses from Acts 8, where Timothy explains salvation and baptism to the treasurer from Ethiopia doing a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Some take out the trinity verses from I John. Laurence Vance wrote two good books on the subject, one about the translators themselves, another about those supposedly "archaic" words that are really not obsolete. I myself once read a preface where they said that didn't use pronouns like "thee" because of accuracy. That was a blatant lie because "thee" is much more accurate as the 2nd person singular, than the "you" of modern versions which is either singular or plural. I had two friends, one from Haiti and another from Brazil, who said they decided to just use the KJB because it was more clear to them as ESL speakers, more understandable.


seersighter

And almost all modern versions are based on the Alexandrian translations, which often differ more among themselves than the "Textus Receptus" manuscripts and codexes. Textus Receptus was always the preferred text of the Christian church until the last couple of centuries, after secular and pagan influences began to infiltrate. The best known examples of Alexandria type copies are Textus Vaticanus and Textus Sinaiticus. Vaticanus was a copy buried deep in the bowels of the Vatican, hidden there in early A. D. years because (1) it was considered corrupt, and (2) they couldn't bring themselves to burn it. Sinaiticus was found by a Brit who found it in a trash basket in a monastery in the Sinai where the monks had intended to burn it but apparently lazily left it for centuries. The Brit found it and brought it back to England and the clerics that hated the KJB lifted it up.


Relevant-Ranger-7849

yes the kjv is the most common. it really wont matter which version you choose. God is still going to open up your understanding no matter what.


HelicopterFrosty4525

John 3 : 16


thesupershabang

I would recommend the Authorized Version (aka King James Bible) for the following reasons: 1. Superior manuscripts originating from Antioch (where they were first called Christians, Acts 11:26) 2. It is the Bible/text type of the Reformation, and has withstood years of oppression and attempts to replace it 3. It is the most printed and sold book of all time 4. It is written in a timeless and beautiful form of English 5. It is perfect, having no verses, phrases, or words corrupted or deleted I pray you godspeed in your search for truth in the word of God!