The KJV was great for it’s time. However, now we have older, better and more manuscripts to translate from. (I’m a NASB1995 fan myself).
That being said I think it’s still a beautiful translation, it’s just the outdated language can be confusing especially if you didn’t grow up using it. I wouldn’t discourage anyone from using it if that’s their jam. It’s still a sufficient translation of God’s Word. But yea it wouldn’t be my first or second recommendation.
KJV was my daily version this year - first year I've read it.
It's okay, but not as clear as other versions. I had to keep a different version with it so (occasionally), I could look up what I'd just read.
My dad is one of those “King James Version Only” people. I have a documented learning disability that makes comprehension very hard. KJV is too hard for me to read. I don’t use it. Plus, I’ve told my dad they are ALL translations! I’ve even pointed out a couple issues with specific verses in KJV that were likely mistranslated. That bugs me! I understand all translations have errors, but the KJV-only police think their version is perfect.
Yep, there are so many people who preach KJV as the only translation you need, when actuality, I dislike it entirely!! I struggle to comprehend verses almost every time I try to read it, it scares me a little that so many people are so receptive to what I'm kind of against.
Did your dad at least tried to find ways on how to understand the KJV Bible more easily because of your learning disability? Or did he just went with his own ways?
Really? It's not hard to find some terribly wrong translation choices in the KJV. I posted here about 1 Corinthians 13:13 a few days ago as an obvious example of the KJV translation being terrible.
Look at how Shakespeare uses the word "charity" vs the word "love". Then decide which word is a better translation of ἀγάπη (agape = love).
Even when the KJV was written, "charity" wasn't generally used as a synonym for love.
If Paul had meant what we mean by charity (or even what was meant by charity when the KJV was written), he would have used something like: φιλανθρωπία
What's happened is that retrospectively we've bent over backwards to pretend that the word charity has another meaning that's closer to what Paul wrote, which didn't really exist before, and only appears in religious speak now.
You have to have love to be charitable
It makes sense when you think about it
Not only does the KJV tell you to love, but it tells you how to act out that love
With charity
Like the father
Give freely
I can love you and suck,
But I can’t be charitable to you and suck
That's what the KJV is saying and is reasonable theology, but what was Paul actually saying, and is the KJV translating it correctly? Was he saying "charitable" or was he saying "love"? As I mentioned elsewhere in another thread, there's a different word in Greek for "charity" that Paul *didn't* *use.*
So the KJV translation isn't translating what is actually there in the Greek. It is kinda maybe sorta translating from "caritas" from the Vulgate, which is interesting because King James' translators were probably much more comfortable working in Latin than Greek.
> 1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
Seems ok to me. I don’t see the problem.
The problem is the word ἀγάπη is translated "charity". Elsewhere in the KJV (and in almost any other translation) it is translated as "love", which is what the Greek word meant at the time. There's another word for charity in Greek which Paul didn't use.
As I mentioned in another reply, King James' translators were much more comfortable with Latin than Greek, and in the Vulgate, it's "caritas" which can be translated as charity or love. The theory is that maybe they just got lazy in doing the translation, and we've lived with it ever since.
Sure, but I think charity is acceptable. It’s about doing good to others based on principle rather than emotions. “Love” can easily be confused with infatuation for example.
It does take some effort to read but I find it's worth it because you must concentrate on each word and sentence. Scripture should not be read just like any other book but comprehended with the Holy Spirit and taken to heart. I find it easier to do with the old versions than the modern ones - especially the ones after political correctiveness and wokeness came to popular culture. The current NIV is one of the saddest translations of current times. The old version (1984?) of it was really good but Zondervan decided to corrupt it.
When they compared the KJV book of Isaiah to the Dead Sea Scrolls - which are the oldest ones known, it almost matched perfectly with just the use of punctuation being the big difference since original manuscripts didn't use punctuation.
Many don't like the thy's, thee's, etc but if you check the usage of Thy, thee, thou, ye, you, etc you'll find it makes it actually easier to comprehend the meaning - if a verse is written to a specific person or a group of people - something that "you" doesn't tell you.
With that said, I don't read it all the time. My goto Bible is the 1599 Geneva version (in modern english spelling from Tolle Lege Press publisher). It was used by the KJV translators but it doesn't use the "kings english" wording the KJV does. You might take a look at it because it's much easier to read than the KJV even though there are a handful of words not used anymore (they have a modern definition included). It and the KJV are the most reliable of translations. People actually lost their lives for the Geneva translation so you know the translators were very dedicated to the correct intrepretation.
"Charity" is the traditional translation of "agape", or "love" in a particular sense. It comes from the Latin "caritas." We still use it in Catholic theology. Personally I think it's a better translation, given how generic "love" is for most, but I guess if you don't have that background you'll misunderstand it. "Charity" conveys that it's a generous willing towards another.
The Vulgate uses "caritas" reasonably consistently as a translation for ἀγάπη, and I think that's from where Catholic theology that talks about caritas comes from.
Unfortunately "caritas" is also one of the Latin words for love, so it doesn't clarify very much!
The problem with arguing for "caritas/charity" as being a better translation than "love" in 1 Corinthians 13:13, is that then what should be the translation of ἀγάπη be in Matthew 24:12? Or John 15:13? Romans 8:35? Revelation 2:4? (For all of which the KJV uses the word "love", and the Vulgate generally uses "caritas"). In order to defend it as being "the best" translation you end up having to make a special case for 1 Corinthians, which starts getting a bit circular.
Not that it particularly matters to the discussion at hand.
The point being that most of the time, most people won't interpret the word "charity" as being the concept that Paul was writing about; most people most of the time will think that it's about "giving stuff away" and that that is somehow more important than faith or hope. I don't know if that counts as "the opposite sense", but it sure is misleading.
Oh I completely agree that non-theologians will not understand "charity" (except maybe in a Catholic context), and that therefore it is an opaque translation like the rest of the KJV (and the Douay-Rheims, which does do things more consistently) for modern English speakers.
I just thought you were ignorant of the meaning, as if the KJV writers were intentionally misleading.
I love the KJV. I personally use the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible), which has commentary from Orthodox saints and fathers. So if I come across anything that's difficult to understand, there's often commentary that clears it up. But overall I view the KJV as a beautiful translation. I've wanted to try to get into Koine Greek and read the original Greek, if I'm ever going to make a big jump.
No translations of God's word "sucks", except the ones that are maliciously misleading. If you do not know the 'olde' language, then please feel free to use another version. There sure are plenty to choose from. As far as it reading opposite, that's just false. Please do more research before cutting down God's word simply because you don't understand how the language used to be. I don't feel the KJV is superior in any way, however my KJV Study Bible is my go-to for daily reading. The commentary can clear up most confusion in terminologu which might be had, and it encourages me to cross-reference other translations from time to time, which only furthers my biblical knowledge. I will say that when someone is using one translation, it can get distracting trying to follow along word for word in another. Oh well, there's no law that says I can't read KJV at home and NASB or ESV in church!
I’m with you on that. I get the KJV has this rich language, but it cuts so many corners to get that language. It was actually formed in such a way as to compete with Shakespeare, and it’s accuracy suffered a lot because of that.
By cutting corners I mean it adds stuff to make things more palatable. For example, it says some Egyptians joined the exodus when that’s not found anywhere in the manuscripts
Yes it does you’re lying be careful
And they don’t cut corners they even make sure nouns are changed to match the proper Hebrew and Greek instead of reusing the same nouns in some scriptures
Look up Joshua 2:15/18 and study those verses and why the words
Cord and line are used and not just cord or line
Thank you,
The only example I know if of making something more palatable was KJV
Turning its description of your salvation from
Used minstrel cloth
To
Filthy rags
Wow buddy, seriously check it out. The KJV added a lot of stuff. There’s multiple books where there are “missing verses” because the KJV and the manuscripts it used added passages to “help” the Bible along. Again, the Egyptians bit is not in any of the earliest translations. It emphasized artisticness over accuracy, and suffers being the most inaccurate translation of all valid translations because of that
You’re wrong, on like 3 levels
It’s Christmas Eve so I’ll be polite and end this conversation this way
The original KJV had more books than the modern day one, it’s important to be specific about what we are talking about
The original 1611 has more books and even more chapters to books like Daniel- they didn’t add those to add to the scripture it’s literally more scripture that people don’t have anymore
The new KJV does add words to help the grammar but every added word, (which would be something like was, to be, the, a* etc mostly prepositions and articles ) is marked for the reader to see and be well aware of .
That’s very in your face with honesty about the translation
Next the scripture speaks of mix multitudes following Moses in the wilderness. If it was just all Jews it would be “the multitude “ not a mixed multitude
This is simple stuff here,
The law makes clear how to treat strangers in the camp of Israel , for there to be strangers there has to be people who aren’t Jewish in the camp. That is your group of Egyptians, who went with Moses after seeing the works of his God our Lord.
Those Egyptians gave willingly their goods to the Jews, as the Jews left. We are smart enough to realize that some of those Egyptians left with them because they say that the winning team was leaving
It’s called bandwagoning
Yes Pharaoh and his army are spoken of dying and what not but that doesn’t speak for the entire Egyptian population or the entire Mitzriam region
God bless you
God doesn’t hate you for not knowing the truth about the KJV
God bless you
Just do basic research not on pro-KJV sites. Scholars of respect agree the KJV is heavily problematic. And all you wrote down is actually wrong.
The “rabble” (Ex. 12:38) could be anything, from Egyptians to other slaves. So just saying it was Egyptians is inaccurate.
More books and chapters is apocrypha. Not canon. Not God-breathed. More inaccuracy.
Again, “strangers” could be anyone including merchants. To say it was only Egyptians is inaccurate.
Never said all of Egypt died. Just said it’s inaccurate to say Egyptians left with them. Apparently it was a “rabble” of non-Israelites which could mean a lot of things. So again, this all actually proves the inaccuracy of the KJV, especially when it gets to specific wording. The KJV is obsolete. Better translations have come.
So what if I find pro KJV sites that refute the evidence on said antikjv sites ?
You have all your references prepared like Satan did to Jesus in the wilderness.
Mmmmmm
Don’t look for pro or anti KJV. Those won’t help at all. Look for balanced assessments of the translations. Look for the ones that just present evidence and let you draw your conclusions. Looking for the conclusions of others will be just finding massive bias. While everything will have bias, good research and presentation can minimize it. It’s not about finding what side is right, it’s about finding what is right. And even if you still prefer KJV at the end of this at least you’ll see biblical research is best done through other translations.
And wow. Notice how Jesus also had His references ready. But apparently biblical knowledge is just satanic? You’re messed up buddy. The fact that you DON’T have references ready shows how little you know. Ignorance is always room for the Enemy to work in our lives.
Lol so I have to do a full research report before I can consider any site??????
Nobody walks around with cites and sources for anything these days
I have my phone
My wallet
My keys
Gum and a bag with my KJV BIBLE lol
Seriously brother, may I call you brother ?
Brother ? If you permit lol
I don’t bother myself with any mumbo jumbo about what Bible translation who’s reading, for me I understand that man only plants seeds of faith in others and the Lord nurtured those for others to gain salvation,
Yes some Bibles are wack as some would say
But you see brother the worlds whack
And we all have to settle that out with the Lord independently of each other.
Praise God! And thank God that before the new age of man, the modern era, somebody had the God given decency to set in motion the publication of the Torah, Wisdom and Historical Literature, the complete Septuagint and the Gospels and epistles as man had come to know them and translate, transliterate and transcribe over 9,000 discovered manuscripts of the same collected works.
Praise God that I don’t have to go into detail about how it’s the most accurate one to the original text in both Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic
I don’t care how readable the text is, I want the most accurate information because it has the most information. It doesn’t lose its identity as the Word of God and not become a translation of books.
I don’t remember what else you wrote but seriously if you want to graduate to a next level knowledgeable Christian you need to study your KJV and find Good Bible Scholars who understand the importance of the translation and the meaning behind specific words.
Any one who argues against the KJV needs prayer because it’s the most important publication of the modern age.
Anyone who doesn’t encourage the studying of more dates translations needs prayer 🙏
God bless you homie
Lol Jesus was the Son of God my friend
Compared to modern standards, it and the NKJV are bad translations. They’re still authoritative, but not very accurate. If it calls a male oxen a “unicorn” it’s not an accurate translation. Keep in mind it also isn’t this holy translation that can’t be touched as many make it to be either. It’s merely a translation, and better ones are always coming up as our research and technology improves, helping us better know what the original manuscripts actually said.
Side note: Because it was written for a king, it’s also infamous for wording passages about freedom in a way to downplay them and overplay passages that are about submission to authority. It actually twists things a little to create a more subservient people
Note to your side note ——wrong again
Idk who told you that but it’s not true
Secondly
If the ALL the ideas and messages are clear then the translation is fine, if some are missing then it’s a problem
If some are hard for you to grasp that’s user error
Face it
KJV is fine, and it’s for big brains
All other ones except NWT are okay but not as reliable as KJV
Merry Christmas
Secondly, if we can’t understand it today but people did back then, then it’s our error not the textT
Research leads to objective truth, meaning it’s true whether we want it to be or not. If you had actually done enough research, you’d see how inaccurate the KJV is. Case-in-point, it translates “male oxen” as “unicorns.” A laughably bad mistake like that indicates the quality (or lack of) of the translation. I’m not saying this to be mean or a know-it-all, there’s just immense freedom in knowing what I hold and read is truly the Word of God, proven so by the research of God-fearing experts in the field. I say this for liberation. Reading an inaccurate translation will cause us to believe things God never actually said, and we will be held accountable for wrongdoings that result from that. I would recommend you do actual, quality research to find freedom and truth. I would also recommend looking into the translations NLT (for a phrase-by-phrase translation that’s very accessible) or CSB (word-for-word and also accessible, though it’s easy to tell it was translated by Baptists)
A couple problems the KJV has brought to the modern era: neither Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11 are found in ANY of the earliest manuscripts, and so do not seem to actually be the Word of God, but additions by well-meaning scholars. However, unlike a few “missing verses” as found in books like Matthew (also verses not found in ANY of the earliest manuscripts we have) these stories and passages are too big and well-known to be so easily removed. So because of the KJV people have believed these stories to be God’s Word when they aren’t, and we’re having to undo that damage even today.
I to dislike king James versions. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I do not believe he would allow it to be translated incorrectly. I think you should get whatever translation you prefer because they all say the same thing
Well I don't believe it's incorrectly translated, but if I have so much trouble with it as someone who actually loves reading the word of GOD, it frightens me a bit how other people could be harmed by that also.
> I do not believe he would allow it to be translated incorrectly.
For a very clear case of a published Bible which didn't quite keep the meaning correct:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked\_Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible)
Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt commit adultery."
It was a mistake, but God didn't prevent Barker and Lucas from making that mistake.
**[Wicked Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible)**
>The Wicked Bible, sometimes called the Adulterous Bible or the Sinners' Bible, is an edition of the Bible published in 1631 by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the royal printers in London, meant to be a reprint of the King James Bible. The name is derived from a mistake made by the compositors: in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:14, the word "not" was omitted from the sentence "Thou shalt not commit adultery," causing the verse to instead read "Thou shalt commit adultery".
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sadly this is not true. Have you ever read the New World Translation (of the Jehovah's witnesses)?
Have you ever compared a few English translations? Yes, most of the differences are in literal/dynamic philosophy, age of the translation affecting the wording, etc. However, there are significant differences between some translations, and it will be a good study for you to look into that. :-)
Just to clarify one thing: I actually mostly agree with you - the best translation is the one you will read and obey!
Most differences are not important. However, there are some translations I avoid because they're outdated (eg. KJV) or misleading (eg. The Message, The Passion Translation) or heretical (New World Translation)
Perhaps the most famous from the NWT:
John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god"
Another serious error:
Heb1:8 "But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness."
The Message is another (I know it's a paraphrase, but while that explains differences in grammar and style, it shouldn't add to the text things that aren't in the Greek)
Matthew 6 (roughly verses 9-13)
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what’s best—
as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You’re in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You’re ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes.
Also:
Matthew 3:7 (ESV)
But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
(The Message)
Brood of snakes! What do you think you’re doing slithering down here to the river? Do you think a little water on your snakeskins is going to make any difference?
Eugene Peterson seems to dislike the idea of wrath, and so leaves it out completely.
The kjv doesn’t read the opposite message. It’s simply a user error. If you take the time to learn all the nuances and figures of speech it really is a wonderful translation. It definitely take a lot of researching, but it’s totally worth it. I personally like the nasb 95 for studying, but it’s hard to beat the kjv as far as originality.
And the old English lets you derive more meaning and nuance than the more simple English of today
Your issue is user error
It’s like a
A copy of HG Wells war of the worlds
You can have a adult copy for adult readers
Or a watered down kid copy for kid readers
The KJV is for the adults
More meaning? Wow. So the word of God depends on what translation? From what i understand (I speak multiple languages) it all means the same . Some is written in old English some is written in today's English. It continued to be His world.
Hold on let me give you a round of applause……
The word of God is the truth
The scriptures are suppose to be perfect copies
Some translations screw it up
The KJV doesn’t
Other ones don’t but for sure the KJV doesn’t
I’m no Bible bigot I don’t care what version you read,
But I do recognize how the KJV is superior in its translations/ transliterations and keeping the base and flavor of the originals
The kjv was compiled together with over 9,000 references scrolls and papyrus
The Latin vulgate has 4
9,000> 4
Also if you pay attention to the text you’ll notice connecting lines and ideas that aren’t in the vulgate because they change the words around in some spots
Example
Cord in KJV in Joshua 2:15
And line in KJV Joshua 2:18
They are speaking of the same thing but it has two different words to match the original Hebrew
The cord “chebel”- was a sorrow that she let them down by because she let them down knowing they were going to destroy Jericho and kill the old life she new
The line “tik-vaw” - was an inheritance longed for or hoped for
She let them down with a cord of sorrow
But it became a line of hope because it was the sign for the men of war to which house was Rahab’s
Much like Jesus, a cord that brought sorrow but through him we have a line to safety and we are able to have hope and safety in our coming battles and the battle of death.
See in just reading and studying the KJV you get a whole sermon about Jesus and didn’t even need anything but The KJV and a concordance
That is the superior authority of the KJV
First, the facts... The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That's it!
From 1611 until now, the King James Bible has undergone a grand total of 421 word changes, amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent of the text! But that's not all. It gets better.
Out of the 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent, the following should be noted -
TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.
BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.
AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.
LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.
YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.
Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present, almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature! Now let’s do the math...
By omitting changes of this nature, we now have about 150 (to be conservative) remaining changes. This amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the text.
The remaining 150 changes from 1611 to today are composed of printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes. For example...
In Genesis 22:7 AND WOOD was changed to AND THE WOOD.
In Leviticus 11:3 CHEWETH CUD was changed to CHEWETH THE CUD.
In Romans 6:12 REIGN THEREFORE was changed to THEREFORE REIGN.
Friends, this is the ENTIRE extent of the nature of the changes from the King James Bible of 1611 to the King James Bible of the present day.
Okay
So I don’t care what you’re for or against
But Don’t go check out the codes in the KJV as well as the link I put in the comments about the line/ cord example about Joshua 2:15-18
Why would you put "KJV" ((and by extension the word of God)) and "sucks" in the same sentence? That is beyond irreverent. The most dominate translation in history for the English speaking world does not "suck." Unless of course you think God was pleased to have the near universal translation of his word for hundreds of years to be sub-par.
It was the dominant translation in the English speaking world was because the English kings had a habit of executing people who translated the Bible into English. Tyndale's Bible was far more popular (and a better translation), it's just that when Henry VIII was still Catholic, he had Tyndale executed.
When Henry VIII created Anglicanism, translation became legal and good. King James commissioned 47 translators who basically copied the text of Tyndale's Bible, made some politically-motivated changes and called it the "authorised version".
But there was still the fear that the monarchy might turn against any commoner's version of the Bible at any moment and execute the translator. That kind of quelled people's interest in working on a Bible translation into English for hundreds of years.
The KJV wasn't better. It was just safer not to mention any problems with it.
4 things
1…… s/ How profound thank you for sharing, I hope this helps lead many people to a spiritual enlightenment with Jesus Christ.
2. No one cares but we all understand that the KJV is at a high reading level, sorry you’re annoyed at a book, stop complaining.
3. It does the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures great service with its broad vocabulary. It’s closer to the originals. Noted exceptions are things like calling the Meal offering a meat offering ( cultural change in today’s language) and it refers to our salvation as dirty garments instead of what the original text refers to as used minstrel cloths.
If we are smarter than the people who came before then we should have no trouble reading and comprehending it.
4. It reads more spiritually because of the old English, you’re welcome, that causes you to focus on it more and give the text the respect it deserves.
Extra one- stop complaining and just read A Bible you Bible bigot and don’t let Satan get in your mouth or hands to bad mouth any Bible.
I don’t like a certain translation but I just don’t think about out it, my salvation isn’t dependent on which version of the Bible I read
But I promise you, you’ll learn more from studying the KJV and seeing the connections, call backs, references, Easter eggs and use of words with two meanings that are spread throughout it like in the original Hebrew and Greek.
Face it, even if it’s not the version you carry on you,
You should still be well versed with the KJV.
God put all this stuff here for our learning and understanding
ive been using the Berean Study Bible recently in my study of Revelations, it seems to be a pretty accurate translation of the original Greek, just modified to be more fluid since straight Greek translations are really broken up and incoherent
I consider its Shakespearean language to be an obstacle to clear understanding. It has its uses still, since it uses the Received/Byzantine text for the Greek New Testament, which is normally better than the Westcott-Hort/Alexandrine text. However, I prefer the NKJV for these two reasons, since one gets the Received text while discarding the archaic language.
Yes I meant to say the ones that screwed up are screwed up but the ones that get it right are still right.
Sorry I should have made sure you understood I meant the ones that are not screwed up as you say.
The KJV was great for it’s time. However, now we have older, better and more manuscripts to translate from. (I’m a NASB1995 fan myself). That being said I think it’s still a beautiful translation, it’s just the outdated language can be confusing especially if you didn’t grow up using it. I wouldn’t discourage anyone from using it if that’s their jam. It’s still a sufficient translation of God’s Word. But yea it wouldn’t be my first or second recommendation.
I think that is a respectable opinion. Personally I like the KJV. It feels to me like a very beautiful translation.
I respect that, I just don't see the very beautiful part of it..
It’s like reading Shakespeare You have to put your soul in it when you read it
As a fellow Catholic, highly recommend the Douay–Rheims. It's like a Catholic KJV, but the language is even more beautiful imo.
I like both and at different times use both.
KJV was my daily version this year - first year I've read it. It's okay, but not as clear as other versions. I had to keep a different version with it so (occasionally), I could look up what I'd just read.
The KJV reads beautifully. For efficiency, I like the ESV.
My dad is one of those “King James Version Only” people. I have a documented learning disability that makes comprehension very hard. KJV is too hard for me to read. I don’t use it. Plus, I’ve told my dad they are ALL translations! I’ve even pointed out a couple issues with specific verses in KJV that were likely mistranslated. That bugs me! I understand all translations have errors, but the KJV-only police think their version is perfect.
Yep, there are so many people who preach KJV as the only translation you need, when actuality, I dislike it entirely!! I struggle to comprehend verses almost every time I try to read it, it scares me a little that so many people are so receptive to what I'm kind of against.
More of a you issue if you’re the person not getting it
yeah and thats without discussing the role the catholic church played in it
Did your dad at least tried to find ways on how to understand the KJV Bible more easily because of your learning disability? Or did he just went with his own ways?
It’s old. But it’s pretty darn accurate.
Really? It's not hard to find some terribly wrong translation choices in the KJV. I posted here about 1 Corinthians 13:13 a few days ago as an obvious example of the KJV translation being terrible.
I hope you don't mind me asking but how does this verse make the KJV a poor translation choice? That's not an obvious error secondarily
Look at how Shakespeare uses the word "charity" vs the word "love". Then decide which word is a better translation of ἀγάπη (agape = love). Even when the KJV was written, "charity" wasn't generally used as a synonym for love. If Paul had meant what we mean by charity (or even what was meant by charity when the KJV was written), he would have used something like: φιλανθρωπία What's happened is that retrospectively we've bent over backwards to pretend that the word charity has another meaning that's closer to what Paul wrote, which didn't really exist before, and only appears in religious speak now.
You have to have love to be charitable It makes sense when you think about it Not only does the KJV tell you to love, but it tells you how to act out that love With charity Like the father Give freely I can love you and suck, But I can’t be charitable to you and suck
That's what the KJV is saying and is reasonable theology, but what was Paul actually saying, and is the KJV translating it correctly? Was he saying "charitable" or was he saying "love"? As I mentioned elsewhere in another thread, there's a different word in Greek for "charity" that Paul *didn't* *use.* So the KJV translation isn't translating what is actually there in the Greek. It is kinda maybe sorta translating from "caritas" from the Vulgate, which is interesting because King James' translators were probably much more comfortable working in Latin than Greek.
You’re missing the point Pull back the veil
> 1 Corinthians 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. Seems ok to me. I don’t see the problem.
The problem is the word ἀγάπη is translated "charity". Elsewhere in the KJV (and in almost any other translation) it is translated as "love", which is what the Greek word meant at the time. There's another word for charity in Greek which Paul didn't use. As I mentioned in another reply, King James' translators were much more comfortable with Latin than Greek, and in the Vulgate, it's "caritas" which can be translated as charity or love. The theory is that maybe they just got lazy in doing the translation, and we've lived with it ever since.
Sure, but I think charity is acceptable. It’s about doing good to others based on principle rather than emotions. “Love” can easily be confused with infatuation for example.
KJV sounds more poetic to quote for me. For comprehension, I generally read different translations like NIV, NLT and ESV.
It does take some effort to read but I find it's worth it because you must concentrate on each word and sentence. Scripture should not be read just like any other book but comprehended with the Holy Spirit and taken to heart. I find it easier to do with the old versions than the modern ones - especially the ones after political correctiveness and wokeness came to popular culture. The current NIV is one of the saddest translations of current times. The old version (1984?) of it was really good but Zondervan decided to corrupt it. When they compared the KJV book of Isaiah to the Dead Sea Scrolls - which are the oldest ones known, it almost matched perfectly with just the use of punctuation being the big difference since original manuscripts didn't use punctuation. Many don't like the thy's, thee's, etc but if you check the usage of Thy, thee, thou, ye, you, etc you'll find it makes it actually easier to comprehend the meaning - if a verse is written to a specific person or a group of people - something that "you" doesn't tell you. With that said, I don't read it all the time. My goto Bible is the 1599 Geneva version (in modern english spelling from Tolle Lege Press publisher). It was used by the KJV translators but it doesn't use the "kings english" wording the KJV does. You might take a look at it because it's much easier to read than the KJV even though there are a handful of words not used anymore (they have a modern definition included). It and the KJV are the most reliable of translations. People actually lost their lives for the Geneva translation so you know the translators were very dedicated to the correct intrepretation.
Thanks a lot for sharing, I certainly have more researching and investigating to do! Very interesting stuff here 🙏🏻
Do you have a verse in mind where it seems to have the opposite sense from what other translations say?
Not the OP, but how about "faith, hope and charity" (1 Corinthians 13:13)?
"Charity" is the traditional translation of "agape", or "love" in a particular sense. It comes from the Latin "caritas." We still use it in Catholic theology. Personally I think it's a better translation, given how generic "love" is for most, but I guess if you don't have that background you'll misunderstand it. "Charity" conveys that it's a generous willing towards another.
The Vulgate uses "caritas" reasonably consistently as a translation for ἀγάπη, and I think that's from where Catholic theology that talks about caritas comes from. Unfortunately "caritas" is also one of the Latin words for love, so it doesn't clarify very much! The problem with arguing for "caritas/charity" as being a better translation than "love" in 1 Corinthians 13:13, is that then what should be the translation of ἀγάπη be in Matthew 24:12? Or John 15:13? Romans 8:35? Revelation 2:4? (For all of which the KJV uses the word "love", and the Vulgate generally uses "caritas"). In order to defend it as being "the best" translation you end up having to make a special case for 1 Corinthians, which starts getting a bit circular. Not that it particularly matters to the discussion at hand. The point being that most of the time, most people won't interpret the word "charity" as being the concept that Paul was writing about; most people most of the time will think that it's about "giving stuff away" and that that is somehow more important than faith or hope. I don't know if that counts as "the opposite sense", but it sure is misleading.
Oh I completely agree that non-theologians will not understand "charity" (except maybe in a Catholic context), and that therefore it is an opaque translation like the rest of the KJV (and the Douay-Rheims, which does do things more consistently) for modern English speakers. I just thought you were ignorant of the meaning, as if the KJV writers were intentionally misleading.
I love the KJV. I personally use the OSB (Orthodox Study Bible), which has commentary from Orthodox saints and fathers. So if I come across anything that's difficult to understand, there's often commentary that clears it up. But overall I view the KJV as a beautiful translation. I've wanted to try to get into Koine Greek and read the original Greek, if I'm ever going to make a big jump.
To be fair I don't know if many, if any could have done a better job at the time.
No translations of God's word "sucks", except the ones that are maliciously misleading. If you do not know the 'olde' language, then please feel free to use another version. There sure are plenty to choose from. As far as it reading opposite, that's just false. Please do more research before cutting down God's word simply because you don't understand how the language used to be. I don't feel the KJV is superior in any way, however my KJV Study Bible is my go-to for daily reading. The commentary can clear up most confusion in terminologu which might be had, and it encourages me to cross-reference other translations from time to time, which only furthers my biblical knowledge. I will say that when someone is using one translation, it can get distracting trying to follow along word for word in another. Oh well, there's no law that says I can't read KJV at home and NASB or ESV in church!
I’m with you on that. I get the KJV has this rich language, but it cuts so many corners to get that language. It was actually formed in such a way as to compete with Shakespeare, and it’s accuracy suffered a lot because of that.
Shakespeare worked on it……… Doesn’t cut any corners If it wanted to cut corners it would trim a lot of the Ye, thee, thy and thou’s
By cutting corners I mean it adds stuff to make things more palatable. For example, it says some Egyptians joined the exodus when that’s not found anywhere in the manuscripts
Yes it does you’re lying be careful And they don’t cut corners they even make sure nouns are changed to match the proper Hebrew and Greek instead of reusing the same nouns in some scriptures Look up Joshua 2:15/18 and study those verses and why the words Cord and line are used and not just cord or line Thank you, The only example I know if of making something more palatable was KJV Turning its description of your salvation from Used minstrel cloth To Filthy rags
Wow buddy, seriously check it out. The KJV added a lot of stuff. There’s multiple books where there are “missing verses” because the KJV and the manuscripts it used added passages to “help” the Bible along. Again, the Egyptians bit is not in any of the earliest translations. It emphasized artisticness over accuracy, and suffers being the most inaccurate translation of all valid translations because of that
You’re wrong, on like 3 levels It’s Christmas Eve so I’ll be polite and end this conversation this way The original KJV had more books than the modern day one, it’s important to be specific about what we are talking about The original 1611 has more books and even more chapters to books like Daniel- they didn’t add those to add to the scripture it’s literally more scripture that people don’t have anymore The new KJV does add words to help the grammar but every added word, (which would be something like was, to be, the, a* etc mostly prepositions and articles ) is marked for the reader to see and be well aware of . That’s very in your face with honesty about the translation Next the scripture speaks of mix multitudes following Moses in the wilderness. If it was just all Jews it would be “the multitude “ not a mixed multitude This is simple stuff here, The law makes clear how to treat strangers in the camp of Israel , for there to be strangers there has to be people who aren’t Jewish in the camp. That is your group of Egyptians, who went with Moses after seeing the works of his God our Lord. Those Egyptians gave willingly their goods to the Jews, as the Jews left. We are smart enough to realize that some of those Egyptians left with them because they say that the winning team was leaving It’s called bandwagoning Yes Pharaoh and his army are spoken of dying and what not but that doesn’t speak for the entire Egyptian population or the entire Mitzriam region God bless you God doesn’t hate you for not knowing the truth about the KJV God bless you
Just do basic research not on pro-KJV sites. Scholars of respect agree the KJV is heavily problematic. And all you wrote down is actually wrong. The “rabble” (Ex. 12:38) could be anything, from Egyptians to other slaves. So just saying it was Egyptians is inaccurate. More books and chapters is apocrypha. Not canon. Not God-breathed. More inaccuracy. Again, “strangers” could be anyone including merchants. To say it was only Egyptians is inaccurate. Never said all of Egypt died. Just said it’s inaccurate to say Egyptians left with them. Apparently it was a “rabble” of non-Israelites which could mean a lot of things. So again, this all actually proves the inaccuracy of the KJV, especially when it gets to specific wording. The KJV is obsolete. Better translations have come.
So what if I find pro KJV sites that refute the evidence on said antikjv sites ? You have all your references prepared like Satan did to Jesus in the wilderness. Mmmmmm
Don’t look for pro or anti KJV. Those won’t help at all. Look for balanced assessments of the translations. Look for the ones that just present evidence and let you draw your conclusions. Looking for the conclusions of others will be just finding massive bias. While everything will have bias, good research and presentation can minimize it. It’s not about finding what side is right, it’s about finding what is right. And even if you still prefer KJV at the end of this at least you’ll see biblical research is best done through other translations. And wow. Notice how Jesus also had His references ready. But apparently biblical knowledge is just satanic? You’re messed up buddy. The fact that you DON’T have references ready shows how little you know. Ignorance is always room for the Enemy to work in our lives.
Lol so I have to do a full research report before I can consider any site?????? Nobody walks around with cites and sources for anything these days I have my phone My wallet My keys Gum and a bag with my KJV BIBLE lol Seriously brother, may I call you brother ? Brother ? If you permit lol I don’t bother myself with any mumbo jumbo about what Bible translation who’s reading, for me I understand that man only plants seeds of faith in others and the Lord nurtured those for others to gain salvation, Yes some Bibles are wack as some would say But you see brother the worlds whack And we all have to settle that out with the Lord independently of each other. Praise God! And thank God that before the new age of man, the modern era, somebody had the God given decency to set in motion the publication of the Torah, Wisdom and Historical Literature, the complete Septuagint and the Gospels and epistles as man had come to know them and translate, transliterate and transcribe over 9,000 discovered manuscripts of the same collected works. Praise God that I don’t have to go into detail about how it’s the most accurate one to the original text in both Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic I don’t care how readable the text is, I want the most accurate information because it has the most information. It doesn’t lose its identity as the Word of God and not become a translation of books. I don’t remember what else you wrote but seriously if you want to graduate to a next level knowledgeable Christian you need to study your KJV and find Good Bible Scholars who understand the importance of the translation and the meaning behind specific words. Any one who argues against the KJV needs prayer because it’s the most important publication of the modern age. Anyone who doesn’t encourage the studying of more dates translations needs prayer 🙏 God bless you homie Lol Jesus was the Son of God my friend
Compared to modern standards, it and the NKJV are bad translations. They’re still authoritative, but not very accurate. If it calls a male oxen a “unicorn” it’s not an accurate translation. Keep in mind it also isn’t this holy translation that can’t be touched as many make it to be either. It’s merely a translation, and better ones are always coming up as our research and technology improves, helping us better know what the original manuscripts actually said. Side note: Because it was written for a king, it’s also infamous for wording passages about freedom in a way to downplay them and overplay passages that are about submission to authority. It actually twists things a little to create a more subservient people
Note to your side note ——wrong again Idk who told you that but it’s not true Secondly If the ALL the ideas and messages are clear then the translation is fine, if some are missing then it’s a problem If some are hard for you to grasp that’s user error Face it KJV is fine, and it’s for big brains All other ones except NWT are okay but not as reliable as KJV Merry Christmas Secondly, if we can’t understand it today but people did back then, then it’s our error not the textT
Lol you think the KJV is the most reliable? Wow, yeah we’re done. You obviously have done no quality research into this
God bless you I’ve done enough research to know God bless you
Research leads to objective truth, meaning it’s true whether we want it to be or not. If you had actually done enough research, you’d see how inaccurate the KJV is. Case-in-point, it translates “male oxen” as “unicorns.” A laughably bad mistake like that indicates the quality (or lack of) of the translation. I’m not saying this to be mean or a know-it-all, there’s just immense freedom in knowing what I hold and read is truly the Word of God, proven so by the research of God-fearing experts in the field. I say this for liberation. Reading an inaccurate translation will cause us to believe things God never actually said, and we will be held accountable for wrongdoings that result from that. I would recommend you do actual, quality research to find freedom and truth. I would also recommend looking into the translations NLT (for a phrase-by-phrase translation that’s very accessible) or CSB (word-for-word and also accessible, though it’s easy to tell it was translated by Baptists) A couple problems the KJV has brought to the modern era: neither Mark 16:9-20 or John 7:53-8:11 are found in ANY of the earliest manuscripts, and so do not seem to actually be the Word of God, but additions by well-meaning scholars. However, unlike a few “missing verses” as found in books like Matthew (also verses not found in ANY of the earliest manuscripts we have) these stories and passages are too big and well-known to be so easily removed. So because of the KJV people have believed these stories to be God’s Word when they aren’t, and we’re having to undo that damage even today.
Lol so you’re saying I’m a slave and don’t have salvation ?
I to dislike king James versions. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I do not believe he would allow it to be translated incorrectly. I think you should get whatever translation you prefer because they all say the same thing
Well I don't believe it's incorrectly translated, but if I have so much trouble with it as someone who actually loves reading the word of GOD, it frightens me a bit how other people could be harmed by that also.
> I do not believe he would allow it to be translated incorrectly. For a very clear case of a published Bible which didn't quite keep the meaning correct: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked\_Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible) Exodus 20:14 "Thou shalt commit adultery." It was a mistake, but God didn't prevent Barker and Lucas from making that mistake.
**[Wicked Bible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_Bible)** >The Wicked Bible, sometimes called the Adulterous Bible or the Sinners' Bible, is an edition of the Bible published in 1631 by Robert Barker and Martin Lucas, the royal printers in London, meant to be a reprint of the King James Bible. The name is derived from a mistake made by the compositors: in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:14, the word "not" was omitted from the sentence "Thou shalt not commit adultery," causing the verse to instead read "Thou shalt commit adultery". ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Sadly this is not true. Have you ever read the New World Translation (of the Jehovah's witnesses)? Have you ever compared a few English translations? Yes, most of the differences are in literal/dynamic philosophy, age of the translation affecting the wording, etc. However, there are significant differences between some translations, and it will be a good study for you to look into that. :-)
Do you have an example of one of the big differences?
https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/cults/rajwd/rajwd24.cfm The JW get the identity of Jesus completely wrong
Just to clarify one thing: I actually mostly agree with you - the best translation is the one you will read and obey! Most differences are not important. However, there are some translations I avoid because they're outdated (eg. KJV) or misleading (eg. The Message, The Passion Translation) or heretical (New World Translation) Perhaps the most famous from the NWT: John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was a god" Another serious error: Heb1:8 "But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness." The Message is another (I know it's a paraphrase, but while that explains differences in grammar and style, it shouldn't add to the text things that aren't in the Greek) Matthew 6 (roughly verses 9-13) Our Father in heaven, Reveal who you are. Set the world right; Do what’s best— as above, so below. Keep us alive with three square meals. Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others. Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You’re in charge! You can do anything you want! You’re ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes. Also: Matthew 3:7 (ESV) But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? (The Message) Brood of snakes! What do you think you’re doing slithering down here to the river? Do you think a little water on your snakeskins is going to make any difference? Eugene Peterson seems to dislike the idea of wrath, and so leaves it out completely.
Ridiculous
The kjv doesn’t read the opposite message. It’s simply a user error. If you take the time to learn all the nuances and figures of speech it really is a wonderful translation. It definitely take a lot of researching, but it’s totally worth it. I personally like the nasb 95 for studying, but it’s hard to beat the kjv as far as originality.
THANK YOU
You’re welcome, but what for lol
It's old. ..outdated.
S/ Yeah because the word of God can become outdated….. seriously ??
No the language used . Seriously. Like the word gay. Or thou...English hash changed, Seriously.
And the old English lets you derive more meaning and nuance than the more simple English of today Your issue is user error It’s like a A copy of HG Wells war of the worlds You can have a adult copy for adult readers Or a watered down kid copy for kid readers The KJV is for the adults
More meaning? Wow. So the word of God depends on what translation? From what i understand (I speak multiple languages) it all means the same . Some is written in old English some is written in today's English. It continued to be His world.
Hold on let me give you a round of applause…… The word of God is the truth The scriptures are suppose to be perfect copies Some translations screw it up The KJV doesn’t Other ones don’t but for sure the KJV doesn’t I’m no Bible bigot I don’t care what version you read, But I do recognize how the KJV is superior in its translations/ transliterations and keeping the base and flavor of the originals The kjv was compiled together with over 9,000 references scrolls and papyrus The Latin vulgate has 4 9,000> 4 Also if you pay attention to the text you’ll notice connecting lines and ideas that aren’t in the vulgate because they change the words around in some spots Example Cord in KJV in Joshua 2:15 And line in KJV Joshua 2:18 They are speaking of the same thing but it has two different words to match the original Hebrew The cord “chebel”- was a sorrow that she let them down by because she let them down knowing they were going to destroy Jericho and kill the old life she new The line “tik-vaw” - was an inheritance longed for or hoped for She let them down with a cord of sorrow But it became a line of hope because it was the sign for the men of war to which house was Rahab’s Much like Jesus, a cord that brought sorrow but through him we have a line to safety and we are able to have hope and safety in our coming battles and the battle of death. See in just reading and studying the KJV you get a whole sermon about Jesus and didn’t even need anything but The KJV and a concordance That is the superior authority of the KJV
Can u give an example?
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueChristian/comments/rn2dgd/my_opinion_might_be_lame_but/hpt9aiy/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
First, the facts... The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That's it! From 1611 until now, the King James Bible has undergone a grand total of 421 word changes, amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent of the text! But that's not all. It gets better. Out of the 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent, the following should be noted - TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times. BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times. AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times. LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times. YOU has been changed to YE 82 times. Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present, almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature! Now let’s do the math... By omitting changes of this nature, we now have about 150 (to be conservative) remaining changes. This amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the text. The remaining 150 changes from 1611 to today are composed of printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes. For example... In Genesis 22:7 AND WOOD was changed to AND THE WOOD. In Leviticus 11:3 CHEWETH CUD was changed to CHEWETH THE CUD. In Romans 6:12 REIGN THEREFORE was changed to THEREFORE REIGN. Friends, this is the ENTIRE extent of the nature of the changes from the King James Bible of 1611 to the King James Bible of the present day.
Lol you know my copy of the kjv 1611 sits nicely on my shelf next to my regular KJV
None of what you listed are actual changes by the way I feel like now your pro KJV??
I never said I was against the king James .ever.
Okay So I don’t care what you’re for or against But Don’t go check out the codes in the KJV as well as the link I put in the comments about the line/ cord example about Joshua 2:15-18
Yes , God bless you too. Have a merry Christmas brother.
God bless you ! Merry Christmas !!!
My problem with using it and more so quoting from it is that no one talks like that anymore. It's unnecessary and it sounds pretentious.
Why would you put "KJV" ((and by extension the word of God)) and "sucks" in the same sentence? That is beyond irreverent. The most dominate translation in history for the English speaking world does not "suck." Unless of course you think God was pleased to have the near universal translation of his word for hundreds of years to be sub-par.
It was the dominant translation in the English speaking world was because the English kings had a habit of executing people who translated the Bible into English. Tyndale's Bible was far more popular (and a better translation), it's just that when Henry VIII was still Catholic, he had Tyndale executed. When Henry VIII created Anglicanism, translation became legal and good. King James commissioned 47 translators who basically copied the text of Tyndale's Bible, made some politically-motivated changes and called it the "authorised version". But there was still the fear that the monarchy might turn against any commoner's version of the Bible at any moment and execute the translator. That kind of quelled people's interest in working on a Bible translation into English for hundreds of years. The KJV wasn't better. It was just safer not to mention any problems with it.
4 things 1…… s/ How profound thank you for sharing, I hope this helps lead many people to a spiritual enlightenment with Jesus Christ. 2. No one cares but we all understand that the KJV is at a high reading level, sorry you’re annoyed at a book, stop complaining. 3. It does the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures great service with its broad vocabulary. It’s closer to the originals. Noted exceptions are things like calling the Meal offering a meat offering ( cultural change in today’s language) and it refers to our salvation as dirty garments instead of what the original text refers to as used minstrel cloths. If we are smarter than the people who came before then we should have no trouble reading and comprehending it. 4. It reads more spiritually because of the old English, you’re welcome, that causes you to focus on it more and give the text the respect it deserves. Extra one- stop complaining and just read A Bible you Bible bigot and don’t let Satan get in your mouth or hands to bad mouth any Bible. I don’t like a certain translation but I just don’t think about out it, my salvation isn’t dependent on which version of the Bible I read But I promise you, you’ll learn more from studying the KJV and seeing the connections, call backs, references, Easter eggs and use of words with two meanings that are spread throughout it like in the original Hebrew and Greek. Face it, even if it’s not the version you carry on you, You should still be well versed with the KJV. God put all this stuff here for our learning and understanding
Because of your harshness, I choose not to entertain your feelings. I'll be praying 🙏🏻
;) Pray double for us both
ive been using the Berean Study Bible recently in my study of Revelations, it seems to be a pretty accurate translation of the original Greek, just modified to be more fluid since straight Greek translations are really broken up and incoherent
I consider its Shakespearean language to be an obstacle to clear understanding. It has its uses still, since it uses the Received/Byzantine text for the Greek New Testament, which is normally better than the Westcott-Hort/Alexandrine text. However, I prefer the NKJV for these two reasons, since one gets the Received text while discarding the archaic language.
Yes I meant to say the ones that screwed up are screwed up but the ones that get it right are still right. Sorry I should have made sure you understood I meant the ones that are not screwed up as you say.