Click Here for a topical index of articles by Stephen Davey.

 

 

Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

PLEASE NOTE: Comments on our blog posts are moderated but do not necessarily reflect our views or opinions. We allow polite disagreement, but we do filter rude or profane comments.

Why Don't You Use The King James Version?

by Stephen Davey

Ronnie sent me an email and asked: 

Why do you use ESV instead of KJV? I have found lots of resources that support KJV. I want to understand from your view point why ESV is an equal translation

Ronnie phrased the question as a choice between the English Standard version and the King James Version, but my options were much more than those two. I also considered the option of the Holeman Bible, the New American Standard Version, and the New Living Translation.

Because I study the text in the original languages of the Bible, I’m not entirely dependent on any translation for my study. But when I teach, I realize that most of the people I’m addressing cannot read Greek or Hebrew, or Aramaic. So I read from an English translation of the Bible - the ESV. Sometimes the Wisdom team will find that I misquoted the ESV because my mind often translates words from Greek or Hebrew instead.

That gets to the heart of what makes a good translation. The objective of a translation is to take the scriptures and faithfully convert (translate) that to a different language. It’s a very difficult task.

The translators of the King James Version did a wonderful job. I have no problem with someone preferring to read from the KJV. The KJV is beloved by millions of people. Unfortunately, some people go so far as to falsely claim that the KJV is the only reliable translation of the Bible. The God-inspired version of the Bible is not the KJV. It is the original writings of the original authors. Translations are critical, and God has providentially preserved His Word so that we could have reliable versions today. And the basis for a reliable translation is to communicate the words and meaning of the original text.

By the way, this is true for every known language. If the KJV was the only trustworthy translation of the Bible, that would exclude billions of non-English speaking people from having access to God’s Word. My prayer is that there will be thousands more translations of the Bible so that people of all tongues will have God’s Word in their native language.

I have found that the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version are excellent translations, and I have used both extensively. However, I consider the “title” of the New American Standard Bible to be unfortunate. Since our messages are being accessed in over 150 different countries, in nine languages, this title can cause some confusion. The Bible is not an “American” book. The Bible is for all the nations.

So to sum up my answer, in choosing between the KJV and the ESV, I believe the ESV is more readable to an English audience. The more general title – “The English Standard Version” – also steers clear of communicating that I’m preaching or teaching an “American” gospel, but a global gospel of God’s good news to the nations.

GO DEEPER

When it comes to choosing a Bible translation, Christians often feel a deep personal connection to a particular version. For many, the King James Version (KJV) has long been held as the gold standard of Bible translations—beautiful, poetic, and foundational to the English-speaking church. The KJV has played an invaluable role in shaping Christian faith and culture for over 400 years. However, I choose to teach from the English Standard Version (ESV), and I’d like to explain why, while also honoring the beloved legacy of the KJV.

The Difference Between KJV and ESV

The KJV, completed in 1611, is renowned for its majestic, Shakespearean language. It was the result of scholarly efforts to create a unified and accessible Bible for English-speaking believers of the time. The translation, based on the manuscripts available at that period, has influenced the church for generations and has a timeless quality to its words.

The ESV, on the other hand, is a more recent translation, first published in 2001. It seeks to maintain the literal accuracy of the text while providing clarity in modern English. It stands in the tradition of "word-for-word" translations, and like the KJV, it seeks to convey the original meaning of Scripture with fidelity. The ESV draws from a wider array of manuscripts than the KJV had available, including the Dead Sea Scrolls and earlier Greek texts, offering a slightly different, and at times more precise, rendering of the Scriptures.

Why Choose the ESV Bible?

The main reason I choose the ESV is that it balances readability with accuracy. As a teacher, I want to help people understand the Bible clearly, without compromising the depth of its message. The ESV’s "essentially literal" approach aims to keep as close as possible to the original languages while still making sense to a contemporary audience. It offers a modern equivalent of the words and idioms found in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.

The ESV's clarity makes it a wonderful tool for both individual study and group teaching. While the KJV's language is poetic, it can sometimes be difficult to understand, particularly for younger readers or those new to the Bible. The ESV retains much of the dignity and cadence of traditional translations, while removing some of the archaic phrasing that can be a barrier to understanding.

Is the ESV Accurate?

One question I often hear is, "Is the ESV an accurate translation?" The ESV is known for its high level of accuracy, and scholars widely regard it as one of the most reliable translations available today. It is a careful revision of the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which itself was a respected translation, and it benefits from access to the best available manuscripts, taking advantage of modern advances in biblical archaeology and linguistics.

The ESV aims to provide as much transparency to the original text as possible. Its translators took a conservative approach, seeking to preserve theological precision while also presenting the Bible in a way that resonates today. Many evangelical denominations appreciate the ESV because of its faithfulness to the original Scripture and because it does not try to soften difficult truths found in the Bible.

Criticisms and Weaknesses of the ESV

That said, no translation is perfect. One critique of the ESV is that it sometimes leans towards a "wooden" literalness, making certain passages sound less natural in English. In striving for literal accuracy, the ESV can occasionally come across as more formal than other translations, which may hinder the flow of reading for some people.

Another criticism is related to certain verses that are omitted or footnoted in the ESV. Like most modern translations, the ESV doesn’t include some verses that the KJV contains because of manuscript evidence. Verses like Matthew 17:21 or Acts 8:37, which appear in the KJV, are omitted or placed in footnotes in the ESV because they are not found in the oldest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. This difference in the manuscript base is often at the heart of the debate between the KJV and modern translations like the ESV.

The ESV, Denominations, and Theology

The ESV is broadly accepted across various denominations, particularly among evangelical Christians. Its popularity has grown in churches that value a "word-for-word" approach to translation, which maintains the theological nuance of the original texts. The ESV Study Bible, in particular, is an excellent resource, providing comprehensive notes that reflect a broadly Reformed perspective, but it remains accessible to believers of different traditions.

The theology represented by the ESV Study Bible aims to offer sound, evangelical insights into the Scriptures, with commentary that is intended to be faithful to the historical and grammatical context of the Bible. It is not overtly Calvinistic, though some readers may see a leaning towards Reformed theology in the study notes. Nevertheless, the ESV text itself is not bound to any specific theological camp, and its intention is to serve the entire body of Christ.

What Makes the ESV Different?

The ESV stands out because it strives for precision while still being easy to read. Unlike more paraphrased translations, the ESV does not attempt to summarize or interpret the meaning of passages in the same way. Instead, it presents the text as literally as possible, leaving the deeper interpretation to the reader, teacher, or study group. This allows the ESV to remain true to the original meaning while also encouraging study, meditation, and discussion.

In comparison to the NIV, for instance, the ESV is more formal in its equivalence. The NIV is a thought-for-thought translation that aims to convey the ideas of Scripture, while the ESV seeks to retain the structure and form of the original language, which makes it appealing to those who prefer a deeper dive into the literal words of Scripture.

Gender Language in the ESV

Some have noted that the ESV retains the use of masculine language where it reflects the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Unlike some other modern translations, it does not always use gender-neutral language. This choice is grounded in a commitment to be faithful to the original text, even if cultural norms have shifted regarding inclusive language. The ESV’s translators wanted to preserve the original tone and meaning of Scripture without modifying it to fit modern preferences.

Conclusion: Respecting Both Translations

Both the KJV and the ESV have unique strengths and play valuable roles in the lives of believers today. The KJV, with its rich history and poetic phrasing, has been a treasured Bible for centuries. It continues to be a source of deep comfort and inspiration for many believers. However, for those seeking a translation that balances accuracy with readability in contemporary English, the ESV is an excellent choice.

The decision between the KJV and the ESV ultimately comes down to preference and purpose. The KJV is wonderful for its heritage and beauty, and the ESV is valuable for its clarity and scholarly rigor. As we seek to study God’s Word, it’s important to remember that the translation we choose should help us draw closer to the Lord, understand His message more clearly, and apply it to our lives. Whether you hold a KJV or an ESV, the most important thing is that God’s Word speaks to your heart, guides your steps, and draws you nearer to Him.

Add a Comment

Comments

David says:
Amen, Stephen!
Cindy says:
I wondered why you didn’t use the KJV or even the NKJV. Thanks for clearing that up. I so enjoy your teachings. They have made the Bible so much easier to understand. If I can’t catch the program on BBN, I listen to your online teachings. Have a blessed day! Cindy Collins West Virginia
Dianne Merchant says:
I currently use NAS because that is what my beloved preacher uses, and it’s easier to follow along during worship. I agree that the ESV is also excellent. I enjoy listening to Stephen no matter what translation he’s using.
Joseph Daniel Webb says:
I guess I've agreed with what you wrote since at least 1965.
Tim Fisher says:
I use the ESV. I find it easy to follow and understand. I have it opened as i listen or watch your Sermons and follow along with ESV
Wanda says:
I prefer the ESV, because for me it is more readable. I do use other translations. Language does change over the years. Some of the words that were used with the KJV we no longer use or the meaning may have changed. Also sentence structure can be different.
Rex says:
As always.....an expounded teachable answer to the audience. You're a very wise man, that no one questions how thorough you study the Word of God. May our God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ continue to Bless you and you're ministry at Shepherds Church. Look forward to seeing you soon from Winston Salem.
Steve says:
I like the NIV, NKJV, Message and John MacArthur study Bible.
Rick Fox says:
Well stated! Thank you Pastor Stephen.
Rick Richards says:
Thank you for that explanation. I was privileged to minor in Greek at BJU and then did a year of graduate Greek. Virtually all of my Bible memory is from the KJV (I have been doing more from the ESV since so many of my SS members are using it) and I appreciate your reverence for the eternal word.
georgia kirkland says:
i was brought on the KING JAMES VERSION AND I LIKE IT BUT IT IS HARD TO UNDERSTAND
Tony Sirmons says:
Good morning Dr.Davey thanks so much for your comments and thoughts on this topic I say Amen.

I attended and graduated from a kjv only Bible Institute with a Degree In Bible and one In Theology was taught I should only Preach and teach using only the kjv as the only exceptable Version or translation for the English speaking people.

However for many years this philosophy of thinking has always left me fill with questions. But after spending must time in prayer studying and research The Holy Spirit Of God has convicted and corrected my way thinking concerning this matter of kjv only . The ESV NASV and other translations are just as good. GOD BLESSING upon your labor in THE LORD.
Terry H Moseley says:
I prefer the NLT, much easier to understand as I am not a fan of 13th century English. All those thee's and thou's make things very confusing in my simple mind. I don't believe I had ever heard of the ESV before this. I might give it a try. However, I do have a copy of the KJV and the NKJV which I refer back to now and then. Holeman's is a good one also. But I had a very hard time in high school with understanding words and their meanings, so the easier for me to understand, the better. The main thing is to read God's word. I also like cross reading with the Christian Jewish Bible, for I have found a lot of Hebrew words have been mis translated for many moons and its good to find what was actually meant.
Dr. Rex Duff says:
Because I believe the TR is the correct Greek text, not the Alexandrian 2 manuscripts, I use the NKJV, as the best Greek Translation into English.
R. Pounder says:
Yes, I agree, the prefix ‘American’ could be confusing in the same way that ‘British’ could be if there were such a Bible. Whereas the prefix ‘English’ merely alludes to the language and not the nation.
Bill and Carolynn says:
Great answer! concise and quite clear
Valarie says:
I use a Bible that has the King James version and the NIV version side by side so I read the KJV verse and scan across to get a better understanding of what the verse says. Sometimes its hard to understand the KJV.
Laverne Strother says:
I am strongly committed to " The Hold Bible" The King James Version is the only Bible God has consecrated to his elect people to study for Instructions, Directions, and Correction. Here's why KJV is the first translation of the original words of God from Hebrew and Aramaic into English. Secondly, these original words process the power of the Holy Spirit to provoke and encourage the changing of hearts and minds which is an undeniable spiritual fact through the spirit. ESV and NIV should only be used as a reference for words, not daily reading. Finally, Deuteronomy 4:2 commands to me. Not to add to or take away from God's words possible from an early age The Holy Bible was my choice to read. Having skimmed NIV, I found it like sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal; hollow with no power. I mean no disrespect, only there are two things we all can grow in Christ's personality prayer, and reading " Holy Bible ". Thanks for the chance to share
John Quinlan says:
I have a dear friend who loves the Lord and loves to promote Jesus Christ, but he is adamant about King James Version only. I understand his concern because a number of the modern versions are not good, but I totally agree with you that there are other good translations besides King James. It is unfortunate that some are KJV only and there are a lot of folks that they just won't be able to reach. Jesus was not about putting hurdles and barriers in front of sincere seekers.
Ben Lonto says:
I use the KJV for the start of class teaching, then use Strong's Concordance, The Interlinear Bible, NLT, HCSB, and 3 sets of commentaries for exegesis.
Roger says:
Thanks, well said, I use both the New A S and the ESV. I'm with the under standing that KJV people prefure because that is what they grew up with. But I again say lets use the words that we us today. why have trouble trying to under stand what the text says ? In Christ Jesus Roger. 1 Peter 1:9 ESV
Dale Hobbs says:
I humbly agree with you 100%. In my studies to share scripture over the last 20 years, I often look at the Greek and Hebrew. I use the ESV most often. I have formulated an answer very similar to yours for those who are "stuck" on one version. I am flexible when it comes to versions but, you Pastor Stephen are the first "Version" I listen to when I wake up every morning ! Thank you for your Great exposition of God's word !
Charlene says:
Hi Stephen, several family members are very devoted followers of the KJV-only movement. The independent fundamental Baptists are the problem, I've found, by far and large...one has actually said to me in all seriousness that if a person is not saved via the KJV, then they weren't actually saved! Another has said that non-native English speakers around the world should only use the KJV to learn English that way (never mind the fact many words are not used anymore!). They say all other translations are corrupt, filled with errors, and leave out many crucial phrases and words. They truly believe the KJV is THE preserved word of God and has zero errors in it...I have given up on trying to convince these people as they seem brainwashed. Do you have any advice on how to defend the New King James Version (which i like) or similar? Thank you.
Bob says:
What Spanish translation is used?

Note from Wisdom: The Spanish Bible we use is called REINA-VALERA 1960
Keeva Cook says:
That was a very enlightening answer. Thank you. I recently purchased and have been using the ESV Study Bible and I highly recommend it. It has commentary and notes on each verse that are very helpful in understanding the Scriptures.
Gary Robinson says:
I understand your reasoning regarding the translations, and agree that the gospel should be made known as accurately as possible to all people groups. I prefer using the KJV for my own reading and studies because I have used and memorized it for over 70 years. To change now would feel uncomfortable. I understand the old english meanings and they are not a problem for me. My son uses the ESV, that was his preference early on. If you can understand what you are reading and can convey that message to another accurately, then preferences are simply that, preferences! Thank you for your ministry, I follow your devotionals daily.
Michael Shelton says:
I was saved when I was 36 years old (1981). I immediately started to investigate different Bible translations. My most important consideration was a translation that was as close to word for word as possible, and still be readable. I settled on the New American Standard because it appeared to most closely meet what I was looking for. I now enjoy studying from the ESV, NKJV, HCS, as well as the NASB, and occasionally other translations. I do not like paraphrases because I think they take a lot of liberties with God's Word. I view paraphrases the same as commentaries. I listen to Dr. Davey as much as I can, and read many of his sermons. God bless him.
Juliet Limmer says:
I enjoyed reading your helpful response to the person who asked why you don't use KJV. You mentioned that you use original languages mostly, but when you reference an English language Bible, you use ESV. While the ESV is generally easy to understand by people for whom English is their first language, it is often challenging to understand for people for whom English is a second (or third) language. Because of the level of vocabulary, use of idioms and rhetorical questions, the ESV may not be a good choice for many people.

The New Living Translation (NLT) has deliberately attempted to take these things into account. The translators have used easier-to-understand language, avoided idioms, explained implicit information, reworded rhetorical questions, and more in an attempt to make the English Bible more accessible.
tammy L dresner says:
I enjoy reading the NKJV, but I also like comparing the different versions. I listen to Brother Davey every morning knowing that I am getting the best translation that I have ever found. Thanks and God bless'
Greg Hartline says:
I now prefer the CSB Bible still love the NASB it is all Gods Holy word
Paul Day says:
What matters is to have The One Holy Unchangeable Uncreated Spirit Of Our Creator, Messiah And God Interpretation that is for everything that is created (all creation), which the natural, created or earthly minded person cannot Understand because that testimony is about Our Creator God Which Is Supernaturally, Heavenly Or Spiritually Discerned.
Roy Gerard says:
I grew up catholic. I was saved at 21. One of my more 'spiritual' family members tried to counter my newfound love of the bible with "well, you know, the church has biblical scholars who interpret the bible for us, so we don't really need to read it."
That conversation was burned into my soul, and for the past 49 years I have been devoted to ferreting out the Truth. When I come across the 'which translation is better' conversation I have to walk away and cool down.
I have often wondered what kind of grief Jerome put up with after he translated the scriptures into Latin from Greek?
Or better yet, how about when King James (the man) replaced the word 'departure' in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 with 'apostasy' because he was countering the Catholic church's charge against him for wanting a divorce? Then the Douay-Rheims (Catholic translation) change the word 'apostasy' to 'revolt' because they were chagrined with the Reformation. And oh, by the way, King James had his translators remove all the notes that were in the Geneva bible... can't have the commoners understand too much now, can we?
Steven, since you are a student of history, you may have read the book Bible and the Sword, by Barbara Tuchman? Pages 97-98 speak of a young man named John Porter who knew how to read. He would read the 'Great Bible', then recently authorized by King Henry in England around 1528. This was when bibles were chained to the pulpits in the cathedrals. He would read to those who DID NOT KNOW HOW TO READ, and he was eventually thrown into Newgate prison for it, where he died... because he read the bible, and others were blessed.
Finally, when I hear of saints today in the underground church in China tearing out sections of scripture and passing them around the group because, 1. There are so few bibles available because, 2. Being in possession of a bible could cost them their lives, I grow impatient with 'American' Christianity.
So I leave you with this: Be thankful you have a bible. Be thankful you know how to read. Especially, be thankful Jesus Christ sent the Holy Spirit (Jn.14 -16) as He promised, to guide you and me into 'all the truth.' There is no other way to find out how to be born again and inherit eternal life.
So can we leave off the nonessential, immaterial, irrelevant discussion about which translation is best?
Thank you.
Stephaney Grooms says:
I started with the KJV, growing up, but found its lofty wording difficult to follow. I then asked for an International version and then the Living Bible came out and I compared it, scripture-to-scripture, to the International and found too much 'slang' in the Living Bible. Slang, or more casual words, didn't reflect the seriousness or authority of the scriptures in my opinion. I now have an ESV and love it, knowing that some words in every language do not have a companion word in another language, I hope the translators have done their very best to find comparison words that reflect the full meaning of the scripture.
Phyllis says:
I think you taught from the NASB in the 90's. I was given a NASB Bible in the late 70's. I still use it, and understand your reasons for using the ESV. I have verses memorized in NASB, and love when you quote scripture in your sermons. I find myself saying many with you. Your teaching has been a blessing in my life.
George says:
I only use KJV. I go to a Baptist Church that uses KJV. KJV isn't really that difficult to understand. It was written on a 5th grade reading level.
Kevin white says:
The King James Version does Not capitalize The pronouns pretaining to GOD ALMIGHTY.But The New King James does. Which translation has more respect for Our Great GOD and KING ?
Patricia Martin says:
I have recently begun using the ESV. It is readable and recommended by John MacArthur (and Stephen Davey), both men I highly regard. I work for Child Evangelism Fellowship and they produce all their curriculum in KJV and ESV so I also enjoy the KJV. It is what I grew up reading and learned most of my verses from it.
Nancy says:
Amen to all! I have used NKJV for many years & memorized from that version so I continue to use it. But I really like ESV too and so grateful for your teaching! I have the privilege to give the gospel to ladies I serve at a ministry and we have many NLT New Testaments to give out, (also ESVs). I never liked for myself the NLT personally being a paraphrase. Even as a very young child, reading the KJV or NKJV sounded authoritative and coming from God whereas I wonder if I would have felt the same conviction, etc. with the NLT. But in our present and somewhat illiterate culture, now I am thinking the NLT is a blessing to those who might not otherwise read a Bible. As you well know there are definitely a couple versions out there to avoid completely. Thank you again so much for your ministry!
Jason says:
I think when the NASB says “American” it’s not necessarily implying that it is exclusively for Americans but rather it’s an English translation worded more in the way Americans use English rather than, for example, British people.
Jesse Knapp says:
Disappointed this ministry doesn't use KJV. It's the only one for me. Beautifully written.
Patricia Small Simpson says:
Regarding your comment about the unfortunate choice of the name “New American Standard Version,’ I recently heard an old teaching John Hunter’s of the Torchbearers say that his friends who produced that translation soon regretted using the word ‘American” because of suspicion and attention it caused in communist controlled countries when Bibles were found and examined.
John Bergman says:
By dismissing the KJV, you remove the poetry of the Bible. Understanding of the Bible is the work of the Holy Spirit, so one that is filled with the Holy Spirit shall have no problem understanding the KJV, which is written on a 5th grade level. The better question would be why were other versions created. 1) because we changed the meaning of words. 2) Because we changed the way we speak. Satan could not dismiss the KJV, so instead he lead people to change our language and speech patterns. Go to a store and grab a copy of Shakespeare. They have not been updated. Why? Because it doesn't bother Satan if we understand Shakespeare. Multiple versions just create confusion and God is not the author of confusion. So we must ask ourselves, who really is the author of the other versions?
Gary Reuben says:
Very well stated. I'm with you.
James says:
Amos 3:3 Can two walk together, except they be agreed? The two do not agree in thousands of places. Deuteronomy 22:9 Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with divers seeds: lest the fruit of thy seed which thou hast sown, and the fruit of thy vineyard, be defiled. We know from the parable of the seed and the sower that the seed is the Word. The KJV is the Word of God. It has been translated into many other languages.
Mark says:
I agree that the NASB is a bad title. The translation is excellent however. I use ESV, NASB, and KJV. i do like the ESV, and NASB better though. My personal opinion.
Laurie Valley says:
Thankyou for your insight. I appreciate it. I do like the NLT because it is easier to understand for me. But was raised KJV.
Colin Lennox says:
Why has Niv ESV left out Begotten son of God This is a big error One and only son can be used of any son But begotten is only exclusive to Jesus Christ Thus is what happens when men tampers with The word of God so sad
Ken McMillen says:
I grew up with the king James and lot of my memorized verses are king James. I also prefer to esv translation for studying and is much easer to use while teaching bible study, especially with children.
Jennifer Brooks says:
Amen Amen as long as we get the truth and get closer to god I will read it all because I know God speaks to me and my heart and I don't argue about the word of God because the word is right all by itself Jesus loves all of us ❤️ be blessed everyone
Michele says:
So grateful for those who go into a deeper study within the text to help us grow stronger in understanding our Saviors word! Praying for you all!
Scott Fulford says:
Much respect to Bro. Davies! I have been a regular listener since the 90's. However, questions remain in my mind regarding the explanation of this article. 1st, does this prevalent perspective on Bible versions not destroy the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture. Because, a modern Christian would have to constantly study multiple translations to be halfway confident in their usage of any passage of Scripture. Most Christians have no skills with original languages of the Bible. 2nd, How could verbal inspiration, Biblical confidence, and Biblical authority be instilled in the mind of a new believer, or ever be established as a foundation for baby Christian, or an unbeliever, without first establishing the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture being applied to just one Bible version? 3rd, If Jesus issued sever warnings about adding to, or taking away from His Word, how can we take such risks as modern translators have? When Jesus boils it all down to the dotting of I's and crossing of T's, His Word being forever settled in heaven, as well as, Him exhalting His Word above all of His name? How can such unstabilizing risk be taken? 4th, All of the great revivals, (at least, that I have read of) ... down through the last 400 years of history have occurred through the usage of the KJV. God has clearly born witness to this version. So why does it seem that all of these mixtures of Bible versions have surfaced at an exponential rate over the last 125 years as deception prevails across the globe, while it's population marches towards the rapture and tribulation period? It's true different people groups who do not speak English, need a Bible in their respective language. 5th, It would seem this entire issue, is an issue of conflicting families of manuscripts, rather than "Bible versions?" I.E. which manuscripts can be trusted, and which ones have been corrupted? I believe this question lyes closer to the heart of the issue. For example, regarding the N.T., will we trust the Textus Receptus from Antioch, or the Alexandria Text from Egypt, or can we trust them both as if no differences exist? I believe very clear differences exist. 6th, and finally, if we accept the present day standard of accepting most versions on the same foundation as the KJV, then, are we not essentially doing the same thing the Roman Catholic Popes and Priests did prior to the Bible being printed for the common man to read? Are we not silently, essentially, suggesting, the true meaning of Scripture can't be rightly divided, or rightly applied without someone knowing the original languages to explain the Scriptures to us? It seems to me that we doing that in some Churches. (I apologize for the "run-on sentences. Please believe me when I say I am not trying to be over critical, or accusatory. I am being honest. These questions live in my head. I truly love and appreciate the ministry of Bro. Stephen and Wisdom International team.) Sincerely Scott Fulford
Alex Serrato says:
I am currently reading the new testament in the KJV and also the NKJV. Im considering adding the ESV into the mix. Is that something you can get behind or would you recommend a different version in place of the KJV/NKJV?
Z.Larsen says:
I appreciate most of your comments yet have to disagree that the ESV is not fully Calvinist. Reading the commentaries in the ESV. Study Bible, especially Ephesians, clearly lead the reader into scriptural misapplication of Calvinism.
Jed says:
Show me the original copy of Jeremiah that was cut up with a pen knife. Show me the second copy of Jeremiah that was ruined when he hid it by the Euphrates river. The originals are bunk. Moses broke the only original scripture God actually wrote Himself- the ten commandments. Any reference to "the originals" is done by a "scholar" taking advantage of a Christians ignorance of the topic and languages involved. God promised to preserve his words in Psalms 12:6,7. In another place it is written: Forever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven. If you can't believe that, you are missing the element to be able to comprehend the Bible anyway. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV) For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. 1611 King James Authorised Version all the way. Shame on preachers who do that which is right in their own eyes.
Greg says:
I only like the King James version only
Lachell Rocks says:
We all have a preference for one reason or another. I just wanted to share mine and why. I had an awful time understanding the KJV Bible. All of the thou and unto. It seemed like I just couldn’t really get either what was being said or the message behind what was said. Anyway I continued using the KJV. I went to a church that believed (as did I) according to the KJV bible that one should be baptized in Jesus name. I preformed the ritual willingly with anticipation and joy. When I went home after the service I picked up the KJV Bible as I often did and began to read. Well to be honest nothing had changed. I still struggled with some of the wording. So there was no profound change as maybe I secretly thought there would be, but maybe two or three weeks later I was going through a rough patch in my life. I remember sitting on my bedroom floor. I was just talking out loud at first hoping God would hear all I was going through and give me some sort of answer, peace or something. Well I opened the Bible and all of the sudden it was as if I was reading an elementary book. I no longer struggled with the words. They just flowed. I can’t explain it. It was like WOW! I can see, and it’s been that way ever since. I’m not saying that I’m special in any way because I’m not. We’re all his children and maybe he just speaks to us differently. I guess like when I talk to my kids. One I have to be a little more gentler with in order for them to understand because they wear their heart on their sleeve and the other I’m a little bit more stern with because they can not only except it, but it draws results. Anyway like you said. It’s getting the word out any way and every way to everyone that matters. Just wanted to share.
Dwight Osborne says:
While the KJV is a good Bible it also contains egregious and blasphemous errors, not errors by God but errors of translation and transmission. Such errors are reflected in Isaiah 45:7 and Luke 1:35. The KJV and NKJV are guilty of adding words to the text and I'm not speaking of the italicized words but words that definitely aren't correct. Two examples are Daniel 10:1 and 1 John 5:7. The KJV didn't rely on manuscript evidence near as much as people credit it but was primarily a copy of the textus receptus which itself was copied from Erasmus' 3 editions translated from the Latin Vulgate back into Greek. And he openly and publicly admitted to adding a phrase in 1 John 5;7 to placate the Roman church hierarchy. Isaiah 14:12 also assigns the name Lucifer into the text which is a Latin word which doesn't belong buried deep in the middle of the Hebrew text. And the same verse has a second error; the phrase HEYLEL BEN SHAKAR translated Lucifer in the KJV and NKJV isn't a proper name but a title which the modern translations correct and are more accurate. Heylel means "morningstar", ben means "son" and shakar means dawn, so that it should read "morningstar, son of the dawn." Acts 12:4 translates PASCHA as "easter" but in actuality it's the Greek equivalent of PESACH, Hebrew for Passover. Easter is idolatrous in that it's a pagan festival dedicated to the worship of Ishtar, goddess of fertility. Christ was resurrected on the Feast of Firstfruits, a Feast along with the Feast of Unleavened Bread which are correctly and properly associated with Passover which was the day Christ was crucified. Pastor Davey spoke of the NLT; the NLT is an extremely free-reading Bible and like the KJV and NKJV in Daniel 10:1 adds words and phrases not found in the Hebrew text as it so egregiously does in Genesis 7:2. Noah did NOT take any animals on board to eatr; he took a male and female for future procreative purposes and the others were to be used for sacrificial purposes. While the wicked humans were likely eating meat in violation of God's standard Noah was a righteous man and would have lived faithfully to the Lord's standard as we can ascertain by his obedience to God and his accolade in Hebrews 11. So, while the KJV wouldn't be considered a bad Bible, very few of us speak Elizabethan English and we certainly wouldn't want to recommend it to an alien wishing to learn English as a second language. Those who are KJ only and who think as a translation is inspired and the language Christ spoke in are dangerously close to bibliolatry. I can't count the number of times I've heard it said if it was good enough for Christ it's good enough. The key to choosing a translation is that it be one that is readable, one that is understandable and one that is memorizable. And above all, choose one incorporating these principles and then obey it and live according to it.
Margaret says:
If the meaning of a word from the KJV has now “changed” … then it is NOT the same as written ( as inspired by GOD) as intended. KJV ONLY