Christians, are there any good arguments against the KJV being the only good Bible translation?

Answer this question

  • Christians, are there any good arguments against the KJV being the only good Bible translation?


Answer #1 | 14/01 2014 10:02
Sure there are, the bible is self contradicting !
Answer #2 | 14/01 2014 11:06
Sure. As one who is well versed (no pun intended!) in Hebrew, I can share that there are indeed other translations like the New International Version that are true to the original text. Besides, scripture is spiritually discerned, and it is God the Holy Spirit who leads us to grasp what He led yielded human instruments to write as scripture.
Answer #3 | 14/01 2014 10:17
God showed me the KJV was true when I was reading it. However I can't make the claim all other translations are corrupt. I will say the KJV is truth.
Answer #4 | 14/01 2014 10:05
Yes, that anything that man has had a hand in translating or coping is very likely to have mistakes or have the person doing the translating err to the side of whatever agenda that they hold
Answer #5 | 14/01 2014 11:24
While I appreciate the KJV and would not side in any way to say that it is not a good translation of the bible, it is not one of my higher preferences as a study bible. My main concern is with regard to John 14 where this matter of ' mansions' has caused us as believers to become materialistic in our view concerning what eternity would be like with the Lord. I found it interesting that while verse 2 of that chapter, the word " mansion " is used to describe what is in the Father's house. Jn 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. We see later on that verse 23, the proper word, 'abode "is used. 23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. A simple word like mansion has caused us to envision the Lord Jesus building houses for us in heaven, and this notion has frustrated us from truly seeing that we are the Spiritual House of God. 1 Peter 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Other than that and a couple other things brother, I appreciate this forerunner of a bible and thank the Lord for the written Word.
Answer #6 | 14/01 2014 13:28
logic. I use the KJV primarily, but to suggest that all others are flawed is a bit odd. Do those people suggest that God can only communicate to His children in English? There are many good bible translations out there, sometimes reading it in a different perspective gives a different point of view.
Answer #7 | 15/01 2014 22:58
I use most translations and God speaks to me through them all! (((LOB))) bless you!
Answer #8 | 15/01 2014 05:32
One of the errors in the bible is in Luke's version of the feeding of the 5000. Both Mark and Matthew have Jesus go into the desert followed by the crowd. Having little food, one of the disciples suggest they send the crowd away. Luke however has them go to the large city of Bethsaida, but then forgets he has done so and later reverts to copying Mark, putting them in a deserted place. The KJV gets round this by changing the text to land belonging to the town, something that is not in the early bibles such as the Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Sinaiticus - And the apostles returned and told him all things that they had done. And he took them with him and withdrew privately to a city called Bethsaida. KJV - And the apostles, when they were returned, told him all that they had done. And he took them, and went aside privately into a desert place belonging to the city called Bethsaida.
Answer #9 | 14/01 2014 17:41
No there isn't. When we learn verses, we learn them from KJV. It is poetic and flows much easily from the tongue than other translations. The Living Bible is paraphrased to help you understand the language, but not accurate. I don't quote the Living Bible, but the KJV. The New King James Version is close, but not the same lyrical flow as the original.
Answer #10 | 14/01 2014 14:47
The other ones are newer, and therefore ARE based on random men's personal translations. I mean, none of that is really up for debate right? Thats what a "newer translation" is.

Possible answer

Login to your account
Create new account