Most of us must have had about the king James Version (KJV). If you haven't, it is a bible version published in 1611. Today there are hundreds of Modern Version(MV) published which promises to translate the Bible safely and in current English.

Below are some of the reasons why KJV has shortcomings.

1. Since English language is evolving,the KJV contains hundreds of archaic(outdated) words that cannot be nderstood by us.such words include: whither,aforementioned,thither,whence,whosoever,thou,thine,thy,thee,ye,yea,nay, aforetime,it came to pass; eth endings like loveth,falleth,runneth;edst or est endings like shouldest;canst,.This is the main reason why in 1885,the English Revised Version was made to update the KJV.The NKJV is the closest update of the KJV.Even in the future,we still need Bible versions that will be comprehended.

2. The worst is those words whose meaning has change,thereby confusing the modern reader e.g Save during that time means Except,suffer means allow,let means hinder etc.

3 In 1samuel 13:21 KJV translated the Hebrew word 'pim' as file (which was a wild guess) .But in the 20th century an excavation was carried out, and pim was discovered to mean as NIV translates "2/3 of shekels".Compare KJV and other versions to see the difference.

4. Sometimes readings from Latin Vulgate were incorporated into KJV when translating the New Testament (NT) while some where transliterated which makes it different from Modern Versions (MV). e.g Esaias(KJV) vs Isaiah(MV),Elias vs Elijah, Timotheus vs Timothy etc.

5. The KJV and well even NKJV is not paragraph, there are no paragraphs, appropriate punctuations,sentence, phrases, etc

6. The KJV uses an inferior recent Greek text known as 'The Received Text(Textus Receptus)' but almost all MV uses a superior Greek text known as 'Nestle—Aland/UBS Greek text'

Op do you know that King James was a Bisexual when he was alive?

.

ok, so what are you suggesting?

The KJV is too obsolete

Johnny how sure are you he's a bisexual

The Modern King James Version is easy to understand.

Modern King James Version, copyright © 1962-1998 by Jay P. Green, Sr. All rights reserved.


e-Sword is a good bible software to download to your computer
you can add other Bibles to it
it has many tools
it's free.

You can download it from this page: http://www.e-sword.net/downloads.html

johnydon22:
Op do you know that King James was a Bisexual when he was alive?

SMH
What relevance has this remark or KJ's sexuality or sexual leanings got to do with the heading (i.e. The Problem of King James Version)
or with the original post?

Also the KJV translates bible the Greek word "Iesous" in Hebrews 4.8 as Jesus.Although iesous means Jesus but according to the context it means Joshua.The reason is because Greek does not have different words to distinguish hebrew Yeshua(Jesus ) and Yehoshua(Joshua), so iesous means both of them.But the KJV made mistake of translating it has Jesus.Because the passage makes Jesus unredemptive and unable to give rest to Israelites which is suppose to be Joshua.

johnydon22:
Op do you know that King James was a Bisexual when he was alive?

Being bisexual has nothing to do with KJV

First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.
Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8 , Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8 , though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.
That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8 . But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11 ) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13 ; 1 John 5:7-8 , etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16 . In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.
Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?
Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” ( Matt 19:14 ). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15 ). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?
Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In
Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).
Sixth, when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot. Often 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 is quoted with reference to the KJV (to the effect that ‘you would understand it if you were spiritual’). Such a use of that text, however, is a gross distortion of the Scriptures. The words in the New Testament, the grammar, the style, etc.—in short, the language—comprised the common language of the first century. We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 where ‘receive,’ ‘welcome’ shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man).
Seventh, those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther’s fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther’s Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8 ), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? Our faith does not rest in a singular tradition, nor is it provincial. Vibrant, biblical Christianity must never unite itself with provincialism. Otherwise, missionary endeavor, among other things, would die.
Eighth, again, let me repeat an earlier point: Most evangelicals—who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith—prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation!
Finally, though it is true that the modern translations ‘omit’ certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc.
I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those ‘mountains.’ We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world that is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo gloria!

OP which translation is the best?

That is what happens when individuals translates scriptures as though it was personal property, there was a time when every translation of d bible had to undergo serious scrutiny but that changed with the protestant revolution, luther 1st translated and added 'alone' to his translation of 'the just shall live by faith' d man added and subtracted, then calvin and king james commisioned their own. Finaly we have jehova witness bible, and all other form.

Ubenedictus:
That is what happens when individuals translates scriptures as though it was personal property, there was a time when every translation of d bible had to undergo serious scrutiny but that changed with the protestant revolution, luther 1st translated and added 'alone' to his translation of 'the just shall live by faith' d man added and subtracted, then calvin and king james commisioned their own. Finaly we have jehova witness bible, and all other form.

Serious scrutiny like changing GOD's holy Sabbath right and preventing laymen from reading the Bible, killing people who read the Bible, right?

Makaveli08:
Although it's not perfect, it is a beautiful translation.

It's indeed a beautiful translation but not as accurate as our modern translations

DoctorAlien:


Serious scrutiny like changing GOD's holy Sabbath right and preventing laymen from reading the Bible, killing people who read the Bible, right?

Yes exactly,
The Roman church has prevented people from reading the bible such that William Tyndale one of the first reformers swore that he will make sure everybody have the bible even the plough boy in the field.
God's Sabbath is still Saturday but the Roman church change it to Sunday.

Kalatium:

It's indeed a beautiful translation but not as accurate as our modern translations

Modern translations like the NIV that omits uncountable verses, right?

Modern translations put forth by Jesuit-run Bible societies, right?

Okay.

DoctorAlien:

Modern translations like the NIV that omits uncountable verses, right?
Modern translations put forth by Jesuit-run Bible societies, right?
Okay.

It is not the NIV that omits but KJV that adds verses e.g Johannine Comma

Kalatium:

It is not the NIV that omits but KJV that adds verses e.g Johannine Comma

Yes. It's true. The KJV which was translated under the most rigorous of processes, with comparisons to the original Hebrew and Greek texts adds verses.

The NIV is standard with the countless verses it omitted.

DoctorAlien:


Yes. It's true. The KJV which was translated under the most rigorous of processes, with comparisons to the original Hebrew and Greek texts adds verses.

The NIV is standard with the countless verses it omitted.

Yea that's the fact

DoctorAlien:


Serious scrutiny like changing GOD's holy Sabbath right and preventing laymen from reading the Bible, killing people who read the Bible, right?

if u open any bible of that time u will find d 7th day sabbath, d church didnt change a single word of d scripture. Even my bible has d sabbath on it, but it also has 'the lords day' and also tells me that d ordinances and commandments of d old law has been set aside.

The church didnt stop people from reading d bible, actually d church had no reason to do so, only less 5% of d population could read, there was no printing press so every bible was meticulously hand copied by monks. There were actually different edition then, abt 15 german edition which anyone who could afford can buy.

Nobody was killed for reading d bible, but unsanction incorrect translations were offense in many countries.

Ubenedictus:
if u open any bible of that time u will find d 7th day sabbath, d church didnt change a single word of d scripture. Even my bible has d sabbath on it, but it also has 'the lords day' and also tells me that d ordinances and commandments of d old law has been set aside.

The church didnt stop people from reading d bible, actually d church had no reason to do so, only less 5% of d population could read, there was no printing press so every bible was meticulously hand copied by monks. There were actually different edition then, abt 15 german edition which anyone who could afford can buy.

Nobody was killed for reading d bible, but unsanction incorrect translations were offense in many countries.

Continue lying. Read Isa. 58:13 to find out which day is the LORD's.

If the commandments were set aside, then it was not by GOD, because even your hypocritical catholic scholars admit that the Bible enjoins the observance of the Sabbath.

Continue lying.

DoctorAlien:
OP which translation is the best?

I think NIV

Ubenedictus:
if u open any bible of that time u will find d 7th day sabbath, d church didnt change a single word of d scripture. Even my bible has d sabbath on it, but it also has 'the lords day' and also tells me that d ordinances and commandments of d old law has been set aside.

The church didnt stop people from reading d bible, actually d church had no reason to do so, only less 5% of d population could read, there was no printing press so every bible was meticulously hand copied by monks. There were actually different edition then, abt 15 german edition which anyone who could afford can buy.

Nobody was killed for reading d bible, but unsanction incorrect translations were offense in many countries.

If the commandments and ordinances of the old law had been set aside, then why is killing a sin,why do we pay tithe

Kalatium, I think you should see this article.

DoctorAlien:
Kalatium, I think you should see this article.

Am not surprised, (jesusissavior) website is a bias website. I used to believe what they wrote back then until when I had other people debunk the contents of this website.
There was a time that the website claim that if you don't use KJV then you are going to hell fire.

Kalatium:

Am not surprised, (jesusissavior) website is a bias website. I used to believe what they wrote back then until when I had other people debunk the contents of this website.
There was a time that the website claim that if you don't use KJV then you are going to hell fire.

You have failed to address the issues they raised about the NIV.

DoctorAlien:


You have failed to address the issues they raised about the NIV.

Prof Daniel Wallace have debunked it already, you can search it on Google (KJV onlyism debunked)

Kalatium:

If the commandments and ordinances of the old law had been set aside, then why is killing a sin,why do we pay tithe

Because do not kill is also in d new covenant, but keep d sabbat isnt a command in d new covenant and paying tithe isnt a new t command, both are none binding on a christian.

DoctorAlien:


Continue lying. Read Isa. 58:13 to find out which day is the LORD's.

If the commandments were set aside, then it was not by GOD, because even your hypocritical catholic scholars admit that the Bible enjoins the observance of the Sabbath.

Continue lying.

no catholic scholar with d mind of d church will teach that d bible enjoins xtians to keep d sabbath that is a jewish law 4 d jewish people during d dispensation of d old law, it has lost it judicial power when Christ died and and been replace d law of freedom, d spirit of GOD.