40421 Responseshttp%3A%2F%2FDividingWord.com%2F2010%2F01%2F27%2Fwhat-translation-of-the-bible-is-closest-to-the-king-james-without-the-olde-english%2FWhat+translation+of+the+Bible+is+closest+to+the+King+James%2C+without+the+Olde+English%3F2010-01-27+01%3A08%3A50Vincehttp%3A%2F%2FDividingWord.com%2F2010%2F01%2F27%2Fwhat-translation-of-the-bible-is-closest-to-the-king-james-without-the-olde-english%2F to “What translation of the Bible is closest to the King James, without the Olde English?”
Try the New King James…go to your local book store and look at the different versions…stay away from the NIV…I’ve found many errors, words missing and compete sentences are gone.
Precept Ministries .com has a study Bible you might like as well.
Those who claim the King James Version of the bible is the REAL bible must not know much about it. I strongly urge those who believe this to look up its history.
Either the New KJV or NIV, someone said NIV isn’t good but I have a Bible with the following versions side by side and I us the NIV the most. KJV, Amplified, New American Standard and NIV. My dad was a minister and he studied Greek and Hebrew and Latin. He told me the NIV was the closest thing to the KJV. The Bible I have was his while he lived. It’s called “The Comparative Study Bible”
not the exact answer you were looking for but the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is supposed to be one of the closest translations– you have to keep in mind that a language can’t translate perfectly, hebrew is extremely complex and can often not translate in a single word for word conversion.
If you need a really bad translation of the Bible into modern English, the NKJV is the way to go.
But why not go the whole way and get the Book of Mormon instead? That is even more badly written and even less to do with Jesus Christ.
If you are seeking education try the Geneva Bible, published around 1560-1610. You will learn why the Royalty of England banned it, and edited it to retain power.
The New king James is better, but the language still a little stumble-some. The New American Standard Bible (95 update) is yet better. I hear its the closest to the Greek for the NT.
The King James was based mostly on the “textus receptus” which was incomplete at the time the KJV was recorded. It is probably far from the best choice today. There are far too many modern translations that are much better.
I like the NASV it is a word for word translation like the king james which was translated from the textus receptus manuscripts.Most versions are paraphrases or conceptual translations.The JB Green interlinear is also excellent.and is a literal translation.
The New King James Version has stated in its preface that this is exactly what they wanted to do–retain as much of the KJV but updating the English to today’s usage. They did change some of the old verbs and verb endings, updating some obsolete words and words that have changed in meaning (prevent, conversation, leasings, and the like: all these meant something much different then than now).
So, the New KJV is about as close to the original KJV as you can get, but even so, wouldn’t you want a translation closer to the original languages?
To get a comparison, try the Blue Letter Bible website at As you go through a book or chapter of the Bible, you can click on the V tab of any verse and get many translations, including the Latin Vulgate and others. Good study tools, these!
Please accept my sincere thanks for wanting to get the most, I believe, from your study of God’s Word.
Don’t be fooled into thinking the King James is the end all/be all of Bible translations. It’s not. In addition to the fact that it removes some important things, namely God’s personal name (commonly rendered “Jehovah”) and replaces it with a generic ‘LORD’, don’t forget that it’s a translation according to whom? Yes, King James. It contains what King James WANTED it to contain, regardless of whether it was fully accurate or not. And certainly those that the king assigned to do the translating did so with the knowledge that if they rendered it in any other way (even if they corrected it from how the king wanted it because his way was wrong) they risked losing their necks. Numerous other translations render certain passages, such as John 1:1 in different terms, because the translators and Bible scholars recognize that the King James’ rendering may not be entirely accurate.
If you want accuracy with nothing removed, added, or twisted, you won’t go wrong if you try the New World Translation.
Technically, the answer to your question is “The New King James Version.”
In “How to Read the Bible for All it’s Worth,” authors Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart compare several versions.
They say the NKJV is “very literal but not very helpful” because literal translations sometimes lack precision.
Their conclusion is that the New International Version is “as good a translation as you will get.” They also have high praise for the Good News Bible and the New American Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version is also recommended.
You can comparison-shop a lot of these (and more!) at Bible Gateway:
The answer *is* the New King James Version (NKJV). The reason why is that the translators used the Textus Receptus as the source for the New Testament,. just as did the translators of the King James Version (KJV). Additionally, the NKJV used the KJV as a “reference” version, which means that, when the translation agreed with the wording in the KJV, they would use the KJV wording (modernized). However, there are some significant differences:
1) The NKJV uses the Masoretic Text (I believe BHS, the standard) for the Old Testament. The KJV used the Erasmus text.
2) The NKJV failed to include the apocrypha, included in the KJV (9 books plus several other scriptures omitted from the NKJV).
3) The NKJV failed to included the numerous excellent marginal notes included with the KJV which provide alternate translations for ambiguous passages.
If you want a bible that includes the entire set of scripture included in the KJV, the closest is probably the Revised Standard Version, one of the most literal translations (as is the KJV) and including the entire apocrypha.
If you want to see what the apocrypha included, look at note #6 on the page below.
If that is the answer you are looking for, then try the Bible in basic English. However, keep in mind that there is always something lost in the translation. The bible was originally written in Greek, So if you have a translator, the Kata Mapkon appears to be most accurate. I am half Greek,so I will give you an example. The Greek word for teacher is mastra. In the King James they call him master. I hope this helps.
Carpanone Kid on 27 Jan 2010 at 9:56 am #
DividingWord.com
RSV. (Revised Standard Version).
P.S. Not to be confused with the New Revised Standard Version.
Shawn W on 28 Jan 2010 at 10:46 am #
King James Bible
Just use the King James version. A lot of the new versions are perversions.
Cincuentas on 28 Jan 2010 at 4:40 pm #
Dividing Word….
I think they have a modern King James Version I’m not sure. Google or use Amazon
jesus777 on 29 Jan 2010 at 5:20 am #
Dividing Word….
king james version is the real version.. the others are phony
Faith Sojourner on 30 Jan 2010 at 4:10 pm #
DividingWord.com
Try the New King James…go to your local book store and look at the different versions…stay away from the NIV…I’ve found many errors, words missing and compete sentences are gone.
Precept Ministries .com has a study Bible you might like as well.
Joe M on 02 Feb 2010 at 9:22 am #
Dividing Word….
NIV
laluzimperfecta on 03 Feb 2010 at 7:23 pm #
http://www.DividingWord.com
Those who claim the King James Version of the bible is the REAL bible must not know much about it. I strongly urge those who believe this to look up its history.
I-o-d-tiger on 05 Feb 2010 at 12:43 pm #
DividingWord.com
Either the New KJV or NIV, someone said NIV isn’t good but I have a Bible with the following versions side by side and I us the NIV the most. KJV, Amplified, New American Standard and NIV. My dad was a minister and he studied Greek and Hebrew and Latin. He told me the NIV was the closest thing to the KJV. The Bible I have was his while he lived. It’s called “The Comparative Study Bible”
lirsudi on 06 Feb 2010 at 4:05 pm #
DividingWord.com
not the exact answer you were looking for but the New American Standard Bible (NASB) is supposed to be one of the closest translations– you have to keep in mind that a language can’t translate perfectly, hebrew is extremely complex and can often not translate in a single word for word conversion.
just a christian on 07 Feb 2010 at 12:00 pm #
DividingWord.com
new king james
compare here…look at
insincere on 07 Feb 2010 at 8:38 pm #
King James Bible
If you need a really bad translation of the Bible into modern English, the NKJV is the way to go.
But why not go the whole way and get the Book of Mormon instead? That is even more badly written and even less to do with Jesus Christ.
pedro on 10 Feb 2010 at 7:03 pm #
DividingWord Fan.com
If you are seeking education try the Geneva Bible, published around 1560-1610. You will learn why the Royalty of England banned it, and edited it to retain power.
John S on 13 Feb 2010 at 12:35 pm #
DividingWord Fan.com
The New king James is better, but the language still a little stumble-some. The New American Standard Bible (95 update) is yet better. I hear its the closest to the Greek for the NT.
The King James was based mostly on the “textus receptus” which was incomplete at the time the KJV was recorded. It is probably far from the best choice today. There are far too many modern translations that are much better.
4-zion on 14 Feb 2010 at 4:23 pm #
DividingWord.com
I like the NASV it is a word for word translation like the king james which was translated from the textus receptus manuscripts.Most versions are paraphrases or conceptual translations.The JB Green interlinear is also excellent.and is a literal translation.
Here I Am on 15 Feb 2010 at 1:09 am #
DividingWord.com For Dividing Word Enthusiasts
New World Translation published by Jehovah’s Christian Witnesses.
Brother Jonathan on 18 Feb 2010 at 7:25 am #
DividingWord Fan.com
The New King James Version has stated in its preface that this is exactly what they wanted to do–retain as much of the KJV but updating the English to today’s usage. They did change some of the old verbs and verb endings, updating some obsolete words and words that have changed in meaning (prevent, conversation, leasings, and the like: all these meant something much different then than now).
So, the New KJV is about as close to the original KJV as you can get, but even so, wouldn’t you want a translation closer to the original languages?
To get a comparison, try the Blue Letter Bible website at As you go through a book or chapter of the Bible, you can click on the V tab of any verse and get many translations, including the Latin Vulgate and others. Good study tools, these!
Please accept my sincere thanks for wanting to get the most, I believe, from your study of God’s Word.
Wink Winkleman on 21 Feb 2010 at 11:51 am #
DividingWord.com For Dividing Word Enthusiasts
Don’t be fooled into thinking the King James is the end all/be all of Bible translations. It’s not. In addition to the fact that it removes some important things, namely God’s personal name (commonly rendered “Jehovah”) and replaces it with a generic ‘LORD’, don’t forget that it’s a translation according to whom? Yes, King James. It contains what King James WANTED it to contain, regardless of whether it was fully accurate or not. And certainly those that the king assigned to do the translating did so with the knowledge that if they rendered it in any other way (even if they corrected it from how the king wanted it because his way was wrong) they risked losing their necks. Numerous other translations render certain passages, such as John 1:1 in different terms, because the translators and Bible scholars recognize that the King James’ rendering may not be entirely accurate.
If you want accuracy with nothing removed, added, or twisted, you won’t go wrong if you try the New World Translation.
Factotum on 23 Feb 2010 at 1:11 am #
DividingWord.com
Technically, the answer to your question is “The New King James Version.”
In “How to Read the Bible for All it’s Worth,” authors Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart compare several versions.
They say the NKJV is “very literal but not very helpful” because literal translations sometimes lack precision.
Their conclusion is that the New International Version is “as good a translation as you will get.” They also have high praise for the Good News Bible and the New American Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version is also recommended.
You can comparison-shop a lot of these (and more!) at Bible Gateway:
LyndaLee on 26 Feb 2010 at 6:51 am #
Dividing Word….
the 1901,translation of the American standard bible I heard was a good bible to use.
JimPettis on 28 Feb 2010 at 7:37 am #
DividingWord.com For Dividing Word Enthusiasts
The answer *is* the New King James Version (NKJV). The reason why is that the translators used the Textus Receptus as the source for the New Testament,. just as did the translators of the King James Version (KJV). Additionally, the NKJV used the KJV as a “reference” version, which means that, when the translation agreed with the wording in the KJV, they would use the KJV wording (modernized). However, there are some significant differences:
1) The NKJV uses the Masoretic Text (I believe BHS, the standard) for the Old Testament. The KJV used the Erasmus text.
2) The NKJV failed to include the apocrypha, included in the KJV (9 books plus several other scriptures omitted from the NKJV).
3) The NKJV failed to included the numerous excellent marginal notes included with the KJV which provide alternate translations for ambiguous passages.
If you want a bible that includes the entire set of scripture included in the KJV, the closest is probably the Revised Standard Version, one of the most literal translations (as is the KJV) and including the entire apocrypha.
If you want to see what the apocrypha included, look at note #6 on the page below.
Jim,
mari athenan on 28 Feb 2010 at 3:07 pm #
DividingWord.com
If that is the answer you are looking for, then try the Bible in basic English. However, keep in mind that there is always something lost in the translation. The bible was originally written in Greek, So if you have a translator, the Kata Mapkon appears to be most accurate. I am half Greek,so I will give you an example. The Greek word for teacher is mastra. In the King James they call him master. I hope this helps.