[Jemian]

You are completely wrong about the King James being a bad translation. In fact, it and the New American Standard version have over a 90% accuracy in a word for word translation from the oldest manuscripts extent. Other translations such as the New International Vesion and Phillips have around a 75 - 80% accuracy.

[R. Scott]

You are completely wrong about the King James being a bad translation. In fact, it and the New American Standard version have over a 90% accuracy in a word for word translation from the oldest manuscripts extent.

I consider a 10% error rate as being pretty bad.

[nicmarlo]

Thank you Bell Star (especially) and Jemian for your informative posts. I understand your point, Bell Star, and you are quite right. Translation of the Bible should be a painstaking enterprise to accurately and precisely interpret the literal (i.e., pronouns) and cultural meaning (i.e., idioms).

I'm quite surprised that Zondervan has strayed from this. What exactly is it they are attempting to do, besides bastardizing Holy text?

While in college I learned that it's quite possible that William Shakespeare helped with writing the King James version. Studies apparently have been done on that. It was quite interesting.

Myself, I prefer the New American Standard Version....and I like the Amplified Bible for a simple study. It would be best, however, to use the book that has the Greek and Armaic (I think it is) languages placed in columns and get an even better understanding that way....I forget what that type of book is called.

[Reuben Hick]

In fact, it and the New American Standard version have over a 90% accuracy in a word for word translation from the oldest manuscripts extent. Other translations such as the New International Vesion and Phillips have around a 75 - 80% accuracy.

Which makes sense because the KJV (byzantine text) and the NAS (alexandrian) were translated for accuracy first, readability second. The other (per)versions were written to accomodate illiterate people who can only understand conversational English.

The Living Bible went further, and rewrote doctrine to fit Ken Taylor's personal feelings. This "new" translation was not written for good motives, it wasn't written for accuracy or readability, but simply to syncretize the vain feelings of God Haters into a faith they obviously despise.

[StonyBurk]

So have you read the letter published in the original
KJV? --but will admit your claim does hold water in a
relative sense.