# Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?



## The Deeps (Mar 4, 2009)

Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?
What was the result? 
What version did you switch to?
What was your purpose in switching?

*I come from a KJV only background. I know all the arguments and i have been down every avenue I am not interested in arguing over versions.*

The Elders and I are considering making the change from the KJV to the ESV.

My pulpit ministry needs to address some of these problems.
1) We have tremendous problem with illiteracy 
2) Our reading comprehension is very poor
3) A blue collar un-churched vernacular

It will be very helpful to our Elders to have some profitable feedback.


----------



## matt01 (Mar 4, 2009)

The Deeps said:


> What was the result?
> What version did you switch to?
> What was your purpose in switching?




1. I was no longer reading the KJV.
2. I switched from KJV to NKJV.
3. I wanted to be able to more effectively read along, as the pastor read through the text.

We are now _attending_ a church that reads from the KJV, and I have some desire to reverse my previous change. It doesn't have a lot of significance for me.


----------



## D. Paul (Mar 4, 2009)

Wow. Given your own reasons for switching due to your particular congragation, I feel badly saying I switched to the 1599 Geneva from Tolle Lege. It surely would not benefit the situation you described but I absolutely love the Geneva. Maybe it's because of the notes...I don't know. I just like reading it. And I've stayed consistent in reading it.


----------



## William Price (Mar 4, 2009)

I switched from KJV to ESV. The readability is wonderful, and the simplicity of the meaning is quite clear. I recommend this version to anyone who is seeking another version besides the KJV.


----------



## reformed trucker (Mar 4, 2009)

William Price said:


> I switched from KJV to ESV. The readability is wonderful, and the simplicity of the meaning is quite clear. I recommend this version to anyone who is seeking another version besides the KJV.


----------



## Scott1 (Mar 4, 2009)

Somehow, I still find the KJV the most powerful and seemingly most accurate based on the original text. When it says it, it seems to "say it best," at least God seems to have used it that way for me. So, I still do Scripture memorization in that translation, and much meditation on Scripture using it. I tend to use it as the basis of comparison with other translations and occasionally with the Greek, for example. It is particularly useful with a concordance.

However, as good as the KJV is, it is difficult to read or follow along in for personal, family or corporate worship because some of the words are not commonly understood. The NIV, though not quite as good a translation, is very readable and seems to work well for family Bible reading, in Sunday School classes and other devotional settings. To a certain extent, we need to trust that God the Holy Spirit will get through the translation limitations and we can and will understand it according to His purposes for us.

More-and-more I am appreciating the ESV. This is a better translation than the NIV, and also a very readable one.

If I were starting out today, I would still use KJV as a base and probably use the ESV as a standard of comparison, and not be afraid to also occasionally compare with NIV, NKJV or a couple other good translations.


----------



## Rangerus (Mar 4, 2009)

The NKJV is a very readable KJV. since your congregation is currently KJV, the logical step is to simply change to the NKJV which modernized and corrected the KJV but retained its essential nature. It is very good for public reading.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 4, 2009)

I would highly recommend the ESV for your situation.
I love the KJV, but use the ESV while doing official church functions and such...for the sake of polity.


----------



## Rich Koster (Mar 4, 2009)

I went from KJV to NIV in 1995.

My reason was readability. KJV was like a foreign language to me in some passages. I still struggle with obscure or big words. I'll probably add ESV to the collection when I get new software for this Mac since that seems to be replacing NIV.

Now I draw upon several including Geneva1599 (for the notes especially). This helps me get the drift of some of the more complex writings.

I personally know where you are coming from with your concern about the congregation being able to understand. One Thing I believe about effective teaching is that you must be able to break down those "five dollar words" into coins you can hand out for people to keep. When I served as a chaplain and an elder, I heard lots of arguments about which translation had flat feet and all of that talk. I still believe solid expository preaching makes up for any weakness a particular translation may have. However I would exclude some of the new genderless and paraphrased ones from that comment (cult produced ones also).


----------



## Theognome (Mar 4, 2009)

As a pagan, I started on the KJV, and then switched to the NIV. Once a believer, I went from the NIV back to KJV, and now have pretty much landed on the NKJV while using a dozen or so other translations as reference.

Theognome


----------



## nicnap (Mar 4, 2009)

I started out as an NIV guy...then an ESV guy...then the KJV and now the NKJV while still mixing in the KJV. I would say go for the NKJV.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 4, 2009)

As a child, my only option was the KJV. By the time of college, the NT of the NAS was available (and quite helpful for Greek classes when homework went undone). After seminary the NIV was my Bible and remained such for most of my pulpit ministry (first 23 years). During this decade, I have mainly used the ESV and HCSB. Struggling with the issues of CT vs. MT lately, my preference has now been split between the ESV and the NKJV.

As has been argued (to death it seems) in other threads over the life of the PB, there are lots of arguments about what makes a "good" translation.

The choices, however, are pretty simple when you put them in a grid.







If you like the KJV because of the TEXT behind the Greek of the NT, then you have only one English alternative to it, the NKJV.
If you like the KJV because it is a formal correspondence translation into English, then you have a variety of choices (e.g., NAS, ESV, RSV, HCSB, etc.).

If you want a Bible that "reads well" in English and don't care about type of text or translation theory, then ANY easy reading Bible will work, depending upon your preferences for more formalized or more colloquial speech (RSV & ESV are more stately, NAS is more wooden, NIV and NLT are easy to follow, etc.).

ALL Christian Bible translations I know of proclaim Christ. If your people have a theological preference for the TR/Majority tradition, you are pretty much limited to the KJV or NKJV. If you want a good formal correspondence translation, I prefer the ESV. If you want a dynamic equivalent translation, the NLT is probably the most up-to-date and contemporary in its readability. (Plus, a goodly number of solidly evangelical and even several notable Reformed scholars participated in the translation of the NLT).

Dr. Al Mohler, Calvinistic prez of a SBC seminary (who prefers the critical text over the majority tradition) opines that the only three modern English Bibles worthy of serious _study_ are the ESV, NAS, and HCSB.


----------



## Skyler (Mar 4, 2009)

I started out with the KJV, because that was just what our church used. I didn't know much about the NIV other than that it cut some verses out of the Bible. 

Then I ran across the John Ankerburg show on the subject and took another look at the NIV. Coincidentally, it was at the same time I was exploring Reformed theology and the time I would peg as my "real" conversion. Either way, it opened up the Bible to me and made it much more readable. I have ADD so it's difficult to follow a train of thought in King James English, not being used to it as some people are.

I don't have an ESV, though it seems to be a fairly popular translation, so maybe I'll invest in one someday.


----------



## baron (Mar 4, 2009)

I used the KJV for years but then the church switched to the NAS due to the pastor wanting to use that version. Also using the ESV like the way it reads. 

The one problem I ran into is memorization of scriptures. Spent years memorizing KJV now I get confused with the other versions. So been debating if I should go back to Old Faithfull KJV.


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 4, 2009)

I do not much about NLT can anyone expound? 
Does anyone here use it? 
Does it have staying power? 
Is it a better translation than the NIV?
Does anyone preach from it?


----------



## kvanlaan (Mar 4, 2009)

Here’s a big red flag for you：



> The New Living Translation is an extensive revision of Ken Taylor's Living Bible (published by Tyndale House in 1971). It was designed to improve the accuracy of Taylor's paraphrase.



The rest of the review is here：

The New Living Translation - A Critical Review


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Mar 5, 2009)

I grew up with the KJV, then went to the NKJV, now to the ESV.

The reason? I believe the ESV gives the best balance of accuracy vs readability. 

However, I am closest to the Byzantine priority position so I still use the NKJV for comparative purposes.

I don't like the NIV - given that the Reformed faith rests on sound exegesis, the NIV does not lent itself to this so I actively encourage people to use a formal equivalent translation.


----------



## Robert Truelove (Mar 5, 2009)

I made the switch from the KJV to the ESV a few years ago. I was a Traditional Text advocate but my studies ultimately overturned that and I become a Critical Text advocate.

Christ Reformed Church (where I pastor) adopted the ESV as our standard translation about two years ago and it has worked out great.

1. I switched to the ESV because I wanted a translation based upon the more reliable Critical Text.

2. The purpose in switching was originally the textual issue (The KJV remains an excellent translation of the Traditional Text as far as translation goes), but after switching I an immediate improvement in biblical comprehension in my children who were raised before on the KJV. Some of the adults in the church who had used the KJV all their lives also report the same thing of themselves.

3. I chose the ESV over other modern translations because of them all, I believe it has the best overall balance of accuracy and readability. 

Hope that helps.





The Deeps said:


> Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?
> What was the result?
> What version did you switch to?
> What was your purpose in switching?
> ...


----------



## Honor (Mar 5, 2009)

I switched from KJV to ESV.


----------



## LeeJUk (Mar 5, 2009)

I switched from KJV to ESV at the start of last year after finishing my goal of reading through the full bible. 

The main reason being it difficult to understand, my denom. didn't use it and it probably wasn't used in my denom's theology course for ministry.


----------



## jawyman (Mar 5, 2009)

I went from the KJV to the NIV back to the KJV and now I am solidly an ESV man.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 5, 2009)

The Deeps said:


> I do not much about NLT can anyone expound?
> Does anyone here use it?
> Does it have staying power?
> Is it a better translation than the NIV?
> Does anyone preach from it?



The NLT is considerably less literal than the NIV. Not suitable at all for public reading, pulpit use or serious study. 

-----Added 3/5/2009 at 10:11:16 EST-----

Yesterday, I listened to a Shepherd's Conference message from a few years ago by Masters Seminary Professor Dr. Barrick on Bible translations. 

I understand the desire to switch soon, but I agree with Dr. Barrick's emphasis that it shouldn't be done hastily, that even a year or two spent studying the issue is not too long, and that if the leadership is on board with the switch and it's not just something the pastor is pushing, they "own" it and will be much more likely to continue with the same version after you're gone. 

Interestingly he thought very highly of the NKJV even though he (and Masters Sem. as a whole) favor the Critical Text of the NT. He is an OT scholar and said the NKJV Old Testament is the best hands down for its fidelity to the Masoretic Text and pointed out problems with the NASB and ESV time and again with emendations, resorting to the Septuagint, etc. As a non-specialist I have been troubled by what appear at times to be curious renderings in these translations (esp. in the OT) and my thoughts (and leaning toward the NKJV) were confirmed by this message. He (and his colleague Dr. Thomas, who has a helpful book on Bible versions) also favor the 1977 edition of the NASB over the 1995 update (which is still one of the better versions) but the 1977 edition is rapidly going out of print with the exception of editions like the Open Bible, the Thompson Chain Ref. and the Hebrew Greek Study Bible. 

This message was from 2005. I would recommend signing up for a free account at the Shepherd's Fellowship website if you don't already have one and downloading it. (I'm not sure if the link will work at all since registration is required, but it's a seminar from the 2005 Shepherd's conf.) It's entitled "King James Version Only, Sometimes, Never: Examining the modern versions of the Bible." I see that he addressed the same topic in 2006, but I haven't listened to it yet. Both messages are aimed more at the process you need to go through to evaluate and choose a translation for pulpit use, etc. than telling you which version to choose. 

Dr. Barrick thought highly of the ESV but interestingly stated that one should never adopt a new version until it had been through a revision since revisions will tell you which direction the translation committee is headed--will they fix the issues that currently exist or will they simply create new ones? (For example, the TNIV is a clear example of the inclinations of the NIV committee.) I would be very interested to hear what his thoughts on the 2007 revision (which was pretty minor I think) are. My guess is that they were so minor (it was not a major revision) that they didn't make much of a difference one way or another. 

Edit: Here is a list of the 2007 changes in the ESV, although I don't know that this is an "official" list and I don't know that it is a complete list either. (Considering its brevity I doubt it is complete.) The editions that incorporate the changes will have "2007 text edition" on the copyright page. 

in my opinion the only ones I would even have on the list to consider are the NKJV, NASB, ESV and perhaps HCSB, which is freer than the above in translations, but more literal than the NIV. 

I have never thought the NASB was quite as unreadable as some have made it out to be, but for the best combination of literal translation and readability, the NKJV and the ESV are probably the two best choices. (The HCSB appears to be surprisingly good too, but I don't have a copy and thus am not that familiar with it. But it has some very helpful notes as well as an explanation of key theological terms.) The ESV retains too much of the old liberal RSV for my taste (although the most glaring theological errors have certainly been removed) and some of the changes from the RSV actually weren't for the better, thus the best choice is the NKJV in my admittedly amateur opinion.

I have attached the manuscript for Dr. Barrick's 2005 seminar. The comments I mentioned above about the NKJV being the best OT translation were made during the subsequent Q&A and aren't in the manuscript.


----------



## TimV (Mar 5, 2009)

I use the NKJV and ESV about the same amount.


----------



## Kim G (Mar 5, 2009)

I use the ESV for personal study and to take to church. Our pastor uses the NKJV, however, and I have found it to be very clear and easy to understand. I think you would be safe (accuracy plus readability) with the ESV, NAS, or NKJV.


----------



## Ivan (Mar 5, 2009)

NKJV --> KJV.


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 5, 2009)

> Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?
> What was the result?
> What version did you switch to?
> What was your purpose in switching?



My switch was gradual. I grew up with the KJV and memorized in it all the way through my Bible training. During my youth and early adulthood, my pastor preached from the KJV and explained difficult passages and words from the pulpit. When I was going through my Bible training, our professors allowed us to memorize from either the KJV, NASB or NIV. By this time, I was already studying from the NASB, because it was easier to understand. I eventually became more comfortable with the NASB and used that as my primary Bible, though I kept memorizing from the KJV. When the ESV came out, a pastor recommended it to me, and I started to use it. I like it better than NASB for the flow.

What was the result? I think the NASB and ESV are easier to understand. As I was going through some passages in Romans recently, I grabbed a KJV, because it was closest. My thought was "No wonder I couldn't figure out what Paul was trying to say. This is difficult to follow." 

I still go back to the KJV regularly, almost every time I study, because sometimes it's worded better. Someone mentioned in another post about the passage in Genesis 15 where the ESV says, "Fear not, Abram, and I am your shield, and your reward shall be very great." The KJV renders the same passage, "Fear not, Abram, I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward." The ESV passage is weak, and when my pastor preached on it recently, even though he preaches from the ESV most of the time, he used the KJV rendering because it was clearer. 

My conclusion? The KJV is just plain difficult to understand for the average person on the street, and if a pastor is willing to explain every passage or a person is willing to study KJV English in order to understand the scriptures, fine. But otherwise, I think the congregation should have something easier to read and study. I also think church leadership should encourage folks to study from the variety of good translations available.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Mar 5, 2009)

I switched to the ESV for many of the reasons listed on this thread. I always refer to the KJV in sermon preparation, just to make sure I don't miss a variant that nees 'splainin.


----------



## a mere housewife (Mar 5, 2009)

My experience has been that I understand the KJV on hearing it read when I hear it read _by a good reader_. Unfortunately I don't read enough 'in advance' of the word I am seeing/pronouncing in my head (I read aloud in my head) in a sentence to place complicated phrases very meaningfully - I discovered this wondering why I have a harder time understanding the KJV in my personal reading or when read badly, and have to reread sentences sometimes several times: whereas when I hear it read by Alexander Scourby or by Ruben I have no trouble with the sense. I think perhaps that if someone is putting the right emphasis on each word as it occurs in the flow of thought the meaning will lie more readily on the face of things. 

For my own private reading though, I have gone to reading the ESV. The result has so far been that I love the Psalms esp. more, because they are presented more vividly to my understanding than they were before.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 5, 2009)

> The NLT is considerably less literal than the NIV. Not suitable at all for public reading, pulpit use or serious study.




Chris, I would be the first to dismiss (perhaps too quickly) the virtues of the NLT. However, with the following crew among the translators, I do not feel that it is fair to relegate it to the nether regions prematurely.

Greg Beale
D. A. Carson
Raymond B. Dillard 
David H. Engelhard 
Mark D. Futato
Douglas Green
Tremper Longman III
Richard Pratt
Moises Silva
Willem A. VanGemeren 

Again, as I have argued on other threads, it has to do with preferences on TEXT and TRANSLATION THEORY. Those who want the Critical Text will find the NLT to be one of the most "readable" Bibles in English. It was intended to translate koine into the "heart language" of contemporary Americans. Not an unworthy aim. Those who want a Byzantine based translation will be unhappy with anything other than a KJV or NKJV.

I used the NIV for years but can hardly stand it today -- too many other translations do a "better" job however you conceive the "job" to be. 
* If you want a Byzantine text, why use the NIV? There is always the KJV and NKJV.
* If you want a formal correspondence translation, why use the NIV? The NASU, ESV, and HCSB do it better.
* AND, if you want a critical text in the dynamic direction, why use the NIV? The NLT is probably the BEST dynamic equivalent type translation in English of the Critical Text. It is up-to-date, idiomatic, and grounded in LOTS of solid NT scholarship.

It is ironic that at this stage of my life, I am becoming much more accepting of the Byzantine text tradition and finding that the NKJV is almost as used by me now as the ESV (my standard mainstay for preaching and teaching).

If someone wanted something more idiomatic ("readable") than the ESV, I would try to get them into an HCSB which is much more of a formal correspondence translation than the NIV, yet almost as readable as the NLT (in my opinion). But, IFF someone wanted a dynamic equivalent Critical Text translation, I would recommend the NLT highly.


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 5, 2009)

*Nlt*

I have noticed they are very, very active in revisions. 

I am really praying for wisdom for our area here in Jewell. 
I think another factor for me will be the study bible that the translation boasts. Is the NLT study bible one that compares to the ESV or the NIV.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 5, 2009)

Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?

Me

What was the result?

I liked it and actually read the Bible more than before

What version did you switch to?

NKJV

What was your purpose in switching?

It was the version in use at the church I moved to.


----------



## DonP (Mar 5, 2009)

Me Me me I did. Went alllll the way to NKJV. Been trying the ESV but they cut so many places where elect is used and other clear distinct reformed language I bagged it. They soften it with chose or something else. Other words similar. Surprised since so many reformed men were involved. 
And I lean toward TR anyway or maybe against the critical text. I am afraid they will find some old text in a trash can in some archeological dig that is a week older than what we have and change the word of God again. 
What I do believe for sure is, God preserved His word for all His church throughout all ages. And we are not to add to it or change it or what point is there in this whole thing?? Arguments from heretical liberal textual scholars do nothing for me. When they have a different nuance, fine, but to remove whole verses saying some scribe added it??? Ruins the whole concept of scribal accuracy and inspiration. 
Just my opinion. Maybe ignorant, but faithful!


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 5, 2009)

Of those three translations, the conventional wisdom is that the NLT would be on one end of the continuum and the ESV on the other with the NIV in the middle.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Mar 5, 2009)

NIV to KJV to ESV

In all fairness, the NLT has been railed on a lot but I think it has a lot of value. I would not use it as a primary bible by any means but try reading Ecclesiastes in the ESV then the NLT … it is very enjoyable. The NLT’s English is very natural. I have heard it read publicly and it shines. But again…its purpose is different…it does not keep the “form” of the text. I would not use the NLT as a primary church text by any means. If you have people that can barely read, give them an NIV, HCSB, or NKJV! 

I work with Ethiopian teenagers (some of which can barely read) and they ALL struggle with the ESV – mainly the word order. I think the NKJV, HCSB, and NIV flow much better and those struggling are more apt to actually read it. 

Our church officially changed to the ESV recently and I think that is great. I use the ESV as my primary bible. 

Aside from certain word order issues, etc, my only beef with the ESV is that it is called “essentially literal” which I think is misleading. I think it is simply a Formal equivalent translation…period! I would call the HCSB an “essentially literal” or how they prefer “optimal equivalent” translation.


----------



## refbaptdude (Mar 5, 2009)

KJV to nas to NKJV

I really like the NKJV.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Mar 5, 2009)

*Escape from the Vulgate*



> But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner; and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.



While Smith Island might still understand the English in the KJV, the common language today is not the language of the KJV Bible. From a confessional standpoint, I switched from the KJV years ago (before the NKJV was even on the drawing board) and now use the following versions: NASB, NIV, TR greek with Strongs numbers, Weymouth NT, Young Literal, ASV, ASV 1901, Amplified, CEV, ESV, Good News, (yes, I do occationally use KJV yet). My most consistent use is NASB and NIV ... one a formal equivalence the other dynamic equivalence. (I have no experience with Hebrew other than Hebrew word studies, but I cannot do anything with it.)

I felt many years ago those that are fixated on the KJV _sound_ like what the RC church did with the Latin Vulgate (pronouncing it the word of God absolutely) and then insisting people learn the language (Latin in the case of the Vulgate, 17th century English in the case of the KJV). The arguments are eerily similar to the RC arguments for the Vulgate.

_Forgot my one plug. I use the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible when I can't take the computer with me to a Bible study._


----------



## steven-nemes (Mar 5, 2009)

I don't know much about what makes a good translation, or what the big hooplah is all about, really, but I have used an ESV since I became a Calvinist, just about...


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 5, 2009)

> Forgot my one plug. I use the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible when I can't take the computer with me to a Bible study.



For a guy like me this is one of the best bibles out today! I wonder if they will ever come out with a good leather ESV version?


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 6, 2009)

If you want an ESV study Bible, you pretty much have to go with either the Reformation Study Bible or the ESV Study Bible. Both are EXCELLENT!


----------



## Edward (Mar 6, 2009)

I am a fan of the NKJV, and that's what I prefer from my primary use.. For corporate worship our church uses the ESV. 

NKJV does a good job of balancing the majesty and poetry of the KJV with the lower literacy level of modern society.


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 6, 2009)

We do have some very good options with the ESV. 

I would like to see the Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible in ESV.

-----Added 3/6/2009 at 12:23:47 EST-----

I wonder what would have happend if they would have poured as much money into the NKJV as they did the NLT?

The NKJV seems a little to awkward for my reading.


----------



## Grymir (Mar 6, 2009)

I was a long haired hippie liberal drunk when I picked up the KJV and read it from cover to cover. God used it to convert me. I understood it completely and have tried other versions, but they just don't cut it for me. If I need another translation, I use the 1599 Geneva.


----------



## The Deeps (Mar 6, 2009)

I think in ministering to others I have never found it useful to think they are all like me.


----------



## JonathanHunt (Mar 6, 2009)

The Deeps said:


> The NKJV seems a little to awkward for my reading.



Compared to the AV I find it a breeze. Because of my views on the underlying text the ESV is not an option for me. But if my views were different, I'd definately be there. I love and use the ESV privately.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 6, 2009)

JonathanHunt said:


> The Deeps said:
> 
> 
> > The NKJV seems a little to awkward for my reading.
> ...



Ah ha! Jonathan has a dirty little secret. Guilty pleasure, brother? 
Maybe we can find you a 12 step group for recovering Bible addicts.


----------



## Igor (Mar 19, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> I used the NIV for years but can hardly stand it today -- too many other translations do a "better" job however you conceive the "job" to be.
> * AND, if you want a critical text in the dynamic direction, why use the NIV? The NLT is probably the BEST dynamic equivalent type translation in English of the Critical Text. It is up-to-date, idiomatic, and grounded in LOTS of solid NT scholarship.


Years ago my American brothers I worked with spoke very highly and endorsed the NLT (my first and the only translation has always been the NIV - up to now, I mean). I did try it, but... I am tooooo conservative to adopt anything that looks or even may seem to look like gender-neutral, egalitarian, or "politically correct". And this one is gender-neutral: 


> the NLT carefully avoids the use of "male-oriented" language





> the editors have carefully avoided the subject of womanly submission


(see The New Living Translation - A Critical Review)
So I discarded this option right away. Besided, it is a bit too simplified even for me. 
If I were to choose between the KJV or the NLT I would, without any hesitation, choose the first one.
Just my personal opinion.
BTW, I am thinking of making a switch TO the KJV some day, when I am more proficient in the Early English - I am studying it now.


----------



## forgivenmuch (Mar 19, 2009)

I switched from the NAS (which I don't think anyone else has mentioned) to the ESV, and I love it. I was reluctant at first to leave the NAS, but now am very glad I did. When I was a teenager I used the NLT. All of its deficiencies have already been mentioned so I won't bother. I suppose it has possible value as a "reading Bible," as it definitely sounds good. However, I still have reservations with the whole concept of "reading Bible" v.s. "study Bible."


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Mar 19, 2009)

The Deeps said:


> Who has made a switch from the KJV to another translation?



Me!!



> What was the result?


Understanding and bible reading increased.



> What version did you switch to?


NKJV, a little NIV and then ESV.



> What was your purpose in switching?



I wanted to understand the text quicker.

Today, I can read a KJV if need be, but prefer an NKJV. I'd love to see a revision of the ESV with the Majority Text used instead of the CT. 

Main reason: people don't talk like that anymore. Language has changed and what's now considered the 'vulgar tongue' is not KJV revision 5 or 6 (the 1789 or 1859 versions) language. 

My old lesbian co-worker said that she tried to read the bible but couldn't understand the words. So I gave her an ESV....after 2-3 passages she was like 'wow! i understand this. why didn't they just do this before ?' Keep her in prayer.... the few seeds I was able to plant and water over the years....hope they sprout.



-----Added 3/19/2009 at 09:16:02 EST-----



Igor said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > I used the NIV for years but can hardly stand it today -- too many other translations do a "better" job however you conceive the "job" to be.
> ...



The only thing the NLT got right was its' translation of Romans 9, if I remember right.


----------



## TomVols (Mar 19, 2009)

I grew up KJVO, IFB.

Thank God I'm not where I used to be


----------



## Parsifal23 (Apr 1, 2009)

> -----Added 4/1/2009 at 01:41:13 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## yeutter (Apr 1, 2009)

king James to ASV [1901] and back to KJV. KJV is used liturgically in my Church is the only reason I left the old American Standard Version.


----------



## dbroyles (Apr 1, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> Somehow, I still find the KJV the most powerful and seemingly most accurate based on the original text. When it says it, it seems to "say it best," at least God seems to have used it that way for me. So, I still do Scripture memorization in that translation, and much meditation on Scripture using it. I tend to use it as the basis of comparison with other translations and occasionally with the Greek, for example. It is particularly useful with a concordance.
> 
> However, as good as the KJV is, it is difficult to read or follow along in for personal, family or corporate worship because some of the words are not commonly understood. The NIV, though not quite as good a translation, is very readable and seems to work well for family Bible reading, in Sunday School classes and other devotional settings. To a certain extent, we need to trust that God the Holy Spirit will get through the translation limitations and we can and will understand it according to His purposes for us.
> 
> ...



My sentiments exactly!


----------

