Which version of the Bible should I read?

The Short Answer

Virtually unknown to most Christians, including to English-speaking Christians, are some people that hold that the only true version of the Bible is the English King James version (KJV). These appear to stake their life on this view and will in some cases excommunicate any who purports to use another translation. [1] These cause great and needless anxiety due to baseless assumptions, often associated with arrogance and pride, all of which can drive people away from reading the Word of God.

A note:

We are actually not speaking of versions of the Canon of Scripture for indeed the Holy Spirit inspired only once each author to write the words that comprise the Scripture. That is, there is only one version of the Torah, written by Moses in the most. Moses did not write multiple versions, thus there is only one inspired version – that which the Holy Spirit breathed (2 Timothy 3:16; 1 Peter 1:20, 21). The question is, more accurately, asking which translation should be used. [2]

Three facts:

1. The Bible does not indicate which language the New Testament will be preserved – it was written originally in Koine Greek (or common Greek). The Bible indicates the Old Testament is preserved in Hebrew, in particular the Law. [3]
2. There is no statement in the Bible stating that English will be the means of preserving the word of God – the Bible. Indeed, the question is absurd to the extent that English had not been developed even by the time the Canon of Scripture was complete.
3. There is no extant version of the original text authored by the 40 or so authors of the Scriptures – all versions are copies of copies. It is a fact that older versions tend to be more accurate because the number of errors is multiplied with each translation or copy.[4] There are more modern versions of the Bible that utilise much older versions of manuscripts that were used by the authors of the King James Bible, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, which tend to have fewer errors, and these are recommended.

Thus, the answer to the question is twofold.

1. The King James Version is not the inspired word of God – it is a translation of various copies of the inspired word of God. Better and good translations do exist, which utilise a much broader range of manuscripts than available to the authors of the Kings James version and are therefore more likely to reflect the original inspired word.
2. The version you read is the translation in the language you can best can understand, and if is not 1600 Old English, then try a version that utilises contemporary English. In some cases, this might be a paraphrase, but as you mature in your faith and get to know the Bible better, you should transition to a version that better reflects the original inspired word.

Therefore, we advise Christians not to become side-tracked by (silly) pointless arguments over the Bible translations. Indeed, we encourage any student of the Bible, that understands Hebrew or Koine Greek (the version of Greek the New Testament is written) to use read the Scriptures in the original language, else choose a translation in the language you best understand.

The Full Answer

The debate over bible translation versions is essentially an English speakers’ debate which occurs at two levels. At one level some hold that the King James translation is simply the best – it has been around for 400 years and has a remarkable history, affecting many aspects of our lives, both secular and spiritual. One only needs to read secular literature to see the number of times phrases, quotes and themes are reproduced from this version of the Bible; indeed, our English language is full of quotes from the KJV of the Bible. This arises because, especially for the Old Testament translation, where the King James translators often took the literal rather than interpretative approach giving rise to a number of new English idioms. For example: “to stand in awe” (Psalm 4:4), “to fall flat on his face” (Numbers 22:31) etc. But the KJV was not the first English version to do this – William Tyndale was the first translator of the Bible into English, published in 1525. Later an English version called the Geneva Bible was produced, used in the UK in the late 16^th and 18^th centuries. In 1568 the Bishop’s Bible was authorised to be used in UK churches which was revised twice. It was the 1602 version which became the basis for the KJV, called so because it was King James that authorised the translation, publication and use in the Church of England. The rules for the translation of the King James Version are an interesting read.

In some cases, the KJV is the best English translation; however, English is inferior to both Greek and Hebrew in many ways. There is no way English verbs can replicate the diversity and beauty of Greek verbs – English simply cannot replace the Greek although there are means to work around this, but usually imperfectly. One thing going for the KJV is that it attempts to render the aspect of Greek verbs correctly, within the limitations of English – the modern translators, as do modern English speakers, tend to forgo the subtleties of the verb's aspect and often the tense as well.

At other level, some hold the King James translation as being the "inspired word of God" and no other translation can testify to this. This is a lie simply because Scripture itself does not record this fact, nor does it record how the Canon is to be preserved or the language to be used for preservation.

But of crucial importance, Scripture does record how the original version came to be: God breathed by the Holy Spirit, and this is not the means by which the KJV came to be. Thus, it is logically incorrect to presume the KJV is inspired – the KJV was published first in 1611, nearly a millennium and half after the true inspired writers of the Scriptures had completed their task.

Jesus quotes from the Septuagint, a poor Greek rendering, but he also clearly knows the Old Testament in the Hebrew language. Notwithstanding, the Canon will be preserved forever, within God’s economy, so that Jesus could state: “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). This mimics the Old Testament where many writers voice the same truth; Scripture will be preserved forever – for example, the word of our God will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8).

Jesus words are interesting. He uses terms describing the Hebrew alphabet to state that Scripture is everlasting, since the jot (or better yodh, the 10^th and smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet ) and tittle (the smallest stroke that makes up some Hebrew letters, such the letter ד, the 4^th letter of the Hebrew alphabet) would not disappear until all is fulfilled. Those claiming King James only translation cannot press this verse to now mean the tittle is the dot on the “i” and cross on the “t” – any such thought is ludicrous. [5] The two words jot and tittle pertain to the Hebrew alphabet – it has nothing to do with the Latin alphabet used in English. To me this suggests that it is the original extant version of the Canon which is being preserved, not some translation, or copy for that matter. That is, the original Hebrew including the letter jot, and letters formed with a tittle are being preserved by the Holy Spirit.

The true inspired Word of God comprises the words of 40 authors, penned in the particular language they used. The amazing fact is these 40 authors that penned the words comprising Scripture did so over a period of 1500 years, and these come together as a uniform coherent book. Furthermore, they have survived thousands of years.

Overall, we note Scripture is silent on how the Canon will be preserved – but given it was God-breathed by the Holy Spirit, the third member of the Trinity is not about to allow it to be lost!

In relation to preserving the Canon as a translation we note that any translation causes loss (lossiness) [6] of information, in that translating any language from one to another such as from Greek or Hebrew to English, causes information to be lost. Furthermore, English is not a good language to preserve the inspired word of God – it’s too imperfect. Therefore, logically the King James translation cannot be the “inspired” word of God in which God is preserving the God breathed words of Scripture – it is the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

The authors of the King James translation(s) never held that they were creating the "inspired word of God". The errors in the various versions of the KJ translation testify to the truth of this. It is also interesting to note that many would not be able to read the 1611 version – the spelling has changed considerably since that time! Most unknowingly use a later version such as that from 1769, and most versions do not contain the Apocrypha – which is found in the 1611 version.

Some hold that the particular Greek texts used by the KJV translators were the best (few argue from the Hebrew point of view) but any who have studied the manuscripts soon realise there were many limitations to the manuscripts available in 1600. Indeed, parts of the New Testament were missing in these manuscripts. And further these contained many deficiencies, some of which have been overcome. This author does know that there are corrupted manuscripts, but modern translators are very mindful of these.

Many older manuscripts have been discovered since the 1600, and therefore, I note that modern translations, with some exceptions, do a good job of translating the highly dense Hebrew (i.e. a few words in Hebrew means a lot in English) and the highly specific Greek into the verb poor English.

What this author cannot understand is why the King James Version became so controversial. It was by no means the first English translation and is not the last. The Geneva Version (1560 – revised 1599) is probably more in line with fundamentalist evangelicals than the KJV and publicly was more acceptable to fundamentalists at the time. The KJV in some ways was a political compromise so King James could maintain control over the bishops, parliament and church, and its publishers could entertain a very profitable business (yes money was a major driver for producing the KJV of the Bible). The motivation for producing the KJV also is not praiseworthy – being forced to use the Bishop’s Bible as the template rather than the more accurate Geneva Bible indicates that political interference plus the underlying lust for power (Bishops versus the king).

We also must note that the KJV uses archaic and incomprehensible words and phrases along with out-of-date grammar even for readers of 1600. For instance, the word ‘his’ in modern English is a singular possessive masculine, whereas in the KJV it can be a neuter possessive pronoun. That is, ‘his’ is used to mean ‘belonging to it’ which is fairly incomprehensible today.

Some hold the KJV as superior because it uses ‘thou’, ‘thee’, and ‘thy’ when in reality these are merely the singular of the pronouns ‘ye’, ’you’ or ‘your’, respectively. Satan and people of any faith are addressed using all these forms, negating the notion that these denote superiority or deity. Furthermore, there is blurring of when these pronouns are actually used and their exact purpose. For example, for a time ‘thou’ was used to put down an inferior rather than highlighting a superior God.

Conclusion

And as the last word, even Jesus did not always use the prescribed text, viz-a-viz a Hebrew Text; he often used the Septuagint, which is (by today’s standards) a poor Greek translation of the Old Testament. He did so, because the language of the common people was Koine Greek, thus to enable them to understand the Word of God, he used the language they understood. And that is our advice to you – use the translation that your congregation best understands.[7]

Notwithstanding, there is some majesty in the KJV and it has been around a long time (more than 400 years in 2025) – longer than any other main–stream English translation. Many have come to the saving knowledge of Christ from this translation, and therefore it should be given its due recognition. It is however not a translation for all languages nor all peoples.