Why are Tiny Sectarian Internet Cults Usually KJO?

[Jeltja]

What I do know is some KJV Bibles had special commentary and they only came in KJV editions the time, and that sort of skewed some scripture cos ppl relied on the commentary more than the actual scripture. there was one Bible called the Scofield Bible and cos Scofield was reading KJV it did not apply to other versions methinks

Yes, as a postmil Preterist I consider Scofield a disaster zone, 😅

I disagree with the scare mongering about the NASB being especially corrupt, but I so little regard the basis and premises of such claims that I'm not interested in debating it.You're going to have to find someone who takes those claims seriously, because I think they're bogus. Argue with James White, have fun.

 

[Moses_Young]

I am not criticizing the KJO position here. I do think it's an error but I don't have any special problem with the KJV. If you only want to use the 5e of the KJV that's perfectly fine with me, though I prefer by '95 NASB.

What I am curious about is why do many of the weird internet cults I see are KJO. These people are mostly American, have a random mix of beliefs which usually deny several elements of classical Christian views (non-Trinitarian, call Baptists non-Christian, and any number of esoteric exegesis no one had ever heard of before).

Because the most convincing lies are those that are almost completely true. Cults like the JWs and Mormons don't have much hope, as they had to create their own bibles to support their cults.

 

[KarynLouise]

I think the more concerning thing than what version anyone uses is when people pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, like it's some sort of buffet. I had a friend I grew up with in Christian school that went on to get her M.Div and all that was that sort because she said that the Bible was man made so there had to be errors. I feel like if you don't take it all, then what authority have you got to decide which parts are valuable or not? It's like the Choose Your Own Adventure of religion. If you don't believe it all, then you have no consistency, in my book, and i can't agree with that.
As for versions, i presently prefer/start with the English Standard, but I like to look at the same verses in different versions and hear about the original language and context to get a fuller picture. I don't feel like the differences I've seen between versions have really changed the meaning or feeling that was intended from the original language so i don't feel like one's preference in version should be a cause for attack.
Maybe the people who are off the rails like the KJV because the language makes them feel like they sound more proper and respectable. Just an idea i had about it.

 

[Lynx]

I think the more concerning thing than what version anyone uses is when people pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, like it's some sort of buffet. I had a friend I grew up with in Christian school that went on to get her M.Div and all that was that sort because she said that the Bible was man made so there had to be errors. I feel like if you don't take it all, then what authority have you got to decide which parts are valuable or not? It's like the Choose Your Own Adventure of religion. If you don't believe it all, then you have no consistency, in my book, and i can't agree with that.
As for versions, i presently prefer/start with the English Standard, but I like to look at the same verses in different versions and hear about the original language and context to get a fuller picture. I don't feel like the differences I've seen between versions have really changed the meaning or feeling that was intended from the original language so i don't feel like one's preference in version should be a cause for attack.
Maybe the people who are off the rails like the KJV because the language makes them feel like they sound more proper and respectable. Just an idea i had about it.

Have you tried e-sword? Or bishop or Bible time or anything from The gnome sword project... Basically they are all Bible apps.

One of the neatest tricks they have is, you can install different Bible versions, click on one verse and see that verse in all the Bible versions you have loaded. Very handy.

 

[JaumeJ]

Have you tried e-sword? Or bishop or Bible time or anything from The gnome sword project... Basically they are all Bible apps.

One of the neatest tricks they have is, you can install different Bible versions, click on one verse and see that verse in all the Bible versions you have loaded. Very handy.

I use the compare option lots.

 

[KarynLouise]

Have you tried e-sword? Or bishop or Bible time or anything from The gnome sword project... Basically they are all Bible apps.

One of the neatest tricks they have is, you can install different Bible versions, click on one verse and see that verse in all the Bible versions you have loaded. Very handy.

I mostly use YouVersion or Bible Gateway. Mostly YouVersion, though, since the Bible Gateway app started playing pop up ads when I opened it.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I am not criticizing the KJO position here. I do think it's an error but I don't have any special problem with the KJV. If you only want to use the 5e of the KJV that's perfectly fine with me, though I prefer by '95 NASB.

What I am curious about is why do many of the weird internet cults I see are KJO. These people are mostly American, have a random mix of beliefs which usually deny several elements of classical Christian views (non-Trinitarian, call Baptists non-Christian, and any number of esoteric exegesis no one had ever heard of before).

I am not even talking about major sects many Christians would put beyond the pale, like the LDS or Watchtower Society. No, these are either individuals or a tiny group who are affiliated with no church, who indeed feel no need to attend churches because they're all "false churches" according to the author of these poorly designed websites. These people are everywhere online, probably because they have too much free time and like trolling normal people on the internet.

Every time one of these people starts bothering me and telling me to reject Calvinism and embrace a bunch of doctrines never heard of by anyone before today they're always a KJVO person. I am not blaming the KJV for this, it teaches Orthodox Christianity. But some factor seems to attract one man pseudo Christian cult false prophets to the KJV.

This doesn't surprise me. Many KJV onlyists are uneducated and don't really understand the history of the KJV. For example, I find it curious that a large number of KJV onlyists seem to be anti-Catholic and anti-ceremonial. By that I mean they reject rigid formalism and top-down authoritarianism in favor of a more egalitarian and spontaneous form of worship.

But the vast majority of the KJV creators were Anglican ceremonialist who favored church regulated doctrine as opposed to individual freedom in matters of Biblical interpretation. A few were Puritans but they were mostly moderates and didn't put up much resistance. King James forbade the use of explanatory notes in the margins. He hated the Geneva Bible because it had such notes, which he felt undermined his authority and that of the Bishops.

Many KJV onlyists I've run across are fiercely opposed to such church-regulated doctrinal creeds so I fail to see how they can support a Bible version that was created by those who believed in this very thing.

 

[JStates]

Because the most convincing lies are those that are almost completely true. Cults like the JWs and Mormons don't have much hope, as they had to create their own bibles to support their cults.

Yes, there's also the condemnation by association. "Oh, such and such a group of wackos use the KJV... it must be rubbish."

 

[Mii]

I've gone off on tangents that are entirely off the wall with NASB and the KJV put it straight.

Conversely with difficult to understand passages of the KJV I seek out other versions and then sometimes look at the Greek to be more certain. You can get off track with KJV also though and it seems to manifest differently... and while I'm interested in fleshing that out, I'm missing something and only have vague notions of why that is the case. It's just idle curiosity for me lacking a burden.

It's still English and there are still things that get lost in translation...even if you read ancient Greek and Hebrew perfectly...language is imperfect right?

Seems like God is able to smooth out these gaps and that they are going to exist on some level due to our imperfection and we need to seek him on that.

Anyway, it could be that they lack this mentality?

 

[Amanuensis]

I've gone off on tangents that are entirely off the wall with NASB and the KJV put it straight.

Conversely with difficult to understand passages of the KJV I seek out other versions and then sometimes look at the Greek to be more certain. You can get off track with KJV also though and it seems to manifest differently... and while I'm interested in fleshing that out, I'm missing something and only have vague notions of why that is the case. It's just idle curiosity for me lacking a burden.

It's still English and there are still things that get lost in translation...even if you read ancient Greek and Hebrew perfectly...language is imperfect right?

Seems like God is able to smooth out these gaps and that they are going to exist on some level due to our imperfection and we need to seek him on that.

Anyway, it could be that they lack this mentality?

Check out this book. It helped me learn the basics about English translations.

I like the NIV more than I used to. I have had to give up wrong ideas I held on to about the KJV vs the NIV. I am growing fond of the CSB also.

We really can't decide these things based on which English translation that "we like" and call that the Spirit leading us. For the New Testament as an example, It is sill very important to make our decision on which translation is best based on which one does the best job of communicating in English what the author said in Greek and how his Greek readers would have understood him. That decision is made based on the verse in question and cannot be a blanket statement about the entire bible or book. Therefore when I study various passages and find a difference between the NIV, ESV, KJV, CSB etc, I have to dive into the reasons given by the different translation committees and decide which one I think presented the best case for the reason behind the translation they gave.

It is just not truth to tell people that such and such English translation is the best one, because it always depends on the passage in question. Thus is the nature of Translation from one language to the other and that fact is not going to change no matter how many new English translations are attempted. We have quite enough by now. I think all of the best scholars are promoting the NIV and endeavoring to keep it current with any new changes that are agreed should be tweaked. Tweaking because there are challenges still with ancient words that are ambiguous and new discoveries from ancient literature could always shed light on how those words were used at that time. And "tweaked" because there are continual discussions on some passages that scholars disagree on and it is decided that initial renderings were not accurate and need to be changed slightly. When this happens they do get accused of yielding to some kind of cultural shift but that is not what is going on, it is simply an openness to concede that mistakes were made in certain instances that have since been proven to be mistakes and need a revision in translation.

This book helped me and is a great source for the layman. It answers the question and helps you to answer the question for others "what is the best translation?"


"How to Choose a Translation for All It's Worth"
https://www.amazon.com/How-Choose-T.../ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

 

[ResidentAlien]

The KJV English was already outdated by about a hundred years in 1611. The KJV revisers were mostly old guys who were used to that kind of language, but it wasn't in common use by 1611.

 

[JStates]

The KJV English was already outdated by about a hundred years in 1611. The KJV revisers were mostly old guys who were used to that kind of language, but it wasn't in common use by 1611.

We don't technically use the 1611 today. There have been at least two major editions (NOT revisions) of the 1611 to standardize spelling, grammar, and modernize the font, which was changed from a Latin font to a Roman one. Here is what the 1611 looks like:

2Ki 11:4 And the seuenth yeere Iehoiada sent and fet the rulers ouer hundreds, with the captains, and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the Lord, and made a couenant with them, and tooke an othe of them in the house of the Lord, and shewed them the Kings sonne.

^ And actually now that I look at it, that seems to be the 1611 spelling set in a Romanized font set so it's still more readable than the 1611.

The 1611 however was Early Modern English (or Elizabethan English, which is the same thing if I recall correctly) which is the same English that Shakespeare used. It's actually easier to understand than Shakespeare because he wrote in a very "low" English which was full of slang, idioms, figures of speech, and innuendo. The KJV was a "high" or more scholarly form of Early Modern English.

Admittedly the KJV is not the easiest to understand. It has its foibles as well, for example, the word "cockatrice" was already archaic at the time of the KJV, but the KJV translators didn't have an equivalent for the Hebrew word so they used "cockatrice" in the English. Stuff like this can throw some confusion into the mix, because the cockatrice is a mythical creature so the modern reader is just left with a great big, "Huh?!"

I really wanted to like the NIV, I honestly did. My brother went to a Christian school where they used it exclusively, and for a while I wanted an easier to understand version than the KJV. I did a lot of research on the NIV and where it came from... and found it to be corrupt and dubious. Here are some facts about the NIV.

- Dr. Virginia Mollencott, a lesbian, is one of its editors, which is probably a good part of why the NIV is so soft on homosexuality.
- The company that publishes the NIV and the publisher that puts out LaVey's Satanic Bible are owned by the same man.
- The NIV has had nearly a dozen editions which do not agree with each other, and they do a poor job of denoting the edition, leading to confusion.
- The NIV publishers have shown their allegiance to mammon in how they market the version. It is copyrighted, which they take very seriously, and there are editions like the "May The Faith Be With You" version (Star Wars spinoff) or the Amazing Creatures and Creations version (something like that, Harry Potter spinoff). These are blatant money grab attempts that show the publishers are serving mammon and not God.

Keith Piper's book, "Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible" was extremely eye opening for me. I won't use the Luciferian NIV.
https://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

 

[Amanuensis]

I don't think it is very effective to read KJV to people today.

It's as if you don't love people enough to want to communicate in modern English.

You come across as being fake and trying to sound religious. And you can't use the excuse that it is how the word is written because it was not written that way at all.

Therefore if you think it sounds more "authentic" then you are just ignorant and that means you don't love the people enough to educate yourself as to the facts about the best way to read the scripture to them in their language and in the current style of their language.

Reading the KJV does not accomplish this goal

And of course if it results in people not understanding and so you re-phrase it for them, why not just start with the rephrased version in the first place. If you have to read KJV and then say it again slightly differently without the archaic English words, why not choose a translation that already does that?

It is all about love. What is your motivation for speaking to the people.

 

[Amanuensis]

We don't technically use the 1611 today. There have been at least two major editions (NOT revisions) of the 1611 to standardize spelling, grammar, and modernize the font, which was changed from a Latin font to a Roman one. Here is what the 1611 looks like:

2Ki 11:4 And the seuenth yeere Iehoiada sent and fet the rulers ouer hundreds, with the captains, and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the Lord, and made a couenant with them, and tooke an othe of them in the house of the Lord, and shewed them the Kings sonne.

^ And actually now that I look at it, that seems to be the 1611 spelling set in a Romanized font set so it's still more readable than the 1611.

The 1611 however was Early Modern English (or Elizabethan English, which is the same thing if I recall correctly) which is the same English that Shakespeare used. It's actually easier to understand than Shakespeare because he wrote in a very "low" English which was full of slang, idioms, figures of speech, and innuendo. The KJV was a "high" or more scholarly form of Early Modern English.

Admittedly the KJV is not the easiest to understand. It has its foibles as well, for example, the word "cockatrice" was already archaic at the time of the KJV, but the KJV translators didn't have an equivalent for the Hebrew word so they used "cockatrice" in the English. Stuff like this can throw some confusion into the mix, because the cockatrice is a mythical creature so the modern reader is just left with a great big, "Huh?!"

I really wanted to like the NIV, I honestly did. My brother went to a Christian school where they used it exclusively, and for a while I wanted an easier to understand version than the KJV. I did a lot of research on the NIV and where it came from... and found it to be corrupt and dubious. Here are some facts about the NIV.

- Dr. Virginia Mollencott, a lesbian, is one of its editors, which is probably a good part of why the NIV is so soft on homosexuality.
- The company that publishes the NIV and the publisher that puts out LaVey's Satanic Bible are owned by the same man.
- The NIV has had nearly a dozen editions which do not agree with each other, and they do a poor job of denoting the edition, leading to confusion.
- The NIV publishers have shown their allegiance to mammon in how they market the version. It is copyrighted, which they take very seriously, and there are editions like the "May The Faith Be With You" version (Star Wars spinoff) or the Amazing Creatures and Creations version (something like that, Harry Potter spinoff). These are blatant money grab attempts that show the publishers are serving mammon and not God.

Keith Piper's book, "Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible" was extremely eye opening for me. I won't use the Luciferian NIV.
https://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

You can Google "History of the NIV, or Current NIV editors, contributors, etc." I think you will easily find plenty of credible resources to learn about instead of what you posted.

Keep learning. There is still much you don't understand about the NIV and how it works. It does not change based on personal views of the contributors, it only changes based on the science of translation from original language to English and the complexity behind what is the "best" English equivalent to the original language. This is not as simple as you may think, but you can read examples about what is involved or was involved in one of the edits you have noticed. One contributor or editor does not have the power to make a change like you are accusing them of.

And she was a stylistic consultant in the 70s but many many have been involved and continue to be involved in perfecting the translation as new information comes to light and mistakes that were made or better renderings are proven.

 

[Lynx]

We don't technically use the 1611 today. There have been at least two major editions (NOT revisions) of the 1611 to standardize spelling, grammar, and modernize the font, which was changed from a Latin font to a Roman one. Here is what the 1611 looks like:

2Ki 11:4 And the seuenth yeere Iehoiada sent and fet the rulers ouer hundreds, with the captains, and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the Lord, and made a couenant with them, and tooke an othe of them in the house of the Lord, and shewed them the Kings sonne.

^ And actually now that I look at it, that seems to be the 1611 spelling set in a Romanized font set so it's still more readable than the 1611.

The 1611 however was Early Modern English (or Elizabethan English, which is the same thing if I recall correctly) which is the same English that Shakespeare used. It's actually easier to understand than Shakespeare because he wrote in a very "low" English which was full of slang, idioms, figures of speech, and innuendo. The KJV was a "high" or more scholarly form of Early Modern English.

Admittedly the KJV is not the easiest to understand. It has its foibles as well, for example, the word "cockatrice" was already archaic at the time of the KJV, but the KJV translators didn't have an equivalent for the Hebrew word so they used "cockatrice" in the English. Stuff like this can throw some confusion into the mix, because the cockatrice is a mythical creature so the modern reader is just left with a great big, "Huh?!"

I really wanted to like the NIV, I honestly did. My brother went to a Christian school where they used it exclusively, and for a while I wanted an easier to understand version than the KJV. I did a lot of research on the NIV and where it came from... and found it to be corrupt and dubious. Here are some facts about the NIV.

- Dr. Virginia Mollencott, a lesbian, is one of its editors, which is probably a good part of why the NIV is so soft on homosexuality.
- The company that publishes the NIV and the publisher that puts out LaVey's Satanic Bible are owned by the same man.
- The NIV has had nearly a dozen editions which do not agree with each other, and they do a poor job of denoting the edition, leading to confusion.
- The NIV publishers have shown their allegiance to mammon in how they market the version. It is copyrighted, which they take very seriously, and there are editions like the "May The Faith Be With You" version (Star Wars spinoff) or the Amazing Creatures and Creations version (something like that, Harry Potter spinoff). These are blatant money grab attempts that show the publishers are serving mammon and not God.

Keith Piper's book, "Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible" was extremely eye opening for me. I won't use the Luciferian NIV.
https://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

My best friend has a 1611 Bible. Itf veery hard too reade.

 

[JStates]

My best friend has a 1611 Bible. Itf veery hard too reade.

I'd love to hear your pronunciation of it, haha!

 

[Mii]

My best friend has a 1611 Bible. Itf veery hard too reade.

Much needed laugh lol. Almost need a warning for that one

 

[Mii]

Check out this book. It helped me learn the basics about English translations.

I like the NIV more than I used to. I have had to give up wrong ideas I held on to about the KJV vs the NIV. I am growing fond of the CSB also.

We really can't decide these things based on which English translation that "we like" and call that the Spirit leading us. For the New Testament as an example, It is sill very important to make our decision on which translation is best based on which one does the best job of communicating in English what the author said in Greek and how his Greek readers would have understood him. That decision is made based on the verse in question and cannot be a blanket statement about the entire bible or book. Therefore when I study various passages and find a difference between the NIV, ESV, KJV, CSB etc, I have to dive into the reasons given by the different translation committees and decide which one I think presented the best case for the reason behind the translation they gave.

It is just not truth to tell people that such and such English translation is the best one, because it always depends on the passage in question. Thus is the nature of Translation from one language to the other and that fact is not going to change no matter how many new English translations are attempted. We have quite enough by now. I think all of the best scholars are promoting the NIV and endeavoring to keep it current with any new changes that are agreed should be tweaked. Tweaking because there are challenges still with ancient words that are ambiguous and new discoveries from ancient literature could always shed light on how those words were used at that time. And "tweaked" because there are continual discussions on some passages that scholars disagree on and it is decided that initial renderings were not accurate and need to be changed slightly. When this happens they do get accused of yielding to some kind of cultural shift but that is not what is going on, it is simply an openness to concede that mistakes were made in certain instances that have since been proven to be mistakes and need a revision in translation.

This book helped me and is a great source for the layman. It answers the question and helps you to answer the question for others "what is the best translation?"


"How to Choose a Translation for All It's Worth"
https://www.amazon.com/How-Choose-T.../ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Hmm, it's been ages since I've bought a book online (most of what I get are thrift store finds or library resources) but I'll keep it in mind.

NKJV seems to be a reasonable answer to anyone having issues with "KJVese"



I'll do a more proper reply when I've thought about it a bit more...

 

[JStates]

Hmm, it's been ages since I've bought a book online (most of what I get are thrift store finds or library resources) but I'll keep it in mind.

NKJV seems to be a reasonable answer to anyone having issues with "KJVese"



I'll do a more proper reply when I've thought about it a bit more...

The Bible versions issue comes down to a question of manuscripts (MSS).

Historically, the approach was to collect all the manuscripts you could find, and they should mostly agree with each other. Then you throw out the ones that disagree with majority of manuscripts. Most MSS DO actually agree, we call this the Majority Text. About 95%-98% of all Bible MSS fall into this family.

The Minority Texts were historically rejected for a number of reasons:

- They mostly originated in Alexandria, Egypt, a city known for certain heresies and forged MSS/epistles in the early years of the church.
- Many of the MSS are in poor condition or obviously corrupt (erasures, corrections, deletions, etc.)
- They disagree with the Majority Text family.

Now, admittedly, the Minority Text contains some of the OLDEST MSS and some people (in the modern era) say that this is the most important thing, because the oldest texts are closer to the originals (which we don't have) and are therefore most likely to be correct. All well and good, but it's an unwarranted assumption.

Virtually all modern Bible versions use the methodology first used by two heretical Anglican priests, Westcott and Hort. These dudes wanted to reinvent Christianity, and made their own Bible MSS which would become the basis of the Revised Version. They considered ALL texts, including the Minority Text historically considered corrupt, and where the texts differed, they simply chose whichever version they though was the intended one.

The core of the Minority Text are the Great Uncial Codices. Uncial = written in all capital letters, Codex = book form, not scroll form. The four Great Uncial Codices are: Codex Bezae, Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus. Bezae and Alexandrinus are so problematic they rarely get used in Bible translation. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the Minority Texts used in most modern Bible versions.

If you want to see how reliable they are, go look up "Codex Sinaiticus" and "Codex Vaticanus" on wikipedia. Both have missing sections, were written in numerous hands, deletions, corrections, commentary written in, etc. Sinaiticus was found by a con man in a trash heap at a monastery at the fake site of Mount Sinai. Vaticanus is kept by the Catholic Church and they rarely let anyone see it.

 

[Jeltja]

KarynLouise

...the more concerning thing than what version anyone uses is when people pick and choose what they want to believe from the Bible, like it's some sort of buffet.

Yes, I understand what you mean. In my experience most people who are 'religious' in the social sense tend to be conformist more than anything. They are naturally prone to joining churches but I get the feeling they'd as easily fit into a Buddhist mold if they'd been brought up in one. The people who tend to be Fundamentalist (and I mean hold to radical strictness in matters of faith) aren't people who are naturally 'religious' but people who actually came to the faith consciously and often as a reaction against the world, rather than simply because their parents were members of a church.

ResidentAlien

This doesn't surprise me. Many KJV onlyists are uneducated and don't really understand the history of the KJV. For example, I find it curious that a large number of KJV onlyists seem to be anti-Catholic and anti-ceremonial. By that I mean they reject rigid formalism and top-down n authoritarianism in favor of a more egalitarian and spontaneous form of worship.

American "low church" Evangelicals are notoriously anti-intellectual, this derives from a conflict with the mainline churches and seminaries which split off many of the educated into liberal modernist sects while those left in the fundamentalist and Evangelical free churches were mostly people without a lot of education and who resented the betrayel of pointy headed academics in their former denomimations. Exceptions seem to be mostly in certain small but at least intellectually engaged groups such as Gresham Machen's PCA/OPC/Westminster.

But the vast majority of the KJV creators were Anglican ceremonialist who favored church regulated doctrine as opposed to individual freedom in matters of Biblical interpretation. A few were Puritans but they were mostly moderates and didn't put up much resistance. King James forbade the use of explanatory notes in the margins. He hated the Geneva Bible because it had such notes, which he felt undermined his authority and that of the Bishops.

Yes, as a Particular Baptist I have plenty of problems with the Caesaro-Papist 'Reformed' Church of England. As I expressed earlier I believe it's mostly an Anglo cultural attachment, as most American Christians don't really know much about English or church history. I think I prefer my Geneva to the KJV, but that's just because I'm a Calvinist.

Amanuensis

I don't think it is very effective to read KJV to people today.

It's as if you don't love people enough to want to communicate in modern English.

I think that's a bit hyperbolic. There is an argument for teaching and reading the KJV, both because it is a reasonably accurate (not perfect) translation which does convey the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's also a part of the history of the English language and culture and should be preserved. Modern people need to stop being so illiterate and ignorant of cultural history, especially Americans. That being said since most people don't understand the grammar and vocabulary employed in parts of the KJV it is worthwhile to keep in mind your audience and choose an accurate translation that they can parse. I like the NASB, but many people find it awkward. My personal favorite New Testament for reading is Richmond Lattimore, but it has no intratextual chapter/verse markers. The NKJV seems alright.