If it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it’s good enough for me!
In all seriousness, prob should’ve said best translation imo but we’re just splitting hairs here if you want to debate MT vs CT etc. I don’t feel the need to go there. The ESV is solid and I use it but imo reads like stereo instructions being word for word. The KJV accuracy, scholarship, reliability, historical relevancy, and the literary work itself imo is best suited for reading, memorization, and worship. I’m far from an only KJV guy but it’s my preference.
Attended a church once where the pastor was preaching from the ESV and switched to the Message “Bible” for a few verses within the same passage and then back again to avoid doctrinal hard truths let’s say. It was purposeful, dishonest, and cowardly. Issue I have with most modern translations is they aren’t translated from the MT or CT but instead are just translations of translations of translations where much gets lost and much can be avoided that isn’t sugary sweet to the reader avoiding what we find in those early manuscripts.
I'm not religious, but find it weird the following around kjv. Man would have written any version meaning its all flawed, thus believing that God has somehow preserved His word in an exacting manner that is 100% infallible in one particular version or another would be wrong. They ppl choose a version, claim that the version they have chosen is God’s only infallible word, and condemn all others as being of the devil. This leads to a cult-like mentality and very poor theology imo. Which i think you admitted yourself...youre under the impression the scripture must be ruthless or something as opposed to anything being "sugary sweet"...says who?
Let's just look at Genesis 1:1 for a right off the bat example.
"A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass."
I'm sorry, how does one dig brass in hills it doesn't exist?
There's just a complete lack of care in the translation , not to mention how complex translation is, you're talking about translating words that dont perfectly match and may have a completely different meaning based on the area or context they are used. It's as simple as me saying "wow that's really cool" and translating it to another language thinking im saying "im surprised the temperature is low"
Here's another:
Deuteronomy 33:17
Lol it literally says unicorns, which of course don't exist. But even if the old English word speaks of a rhino or something else with one horn, the Hebrew word is singular – “unicorn.” And so, no matter what, the translation is wrong because a unicorn has only one horn.
These are of course innocent translation errors, but its caused tons of contradictions and improper story application throughout. I'm pretty sure anyone in scholarship says you SHOULD pull from various translations and not a single source. Not to mention the kjv of today isn't even the 1611 version.
Anyway, I know how this goes...not an attack on your faith. Carry on.