Prove to me that the King James Version is not God's perfect word,since it was first and has been used more?

Question

I want actual proof, not opinion

For the English speaking people

You people kill me....First complete Bible For the English Speaking people English then not now since we speak a slang of it

Answer 1

I agree with you on this one. The Bible is God's perfect Word and it is 100% true. I use a version based on KJV called NIV and it lines up perfectly with the original scriptures.

BTW Jesus fullfilled all of the prophecies in the Old Testiment. He is the Christ. Remember, the Old Testiment points toward a Christ and that is Jesus.

Answer 2

To add to the last guy, as a historian I can tell you that there have been four seperate translations since the first written manuscripts were collected. Therefore the KJV was NOT the first.

It has been used more because the King wanted it used more and he has an immense wealth and believed he had GOD GIVEN authority. It was easily translated from that time onward and the printing press spread it even farther. Considering back in that time almost everyone was in either the Anglican or the Catholic Churches you can imagine how easily this book spread and why it is so well known over any other versions. But, no, by no means was it the first. it is simply the most popular. Maybe you should look up King James of Scotland/England and also look up the bible's history. It could help you out a lot.

As to the other translations using more modern english, most a pretty well on the money or close to it. After all, those who study Aramaic, Greek, and Latin will tell you that although the undertaking for the KJV was massive, it was not without its own mistranslations.

Answer 3

Firstly, no matter what I write here, you will believe what you want to believe. Your want of proof totally defeats anyone here because this is just a text box and we cannot put actual documentation in here, thus a badly formed question.

Additionally, in the interest of making this short, I am not being too technical.

The first manuscripts written were written in Greek. Those laid the foundation for what we know as the bible. There were a few other stories about Jesus and Constantine apparently wanted to sort out the good from the bad. The decisions were rationally based on different criteria, but at the same time, were subject to human intervention and interpretation as to which ones were the truth.

Later in history, the bible began to be translated into many different languages. Any time you translate anything from one language to another, there will be meanings and subtleties that must be altered (however slightly) to accomplish this task.

So let’s get onto the translation of the bible into English. There were English translations before the King James version in fact the King James Version of the Bible that is used in most of today’s society is a modern version of the old KJV. Once again, another translation.

If the original Bible is the true word of God, then the KJV would actually be a modern translation of an Old English version commissioned by King James that was translated from the Textus Receptus. The Textus Receptus was a collection of Greek texts compiled to by a Dutch scholor, who attempted to collect what he thought was the most authentic of the various editions of the Greek texts floating about at that time.

While the KJV may do a good job of communicating Gods words, I think we can see that it is NOT Gods perfect words.

Besides, it was NOT the first used and just because something is used most often does not make it correct.

Answer 4

The King James Version was not "first" as it was done up in 1611, more than 1500 years after Christianity started. Even the preface to the King James Version acknowledges that there were other English translations that had been done in the 1000 years preceding it, so by its own admission, it wasn't even the first English Bible.

Moreover, since the original NT manuscripts were written in Greek (or Aramaic, for Matthew and Hebrews, but quickly translated to Greek), an English Bible could not be considered first. Since those Greek manuscripts were translated into Latin, Syrian, Coptic, and a host of other languages early on for the edification of believers who could not read or understand the original Greek, and since this has been the practice of Christianity all throughout the ages, to translate the Bible into the language of the people, reading the King James Bible as the only true version doesn't make sense, since it is an outdated form of English that we don't speak today. The heart of the translation issue is to bring the Word of God into the language of every day people.

By the way, if you're thinking, "That can't be right. The Catholics only allowed the Bible in Latin until the KJV was published", this is a myth. The Latin Vulgate was the official translation, meaning only that it was the version used in Mass, but that does not mean that there weren't other translations available, in numerous languages, from very early on.

Oh, and James C., the NIV isn't based on the KJV, but on the Nestle and Aland translations, as well as on the original manuscripts.

I would suggest reading "Where Did the Bible Come From? Our Debt to the Catholic Church" for a full history of the development of Scripture, the establishment of the Canon, and other historical things related to where we get the Bible. You can read it online at the link below:

Answer 5

Prove to me that the KJV is the first English version.

I'll give you a little help:

The King James Bible -- 1611
The Douay Bible -- 1610
The Bishop's Bible -- 1568
The Geneva Bible -- 1560
The Great Bible -- 1539
The Matthew's Bible -- 1537
The Coverdale Bible -- 1535
The Tyndale Bible -- 1525
The Wycliffe Bible -- 1380

Oops, it appears that the King James Bible was not the first English Bible by about 230 years. Sorry about that.

Also, the King James Bible was primarily a revision of the Bishop's Bible, but it did use available Greek and Hebrew texts, as well as other English Bibles to get the best English translation (for 1611) Check out Origin and Growth of the English Bible, topic #4220, in the Thompson Chain Reference Bible for more information. You might also want to check out the rules for translation given to the translators by King James -- http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

One other point. The King James Version that we have today, is not the same one that was published in 1611. Even the King James Bible has had revisions: 1615, 1629, 1638, and 1762 (http://www.bible-history.com/kjv/)

So, if the King James Bible is perfect, why four revisions? And if being first means being perfect, than wouldn't that make the Wycliffe Bible the perfect English version? And if English is God's perfect language, the why did Jesus speak Aramaic and Hebrew? Why did Paul write in Greek? Why wasn't Jesus born in London?

Could it be that the King James Version is not God's perfect Word?

Answer 6

Not only have the words written in the King James Bible changed meanings through the years, but King James left out some of the books of the Bible for whatever personal reason. Do some research on ancient texts and see if you don't find something there. Try doing a search for "The Lost Books of the Bible." Learn Biblical Greek and find out the true meanings of the words.

The only reason I can see that King James left out the other books is that he may have felt it was needless repetition since they pretty much say the same thing that is already in the Bible, at least from what I can tell so far.

As an example... The word gay used to mean happy. Now it is used to refer to someone with homosexual tendancies. The meaning of words changes with each generation.

Answer 7

The King James Version of the Bible, first published in 1611.

Technically speaking, the Incunabula are the editions of the Bible issued before the year 1500.

Obviously you're very misinformed. The King James Version of the Bible was not the first Version. Several Version existed with the Greeks and Jews before that.

Churchs that use the King James Version (Protestant Churches: Non-Denom Christian, Baptist, etc) broke off from the Catholic Church and removed 7 Chapters from the Version of the Bible the Catholic Church used. The Catholic Church came before the Protestant Churches just like the Catholic Version came before the King James Version. So its not the first, check out the links and if you'd like, I can find you some books to check out at your library.

Answer 8

I'm confused, or someone is.

The King James Version "was first"? Um, no. This "Authorized Version of 1611" clearly could not have been a translation of a different text had that text not preceded it. So the KJV by definition could not be first.

So, to be clear, the Bible in the original tongues (Hebrew, Chaldean, Aramaic, & Greek) certainly was first, not a translation. In fact, the difference between the composition of the Septuagint and the KJV is about 1800 years (the earliest complete Bibles date to 200 BCE; some fragments are older).

Besides which, you are asking someone to disprove a claim that is not itself based on proof, but rather on articles of belief (the perfection of the KJV, the identity of the Bible as the Word of God, etc.--these are themselves beliefs, not proven facts). This is probably a fruitless undertaking. Beliefs are neither proven nor disproven by facts, but sustained by faith, by choice, and by position within a given community.

This is not opinion.

Answer 9

The KJV is not the first English translation. Here is a list of early English translations of the Bible:

Tyndale's English New Testament 1525 AD
Coverdale Bible (first complete English Bible) 1535 AD
Matthews Bible 1537
Great Bible (the first Authorized version) 1539
Geneva Bible 1560
Bishop's Bible 1568, intended to replace the Geneva Bible which had become too popular according to Church authorities.
Douay-Rheims 1582, first Catholic version of the New Testament
King James Version with apocrypha 1611

A few of Wyclif's phrases are here [in the KJV], but Tyndale is largely responsible for the Bishops' Bible which was used as its foundation. [Through the Great Bible] Coverdale put his delicate touch on [the KJV, and] the sturdy tone of the Geneva Text and the sonorous Latinisms of the Rhemish New Testament modified certain sentences.

The translators themselves testify that they carefully compared their work with the work of the text available to them and the work of former translators. They did not supernaturally begin to write, but they studied all available information and put together the best possible translation by using well respected scholars and previous work of others. Once they finished the translation, they did not rush it to press, but read the text and argued among themselves for months over the correct wording and hashed out their educated assumptions as to the meaning of each line of text.

Even after agreeing on a translation, they did not claim infallibility or divine accomplishment. There were seventeen thousand cross references and marginal notes, which dealt solely with linguistic and textual matters such as alternative renderings or variant readings from other manuscript sources. As we will discuss a bit later, there are multiple words that can be rendered from most Greek or Hebrew words. Based on the context of the passage, historical settings and other variables a translator assumes the meaning that was intended.

My opinion: Seems to me that something thats been rewritten so many times by so many people (each putting their own little spin on things, which haoppens wether they want to admit it or not), couldn't pssibly be the word of god anymore, but rather the word of man. Even the original greek hebrew and aremaic text were written by men... I don't understand how people can just over look that....

Answer 10

Okay I can't prove it to you but...

Answer: Many have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc.



The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500's. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based the Textus Receptus, just at the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - http://www.kj21.com/ All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus.



Perhaps the ultimate proof of this fact is that KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way, shape, of form. It is undeniable that the KJV contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. Other than the KJV21, this has not been done...and the KJV21 definitely has not been accepted. Any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in attacks of heresy and perversion of the Word of God by KJV Only advocates. When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not how they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. Why should English speakers and readers today be forced to use a Bible translation that is not translated in the English they read and speak? The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change.



Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every translation contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. In my study and teaching, I use several of the different translations in addition to studying the original languages. By comparing and contrasting the different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. My loyalty is not to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Answer 11

Contrary to stupid opinion: Jesus was NOT a Jew. The letter "J" is only 500 years old. Jesus was an original Hebrew, the original Hebrews of course were Black. He was wooly haired, his mother was an Ethiopian (Black Madonna shrines are ALL over Europe), and need I go on?...

As for the KJV. Laughable!! King James was a racist closet homosexual...please read history, it is no secret. And the KJV is not a translation it is a "VERSION". Furthermore, you said it was first. What did it come before??? It is a book that was derived from the Egyptian Book of the Dead which was written thousands of years ago. Please read it, you will have no doubts. Alexander the ****** and his posse of thugs, including Socrotes or Aristotle I forget which one, destroyed the universities and libraries of the ancient egyptians and took the works back home. Aristotle put his name on all those works which everyone knows he did not WRITE! Getting off the subject but please read and study and history. Geesh.