Why is the King James version supposedly the only version of the bible that counts?

Question

I've seen people say several times that the King James version is the only "real" version of the bible and that all others have been corrupted by man. I was under the impression that ALL versions of the bible had been corrupted by man, seeing as they were all written by man... Anyway, why is King James considered the only real version of the bible? Got anything to back it up?

Answer 1

No version of the Bible is intrinsically better than any other. God did not dictate his word to people for them to write it down. Rather, he gave them ideas, and they used their own words. Thus, it's the ideas that matter, not the exact phrasing. So long as the message is intact, that is all that matters.

Answer 2

The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a few years, (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609) was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

The Bible took thousands of years to write and was written by many, many authors.
Many parts of the Bible are oral tradition that was written down. Most people were illiterate and relied much more on their memories to pass on traditions and stories. Oral tradition was the norm long before writing and reading was popular.

The Bible was given to us by the Holy Spirit as discerned by the early bishops of the Catholic Church. There was no Bible for the first 350 years of Christianity. The first official list of Scriptures was done in 393 at the Council of Hippo, then again in Carthage in 397 and 419. The Church did not infallibly define these books until the Council of Trent, when it was called into question by the Reformers, in 1556.

In 1455, Gutenberg demonstrated the power of the printing press by selling copies of a two-volume Bible (Biblia Sacra) for 300 florins each. This was the equivalent of approximately three years' wages for an average clerk, but it was significantly cheaper than a handwritten Bible that could take a single monk 20 years to transcribe.
This proves that the Catholic Church did not keep the people from having Bibles. First of all, most people at the time were illiterate, and Bibles were too expensive to have.

The Church has always used the Septuagint as its base for the Old Testament. The Septuagint has a few more books than the later established Masoretic texts. In fact, the Masoretic canon was set by the Jews after the Christians accepted the Septuagint version as their Scripture. This makes sense considering the non-messianic Jews were not too crazy about Jesus so why would they accept the same books as the Christians?
Catholic Bibles do not have extra books, non-Catholic Bibles have missing books.
Protestants believe that they have the only real version of the Bible, if they do, they owe thanks to the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, for compiling and canonizing the Bible as we know it today.

Answer 3

Gee, got me. The original bible was mostly written in Greek and Hebrew; so for a "real" version, I'd suggest you learn to read those languages. Also, a good hearty dose of cultural understanding will help you be able to read it more in context.

This original bible was God inspired - which means that even though man wrote it, it was God who dictated it, and therefore it is not corrupted.
2 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (NIV version) or take the King James version, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

All other versions, if it is a good translation, translate straight back from the original language. Some draw more from what the text was trying to convey; and others more from what the actual words meant. You can see the difference in the two versions of scripture in the above paragraph.

When I study the bible I like to have both types on hand; and a good bible concordance so I can look up the original words and see what they mean.

Answer 4

I don't agree that it is the only "real" version. I'd only grant that it is a "traditional" one for the last few generations. There are, of course, many other versions including the New Revised Standard Version and the New International Version, all of which are fine documents attempting to bring the word of god to everyone in an understandable fashion. As language changes (how many people, today, speak the same as in the King James version?), the need for updated, revised bibles continues.

Answer 5

The Authorized Version
Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as "King James's Bible". It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics. In order to understand its origin and history, a brief survey is necessary of the earlier English translations of the Scriptures. From very early times portions of the Bible have been translated into English. It is well known that Venerable Bede was finishing a translation of St. John's Gospel on his deathbed. But the history of the English Bible as a whole does not go back nearly so far; it dates from the so-called Wyclif Version, believed to have been completed about the year 1380. The translation was made from the Vulgate as it then existed, that is before the Sixtine and Clementine revisions, and was well and accurately done. Abbot Gasquet contends confidently (The Old English Bible, 102 sqq.) that it was in reality of Catholic origin, and not due to Wyclif at all; at any rate it seems fairly certain that he had no share in any part of it except the Gospels, even if he had in these; and there is evidence that copies of the whole were in the hands of good Catholics, and were read by them. The version, however, undoubtedly derived its chief importance from the use made of it by Wyclif and the Lollards, and it is in this connection that it is chiefly remembered. During the progress of the Reformation a number of English versions appeared, translated for the most part not from the Vulgate, but from the original Hebrew and Greek. Of these the most famous were Tyndale's Bible (1525); Coverdale's Bible (1535); Matthews' Bible (1537); Cromwell's, or the "Great Bible" (1539), the second and subsequent editions of which were known as Cranmer's Bible; the Geneva Bible (1557-60); and the Bishop's Bible (1568). The art of printing being by this time known, copies of all these circulated freely among the people. That there was much good and patient work in them, none will deny; but they were marred by the perversion of many passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism.

Answer 6

Actually in Canada, I find very few people who use the King's version. It was translated for a specific time. Some people use the NKJ (New King James version) which was translated into modern English. Here people mostly use the NIV,NASB, or a few others. Church history and the history of the Bible and it's versions is actually pretty interesting.

Answer 7

Because it was the first English translation ever made for the English-speaking world and I believe that God made SURE that His Word was translated in the most perfect way possible.

There are other translations that are easier to understand
for many people, and that's fine if they want to read those Bible versions, but for the most accurate understanding, one should stick to the Authorized King James Version.
I believe its the most beautiful version too.

Answer 8

The word version is a big hint. If there are versions of anything this means changes.

Get a copy of the course in miracles. It is the most recent revelation of the word of jesus. Only been around for about 30 years. I would get one soon though. I sure someone as thinking about improving it just like they fixed the bible.

Love and blessings.
don

Answer 9

that is a good question! people say its the only one thats right because they think that its the first translation of the bible...I dont agree. The king james version was a translation of many bibles before it..whos to say that its an accurate translation...I hate it when people say that!

Answer 10

The book of Isaiah found in Qumran is word for word the same as the KJV...