If the King James Bible is the only one that is accurate?

Question

or came down from Heaven, then what did people do for the 1500+ years before it was translated?

Answer 1

EXACTLY what I've been sayin for the longest! Finally someone with some sense!

Answer 2

It's not the most accurate, and i'm not trying to badmouth it , but it is one of the most popular. Probably cause it's one of the oldest and widest distributed English bibles. There were a few translations written before the 1611 version, one of them by william tyndale was almost totally destroyed and the translator was caught and tortured to death in the 1500's. The authorized version was a collection from some of the earlier translations and also the vulgate or latin bible. It was the official version for the Anglican church of England and since they controlled America first, it might explain why most traditional churches prefer this one. It does have pretty wording but a lot of it is hard to understand or outdated English. Although it uses Jehovah for LORD in 4 instances, in Exodus, Isiah, and at Psalms 83; 18, HIs name is removed in the new King James Version. The AV also used a verse to try to prove the trinity at 1 John 5; 7. This has been removed in the New King James and most modern versions. I'm not sure if any translation is 100 percent accurate, but they have done comparisons with the Dead sea scrolls and old manuscripts from the early centuries and most of the bibles we have today are very close to the originals. Only God's power could account for this, since the Bible had such a hard time being translated into the common languages for 1500 years like u mentioned.

Answer 3

No one ever said the KJV is accurate of the best.

Today a lot of people like a lot of other Bibles like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, etc.

Prior to the KJV there were some Anglo-Saxon translations in Scotland area and the Latin Catholic Bible.

It's utterly amazing how much of the CAtholic Bible and Catholic traditions Protestants have actually embrased. The Protestant Religion is still 60% Catholic, which is Pagan based and the Bible is still based on the "official" versions authorized by the Catholic Congress in 3 AD.

Everyone seems to segue or forget that Jesus was Jewish and if he came back today he'd still be Jewish.

Answer 4

The KJV is not the only accurate translation in existence; accurate versions of the Bible existed way before the King James came out in 1611.

Answer 5

How can the King James Bible be when God's name Jehovah has been removed from the text except for four verses? In the original manuscripts, the name appeared some 7,000 times.

There are other errors. At 1Tim. 3:16, it reads that it was "God manifest in the flesh." At 1 John 5:7, it reads: "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." Many scholars agree that these passages were tampered with by Bible scribes who already had trinitarian beliefs. In most Bibles today, those verses have been corrected.

Answer 6

Accurate by whose imagination? The Holy Bible is translated into many versions. Whoever uses whichever version is convinced that it is the only accurate one.

All scripture is given by God, written by men.

Before the printed KJV which few were allowed to read, they had scrolls and word of mouth.

Answer 7

The kjv is FAR FROM ACCURATE!

It was not the first "authorized" English version, The "Great Bible" of 1539 gets that distinction. It was published in response to a decree that every church in England must have a Bible available for people to read... Thus, there WERE English Bibles available for People to read before the King James.

-Wyclif produced the first complete English language Bible in the late 1300s, often called Wyclif's Bible. His New Testament was completed in 1380 and the Old Testament a few years later. It is thought that a large portion of the Old Testament was translated by Nicholas Hereford with Wyclif completing it and translating the New Testament himself. Some 30 copies of this Bible survive despite the fact that it was banned by the church along with the Lollards who used it.
(Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_English_Bible_translations )

I have seen many claim that the kjv was the first English Bible, clearly, that is far from the truth.

... Someone said, "before the King James Version we had the Latin Vulgate (i think) version. so this was our only 2 English versions" The Latin Vulgate was just that, LATIN!

... As for the new world PERversion of the scriptures, it has hundreds of false readings, like inserting "Jehovah" FALSELY in SOME passages where "kurios" (Lord) occurs in the Greek New Testament - Supposedly based on the use of YHWH (The "name" of God) in early Hebrew translations of the New Testament, yet refusing to do so in 50 other places where those same Hebrew versions used YHWH, those where it is used in reference to Christ... With their erroneous theology I wonder why they did that?

Answer 8

King James was a rascal... but we CAN learn, and obey the counsel, using any translation.
KJV is most difficult, even admits to errors in the preface, but prayfully comparing different translations is the way to go.
May you put forth the effort it takes to discern the truth which sets us free. Agape, Mawmaw

Answer 9

The KJV is considered to be the most accurate version among Protestant believers.

Before sacred scriptures were colated into what we call The Bible, texts were shared among churches, and church members relied on their pastors to teach God's Word.

Answer 10

Before it was known as the King James Version it was known as the Antioch manuscripts..People could have them read to them.Antioch is where the Apostles were(Acts 11:26)They used the King James as well.God bless.btw:First last week you tried to prove that Jesus wasn't divine and now you are attempting to prove that the Bible isn't true..Southern we will pray for you..God bless.

Answer 11

People think it's God Sent, it has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.

People in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version more than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.

Do these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?

The purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.
From almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”

The translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.

The reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.

King James Bible has been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.”

So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version!

What, then, of the objections raised by persons who say they do not want the King James Bible changed? Since the King James Version has already been changed, they lie on a crumbled foundation. If these persons do not want it changed, then why do they use, instead of a copy of an edition of 1611, an edition that has been changed?

They appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. They do not like the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; they do not want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it. Thus improvement, when needed, is appreciated, even by those who say they object to any changing of the King James translation.

One of the major reasons the Authorized Version is so widely accepted is its kingly authority. There seems little doubt that, had not a king authorized this version, it would not today be venerated as though it had come direct from God