Why is the King James Bible the right version?

Question

I was told that the King James Bible is the only true book and their is no other. Why isn't the other versions right? I believe in the NIV.

Answer 1

They both are right the only one I really don't like is the Living Bible because it is an approximation and doesn't go back to the original texts. I use the NIV in church and the English Standard for scholarship.

n3

Answer 2

There are many who believe the King James version is the correct one to use. I don't buy that myself. In order to find the most accurate version you need to find one that has as much direct translation (from the original language it was written in to your language). The New Testament is probably more accurate than the Old Testament in this Bible. It was taken from what was believed at the time to be the earliest extant text. The Old Testament may differ somewhat than the NIV. Both were taken from old extant texts but the NIV was taken from different sources (some were Egyptian) and the King James from extant Hebrew texts.

It is not reasonable to make the claim that any Bible is the only accurate one. I use the New Jerusalem myself. The reason is that they have done translations in it from ancient texts found more recently than the King James.

Note to those who keep saying King James had anything to do with the actual translation or meaning of the King James Bible. He did not. His main role was in commissioning this version and lifting the death penalty in England for translating the Bible.

Answer 3

.Let me start off with this. I am a Christian. I believe the Bible to contain the Words of God in what ever version it is. But having said that let me say this. I'm not going to take everything in any version of the Bible literally. I'm not going to say anything is totally wrong. I'm just not one who's going to buy the whole pre Christ era verbatim. And especially not before the time of Abraham.

I do remember one lady saying when the NIV came out, "If it was good enough for John the Baptist, it's good enough for me."

Most of Chist's teachings were in parables. There are meanings within meanings. And depending on your maturity level the meanings change.

Also there is the matter of language changes over the years. Was what was written translated 100% correctly? Consider the commandment 'thou shalt not kill'. Taken literally we are to kill nothing. What are we going to eat? I know last night I ate a cabbage head that had been ripped from the root. Somewhere down the line someone killed that cabbage, and I ate it. Was I responsible for killing? See where you get with taking translations literally?

Pick a version you feel comfortable reading and open your mind. The Word of God will come through. And don't get locked up in discussions about which version is best with anyone who doesn't have a degree in Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Theology. It's not worth the trouble.

Answer 4

I get this argument from my some of my relatives. As if there is something sacred about 17th century English. While I like the KJV as the most poetic version, the truest way to read the Bible would be to read the OT in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. Since we aren't taught classical English anymore, it makes reading a KJV much more difficult for modern readers. I use a KJV, an older version of the NIV, and a concordance or go to www.blueletterbible.org when i need clarification on something.

Answer 5

The King James version is not the only true book. He re-wrote it to fit more of his own beliefs. He changed some of the translations to "modernize" it to his times. There is no true translation since the gathering of the "original" writings was pretty much at random to include whatever they could find. A lot of ancient writings that they are finding now (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) do not support a lot of what is in today's bibles. But since the religions of the world are so powerful and their existence depends on their followers believing whatever they tell them, they must make everyone believe as they do, so they will say that theirs is the only true book and the others are fakes. It's just that, they all are saying that.

Answer 6

lol, i would love to have the right version, your a great questioner and i mean it. this is quite refreshing to see someone who seems to notice what i do about the bible. in any version of the bible, there are major differences, get any niv or king james or any version at all, set 3-5 bibles in front of you and compare your favorite 10 scriptures and i promis you there will be differences, i am working on getting a full hypertext copy of the gootenburgh bible, it is saposed to be the first printed book ever. i figure its got to be more acurate than what we have these days for what its worth, respectin age and all. how can read something and learn from it as a religion if its all messed up by mans errogance and carlessness in translation? if you want to e-mail me for a coppy i will be working on it some more today, when i get it done i can send you one if you want, probly gonna be a huge file tho. my e-mail is; [e-mail] and good luck to you. :)

Answer 7

The King James is the First translated into english but believe me it is not all correct.
I live in Greece, I am a canadian and am learning Greek. THe original NT was written in old Greek and many translations including the KJ just do not have it right. For instance the word translated to pastor is actually the WOrd Sheppard. What does it say a sheppard will do, He will lay His life down for His Flock, There are many more instances but I used just this one. There are many helps you can use to unserstand your translation of the bible from the Original Greek

Answer 8

Why is the King James Bible the right version?

I don't think there is a 'right' version and which version of the KJV might you be referencing? The first one, the 1611 one, or one of the newer ones, there are many versions of the KJV. I prefer the KJV (1611) because its the one I started with.

Answer 9

LOL...well that's the thing about "belief": at the end of the day, it's purely a matter of personal preference.

I like the KJV because it's superb English, on a level with Shakespeare. Of course, I'm not a "christian." The bible is a compelling fiction compilation, and makes for good toilet reading, but to take it seriously, let alone "literally," you'd have to be every kind of a lunatic.

P.S. If you're going to go so far as to study the Hebrew and Greek originals, you may as well also study the Qabalah in both languages, because much of the text was written in Qabalistic code, which accounts for the rather fantastic symbolic and numerological passages in such "prophetic" books as Revelations and Daniel.

Answer 10

NIV changes some of the words, and a different word could have a different meaning.

I would really stick the King James Version over the New King James Version too.

But at least you have a bible, with some truth in it, not like you have a bible from another religion, that has no truth in it.