As a christian myself, I can't understand why some people believe that the king james version is the only version of the Bible that we should read. why? today, most people can't understand it due to the old language. wouldn't that hinder the impact Christ could have? nobody objected when Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, which -has- changed over time, just like English has. He translated the Bible into the language that people could understand. why should NIV and NASB not be read while only KJV should?
also, if some people think that KJV is only holy version, why not -only- read the Hebrew OT and Greek NT? It's in the original, pure language which gets translated into english. wouldn't it be better to read it in Hebrew and Greek? Like, wouldn't that be the "more holy" version, to continue with the idea?
2006-12-07 09:12:21 · 11 answers · asked by ? 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
BIBLE READER
I do not have the answer other than SOME Christians believe its the only direct translation. This is a fallacy. King James ordered the version of the Bible to be translated and written and what I have been told is that he picked the best religious and linquistic men of the time (that still had their heads attached). You will tend to find this absolute that the KJV is the only true Bible in more fundamentalist churches.
I personally prefer the New International which is a lovely translation. This Bible was also translated, from the original language, but all translation was looked at in context with the scripture around it. Like English, many languages contain words that have more than one meaning or may have meant something different than we perceive it today.
I collect Bibles by the way, lol...I have over 25 different translations, including a Latin Vulgate...that I cannot read, lolol.
GOD BLESS YOU
No Penny, its not been proven to be the only real translation...someone has filled your head with some whoppers. Who do you think would have determined that...God...Jesus...the Nicene Conference, maybe Da Vinci, or Constantine. Hun it was written hundreds of years later and ordered to be so by a King of England.
Terry - Moses never had a copy of the King James Bible.
2006-12-07 09:34:27 · answer #1 · answered by Dust in the Wind 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The KJV has been proven to be an authorized version of the Holy Bible. I also have the original Greek and the KJV is in the margin. It is interesting to see that the meaning does not change even though the language style is different.
UNLIKE other translations that actually try to interpret the scriptures and give their own opinions instead of strictly copying the manuscripts.
When man interferes with the inspired word of God that is when the trouble starts.
Did you ever hear of the Dead Sea Scrolls.??? When checked out they matched exactly with the KJV of the Old Testament . A complete manuscript of all the O.T. except the Book of Esther, and these manuscripts were at least 1,000 years older than other copies that had formerly been found.
You either believe or you don't.
Research of the KJV is well documented and does not stray from the original copies.
Christian in Pa.
Penny
2006-12-07 09:26:12 · answer #2 · answered by Penny Mae 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It has to do with the text from which it was translated. The newer versions translated from an amalgamated text which includes older manuscripts that weren't found for many, many years after the King James was translated. Those who are "King James Only" believe that if those older texts were the proper manuscripts for translation, God would not have allowed them to be lost for so long.
Incidentally, there are no theologically significant differences between the various manuscripts. And while many claim the KJV is the most accurate translation, most Greek scholars I know believe the NASB and the ESV to be the most accurate and literal translation.
2006-12-07 09:15:58 · answer #3 · answered by KDdid 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is based on tradition. Doing things according to tradition can get in the way of staying true to the understanding of the Bible (many 21st century Americans would have a hard time working through the King James language).
The New International Version is accessible by modern American, British, Australian and New Zealand English speakers. There is no reason not to use this form of the Bible.
2006-12-07 09:38:03 · answer #4 · answered by clvcpoet 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Some argue that it is a more accurate translation. Others argue that certain words are more theologically accurate than others. On the whole, I have never found a convincing argument for the KJV only people. It really seems close to the edge of ignorance, seeing how none of the biblical writers spoke English anyway. What do KJVers say about translations in Spanish, Zulu, Swahili, Turkish, Russian, German, and Japanese? Not much.
2006-12-07 09:17:21 · answer #5 · answered by Aspurtaime Dog Sneeze 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I agree to some extent with you but I must admit I love the KJV. Some would do better with a more modern English version. Yet I believe God can get his message through just fine with the KJV. It should be a personal decision I love the flowery old English but to each his own.
2006-12-07 09:19:33 · answer #6 · answered by djmantx 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nearly 900 pages filled with documented evidence from some of the world’s greatest scholars showing so clearly that the KJV is indeed the one version God has blessed and used and
honored and kept for the past 375 years. Why the King James Bible is still the best and the most accurate? It is God's love letter to all mankind, containing Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth.
clvcpoet,
The New American Bible = The United States Catholic Catechism for Adults aka FAKE BIBLE.
2006-12-07 09:16:14 · answer #7 · answered by House Speaker 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
oh... i understand. Those some ppl, not all the Christians, like the version because, it is word for word translated from Greek and Hebrew. i like what you said about reading Hebrew or greek, but, i really dont think there is a more holy version to already holy word of God. If there was... i never knew of it.. well i would like to say God bless you in your walk with Christ..!
2006-12-07 09:18:09 · answer #8 · answered by OJ 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think people like the sound of the old English better. It sounds more Shakespearean and formal.
I'm with you the heck with how flowery the language sounds, give me something that is easy to understand. The simpler the better. We can sound clever and high faulting about something that is less important. I doubt if God cares how it sounds just so we get the message.
Love and blessings Don
2006-12-07 09:24:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because that is the way their daddy did it.
2006-12-07 09:16:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋