Why Do People Persecute the King James Version Bible?

Answer 1

People feel mostly because they've studied or read from such bibles as the NIV (Not Inspired version) or other such versions that to show them the omissions in their bible translations about Christ's deity, or how it leaves phrases out key to understanding, would just show that they've been wrong about their version, so they just say that we shouldn't be reading the correct one, which is the KJV.

Show them the verses that are watered down, weak, error filled, confusing, and compare it to the truth, and let them be the judge. If they choose to go with what they've got there, it's all them, then...

Make sure they see 1 Cor 15:1-4; the gospel of their salvation, in that Christ died FOR their sins according to the scriptures; and by grace we are saved through faith; not of ourselves.

Answer 2

The KJV was a great version of the Bible in its day, and was not challenged for almost 200 years.

Remember that anything other than the Hebrew in the Old Testament and Greek in the New Testament is a translation.

However, when that version was written, the English language had only 5,000 words - we now have over 25,000. Some of the words of that day are used differently today.
E.g., "quick" - as in 'the quick and the dead' - quick means living.
Some words were transliterated so as not to offend the King who sponsored the translation - e.g. baptiso was transliterated to baptism (not immersion as it is in the Greek) because the English church baptised by dipping a rose in water and sprinkling the person being baptized - not baptizing as John did - the whole person.

The texts used to translate KJV are not as old as the ones we now have, i.e., the Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1947, have copies of Isaiah dating back to the 1st Century, along with many other books.

Even though 30 scholars of the day made the translation, are our scholars today not more learned? Would you prefer to go to a 17th century dentist or doctor?

For the real argument - Find a KJV and look in the front for the Preface to the Version - that gives praise to King James - written in the original language - SAY WHAT??? Now you are reading King James style - and then you choose another version.

I am more comfortable with The New American Standard or Revised Standard Versions - which are newer translations, from older texts.
*******************
Comparing it to airplanes, the DC-3 was the plane that changed airline travel, and was most important.

But to travel today - I would prefer a Boeing 767, 777, or 737 to get me there.

Would I still fly in a DC-3 if I had the chance? You Bet!
***********************************************************
blessings on you as you study God's Word

Happy New Year!

Answer 3

The fact is, the original KJV was a very poor translation. I don't think that stating this fact constitutes "persecution". The translators King James assigned to the task simply were not expert in the biblical languages. A Protestant bible society published a list of 3,500 translational errors in the KJV. The Revised KJV is much better, with the majority of the errors having been corrected. But there are still some wierd mistranslations, like the references to "unicorns". This error resulted because the translators didn't realize that the Hebrew phrase "horned beasts" was a reference to cattle, which is how it appears in every other biblical translation. I don't know why this one wasn't corrected in the RKJV.
.

Answer 4

Depending on what your definition of "persecute," will fully allow people to summarize what they believe is the reason behind this.

Personally, you have to start with a foundational that the Bible is the Word of God. Given, it's been translated so some people might say there's some 'error' in it, but there is significant enough evidence out there to say that the entire Bible is valid from long ago (see my source by Josh McDowell) when it was written.

The King James Version (KJV) has several ways at which you can look at it. I'll try to briefly cover the three of which I am aware:

1. The KJV is outdated because of its archaic word usage. This is a possible way to view the KJV and basically takes it out of use and question to really being applicable in life today- but that is not the case. The wording is really no different from today (just with a few words that are different in the vocabulary of today than the vocabulary of then), as is evident in the New KJV (NKJV).

2. There are people out there who say that "the only version to read is the KJV." Well, for those who are on the opposite side of the fence of #1, those in #2 also need to understand that there is a big difference in what they're saying and what they are doing- here's why:

The original translation of the KJV is 90% unreadable to a 'normal English-speaking person' of today. It's so archaic that it's (essentially) Chaucer's Old English. Thus, if you want to try and focus on one translation of the Bible from Its original languages to English, you really couldn't do it using that version of the Bible. You would have to speak that form of what was English.

To illustrate the point even further, let's consider focusing on the idea of "one translation." This really means that you're saying that human ways are skewed and the idea is that the original meaning is lost. This is not true, but even if it was true, how many people would be able to understand the languages in which the Bible was written? Greek, Latin, and Hebrew?

Many times we use sources, dictionaries, and even commentaries that tell us what things mean "in the Greek" or "in the Hebrew," but how many times we read completely in their original text (as we know, even the Greek and Hebrew languages probably have changed slightly from that time in which the scripture was written).

3. The last way (I know of) to look at the KJV is to see it as a translation of God's Word, the same as any other direct translation- not a paraphrased version- of the Bible. Some people will say that there are 'holes' in 'certain versions' of the Bible- but if you look, it's all there (one example is Acts 8:37 in the NIV, but if you look in the footnote it is there- see my source from Biblegateway).

So, that said, I would say #2 on that list of 3 things is the most likely reason of which I can think that people rag on the KJV- not because it's the Word of God, but because there's a certain air of legalism that seems to be pushed along with the 'one translation' mindset.

I hope this helps- let me know if you have any more questions.

Answer 5

I'd like to know where all your answerers got their
facts about King James. It is a perfectly fine
translation of the Bible but today we don't speak
that way, so newer translations put the language
in today's words, and so other versions of the
Bible maybe have become more popular with those
who use it. There is a New King James that is good.
The New International Bible is good. The New
American Standard is also good. I guess for those
who don't read a Bible, none of them will be helpful.

Answer 6

the KJV is considerd by most beliefs. just some people prefer an easier reading. cause KJV is kinda like reading a shakespeare. with the dead sea scrolls they have shown that the KJV is 98 percent acurate. the dead sea scrolls are 2200 years old. the 2 percent inacurate is mostly grammar like commas and in that nature. they have shown and proved that the meaning is 100 percent the same.

for example it is like me asking you to move a chair and put it in the corner and i point to the chair and corner were i want it to go. or if i ask can you please put that chair over in that corner. and point to both again. i said 2 different things but yet they mean the same. the KJV is not far off in wording but just showing that you can say something and still get the exact meaning.
and if people new what they went thru when translating the Bible would understand why it is the same. they would be put to death if they missed a word. they had to look word for word. and memorize that word and put it down. were as most people today will memorize the whole sentence and then write it down. they do word for word. and if they find a mistake they started all over again. not to mention they had hundreds of people copying the same thing down.

Answer 7

Who "persecutes" the King James Bible? And how does one "persecute" an object? I'm curious...

Answer 8

I assume that you mean, why do people criticize it. King James wanted a Modern English Version of the Bible, that his people could read for themselves. That's what he got, and it worked fine for his people in the 1600's.
Now, however, our language is much different than the English of the 1600's, so we need translations that work for us. Nothing wrong with the KJV, just not as helpful to modern people.
BTW I grew up with the KJV, and have memorized lots of it. Most of my young students in church have a hard time remembering any.
I think that I remember it because the KJV reads like poetry for us, whereas the modern versions are like normal speech, and its hard to remember the exact wording.

Answer 9

Where do you come up with this persecution concept? People have been persecuting the Word of God from the beginning.

Is it that you did not have a legitimate question, and just wanted to see the words you typed in print.><>

Answer 10

I've never really hear anyone persecute the KJV. I've heard people express that they can't understand it as well as some of the contemporary versions. I have actually heard many people say that any other versions (other than the KJV) are wrong, that they shouldn't be used, as well as some other more serious accusations about non-KJV Bibles.