The KJV has inside "Authorized Version, " because it was authorized by King James I of England for his English subjects. Jesus didn't authorize it, the Apostles didn't. It as written in an Elizabethan style of language as that was the type of language spoken at the time.
2007-04-20 19:20:40 · 10 answers · asked by Shirley T 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
No King James was not called the Defender of the Faith. Henry VIII was.
2007-04-20 19:42:29 · update #1
It is the version they grew up with as well as their parents and grandparents. It is a nice version.
The problem comes in when they think it is the only one. Their sheltered limited experience actually leads them to believe the prophets and apostles all spoke like the KJV. They have to be helped like babies to understand the languages originally used by those people were hebrew, greek, and arameic. Even Jews today do not understand how to pronounce some of the ancient hebrew because there was no vowels in the language.
Today, we have over 30 translations I can think of right off. A serious comparison of verses from several versions at random will reveal they are mostly the same. Maybe a couple words different but meaning the same. It is just that hebrew and greek words can be translated a small bit different. USA english words can have completely different meanings depending on how you use them in a sentence, and really different from British english words.If I said "Lou" here you'd think of an Italian guy; in England, it is the bathroom.
1 Corith. 10: 25 in KJV says "shambles". Today we have no idea what that is. 1600 England, you would know it is a meat market. Modern translations sometime make Bible more understandable.
2007-04-21 02:08:51 · answer #1 · answered by grnlow 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow...talk about not knowing history.
The King James Version is supposed to have a special authority because while King James was in good standing with the Catholic Church, the Pope declare him (king James) the "Defender of the Faith."
That is why he was able to make the claim that he had a right to split from the church in the first place. As defender of the faith, he was defending the faith from the church.
I love the irony of this...
By the way, I'm an Atheist, and i'm in no way trying to say that the KJB is any better than any other bible. Becaue their all historic myths at best.
2007-04-21 02:40:02 · answer #2 · answered by Julian X 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I actually want to defend American christians on this.
I used to get annoyed and frustrated that people could be so ignorant of history, of the context of the true Bible, the Supreme Bible of God being written
See:
http://one-faith-of-god.org/final_testament/bible_of_god.htm
But now I know, these people 99.9% who are good honest folk, whose sons and daughters have fought and died defending freedom around the world, have been taught that way.
They are from christian communities that rightly see the Vatican as pure evil. They are from families that seek to live the moral teachings of Jesus. It is just they have no idea of the history of what they follow.
So keep this in mind when you question their fanatical adherance to the KJV.
2007-04-21 02:23:38 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have found it's contents to be closer to the original manuscripts than most other versions. I don't think that is the real issue . The real issue is how good his translators were. Christ wasn't around to authorize. And of course the apostles authorized by virtue of writing the their gospels. I mean if they were standing in front of you and you asked them if they authorized it I am sure they would say "hell yes we wrote it didn't we?
2007-04-21 02:49:27 · answer #4 · answered by swindled 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The KJV is a popular translation that many were raised with, esp. the baby boomers. It is not a good translation for serious bible study, however.
For an analysis of the various translations of the bible see:
http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html
For accurate translations of the bible at the literal level I recommend you use the NASB or ESV translations.
2007-04-21 02:33:07 · answer #5 · answered by Ask Mr. Religion 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You mean this isn't the bible Paul used???
No really, don't know about others but I know this. Are you saying that it shouldn't be read??? Are you suggesting for people to read a modern version???
Whatever the case, my reason for reading the KJV is this:
(MP3 download FREE)
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=4405202344
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=&sermonID=8150514459
2007-04-21 02:30:03 · answer #6 · answered by SirLok 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just read the NEW KING JAMES VERSION
much better
2007-04-21 02:38:12 · answer #7 · answered by pinkstealth 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Possibly because it is widely know and to my knowledge the first major widly distributed one (1611?)
2007-04-21 02:23:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why does anyone believe any fictional book has authority?Harry potter and the bible only gain authority if you believe them to be true!
2007-04-21 02:28:33 · answer #9 · answered by CRAVE 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
because of the way it was written.
2007-04-21 02:24:42 · answer #10 · answered by the shiz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋