Do you believe KJV is the ONLY Bible that is correct? Why? Isn't it just another translation?

Question

I am curious why there are so many people that seem to think that the KJV (King James Version) of the Bible is the ONLY one that is correct. It is simply just one of a number of translations out there. It is often cited though as being the only one, and I just don't get why that is.

I have seen some people talk about it as if it was the original Bible, but it is far from that. It was translated in 1611 I believe.. There were Bibles before it and Bibles after it.. Why is it so considered the only way to go?

I can understand if someone has a particular version that they believe is "the best" but I have seen more often than not that there are people that say the others are plain wrong.

I would just like some opinions on this.. and sources if you have them.

--

I have actually seen, more than once today, people saying that the KJV is America's version or is American, etc.. I am stunned.

Either the people that have said this are just trying to mess around, or they have been extremely misguided. The KJV was produced originally in the early 1600's in ENGLAND.. The King James mentioned in the name of it is King James of England.. HOW on earth could someone think that it is American in any way?

I'm confused on that one.

Answer 1

You are correct, there are much easier versions to read, and I own all of them. I often check each version to see if there is any difference, and I have not found any tangible differences.

They all say the same thing in different words.

I love reading the New Living Translation.

I usually use the New King James Version to teach or preach from because many people want it to sound like the KJV.

Actually the New American Standard is the most accurate word for word translation from the original Hebrew and Greek.

I have literally had people say that they read the KJV because if it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for them. Humm, Jesus read a Bible written in 1611?

Have a nice weekend.

grace2u

Answer 2

I believe there are several great Bible versions but unfortunately they were all before the King James version and the few English versions made in the 1500's were so difficult to understand simply because the English language was slightly different back then. In 1530 a schoolar named Erasmus translated the Oldest (and the most accurate) Greek manuscripts into what is known as the Majority Text Greek New Testament. It is also known as Textus Receptus or "Recieved Text". Erasmus was instrumental in helping Luther and Calvin establish their Bible during the Protestant Reformation. The Stephanus version in 1530 is also based off Erasmus text and accepted as accurate. The Bible the Pilgrims used was the Geneva Bible (which predated the King James Version) but there wasn't a mass production of that version so you don't see many of those. In 1881 an updated Greek New Testament was published by Wescott and Hort. They used a different set of manuscripts than Erasmus used in 1530 and these manuscripts they used have been proven to contain errors. So nearly all the modern Bible versions are based off the 1881 Greek New Testament text that has "Possible" corrupted text and thousands of deleted words and over 100 deleted verses. Like it or not the KJV is the best we have...well unless you can read Koine Greek and read the Erasmus text.

Answer 3

You are correct that the KJ Bible is just one of many translations. But there are some historical reasons it has been as popular as it is.

The original Bible was written in Hebrew for the Old Testament and Koine Greek for the New. But by the fourth century, both languages were no longer in use. Hebrew had been replaced by Aramaic, and Greek by Latin. So a scholar named Augustine translated the Bible into Latin. The version was called the Vulgate (which meant "common" because it was in the common language of that day). This version was official adopted by the Catholic church and remained "the Bible" for the next thousand years.

In the 1500, the Protestant Reformation happened. It was a major break away from the Catholic church, first by Martin Luther in Germany (the Lutherns) and then all across Europe.

One of the first things people wanted was a Bible in their own language. By this time Latin was no longer in use except at church. Several English versions appeared in the 1500s including the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible and the Bishop's Bible.

However each of these Bibles included more than just the text of the scriptures. Each page was divided into columns, one with the text of the scripture and the other with commentaries and notes to explain the text. These notes were often very critical of catholic theology and even other Protestant groups. The notes were causing fights between the different groups.

So as the head of the Church of England, the king at that time (King James) asked the church leaders to put together a standard English version of the scriptures which include no notes or commentary. That way it could be "authorized" for use in any church or denomination. The resulting translation is what we today call the "King James Bible". The first release of the book happened was in 1611.

It has had several minor revision over the first century of its existence (mostly to correct printing errors). It also underwent a major overhaul of the spelling and punctuation in the 1790s. It is that version used today.

On the late 1800s and early 1900s, the science of archeology was born. Before that time, when people came across old writings and manuscripts, they use to toss them out as worthless. In the early 1900s scholars began to realize their value.

A couple of scholars in the early 1900s sat down and did a complete revision of the Greek text on which Bible translations are based. There are about 7,500 known New Testament from before the time of the printing press. Of these, about 2300 of them predate the time of Constant and the Council of Nicene. (So the statement that all the old bibles were burned then is false. We still have over 2,000 of them in existence today).

Compare these manuscripts, Westcott and Holt made up a new text in which they favorite every single variant reading. Remember that all manuscripts were hand copied at that time. If you have ever tried to copy a long manuscript, you know that errors can be made. Fortunately, with 7,500 copies to compare, it is easy to spot the errors. If 7,499 of the manuscripts say one thing and 1 of them says something different, odds are the 7,499 are right, and the one a mistake.

However Wescott and Holt decided that the "1"s were the correct readings, and released a revised Greek text that included all of them. A couple of translations of based on that text quickly appeared (the Revised Standard Version being the best known). Because of the poor quality of translation, and the poor text on which it was based, the translation was quickly rejected, with people claiming that the King James was the only accurate Bible translation of the time (and it was).

Today, there are several excellent translations based on the same text as the King James, but with the benefit of more knowledge scholars have gained about both the Greek and Hebrew language. Plus other early Old Testament, manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls. (There are no Christian or New Testament writings in the Dead Sea Scrolls). Plus, after 400 years, the King James language is becoming as "outdated" as the Greek or Latin of the earlier versions. But it has not always been an easy task to convince some Christians to give it up. Tradition.

Plus it has the advantage that it is no longer copyrighted (like new versions) so it can be freely quoted, printed, distributed, etc without having to pay royalties. So people still use it because it is "free".

Answer 4

Getting a laugh out of some of these responses. Yes, I've heard the old joke before, with the punch line, 'If the King James was good enough for the Lord [or St Paul, or St Peter!], it's good enough for me.'

It is a very beautiful translation, but the reason so many people get hung up on this one translation is that they are 'Bible Protestants' who have no historical church to rely on, and so they must invent this fictitious absolute authority not just for the Bible, but for one particular version to prop up their own tradition.

They don't seem to wonder, what about the poor benighted heathen who don't speak English, let alone Elizabethan English, or the millions of Christians who lived for 1600 years before the KJV: they also disregard the very simple fact that the current selection of Biblical books was not put together until almost 300 years after Jesus' time-- and of those writings, it was almost a hundred years after Jesus death that all of them were written!

So, those who insist on the KJV only are spiritually immature, historically ignorant, and probably going to hell anyway.


PS: Jayasuriya: Thanks honey, I lol'd til I rotfl'd.

Answer 5

When you want to find your way on a atlas you want a map you can trust not a 10 year old copy where new roads are and other have been closed. You need Accuracy!
The King James Version is the most closest verison in English; From the Greek,
Hebrew and Latin. The Hebrew Is GOD talking and The KJV is AMERICA's version.
Anything that takes away from JESUS being GOD with skin in human form is not from GOD. The devil is an angel of light and is the father of lies and wants people confused. He wants you to think all roads lead to GOD and his frist lie was You can be like GOD...We have been suffering ever scince.

Answer 6

No. The KJ isn't even a good plagiarism.

The Ploughboy Edition of the New Testament is actually a better translation than any of the current crop available at the local Christian bookstore. William Tyndale was the first competent Greek scholar to translate the most reliable body of Greek manuscripts into English and he did a phenomenal job considering it was a one-man translation.

The King James "translators" did nothing more than plagiarize Tyndale's work by making the language more colorful or erudite, but in doing so they destroyed some of the fine points of meaning which has screwed up Christians to this day.
.

Answer 7

There is nothing to suggest that Joseph Smith could read, much less translate Hebrew, Latin or Greek. HIs insistence that this is mistranslated would come from a Christian philosophical sense that God does not command or send evil spirits. Christians however DO believe that God can & does punish bad behavior. So the Christian take would be that God might well send a spirit to torment Saul. That Saul & his followers might well consider it evil, but in the larger sense the spirit simply obeyed the will of God. I.e. the spirit was only 'evil' in the sense that it was sent to torment, not in the sense that failed to serve the greater good as defined by the will of God.

Answer 8

It isn't just another translation. It is a particularly poor translation, with more than 3,500 translational errors. The translators chosen by king James simply were not fluent in the ancient languages, which shows in some of the truly ridiculous errors they made - such as translating the Hebrew phrase for "horned beasts" as "unicorns" instead of the obvious correct translation, "cattle". In the Revised King James Version many of the errors have been corrected, but many of them, including the above mentioned one, still remain.

Answer 9

The NIV, NASB (revised) and the NKJV are the most accurate of the better-known translations. The KJV is what most folks grew up with, as there wasn't much choice until recently. Other translations existed, but were not commonly available. It's often considered the only way to go because it's what's familiar. That's what those folks are comfortable with.

Personally, I like the NIV. It's accurate, it's a real translation, and it reads as though it was intended to be read aloud. I like that when I'm reading scripture aloud. It flows well.

I have a couple of friends who love Shakespearean English. They prefer the KJV, of course.

Answer 10

It is the closest literal translation of the original script.

Edit: The King James Version was radical at the time because it allowed EVERYONE access to the Bible, not just the clergy.

It's not that it's the ONLY version, but likely the most accurate. While it's great to read the Bible, ANY Bible, why people feel the need to discredit this particular version is beyond me since, without it, the Bible may have been lost altogether.

Waitaminit......maybe that's why.......