Is the King James Bible the only true Bible?

Question

Why do some people think that the English Speaking world has all of a sudden (1611) come up with the only true scripture version of the Christian Bible? Isn't this arrogance? There were Catholic editions before King James and there are many other Catholic editions today. What is it about English and Protestant arrogance that can possibly assume that a King in England and the Hampton Court Conference would create the only true bible? What about Spanish bibles? Isn't there an inherent prejudice in thinking that the protestant bible is the only true one? Isn't it misguided? There have been over 10,000 correction to the King James Bible. The puritans burned it in Massachusetts saying it was from the devil. Whats up with the arrogance? Have you read any other versions of the bible, in any other language other than English?

Answer 1

What did Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformer, state about the Bible? In his "Commentary On St. John," he stated the following: "We are compelled to concede to the Papists that they have the Word of God, that we have received It from them, and that without them we should have no knowledge of It at all." Regardless of what non-Catholic Christians may think or say, according to secular, objective historians, the Catholic Church alone preserved Sacred Scripture throughout the persecution of the Roman Empire and during the Dark Ages. All non-Catholic Christian denominations owe the existence of the Bible to the Catholic Church alone. Why did God choose the Catholic Church to preserve Scripture if It is not His Church?

The Catholic Bible is the only bible insprired by the Holy Spirit. ..............The Holy Spirtit did not convert to Islam in 610AD or Lutheranism in 1517AD or Calvinism in 1540s AD ...

Answer 2

Not complete would be better said.


Some already ignore the 7 books Luther removed.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).


Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation. Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it "unintelligible" and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it "unbiblical". The Syrian (Nestorian) Church has only 22 books in the New Testament while the Ethiopian Church has 8 "extra." The first edition of the King James Version of the Bible included the "Apocryphal" ( Deuterocanonical) Books.




The 7 books removed from Protestant Bibles are known by Catholics as the "Deuterocanonical Books" (as opposed to the "Protocanonical Books" that are not in dispute), and by Protestants as the "Apocrypha."




The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters.


Our Lord founded a Church (Matthew 16:18-19), not a book, which was to be the pillar and ground of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). We can know what this Church teaches by looking not only at Sacred Scripture, but into History and by reading what the earliest Christians have written, what those who've sat on the Chair of Peter have spoken consistently with Scripture and Tradition, and what they've solemnly defined. To believe that the Bible is our only source of Christian Truth is unbiblical and illogical.

Answer 3

There are basically two ways of producing a Bible--you look at the "critical texts" or you look at the "abundancy of texts".

The "critical texts" method looks at the earliest known texts, and draws the interpretation from them based upon agreement of the texts. Bibles such as the NASB were interpreted this way, and are considered by Biblical scholars to be the most accurate to both the original Greek and Hebrew, and to the accuracy of the text.

The "abundancy of texts" method, which the KJV used, means to take a look at what the most copies of the originals say, and then to use that. So if there were 1500 copies that said "The Lord Jesus Christ" and only 1000 that said "Jesus", the KJV used the what the 1500 said, and printed "The Lord Jesus Christ", even though the 1000 that simply said "Jesus" were the older, more accurate texts.

Please note, the meaning in nearly every case remained the same. There may have been just some slight grammatical differences.

Technically speaking, the NASB is probably the closest word-for-word translation from the Greek and Hebrew to English as there has ever been. And it is not substantially different from the KJV when it comes to doctrine or scriptural accuracy.

Answer 4

Sorry, but NO

A detailed study of the history of the Holy Bible and how it came to be is very deep, detailed, and shows a very large number of versions and revisions. Its a fascinating story if nothing else. And you're right. To say one out of this group is the true and only one to fall from heaven is very arrogant.

I'm not saying the Authorized King James Version is bad. Not at all. But there are others just as good and a few I personally think are better. My personal favorite is the Douay.

Answer 5

First of all, the world has many different religions and many different versions of the bible for each. I think that the many different versions all over the world are simply different interpretations of the one Bible set down by God. The thing that makes the difference is that the choice of which one is true is up to you the believer.

But if you have more questions you might want to talk with the preacher at your church or you might want to look for answers in a nearby seminary school where preachers are trained.

God Bless

Answer 6

The English speaking world DOESN'T think they have come up with the one, true bible. The bible was written in Aramaic and translated into many different languages. No one in the English speaking world thinks English speaking people created their own bible. It's THE bible. Just like...if you translated Moby Dick into German...it would have differences in interpretation...and to the Germans, there may be different meanings due to that...but it would still be Moby Dick.

Really...THE bible (the original) took years and many different people to complete, so I highly doubt there was EVER a complete, REAL bible that was the perfect, finished product anyway. It's been sort of a work in progress since the beginning.

Answer 7

First you have to understand what the Bible is. It is the canon of the Church. That is, it is a compilation of specifically selected works that support and explain what teachings the Church believes to be true. It is not a representation of every work ever written about God or religious issues at the time but only a select group of writings.That selection was made by officials in the Church.

If you wish to belong to that particular religion, you must accept a particular version of events as the canon or law or code of that church. You may not pick an choose.

Later "versions" of the Bible have been established by whatever religion is defining their particular canon. Since all are based on the same original Bible, they have similarities.

Each religion claims to have received some sort of divine guidance in making their selections. To be a member of any of these religions is to accept their version or canon.

This being the case, one need not be a Biblical scholar or be able to read ancient languages. As a member of a religion, the official interpretation is all you need to believe. In many cases, specific words in ancient languages can be interpreted differently. The canon of that particular religion has already determined what the official meaning is for you. Remember, a religion is about beliefs not about scientiific facts. If it were about scientific facts it would not be religion.
Believeing what your religion teaches is where the idea of faith comes in. You cannot prove it you must accept it on faith.

.

Answer 8

I saw a version in Yiddish once. Couldn't read it though.

King James added 'Thou shalt not permit a witch to live', so presumably versions that pre-date his version don't have this line. Can any Christians confirm this?

Incidentally, with regard to the Bible being translated from Aramaic, the Aramaic word for 'camel' was quite similar to 'thick rope', and a mis-translation is suspected. That might give a little reassurance to rich folk.

Answer 9

I have seventeen different translations of the Bible in my apartment and when I read the Bible I read 'all of them' ... verse by verse ... to help me to 'understand' what is being said to the best of my ability. The Bible is part 'story book' and part 'song book' (there are actually several books of 'songs' but Psalms is the most famous). It is NOT a 'history book' nor should it be. Even the New Testament is not a 'literal translation' of every day of Christ's life on earth, but merely a 'frame' for his 'prayers' and 'parables' (which are often printed in 'red' rather than black, since Christ was both human and divine (God) in one body. So, yes, I have read at least 17 different translations of the Bible in English, and I have also read it in Gaelic (with an English translation of the same Bible to help me) and in Latin (which I studied in school), also in Greek, French, and even parts of one in Mandarin Chinese. So, to answer your 'question' ... No, the King James Bible is NOT the only 'true Bible' ... but it is far and away the most 'poetic' and it's actually my 'favorite' because of the way that 'poetry' resonates in my soul.

Answer 10

"do you know what the masseratic texts are wally?"

Well, you've clearly demonstrated that YOU don't know what "they" are. The first clue? The term is "Masoretic Text". Let's list a few more clues:

1. The Masoretic Text (MT) covers only the Old Testament.
2. The MT is not the original manuscript of any book of the Bible. It was, in fact, copied and edited centuries after Christ's death. (There are no extant original manuscripts of ANY book of the Bible.)
3. It does not contain Greek text. It is in Hebrew from the original Hebrew and Aramaic.

It would appear that you are the one who should do a little homework. May I suggest that you start in kindergarten or, perhaps, pre-school?