Do you think the King James Bible is the "real" Bible?

Question

King James and the Hamptoncourt Conference came up with the King James Bible. It decided that 6 books were apocrophya. But did they have the authority to do this? The Roman Catholic Church accepted the 6 books because they have been ued in the Church in "venerable usage" over centuries, thus seeing the will of the Holy Spirit in the matter. But King James had a motive - to MAKE the new doctrines of protestantism true. Do you know that the King James Bible has over 10,000 errors, I'm talking the 1611 verion here, not reprints. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, not the King. The King had no authority to throw out those six books even though they were printed in the original 1611 version as "apocrypha."
Protestant prejudice trully comes out in talking about this issue. Is the King James Bible the only true bible in English? Arrogance, pure arrogance. Did you know that the Puritans burned the King James Version saying it was from the devil? They had no right to remove them.

Answer 1

it's a real translation of the translation of the translation of the bible.

Answer 2

The King James Version is one of the best versions of the Bible but it is not perfect. I was translated by men and men can make mistakes. There are two other translations which are very good translations but they also have some mistakes. The argument has been made that King James I & VI had the translation simply to further the denomination He was the leader of. I seem to think anyone who was that determined would not seek out 45 plus learned Biblical scholars to translate the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek texts. Are the apocrypha truly inspired. I do not think so. Those books do not portray prophecy like the Old Testament and therefore they are more straight history. Did the Hamptoncourt Conference have to right to make the 6 books of the apocrypha not a part of the Bible. That is where this gets a little dicey. I firmly believe in the providence of God and therefore if the aprocypha was in fact inspired then it probably would be included by this time almost 500 years later. Oh. By the way the other two good translations are the American Standard Version 1901 and the relatively new English Standard Version. Nearly all the rest of the so-called translations are not true translations.

Answer 3

No



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.




Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly.

Answer 4

Are you one of those people that believe that the Bible suddenly appeared.....complete, sent down from heaven?
The first collection of the New Testament writings was in the form of a report, given by a Greek scholar who was asked by his master, Emperor Julian (at his wife's instigation), to look into the slave's religion, known as Christianity. As a result it became recognised as an approved Roman religion, and was allowed to be practiced. Something the Romans later regretted, as this 'new' religion caused a real ruckus because of its intolerance towards other religions of the day.
In the earlier English Bible the Apocrypha came after the N.T., i.e. at the end of the Bible.
The Old testament came from the Jewish Faith.
All Books have been hashed and re- hashed through the ages to suit the whims of the various 'powers' that were.
If King James hadn't had the Bible translated, into the English language, we might still be struggling to understand the Latin version. His contribution to Christianity was to bring it to the common people, as before it was only read fully by the higher- educated, and that did not include most of the Priests, who chanted from it parrot fashion.
It certainly was not translated out of arrogance.Most nations have their own translations, would they also be accused of arrogantly producing understandable texts?
What language would you like the Bible to be in, Latin?
Wow! back to the Dark ages.

Answer 5

You don't know anything about the history of those six books, the so-called "Apocrypha". The Apocrypha consists of six books which were NOT in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. They were in the Greek translation of the Old Testament that was made in Egypt in the 3rd century BCE, but they were never in the Hebrew Old Testament. Therefore, they were NOT "original" books of the accepted Hebrew Bible. The Latin translation of the Bible was generally made from the Greek text of the Old Testament (Jerome was weak in his Hebrew skills). The Protestants (not just the King James translators) went back to the Hebrew texts of the Bible to translate their versions, therefore the six books were not considered to be Scripture because they did not exist in the earliest Hebrew text of the Old Testament. That's why Protestants don't use the Apocrypha--it wasn't in the original Old Testament. You could just as easily conclude that it wasn't the Catholics' right to include it in the Bible. And, just to be fair, you should mention that the King James translators DID translate the Apocrypha and included it in many later editions (just not the original 1611 one).

As for the King James Version, it is one of the poorest translations of the Bible for a couple of reasons: 1) It did not use the oldest Greek manuscripts for the New Testament, but a Medieval edition based on younger manuscripts; 2) It used an archaic form of English (even for the translators) which contains grammatical errors. A modern Christian who uses the King James Version for Bible study is like an accountant who uses Roman numerals to balance the books. There are many modern translations that are more authoritative and accurate than King Jimmie--the New English Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, and the New Revised Standard Version are all excellent and based on sound linguistic and Biblical scholarship.

Answer 6

King James had other motives as well, not the least was someone in Rome trying to give him orders he did not want.

The RCC has for centuries not paid any attention to what is written in the 66 books of the Bible anyway. A simple course in world history shows the debauchery, murders, bribery and scandals going on daily over the centuries with no regard to the Bible instructions. Why start now?

Yes the KJV has errors. All translations do. It can not be helped as languages do not match up together. Words in English can have different meanings though spelled the same depending on how it is used in a sentence. A comparison of several translations though can give an accurate rendition of the true meanings of the scriptures. Comparing the oldest manuscripts with modern translations show little change.

The main point is, don't you think Almighty God, after spending 1,500+ years writing the thing, would be able to protect it? He did create more than a few suns after all.

Answer 7

The Hebrew version of the OT (here after called Masoretic) contained the 66 books of the bible. Alexander the Great (in Egypt) ordered that a copy of all of the world's great books be translated into Greek for his glorious library. Seventy-two Jewish scholars translated the OT into Greek -- it is called the Septuagint (from the word for 70). Included in the Septuagint were 6 other books that Protestants call Apocryphal and Catholics call Deuterocanonical.

Jesus and the apostles and the early church used the Septuagint version -- not Masoretic text -- of the Scriptures because Greek was used throughout the area. Palestine was ruled by Rome at the time of Jesus but even the Romans were enamored of all things Greek -- thus Greek was the language used. (Note: Jesus and his apostles spoke Aramaic -- now called Ancient Syriac -- for their everyday language).

Fast forward to AD 70. The Romans destroyed the Temple and Judaism basically had to re-invent itself because there is no more temple in which to offer sacrifice, which of course, they did daily.

Now it's AD 90 and leading Jews gather in council in Jamnia/Yavneh to discuss these things. It is decided to drop these 6 books from their Scriptures because they are Christocentric in nature and speak of things such as praying for the dead, purgatory and messianism. These are the books that Christians were using to prove that Jesus is the Christ. It is also at this council that a definitive break is made between Jews and the new sect within Judaism -- Christianity -- which is now seen as heretical because they worship a "mere" man.

Protestants, then, opt to use the Masoretic text for the same reason as the Jews.....because of the "Catholic" teachings in them.

At the time of King James (who was notoriously gay, by the way), there were many faulty translations of the bible. No Protestant to this day ever uses the Tynedale or Wycliffe bibles because they contained over 1,000 errors. King James then (who ruled as James VI in Scotland and James I in England) commissioned a newer translation. He DID NOT write it himself! The original edition of the KVJ written in 1611 DID contain the 6 books in dispute.

As for Jerome, he translated the bible into Latin because Latin was the "new" everyday language of the western part of the Roman empire. Remember that Constantine was the emporer in the 4th century and he divvied up the kingdom into East -- which kept the Greek -- and West -- which used Latin. It is also about this time that the Catholic liturgy (Mass) switched from being in Greek to being in Latin because that was the language of the people in the western part of the empire.

Answer 8

You seem to have formed your own opinion here, and it doesn't seem like you really want anyone else's opinion.

But here is mine anyway:

I don't believe that the Bible was meant to be taken literally in all aspects. I think that it was more of a guide, like an inspirational manual.

Would I like to have free access to all of the books that were not included? Yes! Would I like to be able to read the Bible in it's "original" form? Of course. Do I think it's necessary for a full spiritual life? No.

It is my opinion that every religion - in fact every individual person- takes to heart the passages of the Bible that they CHOOSE. If you truly want to use the "banned" books of the Bible as your cannon books, you will. King James taking them out of his version will not stop you.

And, with the internet, there is nothing stopping you! Happy reading!

Answer 9

Well I don't know from all that, but I do know that the KJV is A real Bible. The older version is difficult to understand but it is beautifully written. There will always be critics of the Bible. Personally, I prefer to form my own opinions and not let a small group of high critics form them for me. That being said I do not think that the KJV is the ONLY true Bible. Many great versions and translations exist. I own about a dozen myself. A good website to compare translations is:
http://www.biblegateway.com/

Answer 10

Protestants, Catholics, and most Orthodox agree now 1 that the New Testament should consist at least of the 27 Books (Matthew through Revelation/Apocalypse) that the Catholic Church determined were canonical, but the Protestant Old Testament is lacking 7 entire books 2 (Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus/Sirach, Baruch, I Maccabees, and II Maccabees), 3 chapters of Daniel and 6 chapters of Esther, leaving them with 66 incomplete books while Catholic Bibles have 73 books.

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

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).

"Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage (and reaffirmed and closed at the Council of Trent4), and resort solely to those texts determined to be canonical at the Council of Jamnia.


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 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."

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" ( the Deuterocanonical Books) are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical. First, this isn't true; see Relevant Scripture below. Second, going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.

There is debate as to whether the Council of Jamnia actually "closed" the Jewish canon because debate continued among Jews for hundreds of years afterward as to which books should be included or excluded. Even into the 3rd century A.D., controversy surrounded Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, and others.


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. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen.


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 11

I gather the real Bible has never been produced, since it was the politics of church leaders who selected texts, deleted others and shaped the book for their goals...not those of eternal understanding or enlightenment. The Bible arguably is the greatest political text ever.