Why is the KJV version of the Bible considered the true Bible?

Answer 1

Close-mindedness I suppose.
I guess a good follow-up question is, "Why do people insist on praying in old English as if God would feel disrespected that you spoke to him in your native tongue?"

Answer 2

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500's. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just at the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - http://www.kj21.com/. All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus.

Answer 3

I don't know who said that. Christendom accepts many versions as authentic. The New American Standard Version, The Revised Version, The New International Version are more accurate versions than the KJV. Then there are paraphrases like The Good News Bible and the Living Bible that are easy reading but not direct translations.

Answer 4

It's not considered the true Bible by everyone. I'm Catholic, and as far as we're concerned, the KJV is the product of heresy. It is not a translation used by the Catholic Church. It is also not the oldest translation. It was written in 1611 by King James of England. There are older translations available and there are certainly newer translations available. Older does not necessarily mean better.

Answer 5

By most Christians, it isn't. There are some KJV-only extremists who say that it is the only true Bible and everything else is a perversion. For a good refutation of this belief, I would recommend reading "The King James Only Controversy" by James White.

Answer 6

They have been indoctrinated by well meaning people (though misinformed). The KJV though beautiful in spots is not inerrant. That stated, no modern translation of the scriptures are without error or true bibles. Only the original MSS are the ones that were truly inerrant.

Answer 7

Because it's not. The "true Bible" was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic; not English. King James English came around centuries after the "true Bible" was written.

Answer 8

It was considered a very good translation for its time.

The translators though did not have access to many MSS that are presently available, and they tended to ignore the historical context of some words and situations.

But a "true" Bible? Is the inference that all other English translations are "false"?

Just what do you mean?


.

Answer 9

Not by me, it's not!

Nearly every church I've attended in my 60+ years has moved on past the flowery, hard to understand, language of the KJV for serious Bible study! In the 400+ years since the KJV, scholars have learned much more about the ancient languages and have found ancient manuscripts which clarify various parts of the Bible.

The main thing I see lacking in the modern English Language translations is the differentiation between "you" when it means one person and "you" when it means "all of you!" This is also part of the "stumbling block" of the Roman Catholic Church when they state that Simon Peter was the Rock on which Jesus said He would build His Church! What we now know Jesus said, was more like the following: "'And I tell you that you are Peter (petros, a stone), and on this rock (petra, a massive rock) I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.'" Matt.16:18 (NIV); In actuality, Jesus, Himself, is the Petra (immovable rock) "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." I Cor.11(NIV) (In other words, the Church is built upon Christ Himself; not on Simon Peter!)

Take a look at John 21:15-17: "When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love (agápē) me more than these?' 'Yes, Lord,' he said, 'You know that I love (philía) you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my lambs.' Again Jesus said, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love (agápē) me?' He answered, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love (philía) you.' Jesus said, 'Take care of my sheep.' The third time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love (philía) me?' Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, 'Do you love (philía) me?' Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, 'Do you love (philía) me?' He said, 'Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (philía) you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my sheep.'"(NIV) Also, "charity" in I Cor.13(KJV) means "agápē" love.

Agapē (ἀγάπη agápē) (self-sacrificing, giving love)
Philia (φιλία philía) (brotherly love)

What modern English translations lack in the poetry of the KJV, they more than make up for in their accuracy! The Living Bible (TLB), while disparaged as a paraphrase, shows that Kenneth Taylor, nevertheless, knew his Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic languages! .

Except for a few anomalies, like the New World Translation (NWT) of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Apocryphal / Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament in the Roman Catholic Church, the Bible in almost every other translation, is true to GOd's Word!

Answer 10

No, It's the version of King James.

Answer 11

Ignorance!

In Christ
Fr. Joseph