Christians: Is the king James version really the ONLY correct bible? Explain your reasoning!?

Question

Doesnt the discovery of the Dead sea scrolls INVALIDATE your arguments for the KJV? King James didnt have the scrolls. We do. Doesnt that make the newer versions more accurate?

Fine the "ONLY AUTHORIZED TRANSLATION"

Answer 1

No... even KJV warns: beware the scribes!!!

Answer 2

Certainly not (as we know it has errors), but I couldn't resist responding to some of the answers.

CJ - "All other "translations" came from the Westcott and Hort heresy"
This is an inaccurate statement.

Stan - "The original bible was in hebrew"
Also in Aramaic and Greek, but he makes a sound point.
"
Rockstar - "i'd say yes because thats all we use in my church . and also its easiest to read and understand."
I believe that Rockstar has never read a bible version later than the KJV OR of 1769. Unfortunate.

Aquila - "It's the only version that mentions "unicorns" so I suppose it's the only correct translation of the Judeo-Christian mythology."
Aquila is unaware of the 400-year-old meaning of the word "unicorn" (rhinoceros)

Jedi Master "why is it you put all your beliefs and faith in a book written by superstitious bronze aged goat herders???"
Jedi Master is unaware that nearly the entire bible is credited to those who lived in the iron age.

RABS - "Its the ONLY AUTHORIZED **TRANSLATION**"
Not only is this false, I wonder if RABS ever bothered finding out *who* it was that "authorized" it, and why.

Jon M - this guy is good, although I would recommend the New Jerusalem Bible, since the Jerusalem Bible is a translation of a French translation.

Doug Lawrence - "My personal preference is the Douay-Rheims english translation with Haydock commentary ... unless you can read Latin ... in which case it would be the original Latin Vulgate, by St. Jerome."
Doug is accurate in believing that the Latin Vulgate is the original bible, but we have original language texts that we can translate directly from, *and* the Rheims-Douay Challoner Revision is hardly the best English translation of the Latin Vulgate (probably the Knox bible gets this accolade)

circleoftopaz - "The ONLY correct Bible is the Hebrew and Greek autographs.
After that, I think the NLT and the NET are excellent. In my opinion, after having studied Greek and Hebrew for yeras, the best translation is the one that you can understand, and says what the authors meant!"
Two problems with this
1) we do not *have* the Hebrew and Greek autographs
2) in many instances, translators *cannot* be certain what the authors meant. Indeed, some passages cannot even be translated, and ambiguity (re *precise* meaning) is rife.

practicaltho - "I use many Bibles, but my main Bible of choice is The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures as it puts God's name back in the more than 6000 places it belongs"
Unfortunately, the NWT "puts God's name back" in places where it cannot be verified that it ever was (and in many cases where it can be verified that it never existed). Fortunately, the replacements are well documented in this version, so a reader need not be concerned about this alteration when reading this version.

vajradharma - "There's a correct bible now that doesn't advocate torture, killing, slavery, racism, sexism or fear? No, didn't think so..."
His source - www.evilbible.com - demonstrates that he has not actually read the bible under discussion here.

mel_rose777 - "The King James Version was the translation by King James FROM the original Hebrew. You can take the KING JAMES VERSION with you to Israel and compare it to the original in Hebrew and it is the closest to it. The other translations are modern man-made versions that were written as each ones interpretation to put into the world. Its the Bible fulfilling, with false prophets and influences."
I'll enumerate the fallacies here:
1) not translated by King James
2) translated from both Hebrew and Greek
3) there is no way to determine, objectively, which English bible is "the closest" to any particular Hebrew text - however, the New American Standard Bible is generally considered to be the most "literal" (which is *not* the same as being the most accurate)
4) translation *is* interpretation (the terms are synonymous), and the KJV is just as much an interpretation as any other version

girlwhoknows - "First of all, only Protestant Christians use the King James Version - Catholic Christians use the Douay version, which has been approved by the imprimateur."
An unfortunate nomen.
1) Not only protestants use the KJV
2) Catholics use many bibles, not only the Douay. In the U.S., the New American Bible is used in liturgy
3) Many bibles have an imprimateur, including the NAB, the NJB, God's Word, etc. etc.

Lance F and stpolycarp77 make some good points.

pshdsa 31 - "The King James Bible is the best (not perfect) translation out there because of the fantastic linguistic skills of the translators and the superiority of the greek manuscript they used, called the Received text. The newer versions are based on a minority text that has all kinds of contradictions in it. The King James Bible says, this is my body which is broken for you. The NIV, NASB and all the modern translations say, this is my body for you. They obviously left a word out. This is but one example of many. Now, I stated very briefly why I believe the KJV is the best, but do I make an argument over that with my brothers and sisters in the Lord. No. I make no such argument because that would only produce strife. If you prefer NIV or NASB, then read them. If you ask me my opinion I will give it to you but not try to convince you or convert you. Not important at all compared to the need for revival in the churches in America. May the Lord put the salt back into the church. May the world see the reality of God in the churches."
Best pro-KJV-only answer yet, but there are obvious problems
1) linguistic skills of translators were less than those of today - they simply did not know as much about translating these ancient languages then
2) the "Received Text", far from being superior, is known to have many errors and additions
3) "They obviously left a word out." - this from verse 1Co 11:24, I have no idea why he thinks that this is obvious, but NKJV uses "broken", and NJB and NRSV note that some manuscripts include the word "broken"

Adina - "The original copies in Hebrew and Greek are still around"
Actually, many books are unavailable, complete, in their original languages. Also, Adina is unaware that the RCC had an English translation in print before the KJV.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 3

The bible is translated into 2,000 languages and English is only one translation. The original was written in Hebrew and Greek so to know how to translate the bible into English they had to know Hebrew and Greek.
The original copies in Hebrew and Greek are still around.
500 or so years ago the Catholic Church killed people for translateing the bible. The way if you wanted to know something you had to go to the priest and ask him what the bible said. That kept the church in power and influence and no one quesitoned their authority.
Not feeling that was good enough they had men who learned the language translate for them.
Then william Tinsdale who learned the language to do the translation all his copies was thrown in a pile and burned and he was put on a wagon wheel and they broke all his bones and let him die a very painful death. The war began.
The Catholic Church kept burning people at the stake and killing each other over this. King James not even a Christian himself said; "Enough!" Let them make a translation into English. The Catholic Church was furious.
So they did with the very little knowledge of Hebrew and Greek. It was very good for its day and a very good idea.
Saved a lot of lives. But should it be worshipped?
As this unchangeable manuscript? No! It is only one translation. Today some people have taken great pains to make the English translation more accurate. The way it was actually written. So you can have several translations of different bibles. It would be preferred that you read two languages and have bibles in both languages to get a real accurate reading. Which most people have.
But for the kJV to be considered the only correct bible is ridiculious. If it is the only correct version than what about the German bible? Or the one in Spanish?
The only correct one is in Hebrew.

Answer 4

By NO means. Here's why. If the KJV was the ONLY correct Bible then the only correct Bible would be ONLY in English! This means that all other translations from every different language (including English) would be wrong.

Who was King James anyway to translate a Bible? A close study of his life and times reveal a more "political" approach then a spiritual one. Would the Holy Spirit grant a perfect translation to non-Christians?

We have since discovered ancient manuscripts (of the Bible) more accurate then the ones used by the King James scholars when they translated.

All-in-all it is a poetic and beautiful rendition of the Holy Bible, but the ONLY correct one. . . . I don't think so.

Answer 5

The King James Bible is the best (not perfect) translation out there because of the fantastic linguistic skills of the translators and the superiority of the greek manuscript they used, called the Received text. The newer versions are based on a minority text that has all kinds of contradictions in it. The King James Bible says, this is my body which is broken for you. The NIV, NASB and all the modern translations say, this is my body for you. They obviously left a word out. This is but one example of many. Now, I stated very briefly why I believe the KJV is the best, but do I make an argument over that with my brothers and sisters in the Lord. No. I make no such argument because that would only produce strife. If you prefer NIV or NASB, then read them. If you ask me my opinion I will give it to you but not try to convince you or convert you. Not important at all compared to the need for revival in the churches in America. May the Lord put the salt back into the church. May the world see the reality of God in the churches.

Answer 6

While it is still used frequently in churches, it is discouraged when taking theology classes due to more accurate translations being available. I attended a Baptist college and am now attending a Seventh Day Adventist University and both required religious classes. All of the professors I have studied under required NIV and it was recommended that we use commentaries and other sources to study both history and cultural context of the verses we studied. It was felt that in order to understand the true meaning, we needed to be able to understand the times the verse was written during. The King James version was a wonderful thing for English speaking people who did not have access to the Word of God. It changed many things and created an independance believers had not known before. There is nothing wrong with using the KJV, however, there is also nothing wrong with comparing its text with other translations.

Answer 7

No. The King James Version is the English translation of the Bible. The NIV is a newer version uses modern day English to make it easier to understand. They are essentially the same thing. They are both correct. Same holds true for other versions of the Bible. Now if you are refering to things like the book the Mormons have taken on then no, it isn't correct. And I'm not sure about the Catholic's Bible. I know it has more books than the Protestant Bible, but I think it's considered correct too.

Answer 8

No. It's correct as far as it goes, but I prefer other, more understandable versions...and besides, we didn't have the Dead Sea Scrolls when the King James was translated. The oldest complete manuscript of the Old Testament that we had only dated back to the 10th century.

I use several different versions for pleasure and for study:
The NIV, KJV, The Message, NASB, and the NKJV. I also study the Hebrew and Greek, which I'm slowly but surely learning.

Answer 9

There is nothing wrong with using the KJV Bible, I'd prefer the older version and not the new updated on which removes God true name. I use many Bibles, but my main Bible of choice is The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures as it puts God's name back in the more than 6000 places it belongs as well as it being easier to read and understand. Jedi Master--- those bronze age goat herders were way smarter than you. Because the KJV was authorized by a worldly political ruler who wasn't even a nice guy you think that makes it the only correct version?

Answer 10

No, it is one of the worst translations of the Bible.

it has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.

Do these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opspeaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version more than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.

the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?

The purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.
From almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”

The translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.

The reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.

King James Bible has been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611, It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made, The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.”

So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version!

What, then, of the objections raised by persons who say they do not want the King James Bible changed? Since the King James Version has already been changed, they lie on a crumbled foundation. If these persons do not want it changed, then why do they use, instead of a copy of an edition of 1611, an edition that has been changed?

They appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. They do not like the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; they do not want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it. Thus improvement, when needed, is appreciated, even by those who say they object to any changing of the King James translation.

One of the major reasons the Authorized Version is so widely accepted is its kingly authority. There seems little doubt that, had not a king authorized this version, it would not today be venerated as though it had come direct from God

Answer 11

I only love this question and the very humorous answer the JW's supply which make no connection with the question in answering it. via fact the call Jehovah under no circumstances replaced into in ANY new testomony writings nor replaced into it even used as a acceptance for God because it replaced right into a man made invention of the call. i ask your self why they have self assurance one in each of those situation. I advise interior the Hebrew the call replaced into Jehovah so interior the Greek the call may be Jehovah? The call Jesus is in Greek yet his call in Hebrew might have been Yashua or perhaps Joshua. Jesus under no circumstances used the call Jehovah and continuously referred to as his Father the two the father or God the father, why? He accompanied the regulation. He replaced into no longer a intense priest yet! while speaking with those witness with reference to the NWT and their regulations, they only pontificate those regulations for the earnings of others, you do no longer anticipate them to stick to them do you? via fact the do no longer. They make up those regulations and then wreck them at will, only to maintain their doctrines intact. The NWT is the main bias and carefully improper translation and should no longer ever be seen a Bible of genuine Christians. this is a e book in sheep's clothing yet interior its a wolf. returned JW's there replaced into under no circumstances a clean testamnet writing stumbled on that has the call Jehovah in it. So why no longer depart properly adequate on my own quite of attempting and doing the transformations interior the Bible? you have substitute the meanings of a number of verses via fact it suits with your doctrine. Why? depart the Bible on my own, it incredibly is the be conscious of God, it does not want your transformations or forced transformations!