Is it right to conclude that a person doesn't believe in God's words if he/she doesn't believe in the KJV?

Question

because there's this person who emailed me asking me why I don't believe in God's words (he means the KJV Bible) after I posted that I don't believe that the KJV is an accurate translation of the Bible.

who says the KJV is the authorized version of the Bible anyway?

to a non-Christian like me who is trying to learn about Christianity and what Christianity believes in, some Christians are surely of no help. maybe all Christians should get along well instead of putting each other down and let others learn about Christianity on their own.

just a thought.

I don't mean to sound preachy at all.

Answer 1

Actually, I leaned that the KJV was one of the worst translations. It is a double translation, meaning it was translated from a translation. There are many other translations today which have been translated from the original (or as original as we have available) languages and are more correct in word meanings and usages.

I'm not sure why so many fundamentalist groups consider the KJV the only valid translation. It seems rather silly to me, especially when it's difficult to read as well.

Answer 2

King James said that the KJV was the official version of the bible. We the sheeple chewed our cud and decided that tradition couldn't be wrong. Back when the thing was hot off the presses, it was the bible. the ONLY bible. When the protestants came to America, the pastors preached out of the KJV, cause it was all they had! And that wasn't that long ago, what, 300-400 years ago? (broad estimate.)

Times change. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with the KJV, the language is outdated. And I'm sure that some of the words were improperly translated because the church were trying to teach a certain moral standard. For example, words like fornication and the whole "days" debacle. They used the words that they knew and were somewhat close, and served their purpose. Especially when words have diferent meanings. Like, in the latin the word filius means son or boy, but filia means daughter, so when it was being translated, this patriachial society could have changed the meaning slightly...I believe that happened.

That's not to say its completely inaccurately translated, it is most;y, they did a great job. But to say that it is perfect and the pens the scribes used were moved by the hand of god through the scribes is stupid. Do your own research, don't just swallow he words the way they are! We're talking about a book that mentions dragons, dinosaurs, satyrs and giant fish creatures that can be caught with a hook! And says they walked on the earth while people are around!

I like the NKJV personally. Its beautifully written and still uses modern language. Seriously, read the bible, and do your homework, you'd be surprised at just how accurate and inaccurate the bible really is...

Baahhhhhhh! Bahhhhhhhh! *bleat*
Hah. I'm proud to be a sheep. lol.

Answer 3

Frankly, the only person who says the KJV is the "authorized" version of the Bible is King James. Many protestant Christians do have an overblown view of its importance and preeminence, however. I've actually seen posts where someone said the equivalent of: "If it was good enough for St. Peter and St. Paul, then it's good enough for me!" Never mind that Peter and Paul predate the KJV by 1600 years.

For myself, I don't trust a Bible translation done by a head of state - too much chance for politics to influence his theology, which is why he cut 7 books from the old testament. Instead, I use a Latin translation that dates from 400 AD (translated from Latin to English during the 1800s) for authenticity, and a translation completed during the 20th century for readability. Most times, I wind up taking an average.

In my admittedly biased opinion, I think if someone accuses you of not believing in the KJV, then you're on the right track. If you're curious about Christianity, though, I would recommend that you look at several translations. Each one has its strengths and weaknesses.

Answer 4

Everybody has their own belief as to which Bible is right and which is wrong. It is not right to say that because there are a lot of people who believes in God that doesn't use the KJV. The best Bible to use if you don't want to use the KJV Bible is probably the New King James Version. It is about the same but in easier reading. The person that emailed you and asked you this question is just plain out wrong with their question. The other so-called bibles have taken away from God's word and added to it also. The NKJV doesn't as far as I can tell.

Answer 5

There is a group that believes that. "KJV Only" I think it is. But to think that KJV is the only true inspired word of God is incorrect, they'd have to be throwing out the 20,000+ original text manuscripts that the KJV was translated from as well. But in fact our more recent translations (such as NIV) are better understood because it's in terms we understand (modern American English), and yet still has the exact same message that the KJV does.

So to answer your question, no it's not right for anyone to conclude that a person doesn't believe in God's Word if they don't read the KJV. NIV and NASB are perfectly fine because they were translated from the original text manuscripts.

Answer 6

Wow. No, it's not right. The KJV isn't flawless, in fact if you compare the gospels from the KJV to, say, the NIV, you'll notice that the KJV has a few extra verses. This is because the KJV translators accidentally copied some side notes from the original scriptures and included them in the Bible as though they were scripture. All English translations that I know of were taken directly from the original scriptures and translated as well as possible.

Answer 7

1) No, of course not. The original apostles didn't believe in the original King James Version (KJV)! Nor did anyone for the next 1600 years!!!

2) The "authorized" status of the KJV is questionable. The *work of translation* was both authorized and funded by command of King James, but that is quite a bit different from authorizing the finished product. I have read accounts that claim both that it was, and was not, the authorized bible of the Church of England (which should have no bearing on any other sect). I *do* know that it was neither the 1st, nor the last, authorized English bible. According to the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary (1996), the RSV was "authorized in 1937 by the International Council of Religious Education", for example. Today, the church of England accepts the following bibles:
http://www.cofe.anglican.org/worship/liturgy/commonworship/texts/lect/scriptver.html

So, even if the KJV *was* authorized by someone, that does not mean that it was authorized by anyone who was "inspired of God". The Douay-Rheims bible, for example, was authorized by the Roman Catholic Church. Does that mean that *it* is the bible we should all be reading? What about the RSV mentioned above? Ask your friend
1) Prove who authorized it
2) Why is that person's/organization's authorization held above all others?
3) Prove for what purpose it was authorized
3) Prove that it was authorized and others forbidden (the earlier Bishops Bible was authorized by the Church of England, and was placed in *all* cathedrals, according to the HarperCollins Bible Dictionary).

Of course, all your acquaintance *really* needs to do is read the foreword to the KJV, written by the translators:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html
If you read this carefully, you will see that the translators of the KJV
1) Knew that their translation was not perfect
2) Considered it beneficial to read *any* bible version
3) Felt it *necessary* to include possible alternate translations for *hundreds* of verses (included in the margins of the original printing, but not included in most modern KJ revisions)

The *completel* KJV also includes the Apocrypha, something excluded from most modern abridged and revised editions.

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

Answer 8

Are we going to start separating Christians by which Bible they use now? Come on Christians! If we can't get along with each other, how can we show others we are like Christ?

There is NO "authorized" version of the Bible. God has not come down and picked a version for us. We need to remember that the Bible contains the Truth. And follow that Truth.

Answer 9

The 1611 Bible is known as the King James Version in the United States. In the United Kingdom, it is commonly known as the Authorized Version. Neither name is superior. King James did not literally translate the Bible but it was his advance authorization that was legally necessary for the Church of England to translate, publish and distribute the Bible in England.

But to believe that the KJV is the ONLY true version is pure nonsense.

Answer 10

No. There were English-language Bibles before and after the KJB.

The KJB has done a number of disservices to God's Word. In the oldest Hebrew manuscripts, God's name, Jehovah, appeared almost 7,000 times. But influenced by Jewish superstition, the KJB removed God's name except in four places. Ex. 6:3; Ps. 83:18; Isa12:2; 26:4.

The KJB also contains spurious trinitarian slants, such as 1 John 5:7 and 1 Tim. 3:16. Those false changes have been exposed and eliminated in modern Bibles. The NWT NEVER had those false additions to begin with.

BTW, those who think they have the KJB of 1611, are mistaken. No doubt they have the one that was last revised in the 1800's.