What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.?

Question

You Do realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.

Answer 1

That is patently false. For nearly two-hundred years before the KJV the Whitcliff Bible was the (English) standard. That was not the first one either. I forget the exact date but the Bible was first Codified in the sixth or seventh century, but even before that copies of the ancient texts that make up the Bible had been compiled and were readily available (to the lettered elite at least) in a number of different languages.

In fact the KJV was widely reviled and scorned when it first came out, because it used older greek and hebrew scripture than the Whitcliff and thus came up with a slightly different translation. A lot of people at the time claimed that King James was trying to alter scripture to suit himself.

The bottom line is that the KJV became popular because it used the contemporary language of the common people. That is not a language spoken any longer. The King James is difficult for many people to read and understand because of the antiquated language.

Remember that "God is not a God of mysteries, but of the truth", in that light I recommend the NIV (New International Version), NRSV (New Revised Standard Version), or NASV (New American Standard Version). They're a lot less cumbersome to read and comprehend.

Answer 2

No, and Michelangelo didn't use an etch-a-sketch, though I bet he would have been awesome with it.

Your question is flawed. KJV worshippers would use the KJV, that's why they're worshippers. The KJV was commisioned because Bibles of the time where mostly in Latin and Greek. Before that, I suppose I would have recommended the Septuigant, thought that may be because it's the only pre KJV version I can think of on the fly. :)

Paul probably used some form of the Old testament written in Greek or Hebrew, but that's just because he doesn't speak English. ;)

Answer 3

The Bible existed long before KJV, which is just an English translation of the original Scriptures. Not sure exactly why people would recommend KJV when there are better English translations out there but I think their enthusiasm is contingent upon the fact that it was the first English translation and thus with most referenced.

Answer 4

There was a Bible before the King James! And by that I mean one that was written in the English Language at the time.

One of these was The Geneva Bible, which was the Bible which came over with the Pilgrims on the Mayflower. It was still the Bible of choice back then.

"The Bible was the Geneva version of 1588, a satisfactory edition. Before it was bound a substantial fragment of a Book of Common Prayer. This was somewhat incongruent: why flee religious persecution with a Bible which was accompanied by a prayer book sanctioned by the official church of the country you were fleeing? But some Pilgrims may have considered themselves adherents of England's established church even as they sought to reform it, and there was always the possibility that this Bible had been purchased without much thought given to the fragmentary material bound up with it. But I needed to know more to complete this final aspect of my investigation: which edition of the Book of Common Prayer was bound in? "

Answer 5

Is it no longer outstanding the extensive spectrum of intelligence right here on R&S? each and everything from understand-how the KJV is in simple terms one translation between many languages, all following in fact with the oldest accessible manuscripts of the Bible. to those that would be unable to establish the prophets by no skill spoke in "thees and thous". That English replaced into no longer a language till some million,500 years after the Bible replaced into complete. rather huge-ranging. to respond to your question; a hundred years b efore the KJV, there replaced into the 1st English version. the two Wyndale or Wycliffe (I in simple terms shop getting names blended up.)

Answer 6

They know that.
Most of them believe that the KJV preserves the true manuscript tradition that the Apostle Paul used.

Answer 7

No, but southerners did.

Answer 8

It's about time someone pointed out the obvious. Thanks.