Why do some of my fellow believers hold to the idea that the KJV bible is the ONLY bible?

Question

Are there ideas present in the KJV that are not present in other translations that you need?

Help me to understand...

AtC:

Dikaioma

that which has been deemed right so as to have force of law
what has been established, and ordained by law, an ordinance
a judicial decision, sentence
of God
either the favourable judgment by which he acquits man and declares them acceptable to Him
unfavourable: sentence of condemnation
a righteous act or deed

KJV using strongs:

kai edoqh auth ina peribalhtai bussinon lampron kaqaron, to gar bussinon ta dikaiwmata twn agiwn estin.

It can be translated as righteous act.

Hebrews 9:10
Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.

The word is translated as ordinances or acts.

So the translators of KJV changed in Revelations to match their theology.

Answer 1

*Gasp* Don't you know? That's the Bible Paul wrote in prison!!!!

I actually had a woman tell me that. I started laughing cause I thought she was joking, till I saw the look of Extreme Anger on her face.... then I just laughed harder. ;-) Some people believer some very weird things.

The claim about the KJV is that it was translated directly from Hebrew and Greek and only those languages. Which isn't correct at all. The Vulgate was used more often than the codex's were as Latin was still a living language during that time (unlike now when you either have to be part of the clergy in the Catholic Church, a doctor or a scientist to even know Latin). The codex's were used to help fill in for certain words that the meaning in Latin didn't transfer well to English. So the people who believe the KJV was translated directly from Hebrew and Greek think this means it's the closest to the "original". Problem is, even the Old Test was put into Greek about 300 years before Jesus was born (Septuagint) and there are NO originals... Everything we have of the Bible itself is copies of copies.... and so on. There is no way to find out if it's even remotely close to any "original" - if there ever was an original.

Answer 2

It isn't so much that there are ideas present in the KJV - it's that the doctrine is extremely accurate while the new versions have watered it down or completely changed it.

For example: Revelation 19:8 in the KJV reads, "And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints." Now, what is the righteousness of saints? The Bible makes it clear that we are given the righteousness of Christ when we get saved and become 'saints'. He takes our own "righteousness", which He sees as filthy rags according to Isaiah 64:6, and instead gives us the righteousness of Christ - it's rather like changing out of filthy clothes into a robe of pure white. So the righteousness of the saints is the righteousness of Christ.
Many new versions change the latter half of that verse so that it reads "the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints." Huh? Righteous acts? We are going to stand before God in our righteous acts? I think not. There is no act righteous enough that it can take away our sins and make us fit to stand before God clothed in it - at least, none that a mere sinner can do! That is heresy. And many new Bibles say that. That is WRONG. And there are many other examples of such doctrinal error in these new Bibles.

This is why I believe that the KJV is the best English version to use. I can't speak for other languages because I simply don't know. But in English, I believe that the KJV is the preserved word of God, the most accurate translation of the preserved Scriptures in our language.

The other reason I believe that the new versions are faulty is because of the manuscript they come from. The majority text is the one used by the real church (the persecuted believers, NOT the catholics) since the time of Christ. These documents all agree with one another, I believe the only differences are spelling mistakes or typos and even those aren't that common because of the care taken by the Christians who copied the texts. The new versions pretty much all come from the Minority Text, which is a corrupted text put together by Origen in the fourth century when Constantine made Christianity the state religion (this was the birth of the Roman Catholic church). The Minority Text is quite gnostic, and it is full of errors - the documents comprising it are not in agreement on many things. This text is used to create the modern-day Catholic Bible as well. Find yourself a good source and study these two texts (preferably not a Catholic source....their interpretation of history isn't entirely accurate!). It is fascinating.

Answer 3

It is not the only bible, the catholic one is a little different, but the only one authorised for British protestants by King James. Its language is a little archaic for modern use, hence the NIV, the most transparent attempt at adding spin in retrospect that I have yet to see.

Personally I used Richard Young's Literal Greek Translation. This is of the original source documents that were the Greek copies of the original Hebrew texts that were lost. Because it was done at the end of the 1800's its language is not as archaic either. There is almost no spin at all.

Answer 4

Because they believe everting pastor moron tells them and have no idea how the KJV bible was put to gether

the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516. The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment"

KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century

Parts of it were translated by a drunk as well yea put your faith in it

Answer 5

It's more like a football supporter - you know the sort - Manchester United are the only decent club, or Green Bay or wherever you live. So MY translation, MY doctrine, MY way of life, is the only TRUE WAY.
Personally I like the NAS, KJV, RV, NEB, Tao Te Ching - whatever hits the spot at the time. Just take into account it won't be accurate, because a translation can't be.

Answer 6

The KJV is the closest in the translation from Greek and Hebrew , the others change or delete words some up to 5,000 words. That would change a lot of meaning.

Answer 7

I suppose that's what they've been taught. However, I find it alarming that we Christians cannot even agree on the correct translation of the Bible, yet many of us are so eager to argue that OUR version is the true Word of God. Jesus must just shake His head in disbelief.

Answer 8

They think it is the "only" true Bible because of how old it is. Which is funny, because it wasn't even the first English Bible. It was the first MASS PRODUCED English Bible.

But it's riddled with so many mistranslations it's ridiculous. I look at the Hebrew words, their meanings, and what they were translated to, and I just HAVE to wonder what those "scholars" who translated the KJV were thinking.

Answer 9

Many of the other versions, like the NIV, came from unbelievers Wescott and Hort:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%20Books/James_Melton/fighting_back.htm#fight8

KJV is the true Bible.

Answer 10

if i'm not mistaken the KJV is a lot easier to read instead of the NIV... and normally KJV is a more christian bible... as the NIV is more catholic.. (i think) but it really depends on what you were brought up on...