Why do some believe that the KJV Bible is the only Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter john_charles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
benaiah said:
Hello Joey Warren,
Most of the “best Condition” copies are very costly, but some can still be found in “readable” condition on sites such as E-Bay and Abebooks.com. Both sites specialize in rare books. I also have found many rare books (Bibles included) scanned to computer disc format which brings the cost down considerably. But the most enjoyable for me, is going to old book stores that carry antique books. I remember going to one up in Cincinnati, in the downtown area that, I believe had 5 or 6 floors of old books. I can’t remember the name of it anymore, but it was pretty big and had been there a long time. Also flea markets and even yard sales produce some amazing finds. I hope this helps.
God Bless,
Benaiah
Click to expand...
Thanks and yes it does.
 
Sufi said:
Old Bibles? What do you by old? How often do you guys re new your sacred scriptures?
Click to expand...
Hmmmm, I’m not sure if this is a sarcastic comment thrown at the Christians on here or not.

But after your comments to exoflare I would hope not, so I will answer you.

Over time, the different breakaways of Christians translated their own Bibles, as they don’t think the Apocrypha should be included, and many other reasons such as Greek/Hebrew translations.

As can be seen in this thread, the KJV did include the Apocrypha at one stage, then it didn’t.

Joey asked where he can get a copy of these old bibles.

NOT to be taken that sacred Scripture is re-newed as you put it.

As you should know, Christians don’t re-new Scripture 🙂
 
The Bible itself never changes! The different translations are what change. By the way, the KJV is based on a Hebrew and Greek text that are not as old as some of the other manuscripts that have since been discovered, and the KJV is based on a Hebrew text that was translated by a Catholic (Erasmus).
 
john_charles said:
I am trying to understand WHY some people say that the only accurate Bible is the “King James Version 1611”. It seems that these believers are so entrenched with this belief that there is no room for anything other than a literal KJV only view, nothing else can be considered.Please help me understand why.
Click to expand...
Most people who make this claim don’t realise that the 1611 edition is VERY different from the Authorized version we have today. Spelling is probably the biggest difference, along with the addition of the apocrypha.

1611

Joh 3:16 For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world: but that the world through him might be saued.
Joh 3:18 He that beleeueth on him, is not condemned: but hee that beleeueth not, is condemned already, because hee hath not beleeued in the Name of the onely begotten Sonne of God.

Authorized

Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
 
Chris_LaRock said:
The LDS actually translates the King James into other languages.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
So the foreign languages Bibles are not accurate translations, since they are not based on the original Hebrew and Greek, but actually a paraphrase of an English translation!:whacky:
 
I would like to know how it can still be considered a King James bible if it’s rendered in another language other than English, and especially if the court of King James had no part in producing it.
 
john_charles said:
I am trying to understand WHY some people say that the only accurate Bible is the “King James Version 1611”. It seems that these believers are so entrenched with this belief that there is no room for anything other than a literal KJV only view, nothing else can be considered.Please help me understand why.
Click to expand...
The King James version was translated by 54 of the best scholars during that time. The KJV translation is very close to the actual meaning in Hebrew and Greek. It’s trustworthy and reliable. I woudn’t trust anything else.
 
lak611 said:
The Bible itself never changes! The different translations are what change. By the way, the KJV is based on a Hebrew and Greek text that are not as old as some of the other manuscripts that have since been discovered, and the KJV is based on a Hebrew text that was translated by a Catholic (Erasmus).
Click to expand...
And this is something you know to be fact?
 
Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford.

Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings;

seven had Romans through Jude.

**At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. **

Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Source: av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
 
believers said:
And this is something you know to be fact?
Click to expand...
Like the earlier English translations such as Tyndale’s and the Geneva Bible, the King James Version was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts, bypassing the Latin Vulgate. The King James Version’s Old Testament is based on the Masoretic Text while the New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus as published by Erasmus. The King James Version is a fairly literal translation of these base sources; words implied but not actually in the original source are specially marked in most printings (either by being inside square brackets, or as italicized text).

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
 
believers said:
And this is something you know to be fact?
Click to expand...
The New King James Version is a conservative revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text, but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version. In the New Testament, this means that the Greek text followed is the Textus Receptus of the early printed editions of the sixteenth century. The ancient manuscripts, upon which critical editions of the Greek text have been based for nearly two centuries now, are ignored (except in the marginal notes). So, for example, the Johannine Comma is printed in the text of 1 John 5:7-8 just as it was in the King James Version (although a note informs the reader that “only 4 or 5 very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek”).

Source : bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html
 
JoeyWarren said:
Erasmus

He was an ordained RCC priest.

newadvent.org/cathen/05510b.htm
Click to expand...
Hello Joey Warren,
Yes Erasmus was a Catholic, but Did Erasmus’ contemporaries believe he was a “Good” Catholic?

The following are quotes from various researchers:

“In the midst of the group of Protestant scholars who had long been his truest friends, and so far as is known, without relations of any sort with the Roman Catholic Church, he died.” 1

"He died at Basel in 1536, committed to neither party, but amid an admiring circle of friends who were all on the , Reformed side."2

[He was an] "ex monk … a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money that he left was used to , help Protestant refugees."3

"In 1559 Pope Paul IV 'placed everything Erasmus had ever written , on The Index of Forbidden Books."4

“[H]e was branded an impious heretic, and his works were forbidden , to Catholic readers” 5

"The Council of Trent , condemned Erasmus’ translation"6 of the Bible. It is clear that his Bible was not a Roman Catholic Vulgate translation at all.

In 1527, Spanish "monks of the Inquisition began a systematic scrutiny of Erasmus’ works, with a view to having [Erasmus] condemned , as a heretic."7

In his own words:

"All I ask for is the leisure to live wholly to God, to repent of the sins of my foolish youth, to study Holy Scriptures, and to read or write something of real value. I could do nothing of this , in a convent."8

In 1505 he wrote, "I shall sit down to Holy Scriptures with my whole heart, and devote the rest of my life to it… all these three years I have been working entirely at Greek and have not been , playing with it."9

Here are some other quotes, cited by Gail Riplinger (see footnote):

“As to me, all I have sought has been to open my contemporaries’ eyes and bring them back from ritual to true Christianity.”

“Read the Gospels … and see how we have degenerated.”

“A man of piety would feel that he could not employ his time better than in bringing little ones to Christ.”

"We must forget ourselves, and think , first of Christ’s glory."10

Even historian Will Durant wrote of him that by 1500 (when he was 34 years old), he had “formed his resolve to study and edit the Greek New Testament as the distilled essence of that real Christianity which, in the judgement [sic] of reformers and humanists alike, had been overlaid and concealed by the dogmas , and accretions of centuries.” 11

These facts and others lead me to believe that Erasmus did not believe in all the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion. A copy of the second edition of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament ended up in a school in Wittenberg, Germany, where a monk named Martin Luther found it. That Greek text helped Martin Luther to start the Reformation, which brought about the King James Bible.

Just food for thought,
God Bless,
Benaiah
Footnotes are from:
Gail Riplinger, The History of the Bible: Erasmus and the Received Text (Ararat, Virginia: AV Publications Corp., ©2000)
This will soon be released as part of a larger book but the information above is currently available in spiral-bound format on request. Contact www.avpublications.com.

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1909), vol. I., p. 166

Hastings’ Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (New York: Scribner’s, 1928), Vol VI, p. 83.

Owen Chadwick, A History of Christianity (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), p. 198. Riplinger notes of Erasmus, “He was buried at a Protestant church in Basel” (p. 1).

Roland Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom (New York: Scribner’s, 1969), pp. 277-278

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation (New York: MJF Books, 1957), Vol. 6, p. 437.

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, Vol. 6, p. 285

Will Durant, p. 435

J.A. Froude, The Life and Letters of Erasmus (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1894), p. 25.

J.A. Froude, The Life and Letters of Erasmus, p. 87.

J.A. Froude, The Life and Letters of Erasmus, pp. 260, 356, 118, 349.

Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: The Reformation, Vol. 6, p. 273.
 
For the same reason that many hyper-Traditionalists believe that the Douay-Rhiems is the only true version in English.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top