If the King James Version is the True Bible, what where Christians doing for the 1500+ years before that?
(This is, of course, assuming you hold the "KJV only" position, or that the KJV is the primary or "real" Bible)
The KJV was originally published in 1611, and amended in 1769. Did no Christian get it right until then?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes, hello, and welcome to my world. Then mention the words "Septuagint, Latin Vulgate, or majority texts" to a KJV-only and watch their eyes roll.
The King Jimmy is by far one of the WORST Bible translations in history. Did you know they didn't even have any Hebrew scholars on their team of translators?? Yikes!
Now, if you love history like I do, then you'll enjoy checking this site out: http://www.greatsite.com/index.html
It's got original copies of some of the oldest Bibles in history. Enjoy! =]
They've even got a 1410 Wycliffe Manuscript (an original!!) for sale if you feel like spending 2.75 million on a Bible. LOL!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Excellent question. I have studied this very issue for a very long time. The way I understand it and believe is that, indeed the KJV is the more sure Word of God. It is the God promised 7th level of purification, tried in the furnace of earth.
II Kings 12:6
The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Here is a list of versions leading up to the A.V. 1611 text
German Luther Bible
No, the problem, from what I see is that not that the Christians of the past getting it wrong. More to the fact of why anyone would mess with the Word after that point, is the question, really. Do you know of all of the deletions that have occured since that point? Why do you think anyone would take the time to rewrite the bible and make it more complicated? Is God the author of confusion?
Here is a list of just the New Testament deletions, I do not know about you, but when people go about deleting entire verses, it really makes me think why.
Matthew 17:21, Matthew 18:11, Matthew 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Mark 16:9-20, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, I John 5:7.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Of course Christians before that got it right. The KJV was written so all could easily read the Bible. Remember that most of the Bible until that time was written in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. The Latin version was the accepted version until that time and is still used in many Catholic churches today.
Most Christians only knew the Bible because of how it was preached to them. The "word" was spoken by Priests. Also the Catholic church only relatively recently stopped giving Mass in Latin, and as I said many churches still use Latin for Mass.
Only a very small percentage of the general population could even read and write simply because they didn't need to. Even well into the 20th century the world's literacy rate was every low. The KJV is widely accepted today and most hold it up as the one true version, but, and, of course, most people today can not read Latin, Greek, or Hebrew so what choice does that leave?Source(s): edit: btw, even the KJV is not so easy to read and understand. But the basic message is clear and accurate so what's to worry about?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Christian's believe that God will protect his word. There are minor changes but none that effect what is needed to be saved. The first Christian's used scrolls. Later the Catholic church was formed and they cannonized it into a collection called the Bible. Next the pilgrims had a Bible called the Ganeva Bible you can still use this copy today they do sell them. There were many versions and copies made over the years so the King James Version is the true Bible but so are the others. The changes are small and they are updated into today's language.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- cafegroundzeroLv 61 decade ago
Thank you, thank you, thank you, and thank you, Jesus! At last, some clarity of thought! Some clear and accurate insight! Oh how sweet the sound and feel of truth!
Yeh, in mine humble opinion, when folk vaunt the good King James' translation, tis they sayin' only wha's been drill'd into'em for generations by those with a bias, reinforced by the appeal of the plain language of the translation. The bias is natural to many English, who think everything they do is better and nobler and closer to G-d. Tis part of bein' English to be so arrogant, aye; tis the sin of pride.
Did you never see the Tyndale Bible? It's a right good serviceable version. And yes, what of the folk who don't read English, but rather whatever languages they read? And what of the Latin Vulgate? Or the original Hebrew of the Old Testament? Why don't more folk try to learn THAT?
- 'maters GrannyLv 71 decade ago
KINGLY AUTHORITY—A NECESSITY OR BENEFIT?
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. Does this kingly authority give a translation special benefits? Is it even necessary?
No, God himself authorizes his dedicated servants to translate his Word into understandable language. The fact that King James authorized a Bible translation does not make it the exclusive version that the Author of the original Bible approves his servants to use in any one language. In fact, kingly authorization, instead of great benefits, has brought serious disadvantages.
King James set forth certain rules of procedure. These the translators followed. One of those rules was that “the old Ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept.” Thus the translators were bound to follow the Bishop’s Bible in using certain ecclesiastical words, whether or not these words represented an accurate translation of the original Bible. For example, the ecclesiastical word “bishop” appears in the King James Version, although the original word, correctly translated, merely means “overseer.”
In many respects the beliefs of King James adversely affected the Bible translation called after his name. The translators, feeling somewhat bound to favor the king, were obliged to color the translation with the king’s notions of predestination and kingly rights, as well as with others of the king’s ideas.
This is apparent from the fact that some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment, being restrained by “reasons of state.” The result: the King James Version is not a true reflection of the minds of the translators of the version. Above all, it comes far short of being a faithful reflection of the mind of Jehovah God, as it appears in the original Bible.
Getting the thoughts of God is the vital thing. To think otherwise is a deadly deception. Said Jesus: “This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ.”—John 17:3, NW.
There is so much information on this. It would be a good subject for personal research. A misconception I have found over the years with defenders of his version is that they think God authorized it's printing and that King James is only the name. Another thumbs up for researching before you speak.
- Uncle ThesisLv 71 decade ago
Before the KJV ever saw the light of day, there were many other Bible translations.
There were the works of Wycliffe, Tyndale and Coverdale. There was the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560 and the Bishops’ Bible of 1568.
Fact is, when the KJV came out, it was not readily accepted.
A Mr. 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 fact that a King (James) authorized a Bible translation does not make it the exclusive version.
Its just one translation ....and not the best one at that.
- pappygLv 61 decade ago
The King James or the American Standard of 1901 are two of the best English versions of the Greek new testament. Yes there are some mistakes in the translation.
- JeansterLv 41 decade ago
The KJV is one translation among many. It's poetry is beautiful, and its scholarship was impressive for its day. But scholarly studies, archeology and other sciences have made contributions that go well beyond what was available in the 17th century. More recent translations do a better job of getting back to the original writings.
- 4 years ago
One scripture in the original king James is honest...exodus 6;3...it gives God's personal name, as apart from his titles...of God Almighty... Without that name, and putting "god"" in every place where "Jehovah" should be, you have the situation where even Satan can be called...god. (2 Corinthians 4:4) among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, that the illumination of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. The 'god' of this system is Satan...termed 'a' god by the Bible.
- EdsLv 71 decade ago
The Apostles who set up the churches also taught them and left qualified individuals to continue their works there. I personally believe that whatever was available to each person and was used by them will suffice as their source of GOD'S Inspired WORD prior to this printing. Their are a variety of opinions on this and I am only speculating from what I have seen and heard. Have a great day and a wonderful week.
HOW is the weather where you are at? We had a snbowfall that was a bit unexpected!
.Source(s): LOVE I F E . . .