Why do some people only accept the King James Version of the Bible?

Jump to Last Post 1-21 of 21 discussions (101 posts)

57
Insane Mundaneposted 12 years ago
Here of late, I've run across several people (online & offline) that were spouting that only the King James Version of the Holy Bible contains the absolute truth.
Even though the beloved dogma and ancient writings claiming to be inspired by the almighty God himself, it still has to be translated, re-translated, re-translated from the translation from the translation, and so on, from Hebrew to Greek to the King James version - and we even have modern day English, nowadays, etc., so why would anyone think that the only "truth" is found in this particular version? Personally, I don't adhere to organized religions, but I'm curious as to why some of y'all feel so strongly about the King James version...
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I like the KJV because I don't know nor have any copy of any previous versions. If I had one of those, I might like those. And the KJV I accept as opposed to the newer versions like the NIV and Amplified Bible, etc., because I've compared some of those and the newer versions cater to supposedly-more-readable wording instead of contextual integrity.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's an interesting comment, as you admit that the "newer" versions cater towards the incompleteness of it all, basically...
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  no she said more readable.
  the Niv is based on dynamic equivalent or paraphrasing. In others words some other guys words, Horcott and west to be exact.
  the KJV is a word for word or literal translation.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  She also said "instead of contexual integrity," which I took as "incompleteness of wording" since 2 out of the 3 common definitions of 'integrity' is soundness and completeness, while the other is incorruptability, so go figure. The more original the text the better, so that means the KJV is minus a good bit, to say the least. No, I think she worded it right; ha-ha!
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  lol she said
  I've compared some of those and the NEWER versions CATER to supposedly-more-readable wording INSTEAD of contextual integrity.
  
  Which i figured meant the king james has more contextual integrity than those other versions -
  and i agree completely.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And the older versions prior to the KJV would have more "contextual integrity" than the King James version, and so on...
  reply report
  62
  Bible Studiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  brotheryochanan I agree with you also that the KJV has more contextual integrity. I use the KJV as a foundational Bible to study with. Without a concrete reference to work with, a person could be easily swayed on doctrine.
  
  The KJV compared to the NLT, just seems to be trying to take away God's authority and power. My church is using the NLT to do a One Year Bible study with. I almost gave up trying to read it, it gets me mad sometimes.
  
  The NLT has taken out the word righteousness at lest 4 times and that was only the beginning of Genesis. I'm behind on my reading. In Psalm 13:5 it changes mercy to love. It talks about having trust in God's mercy in the KJV. That relates to Jesus mercy on the cross. Replacing mercy with love, takes that connection away.
  
  Psalm 8:5 KJV says we are a little lower than the angles. The NLT says we are a little lower than God. Which is it? We either have to be a little lower or higher than angles.
  
  One of my pet peeves is the NLT took out the word spirit in Proverbs 1:23. That is a reference to the Spirit of God.
  
  When those types of references are taken out in later versions, no wonder people question the trinity, don't believe in the power of God, question the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit a part of the trinity. Things can really get mixed up. I heard the NIV takes out references to the Holy Spirit. It messes with who God is, and people reading those versions don't get the full revelation. That is just something to me that should never be done.
  
  I realize the KJV isn't perfect either. Sometimes I wonder what we lost with the making of that translation. I rather not loose any more meaning and connections. My main study Bible is the authorized KJV 1611, and will stay that way.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, the newer versions after the KJV has less "contextual integrity,' as we (for the most part) all agree, so that means, using that very same logic, that the "older versions" prior to King James, would ALSO have more of this supposed "contextual integrity," by simply following the same logic of originality and faith in older, more original texts?
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Reading the kjv is like reading the geneva bible.
  
  http://logosresourcepages.org/History/geneva_bible.htm
  
  excellent source, lots of information
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And that is a beautiful thing! You care more about bible accuracy and truth than you do 'an easy read'. Congratulations.
  The NLT is as you say about it and worse. Newer is not better.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ha! If that were the case you both would learn Greek!
  reply report
  59
  vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Know a good resource?
  
  I'm working on that now.
  
  reply report
  62
  Bible Studiesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There was an earlier version called the Geneva Bible 1599. It was called the common mans bible during the time. I heard it is the closest to the KJV that you can get.
  
  The Geneva Bible had a ton of notes directly in the Bible explaining the book being talked about, and later on the verses. The story goes when the king wanted to create another version of the Bible, he mainly wanted to get rid of the notes.
  
  It can be found at www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html I actually use it is a reference when studying. The notes are good and helps explain what is going on if you are not sure.
  reply report
  78
  schoolgirlforrealposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What about the Catholic Douay Rheims version that was said to be translated from the Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome??
  reply report
2. 60
  LewSethicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Because Jesus was caucasian and spoke only English (with an english accent)?
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The King James Version of the Bible, like most Holy Bibles, consisted mostly of Old Testament, 75% roughly, about like water to land on Earth, actually, but your Saltine Cracker Joke is noted...
  reply report
  60
  LewSethicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, 75 % of history happened in the old testament. It wasn't until 1956 that bible time started catching up with eastern standard time, and the clocks were reset at about noon. Now the new testament is getting bigger by the day, with god trying to keep up frantically with computer science, kardashians, and cocaine. As the true word of god, the bible grows automatically, with everyone's memory adjusted accordingly so they will remember the bible as always being that way.
  Fifty years ago the bible was twelve pages and in polish. Or so I'm told.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, you're totally wrong about the 12 pages, but I will not deny that God, from OT to NT, didn't seem a little Bi-Polar; ha-ha! By the way, you seem like a true believer in the scientific, sci-fi, fantasy-filled farmer's almanac, so what's your opinion about the King James Version? Just curious, out of discussion, of course...
  reply report
  60
  LewSethicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I watched a nice Story of the KJB done by the BBC or someone like that, and it was a real nice story, with King James coming across as an intellectually honest person with huge powers at his command, blah blah blah. Evidently it took 500 scholars over ten years to translate the bible into english, and (imagine italics if you can) the translation was of the most perfect and beautiful English as to be called a miracle of writing. (lose italics)
  Other than that, I'm already rotting in hell if any of this crazy stuff is true so, just like in ones youth, if you are already in trouble then a little more trouble translates as zero risk.
  As an afterthought: What is it that people would expect to find in other versions of this book?
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'd assume to would be looking for more accurate text, for starters, and preferably by relating to more original text. Now, as for your "hell rotting," as you say, that's not my problem. It sounds like you have, perhaps, "past the point of no return?" If so, fear not, dear weakling, as surely you'll get another chance via reincarnation or something of the sort, right?
  reply report
  60
  LewSethicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, why not. Maybe Quetzalcoatl will swallow his tail and the universe will revert to euclidean geometry, or worse. I'm the one who asked 'If god is so smart, why doesn't pi equal three?'. Evidently, if there is a god he has a sense of humor, if not, then I'm goofier than a zealot.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I got it... I know how to relate to you: "Fantastic verbiage at hand with your whimsical proclamations of science fiction meets God and doom versus gloom antics! Who will win? God or the playful boy wearing the pink bunny suit (calling his/her self LewSethics) that declares that Pi should equal three because he/she/it has problems with decimals?
  It's a tough call folks, as the wise man with grey hair wearing a white overcoat sprinkled with comet dust, is getting a bit angry while waving his amazing wand of holy divinity... Will this end up in a face-off of epic proportions, or will the poor fellow wearing the pink bunny suit tuck his/her tail and run to the nearest Monk for moral support? Put your bets down, as this celebrity death match unfolds...
  reply report
  60
  LewSethicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, one thing for sure, none of us are getting out of this alive, as the saying goes. Or maybe, like Shroedinger's Cat, we are alive and dead at the same time, only nobody would know by looking at us, or something like that.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The uncertainty of it all, still keeps it fun and interesting, eh? At times, the artist sees the picture more clearly and proclaims the truth, while during other times, the critic spots the obvious cracks and declares the lies. ...While both are right, neither are wrong...it takes both, Yin & Yang, but I'm yet to learn that universal song.
  reply report
66
Millerclposted 12 years ago
Before the flood of atheists and such start making fun of people, the King James Only Movement stems from several beliefs, but two predominant ones are that the KJV is (1)translated from superior original language texts and that these texts have been divinely preserved -and/or- (2) the KJV is inspired and therefor inerrant.

This might have started with a desire to avoid arguments concerning the historicity of the scriptures or because some folks grew up with only the KJV as their bible, then when other bibles were introduced they didn't like them for one reason or another and this tradition grew into full fledged dogmatic belief.

To be honest, the only rational arguments for this position are the ones concerning the original texts perhaps being better than other texts that modern translations use. (Though it has been demonstrated over and over again that the textus receptus might not be the best. This is what KJV bibles use.)
reply report
1. 0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The translations are not inspired but the original text was. The OT was inspired by God, which adds to credence about prophesies etc. The translations are accurate if the translation is possible and word by word.
  IF an inspired original text and an accurate translation word by word how can the translation be any less than the original.
  The problem is the language the original is being translated into. Sometimes the king james bible is askew on certain words, due i suppose to concerns when translating like flow and consistency and language barriers, but the king james is overall an exceptional book, an evidential point i submit is that there has been no major overhaul and the bible has not been rewritten with new content since its kjv translation.
  
  Since the kjv relied on the masoretic texts - devotees to keeping the OT precise, evidently shown by the Qumran scrolls with 95+% identical isaiah texts. And the received texts of the early church. As close to the source of accuracy as one can get. Mind you copied.. but again, copies not rewrites.
  reply report
58
Jeramiposted 12 years ago
Insane Mundane; I also have wondered why people do not remember other popular versions which were translated somewhat differently about the same time or before the KJV, such as Tyndale?

I have read that the KJV was the least accepted version untill around the turn of the 20th century.

From there we have translations of translations of the KJV only.
What happened to Tyndale? and others?
reply report
57
Insane Mundaneposted 12 years ago
Thank you Millercl and Jerami for your responses, as you both provided some good points and opinions. ...Here I was, expecting a horde of King James fanatics to come in here and "tell my ass" using nonsense and whatnot, but it is never too late for that; ha-ha!
Anyway, I did find a page @ Bible.org entitled "Why I do not think the King James Bible is the best translation available today," here: http://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-t … able-today

I suppose one could also use that web page as part of this forum topic, as a target, to aim your misguided conclusions as to why you only acknowledge the King James version of the Holy Bible and whatnot...
reply report
1. 58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is my opinion that "IF" we are attempting to gain understanding from a written text that we should use one which is closest to the origional translation, and not a revised version of a trvised version of a revised version. IF we are going to swear to it!
  
  But in todays society ... What the Heck?
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I couldn't agree more... Well, that is, IF we are going to swear to it...
  reply report
  0
  christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  the reason for the different translations is due to the changing of language. for instance word keep getting added into our dictionaries like bling (i forget when exactly) or more recently selfie. although in 1611 (when the KJV was commissioned) people spoke english obviously, it wasnt the same as we do today. for instance how many people today would know how to interpret this passage from 2 Kings 3:9? "So the king of Israel went, and the king of Judah, and the king of Edom: and they fetched a compass of seven days’ journey:" From the NIV its translated as " So the king of Israel set out with the king of Judah and the king of Edom. After a roundabout march of seven days". This in my opinion gives a better ideas as to what was going on. Also whenever translating a language there are many ways you can go about doing it. its not always as simple as it first seems. ask someone who knows more than 1 language and they may tell you there is no english word similar to a word they have in their original language, and must figure out different ways of explaining it.
  reply report
68
Jerry Hulseposted 12 years ago
The original 1611 is not anything like the version we have today.
Acually, it is very hard to read but has a Kingly atmosphere that is hard to match.
The KJV is a very unique version in that it sets its own rythem and has its own built in dictionary.
I use other version for study but prefer the KJV in ministering the word.
reply report
1. 57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I really have no idea if this is true or not, but I once had a bible-studying person tell me that 'tithing' appears more in the King James Version than any other... Is that true? If so, I know what you mean about the "Kingly Atmosphere" you spoke about...
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, I'll shorten it with this: The tithing aspect of the bible is where a lot of the church-related corruption spawned from, no matter what version of the Bible we are speaking about. Hallelujah, blah, blah, just pass that offering plate and say "amen!"
  reply report
  0
  brotheryochananposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There really should be no passing of the plate ever, i am sure that is a catholic tradition that should be weeded out..
  All that is needed is a box located somewhere, at the back maybe out of the way for sure, with a hole in it and the people can put their money into it at their leisure without being confronted by a bag or a plate under their nose and no time can be taken up in the mentioning of money.
  Each christian knows their part and what to do. And they should be left alone to do it.
  reply report
90
brittanytoddposted 12 years ago
The only true version is the original Hebrew text.
reply report
1. 0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ...along with the ability to properly interpret those, contextually and socially and linguistically, etc., right?
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. Or to read Agamben to find the true translation.
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hadn't heard of him before. And...am probably glad.
  ...so he's a Hebrew scholar? Or he was one? Well, that's interesting after all.
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes. He is and a philosopher and educator. Baddiou is also another great read!
  reply report
  0
  Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What's their philosphical leanings or activism?
  
  ...never mind. I'll look 'em up and see if I even wanna listen to anything they say...
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, choose for yourself. I just like that they really analyze all of the Hebrew terms.
  
  (I want to add that I have read a ton of your forum posts and feel like we have a similar ideology. It's nice to finally have a conversation with you.)
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another great one is my old professor, Warren Montag. He did a large study on the writings of Paul.
  reply report
  59
  vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Only true version Hebrew? New Testament??
  
  Original OT was Hebrew, and NT Greek. Then the book of Daniel with partial Aramaic.
  
  Or are you saying your studies show different?
  
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Agamben was Italian, so either way, he could probably cook some mean pasta and/or spaghetti, and we all know how twisted that stuff can get; just saying...
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ...And Badiou was a French Philospher that obviously didn't eat enough pastries. Per Wikipedia, "Politically, Badiou is committed to the far left, and to the communist tradition." Need I say more?
  reply report
2. 66
  Millerclposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Haha.
  
  Yes, because the NT was written in Hebrew right?
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You just opened up a whole new can of worms, with that one...
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Does the NT favor that Aramaic stuff? Like they spoke about, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language
  
  ???
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The new testament was written hundreds of years after the original events and in aramaic, so I don't know how accurate those stories are.
  reply report
  66
  Millerclposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Seeing everything else you have written, I can't help but ask if you got all your info from conspiracy websites.
  
  I suppose if I asked you to cite some of the things you claim, how would you respond?
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course I would give sources! And I do not read conspiracy sites. Read Agaben and Baddiou. They are both philosophers and Hebrew scholars.
  reply report
  60
  LewSethicsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  what do they say?
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A lot of things. Too much to post here.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Quit being so timid...or in your case, blindly modest: post it if ya think ya know something worthwhile...
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Read a book or find a link yourself. I've given you the sources.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'd rather remain educated and aware with common sense and dignity, so I'm not reading books about your Italian spaghetti hero or your French philospher who supports the communism tradition, but thanks anyway... LMAO! I suppose you subscribe to the Enquirer Magazine, as well?
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No. And you would understand why he supported communism if you read about his history. It's silly that you would judge Agamben due to his Italian nationality.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No. I like spaghetii and Italian food, just not baloney or communism. I'm amazed that any "free" humanoid on the internet, would actually tyake up for communism, actually. To hell with the KJV, we got other issues here!
  reply report
85
livelongerposted 12 years ago
Those that prefer the KJV are almost always of British extraction themselves, or follow one of the various British sects (Baptists, Methodists, etc.) from the Great Awakening. It also reaffirms the language and sentiments that their ethnocultural group clings to.
reply report
1. 59
  Disappearingheadposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure I've found this to be the case in my experience. In UK Churches, I have rarely heard the KJV preached from. However, God Telly and American Evangelist types seem to preach almost exclusively from it.
  
  For me, I can't get too mysty eyed about the KJV; why do I want to have to translate it from Shakespearian English into 21st century English before I get to understand what is written? It seems better to cut out the redundant KJV altogether.
  reply report
  85
  livelongerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it's popular among the evangelical and charismatic churches that have their roots in Britain or in British-American subcultures.
  
  The fact that it "sounds old" and uses the language of their forefathers is probably what makes it sound impressive to evangelicals.
  
  To those saying it's identical to the original masoretic Hebrew and Greek texts: you've got to be joking. There is a tremendous amount of selective interpretation, as is the case in just about any translation that's intelligible to the modern reader.
  reply report
90
brittanytoddposted 12 years ago
King James hired translators (many) to translate the Bible into English. He wanted to make sure that they wrote it with English ideologies and life lessons that conformed to the way the episcopal church of England's teachings. This translation is one of the more skewed and misrepresented versions of the Bible.
reply report
1. 57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sounds logical to me... Do you think it had anything to do with King James being a "King" or was he a money-hungry tyrant, or did I pass the holy bounderies with such bold queries?
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think he wanted control. There was no mention of hell in the Bible until his translation. I think he wanted to instill fear and therefore gain control and power over believers, but that's just my opinion.
  reply report
  66
  Millerclposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So Tyndale or the Geneva Bible didn't mention hell?
  reply report
  90
  brittanytoddposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, the Greek bibles were translated using 72 or 74 (can't remember, sorry) different translators that were all edited to make the Bible seem more like a Greek epic. I don't know if there is mention of the hell we know of today in these translations. I will have to do more research. I simply know that the KJV really expanded on the idea of hell and how it is perceived today. After so many translations, the best way to study the Bible is to analyze the original texts.
  reply report
59
mio cidposted 12 years ago
I don't think the king james version is so predominant there are billions of catholic in the world and they don't accept the kjv.
reply report
1. 57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I hate to say it, but there are not "billions" of Catholics, regardless of what you claim... Have you seen the latest census of total population on planet earth, for example... LOL!
  reply report
  59
  mio cidposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know this was just a little hyperbole ,I knew it wouldn't go unchallenged, but you would agree catholicism is the largest christian religion and they don't accept the KJV.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ...And the Jews don't accept Jesus either, as the differences go around and around. "Can't we all get along?" one may ask, while the answer is simply "hell, no; what fun would that be?"
  reply report
60
Moezart de Foenposted 12 years ago
If your going for accuracy i think your right. Last time i checked the actual orginal New Testament was found already(Dead Sea Scrolls). As for the Testement, the orginial documents belong and a protected(as told by God) by his ppl, the Jews. So unless you plan to go all the way across the world, you're just going to have to stick with KJV for now. But personaly i like the NIV.
reply report
1. 74
  BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The Dead Sea Scrolls are OT not NT and are the oldest texts, but not original texts. There are no original texts. Most are parchment that is made from the skin of goats or sheep. Some are papyrus, which is more like paper, and less durable than parchment. Papyrus is highly susceptible to damage from humidity/mold and rarely survives more than 200 years.
  
  So Moses lugged around those stone tablets until he wised up and wrote the words down on papyrus or parchment. Handwritten copies were made. And more copies. Eventually the original documents were likely so damaged they were unreadable and got tossed. That is why we don’t have original documents. At least none have been yet discovered.
  
  What we do have are old texts in the original languages. It seems to me that the advantage of the King James is that it’s the best English translation for going back to the original languages, due to concordances and examination of the wording for 400 years. If God divinely inspired Moses to write the first five books of the Bible, and Moses wrote it down in Hebrew, it seems to me we should go back as far as we possibly can to determine what exactly Moses wrote down. Likewise for the other books of the Bible.
  
  I do believe that the Word of God is inerrant. What God communicated to the authors of various books of the Bible, that is. So if somebody found the ark of the covenant and those stone tablets are in it, I would likely say that writing is inerrant. As someone pointed out the book of Isaiah was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and it is very close to the book of Isaiah as we know it. But unless Isaiah's original document is discovered, it is not inerrant in my opinion. Close perhaps.
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Moses didn't write down the first 5 books...They weren't written down until sometime during or not long after the Babylonian Exile...After the Time of King Solomon. Prior to that time they were mostly oral stories...With a few things written down here and there.
  
  The KJV of the bible didn't come from the original languages...A variety of bible versions of the time was used...Including the Latin Vulgate.
  
  One of todays current versions that does use a word for word translation of the texts from the original language is the American Standard Version and the English Standard Version Bibles...
  
  The KJV is thought to be the orginal Protestant bible...But the Original Protestant bible was the Geneva Bible...Which came along about 50 years before the KJV...And the Geneva Bible was also the first bible to be brought to America...The KJV was just the first one printed here...
  reply report
  74
  BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When you are celebrating those "paganistic style beliefs" you mention in your profile with your congregation (I noticed you mentioned you are an ordained minister), what are yinz smoking? That must be some good s***.
  
  First of all, do you agree that Moses wrote down the Ten Commandments? And then Charlton Heston starred in the movie?
  
  Hey, you wrote a hub on the subject. Didn't you talk to Moses in a seance beforehand?
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The story says that Moses supplied the tablets and God wrote the Ten Commandments.
  
  Question...Where in the Bible are the actually 10 commandments located...And I am not talking about what everyone thinks is the ten commandments...But the ones the Bible actually says in the final verse is the Ten Commandments...
  reply report
  59
  vector7posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What are you referring to DS?
  
  reply report
  78
  DoubleScorpionposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Read Exodus Chapter 34. Pay close attention to the last line of Verse 28.
  
  reply report
58
Jeramiposted 12 years ago
If talking about all of the " ..Jesus loves me this I know cause the bible tells me so" kind of verses ... one version is as good as the other ; but if attempting to understand Prophesy; change a single word and this could change the entire message.
Prophesy of scripture has No private interpretation ... Yet every revised version of text has done exactly that.
reply report
1. 57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, it is quite discombobulated, now isn't it?
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  discombobulated pretty much SUMS it up, don't it? ...
  
  Funny thing is; it seems everyone likes it like that.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's a Crazy World out there, to say the least! ...But the people that don't realize it's crazy, are actually the insane, if that makes any sense to ya...
  reply report
  58
  Jeramiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I wouldn't call anyone insane...... disinterested too much to investigate and analize that which they profess to believe.
  
  It is too easy to just agree with what someone else says that they read.
  reply report
  57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Now here I was, thinking you may be in the small minority that has become ONE with the universe. You wouldn't call anyone insane? Dang, there went the Yin & Yang... Actually, the entire universe appears to be organized chaos under physical law, random yet controlled, if that makes any sense, as insanity seems to be the backbone for such things...so go figure. Since you don't believe in insanity, you go try and find reason from madness, and report back here with the results, a.s.a.p. 8)
  reply report
58
Jeramiposted 12 years ago
LewSethics wrote:

As an afterthought: What is it that people would expect to find in other versions of this book?

=====================================
ME
A different level of understanding.
Enough uderstanding of prophesy to realize when they were and are being fulfilled.
I think that is the biggest thing.
reply report
57
SanXuaryposted 12 years ago
There are a lot of different versions but they are very much the same.
reply report
88
Will Apseposted 12 years ago
Even I, (unswerving atheist)can enjoy reading the King James Bible. It's the language of the English Renaissance. The works of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Donne etc all feed into a glorious piece of writing.

It was commissioned to cement the authority of the Church of England but that hardly matters. What it really offers is a text that can take as many reading as as there are individuals who care to read it.
reply report
1. 57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I can understand that. However, if a person was taking this stuff serious and wasn't just "reading for enjoyment," they would be better off going for the more original versions and, uh, possibly learning Hebrew, etc., for starters.
  reply report
57
SanXuaryposted 12 years ago
True but most of us have a lot of material to cover. The last thing I care to do is tell everyone willing to even look at a Bible that he needs to learn Hebrew.
reply report
1. 57
  Insane Mundaneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  When you are dealing with people who claim to speak "absolute truth," learning the ancient language is a must-must-must, ya know, for the "truth," if ya will... If you could care less where your information comes from, then who cares? Rock on! Just grab a book and go with it, my brother! Peace, love, and all that other hooey that comes with it!
  reply report
57
SanXuaryposted 12 years ago
I think its a personal journey and the discovery of what you really need and sometimes knowing everything is not required for most people. If anything we should be focused on the parts that we must learn in our life right now. You have to remember the parts of the body and realize that not all of us are the scholars, the priest and etc.
reply report
53
jsm951801posted 10 years ago
Because they realize that only God is Holy, and that God's Holy Word comes directly from God through men. God, in His infinite wisdom, chose to deliver His Holy Word at a time, in a place, incorruptible. Just as God chose to send His Only Begotten Son at a particular time and place in human history. The Word was now to be made available and readily accessible to the common man.

The 1611 KJV is the only Bible that delivers God's unadulterated Word as God intended it to be delivered. It does not falsify or hide eternal truths such as the blood Atonement, the Virgin Birth, God revealed as One God, in three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is the only trustworthy version of the Bible because it is the only legitimate version of the Bible. God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
reply report
1. 59
  Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  When did God say "Verily I say unto you, the King James Version of the bible is mine only true and trustworthy bible." Please what is your concrete evidence that the translation committee did not translate in accordance with Church doctrine and politics of the time.?
  reply report
53
jsm951801posted 10 years ago
Because if God exists and is a Holy God who wants to share eternal life (which is God's alone to share) with man, God would not throw people into confusion with contradictory translations. Confusion is the work of the devil, not God. God's Spirit is pure and holy. Thanks to the Reformers, the time was right for the unadulterated Word to be available to those predestined of God to share in life everlasting (the ones Jesus died to save, not merely redeem).

Our world is waxing and waning toward destruction (God's just punishment for Adam's disobedience). Those who respond to God's offer in Christ alone are known only to God, but in order for these to respond, God has blessed us with His truth manifest using the exact words in human language that God wants to be used.

There is one and only one legitimate Bible. The 1611 KJV.
reply report
1. 59
  Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Funny that you don't consider Jewish bibles to be more legitimate, at least in the OT of course after all. Why would you trust a politically motivated Church and state to tell you what the Hebrew scripture mean rather than Jewish scholars who understand their own language and culture to give you a better English translation?
  reply report
53
jsm951801posted 10 years ago
Because God, in God's ultimate wisdom, chose to reveal His Word in it's completeness to mankind at a certain point in time. The Hebrews also did not know that God would send Jesus as the Messiah, and most did not recognize him. Most were looking for some earthly king who would deliver them from Gentile oppression. The hearts of most people were, and are, centered still on the things of this world. Continuing on this path will lead these people to futility. The grace of God is mysterious to me. Some people embrace it, others do not. Those who do are predestined of God for salvation because God is omniscient and the author of all time and space.

It sounds to me as if you are sincerely seeking Him. God said, "Seek and ye shall find; knock and it shall be opened unto you." This is all part of God's plan of salvation, not because we deserve it (we don't), but for the glory of God who is all goodness, light and life....eternally.
reply report
1. 59
  Disappearingheadposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You still have not explained why you think the KJV, translated by those who did not have Hebrew as a first language, is more accurate than a Jewish translation by those who do have Hebrew as a first language.
  
  It's just all too easy to make nebulous unsubstantiated statements like "God, in God's ultimate wisdom, chose to reveal His Word in it's completeness to mankind at a certain point in time." isn't it.
  reply report
88
Zelkiiroposted 10 years ago
It's more poetic, and thus more memorable and quotable.

Of course, to be more poetic, the writers basically threw the original translations into the trash.
reply report
1. 0
  christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  i think the new king james does ok as far as being poetic goes. i think you're right in general though. most people today really dont even know how to interpret poetry. seems like they can even read the simpler versions like the NIV and tell the difference between symbolism, metaphors and what to take literally.
  reply report
60
Ettienne Booysenposted 10 years ago
When applying the writings to ones daily life the King James version is better. Bibles that have been translated many times lose some of the valuable applications that some verses may have hold. All of this is because its the first translation from Hebrew. So it's the original words - from the real authors of the bible of course.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Why do some people only accept the King James Version of the Bible?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Why do some people only accept the King James Version of the Bible?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies