jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (101 posts)

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

  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
    Insane Mundaneposted 5 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...

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in 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.

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        That's an interesting comment, as you admit that the "newer" versions cater towards the incompleteness of it all, basically...

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in 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.

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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!

            1. profile image0
              brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in 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.

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                And the older versions prior to the KJV would have more "contextual integrity" than the King James version, and so on... wink

              2. Bible Studies profile image77
                Bible Studiesposted 5 years ago in 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.

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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?

                  1. profile image0
                    brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Reading the kjv is like reading the geneva bible.

                    http://logosresourcepages.org/History/geneva_bible.htm

                    excellent source, lots of information

                2. profile image0
                  brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in 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.

                  1. Randy Godwin profile image92
                    Randy Godwinposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Ha! If that were the case you both would learn Greek!  lol

      2. Bible Studies profile image77
        Bible Studiesposted 5 years ago in 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.

      3. schoolgirlforreal profile image72
        schoolgirlforrealposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        What about the Catholic Douay Rheims version that was said to be translated from the Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome??

    2. LewSethics profile image60
      LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Because Jesus was caucasian and spoke only English (with an english accent)?

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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...   lol

        1. LewSethics profile image60
          LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in 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.

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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...

            1. LewSethics profile image60
              LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in 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?

              1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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? big_smile

                1. LewSethics profile image60
                  LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in 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.

                  1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                    Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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...

  2. Millercl profile image86
    Millerclposted 5 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.)

    1. profile image0
      brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in 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.

  3. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 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?

  4. Insane Mundane profile image60
    Insane Mundaneposted 5 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...

    1. Jerami profile image73
      Jeramiposted 5 years ago in 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?

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I couldn't agree more... Well, that is, IF we are going to swear to it...  wink

      2. profile image0
        christiananrkistposted 3 years ago in 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.

  5. Jerry Hulse profile image79
    Jerry Hulseposted 5 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.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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...

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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!"  lol

        1. profile image0
          brotheryochananposted 5 years ago in 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.

  6. brittanytodd profile image90
    brittanytoddposted 5 years ago

    The only true version is the original Hebrew text.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      ...along with the ability to properly interpret those, contextually and socially and linguistically, etc., right?

      1. brittanytodd profile image90
        brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Yes.  Or to read Agamben to find the true translation.

        1. profile image0
          Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in 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.

          1. brittanytodd profile image90
            brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Yes.  He is and a philosopher and educator.  Baddiou is also another great read!

            1. profile image0
              Brenda Durhamposted 5 years ago in 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...

              1. brittanytodd profile image90
                brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in 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.)

              2. brittanytodd profile image90
                brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Another great one is my old professor, Warren Montag.  He did a large study on the writings of Paul.

                1. vector7 profile image60
                  vector7posted 5 years ago in 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?

                  smile

        2. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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...  tongue

          1. Insane Mundane profile image60
            Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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?

    2. Millercl profile image86
      Millerclposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Haha.

      Yes, because the NT was written in Hebrew right?

      1. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        You just opened up a whole new can of worms, with that one...  lol

      2. Insane Mundane profile image60
        Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Does the NT favor that Aramaic stuff?  Like they spoke about, here:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_language

        ???

      3. brittanytodd profile image90
        brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in 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.

        1. Millercl profile image86
          Millerclposted 5 years ago in 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?

          1. brittanytodd profile image90
            brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. LewSethics profile image60
              LewSethicsposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              what do they say?

              1. brittanytodd profile image90
                brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                A lot of things.  Too much to post here.

                1. Insane Mundane profile image60
                  Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Quit being so timid...or in your case, blindly modest:  post it if ya think ya know something worthwhile...

                  1. brittanytodd profile image90
                    brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    Read a book or find a link yourself.  I've given you the sources.

  7. livelonger profile image88
    livelongerposted 5 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.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image85
      Disappearingheadposted 5 years ago in 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.

      1. livelonger profile image88
        livelongerposted 5 years ago in 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.

  8. brittanytodd profile image90
    brittanytoddposted 5 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.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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?

      1. brittanytodd profile image90
        brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in 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.

        1. Millercl profile image86
          Millerclposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          So Tyndale or the Geneva Bible didn't mention hell?

          1. brittanytodd profile image90
            brittanytoddposted 5 years ago in 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.

  9. mio cid profile image64
    mio cidposted 5 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.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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!

      1. mio cid profile image64
        mio cidposted 5 years ago in 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.

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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?"   lol

  10. Moezart de Foen profile image60
    Moezart de Foenposted 5 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.

    1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image83
      BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago in 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.

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
        DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in 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...

        1. BLACKANDGOLDJACK profile image83
          BLACKANDGOLDJACKposted 5 years ago in 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?

          1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
            DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in 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...

            1. vector7 profile image60
              vector7posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              What are you referring to DS?

              smile

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image81
                DoubleScorpionposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Read Exodus Chapter 34. Pay close attention to the last line of Verse 28.

                smile

  11. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 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.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Yep, it is quite discombobulated, now isn't it?

      1. Jerami profile image73
        Jeramiposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        discombobulated pretty much SUMS it up, don't it? ...

           Funny thing is; it seems everyone likes it like that.

        1. Insane Mundane profile image60
          Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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...  wink

          1. Jerami profile image73
            Jeramiposted 5 years ago in 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.

            1. Insane Mundane profile image60
              Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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)

  12. Jerami profile image73
    Jeramiposted 5 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.

  13. profile image68
    SanXuaryposted 5 years ago

    There are a lot of different versions but they are very much the same.

  14. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 5 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.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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.

  15. profile image68
    SanXuaryposted 5 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.

    1. Insane Mundane profile image60
      Insane Mundaneposted 5 years ago in 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!

  16. profile image68
    SanXuaryposted 5 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.

  17. profile image60
    jsm951801posted 3 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.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image85
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in 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.?

  18. profile image60
    jsm951801posted 3 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.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image85
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in 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?

  19. profile image60
    jsm951801posted 3 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.

    1. Disappearinghead profile image85
      Disappearingheadposted 3 years ago in 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.

  20. Zelkiiro profile image83
    Zelkiiroposted 3 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.

    1. profile image0
      christiananrkistposted 3 years ago in 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.

  21. Ettienne Booysen profile image60
    Ettienne Booysenposted 3 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.

 
working