Question:
Why do people say that the king james is the only bible?
anonymous
2008-06-05 13:26:00 UTC
The only true bible must be the original one.

Isint that the catholic one rather that the KJB
27 answers:
Marty
2008-06-05 13:35:23 UTC
Because their fools

Men like the opinions to which they have become accustomed from their youth; they defend them and shun contrary views; and this is one of the things that prevent men from finding the truth, for they cling to the opinions of habit."-Moses Maimonides (1135-1204), The Guide for the Perplexed



the TR primarily resulted from the work of a Dutch Roman Catholic priest and Greek scholar by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, who published his first Greek New Testament text in 1516. The first edition of Erasmus' text was hastily and haphazardly prepared over the extremely short period of only five months. (ibid., page 106) That edition was based mostly upon two inferior twelfth century Greek manuscripts, which were the only manuscripts available to Erasmus "on the spur of the moment" (ibid., page 99).

The Greek New Testament project was seen by its publisher, Johann Froben, as a considerable commercial opportunity. (ibid., pages 98 and 102-103) Accordingly Froben expeditiously negotiated with Erasmus, who had already nobly intended to produce a Greek-Latin parallel text New Testament for the primary purpose of allowing Latin readers to become better acquainted with the original New Testament text, which he wanted to approximate as best as possible. Froben rushed Erasmus' first edition text to market, in his attempt to get it into circulation ahead of the much more methodically prepared Complutensian Polyglot Bible, which was due to be published soon. (In contrast to the five months that Erasmus used to hurriedly put his text together and get it printed and circulated, the Complutensian text required eighteen years of careful preparation before its first edition appeared. Erasmus himself said in a letter in Latin in 1516 that this first edition had been "praecipitatum verius quam editum," -- more precipitated than edited.)

Erasmus' Greek manuscript basis. Erasmus' final 1535 edition still relied upon no more than six Greek manuscripts, the oldest (but least used!) of which was from the tenth century. Though Erasmus did in later editions of his work consult the Complutensian version of the Greek New Testament, Metzger is able to truthfully state:

Thus the text of Erasmus' Greek New Testament rests upon a half-dozen minuscule manuscripts. The oldest and best of these manuscripts (codex I, a minuscule of the tenth century, which agree agrees often with the earlier uncial text) he used least, because he was afraid of its supposedly erratic text! [Metzger, p. 102]]

The TR was used as the basis for the KJV and all the principal Protestant translations in the languages of Europe until 1881, when the Revised Version [RV] was first published in England. The KJV translators most directly relied upon the 1598 Greek text by the Theodore de Beze of Geneva, but it also was virtually identical with Stephanus' 1550 and 1551 Greek texts, which were virtually identical with Erasmus' 1535 Greek text. Again, these all were noble efforts, but the editors of these editions did not have access to the current wealth of ancient documents and to today's more scientific knowledge of how those documents had been transmitted and partially corrupted over many centuries.

Due to the errors in the Hebrew and Greek texts from which the KJV were translated, the KJV contains some texts that are not consistent with Jesus' genuine teachings and other genuine New Testament teachings, as represented in the earliest Greek texts of the New Testament. For example:

(1) In Matthew 19:29 and Mark 10:29, the earliest and best available Greek manuscripts conclusively show that the words "or wife" (Greek: e gunaika, Strong's: #2228 and #1135) were not in the original Greek text and are contrary to Jesus' consistent, genuine teachings about marriage.

Note: See a thorough examination of Jesus' teachings and other New Testament teachings regarding marriage and separation at http://www.bibletexts.com/terms/divorce.htm.

(2) In Matthew 5:22, "without a cause" (Greek: eike, Strong's: #1500) was not in the original Greek text of Matthew.

Note: See a textual commentary of "Mat 5:22" at http://www.bibletexts.com/verses/v-mat.htm. See also S&H 369:31-32.

(3) In some cases whole verses or large parts of verses, such as 1 John 5:7-8 (as noted above), were added at the behest of church authorities who, according to some very reputable scholars, presented to Erasmus forged manuscripts in order to include texts that justified their teachings.
skepsis
2008-06-05 20:39:23 UTC
Yes on 1, no on 2. KJV was an English translation based on a multiple-generation copy of the original Greek. At the time, Catholic bibles were based on a Latin translation of a much less often copied Greek manuscript. The Catholic version suffered from an intermediary translation trough Latin. The KJV suffered from the sheer temporal distance between its source and the original, and its potential for transcription errors. Subsequent discoveries of Greek manuscripts predating the Vulgate tend to support its accuracy over that of Erasmus' compilation, but the fact remains, the "originals" have long since disintegrated. At the same time, KJV and other versions disagree on only a handful of verses, none of which are crucial to interpreting scripture.
anonymous
2008-06-05 22:06:48 UTC
The NKJV is not 100% accurate the list is long to list .7 things missing are the 7 book Luther took out, but when I talk to a protestant I only use the KJ including Mormons and JW, with JW I use both the KJ and the NWT of JW.the NIV is a very distorted bible of Greek text but the worst translation there is, is the NWT of the JW. its very bias adding And taking away words of the bible.I in the JW for 1 year but never rejected JESUS or the TRINITY,not only is the bible distorted by the WTS but also writings of the earlychristians,thanks be to God 7 whole family's are now Catholics including 2 elders ,go to Catholicexjw and read all the conversions .the most accurate bible out there is the NAVARRE BIBLE THE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ,not because I'm a Catholic but I compered them with English and Greek and Latin
Illuminator
2008-06-05 20:40:01 UTC
If Christ had intended that men should learn Christianity from the New Testament, what about the hundreds who lived before the first Bible was given to the world by the Catholic Church?



Luther's Protestant Bible came out 1520 and before his Bible the Catholic Bible had been translated into Spanish, Italian, Danish, French, Norwegian, Polish, Bohemian, Hungarian and English, there was exactly 104 editions in Latin; 38 editions in German language, 25 editions in Italian language, 18 in French. In all 626 editions of the Bible with 198 in the language of the laity, had been edited before the first Protestant Bible was sent forth into the world.
Abernathy the Dull
2008-06-05 20:39:16 UTC
Because it was given the stamp of approval by King James. At that time, people thought that we was King "by the grace of God." Hence, the translation was practically viewed as inspired. That tradition has continued down to our day.



Also, there were some inaccuracies in the translation itself, and also in the original language texts that they used. Over time, people built their belief system around some of these verses. When it came to light that these were in error, the King James only-ists claim that the King James was accurate, and anything else is from the devil.
Aingeal
2008-06-05 20:34:27 UTC
There is no original Bible unless you go back to the Hebrew and the earliest Greek translations. Both the Vulgate and KJV, as well as other "Catholic" Bibles have translation errors and the KJV does not translate the same into Romanian as it does into Welsh, or even back into Greek.



If you read a Greek KJV translation and then read one of the earliest Greek New Testaments that predate it by ages, you will find that there are over 2.980 places where they use different words or contradict each other completely.



According to the bible the true word of God will have changed "not a jot or tittle" so obviously neither are inerrant.
preacherswife
2008-06-05 20:34:58 UTC
I don't know who says this, but most people who say that the KJV is the best don't realize that it was originally translated in 1611. The KJV version that is sold today is not the same copy that was written in 1611. That is Old English and would be really hard to read if not impossible because of spelling differences and word usage. The original Bible was written on scrolls in primarily 3 languages, with a smattering of others.
babbie
2008-06-05 20:52:40 UTC
The Catholic Church was established long after the original Church began to be formed by Paul and the original disciples after Jesus left. So no, the Catholic Bible is not the original bible; it is an altered version of Jesus' teachings.
anonymous
2008-06-05 20:38:02 UTC
I have no issue with the KJV. But it clearly is not the most accurate. The NASB is way better and I would say that the NIV is even better. One thing, we don't talk like that and there are so many, for a lack of better words, errors when compared to the NASB. Just goggle it and learn.



Just My Thoughts!
Man in Black
2008-06-05 20:41:30 UTC
For the same reasons that they say things like "Only a true Southerner behaves this way", or " Only a true Xian is thus".



If you can control the message, and the definition, you get to control the members of the group. Religion and Politics are all about group thinking.
Urban Aristotle
2008-06-05 20:36:05 UTC
There isn't an "original bible".

There have been countless versions, the original(s) weren't all one language even.



I've never met someone who has said that KJV is the only Bible. Hence it being King Jame's VERSION.
Isabella
2008-06-07 18:41:17 UTC
The Septuagint translation was made during the third century before the Christian era, at "a time when the Jews were no longer able to understand Aramaic, nor, for that matter, read Hebrew. That is why the Hebrew Bible had to be translated into Greek, the well known Septuagint version".



The Septuagint version of Sacred Scripture, which the Jewish Encyclopedia declares to be "the most important of all versions made by the Jews" , was made by 72 official translators, 'six learned, wise and saintly scribes from each of the twelve tribes of Israel," selected by High Priest Eleazar of Jerusalem, the world's supreme religious authority of his time. Eleazar furnished the translators with his most precious manuscripts of 46 books of sacred Jewish Scripture for translation. That translation included the 7 books Protestantism rejects, the translation that Vallentine's Encyclopedia of Jewish knowledge says "was greeted with enthusiasm by the Jews everywhere upon its appearance", there cocksure declarations regarding the Bible, that are not so, are simply amazing. For instance, protestants set forth the Protestant used canon of 39 books, against the Catholic used Septuagint canon of 46 books, declaring that the Septuagint was rejected by the Palestine Jews, without designating which Palestine Jews. Surely it was not rejected by the Jews who were religiously under the jurisdiction of the High Priests during the years when Judaism functioned as the religion of Almighty God; when the Jews had a priesthood, and a Temple with the one Altar divinely permitted for the offering of the Mosaic sacrifices. It was the Jews in Jabneh, the port city of Palestine, who rejected the Septuagint during the days after the Veil in the Temple was rent; when the Mosaic regulations were divinely a thing of the historic past; after Judaism had full-blossomed into Christianity. Vallentine's Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge says that the making of the 39 book canon "took place at the synod of Jabneh, in 90 A.D., soon after the destruction of the Temple, at the instigation of Rabbi Akiba" .



Evidently protestants know not Rabbi Akiba who instigated the 39 book canon, which protestants, and all other Protestant ministers, have embraced. In the first place, Rabbi Akiba had no legitimate authority to form a canon of Scripture, such as the Jews had during the days of High Priest Eleazar; and the Catholics in the Council of Carthage had during the days of Pope St. Siricius. Secondly, Rabbi Akiba was a deadly enemy of our Messianic Lord. St. Justin (100-165 A.D.) said that Akiba "persecuted the Jewish Christians, and gave orders that if they would not deny Jesus and execrate His name, they would be tortured" . Akiba proclaimed a bold, fighting individual, named Simeon, the Messiah, giving him the name Bar Kochba, "Son of the Star." He led the futile revolt against the forces of Hadrian for the recapture of Jerusalem, at the cost of the lives of over half a million misled Jews.



Protestants fail to realize that it was the anti-Christianism in Jewry that prompted the rejection of the Septuagint; and the making of the Akiba-instigated canon of Scripture which Protestantism embraced. Vallentine's Encyclopedia of Jewish Knowledge says, that "the appearance of the Septuagint was greeted with enthusiasm by the Jews everywhere, but with the rise of the Christian sect and its adoption of this version of its Bible, the Jews began to denounce it vehemently, accusing the Christians of falsifying the Greek text here and there". The rejection of the Septuagint" was partly due because it had become accepted as sacred by another faith."



"Jesus was a Palestinian Jew. He acknowledged the authority of the Palestinian (Akiba) Scriptures." The facts are these: First, that spurious Protestant-accepted Old Testament canon of Scripture was non-existent during the years of our Lord's sojourn in Palestine; Secondly, about 270 quotations in the New Testament are from the Septuagint version of Old Testament Scripture, which. was used by Jesus and the Apostles: Third, Peloubet's (Protestant) Bible Dictionary attests to the fact that the Septuagint "was the chief storehouse from which both Christ and the Apostles drew their proofs and precepts".



Who Gave Us Our Bible?

The New Testament part of it came from the Catholic Church; the Old Testament part of it came from Rabbi Akiba.
The Wookie
2008-06-05 20:37:20 UTC
Because King James wrote it. Then he gave it to John Calvin, Martin Luther and Jesse Jackson and told them to go piss people off with it. At least that what my local Unitarian Church says.
Born'gain Catholic
2008-06-05 20:37:52 UTC
Catholic bibles, whatever print (NAB< NRSV
Waiting For Paradise
2008-06-05 20:40:46 UTC
Those are biased views.

I know of spurious verses in the KJB - and other translations.
woodster
2008-06-05 20:36:08 UTC
Dear Bobbi,



The most accurate translation of the Bible is published by the Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society publications. It is translated by experts in the field of biblical studies taken from secular history. The goal....to have the most accurate translation of the Bible available to date and the search for the truths that the Bible revels as to the word of the true God,

Jehovah.



In any bible at Palms 83:18 it revels God's name. That name

is Jehovah. And that is in any Bible.



Cheers,



Woodster
Allegory
2008-06-05 20:34:23 UTC
It's the 7th Bible: one made better from 6 good; in the same manner God saw good x6, then very good 7th time in Gen 1. It is the best Bible for study of biblical "allegory" to solve the biblical "mystery" of God, and of the Father, and of Christ. It allows people to connect biblical dots to get it: understanding.



The old Catholic Bible is perverted with the Apocrypha, and their new version: The New Jerusalem Bible, ends badly for some; whereas the KJV ends good for all.



I've worn out all versions and perversions from study, and still find the KJV the most accurate of all the Bibles.
† Seeker of Truth †
2008-06-05 20:34:35 UTC
people tend to go with what they knew as a child. Like Coca-cola is the only soft drink.

Or that their brand is the ONLY detergent to use. Many times they are mimicking what others have said to them.



I believe that all bibles are valid as a form of study, but I will try to look up as many references as possible when saying something.



As far as trying to get it from the original Greek or Hebrew.
Shawn B
2008-06-05 20:35:10 UTC
It's not even the most accurate English translation.



For instance:



"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Exodus 22:18) KJV



This one verse is responsible for the burning and torture of thousands of innocent women. It's a translation error. The word "poisoner" was replaced with "witch" for propaganda purposes.



The KJV is not only unreliable, it's evil. How many other passages are altered for sinful purposes?
Madeline
2008-06-05 20:31:22 UTC
actually, even the Catholic Bible is not *the* original. The original is a bunch of ancient scrolls written in more than one language. But, the reason they say it's the only one is because it's the most accurate/reliable and original English interpretation.
anonymous
2008-06-05 20:33:34 UTC
I enjoy the KJB for its poetry, but scholars have pointed out many errors in translation and copying. It's a book, not god's incontrovertible autobiography.
anonymous
2008-06-05 20:32:09 UTC
The original bible would be in the speech spoken by Jesus (Aramaic), not the latin phrases by the Dewey Rhimes (sp).



Everyone favors the thier favorite mis-translation.
Arthurlikesbeer
2008-06-05 20:35:20 UTC
because when the King wrote his ''version'' of the book he declared it the only truth



and its hard wired in people after thousands of years of Catholics killing them for questioning it
?
2008-06-05 20:35:56 UTC
I just like the time tested and old-fashioned book that tells it like it is.
No More Abuse
2008-06-05 20:31:16 UTC
I love to read the New King James version, the message is the same
anonymous
2008-06-05 20:30:33 UTC
its the most accurate one in ENGLISH....
anonymous
2008-06-05 20:33:05 UTC
because it is. :)


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...