WHich Bible versions are not the 'Word of God' - apparently, the King James version is fraudulent (2nd Kings)?
Kings 2:23-24 (King James Version)
"And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."
2 Kings 2:23-24 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
"From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some youths* came out of the town and jeered at him. "Go on up, you baldhead!" they said. "Go on up, you baldhead!" He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths."
*Youths contested by some as 18-20 year old adults.
So, which is the 'Word of God' and which is a fraud?
Are they "little children" or grown ups?
This question is in response to people who claim "youths" did not mean little kids but young men old enough to be held accountable.
- julieLv 51 decade agoFavourite answer
Bite me James.
My doubts are with the catholic Bible. Even when I was a catholic I had doubts and no one would answer my questions so I became a Christian.
- 4 years ago
I'm not sure who told you the KJV is the only acceptable translation of the Bible. And no the "J" did not come from Greek. Who talked to you about any of this making anyone not believe in Jesus....? When I read the Bible I use a translation that actually has the original Greek with a literal English translation--word for word--, the KJV and the NIV. I can compare the original Greek with both the literal and KJV and NIV translations. If one reads the literal English translation, of course the word order is off, because Greek doesn't have the same sentence structure, but I can see how the NIV has changed many of the original words....and changing the word of God is NOT a good thing. The KJV simply is a more accurate translation, and so better reflects the Word of God as it was left for us...and in my book, that's better. It doesn't mean that the syntax of that age is holier....or better. It just means the translation is more accurate and I think that accuracy is better...I'd rather know exactly what Christ said and did, as opposed to knowing "about" what Christ said and did. The least (mis)interpretation, the better. Wouldn't you agree.
- CharlesLv 41 decade ago
You need to have a basis for what is an accurate account of the bible. otherwise any bible is sufficient.
You will get different word usage in all versions, but what is important is that it follows the Theme of gods message and what Christ taught.
The theme of the Bible from the Hebrew scriptures to the greek
has always been "Gods Kingdom" and the final sanctification of "Gods name".
with that in mind we need to look back some of the original text used to translate the bible into english.
What most bible version do not render properly is the name of God,which is Jehovah in english and Yahweh in Hebrew. this name has been replaced in most modern version with the title "God" or "Lord" which i believe is an abomination. the Actual name Jehovah Appeared more then 7000 times in original text but modern translators failed to use that name instead just using the title "God". The only bible on the planet that puts Gods name back into the Holy Scriptures as it orignally should have been is the "New World Translation" translated and printed by the Watchtower Society of New York.
By the simple act of removing this name of the most high God Jehovah has created many fals beliefs and misunderstandings of Jesus teachings. Such as the belief in the Trinity, the Soul , and hellfire damnation.Source(s): A bible student
- 1 decade ago
It isn't that the King James version isn't the "word of God." It's just that the English language had fewer words then, and some of the Hebrew words had more than one meaning. For example, the word that was translated as "little children" in the King James version. The same word was used to describe young adults.
Neither is a "fraud." We just understand Hebrew better now, and have more manuscripts in other languages from which to translate, and compare. We certainly didn't have the more than 24,000 fragments we have now, when the King James was translated. So that's why there seems to be a discrepancy in the translation.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Bobby JimLv 71 decade ago
The KJV is generally the most accurate to the original manuscripts.
Least accurate are the paraphrased versions, like the NIV, NIrV, The Message, NLT, etc.
The KJV was translated from the oldest and best manuscripts by the Septuagint, 70 Bible Scholars of the Middle Ages.
When checking out a translation, I always look at Genesis 20:8. The KJV leaves a double meaning in place, of prophetic proportions. Most other translations alter that verse, thereby removing the prophetic double meaning.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Why assume one is fraudulent? Just because the KJV translates it different that the NIV doesn't mean anything. The KJV was relevant for it's time. Anyway...
The Hebrew word translated "children" and "youth" is na'ar and can be translated "boy" or it can mean the age from infancy to adolescence.
Remember to understand you must consider to whom the book was written, who wrote it and how the original reader understand what was written. In the Jewish culture, men and boys were written about most. Boys, were accountable at the age of 12.
Neither translation is a fraud--it doesn't even make sense why you would think that unless you're just wanting to find fault.
- OmerLv 51 decade ago
Wow, I have a pretty good answer for you actually..my answer is from a similar question that was proposed, so some of it might not make sense:
OMG..don't you all see that having so many different versions of the Bible indicates a corrupt religion? Many authors, editors, revisers, etc. of the Bible only changed/deleted/added verses to appeal to Christians so they would remain faithful (in other words through lies) and to appeal to people who are interested in converting (the same way). Converting through lies and putting in what people WANT to hear is corrupt. For all we know, the all-loving peaceful Bible could have had some ugly verses that were deleted or replaced with more peaceful ones so that Christianity could not look like a culprit or evil religion in the future. CORRUPTION! For all sixty-six or so versions of the bible, money is an inevitable thing to be easily made--and with so many different bibles, it is hard to know which one to go by and which different “interpretation” to follow.
An imperfect, flawed religion indicates that it is disqualified as being the true religion.
When you said, "I think people are seeing the question they want to asnwer, not asnwering what has been asked..."
Well, that’s kind of like the Christians changing the Bible into what they want their religion to be like (aka allowing more freedoms, making bad deeds seem less impactful, etc.), not seeking the truth or caring about what is really meant for them.
The Bible was once beautiful, but it was changed and adulterated, and therefore lost all its beauty to the greedy “converters” who wanted to win converts or strengthen weak followers by releasing new editions and versions of the Bible that sounded appealing or adhered to the potential convert’s or weak follower’s likes, and get as many converts by any means--even if it means lying or taking advantage of the situation and circumstances.
- rangedogLv 71 decade ago
They found 1836 readings in the Textus Receptus that was changed to fit church doctrine.
The Textus Receptus is what most of the KJV is based on.
But the verses you are particularly concerned about, is really not a problem reading.
After all, does it really change the message?
- 1 decade ago
It was translated in the year 1611 AD, I'm sure that the English words back then are not use today like they use to.
It was translated word for word; you can be assured that the first verse of Genesis is the same as the Hebrew scripture.
You have to read the Bible by faith and not by criticism and scrutiny because it would never benefit you.
Always remember Satan quoted scripture too when he tempted Christ...
- MulereinerLv 71 decade ago
KJV is the most correctly translated version.
When you pit it against the NIV there is that and other things that were not translated properly.
If you read Greek and Hebrew, thats the best way to accurately know the scriptures.