Why do some people feel it's not good enough to quote from The Bible - they have to say "King James Version"?

42 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best answer

    Because different translations use different words (same meaning, but you catch my drift). Or they're just really haughty.

  • 4 years ago

    Did you know it was in the King James bible a few times and then was ripped out, and reprinted as the New King James bible? Did you also know that the use of the name Jehovah has been forbidden by the Vatican? I'll stick to using the most accurate bible, The New World Translation, and following what Jehovah has commanded of his people.

  • 1 decade ago

    If our desire is to have an accurate and understandable representation of the original texts of the Bible, the King James Version is not a good choice.

    Nor is the NKJV. Though the NKJV provides a modern English rewording of the KJV wording, the NKJV still has all of the same errors that the KJV derived from Erasmus' Greek New Testament, which is plagued with corrupt readings.

    Truly major differences between the KJV and modern translations of the New Testament are primarily due to the inaccuracy of the so-called Textus Receptus [TR], the Greek text upon which the KJV's New Testament was based. According to Bruce Metzger (The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, Third Edition, Oxford University Press, 1992, pages 95-118), 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. 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"

    1Jo 5:7,8 - an example of textual corruption. "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."

    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]]

    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.

  • grnlow
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    There are over 70 translations of the Bible now. Most are good varying in tone or wording according to language and time of translation. Ex.: "gay" 70 yrs. ago had a completely different meaning in the US than today.

    Some have the mistaken idea the prophets and Jesus spoke in the English of 1600s. English would not be invented until some thousand years after the Bible was finished. Certainly not 1,520 years earlier when it began to be written.

    Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic can be translated into English several different ways considering time and language. By using several translations we get a fuller understanding of the meaning.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    There is indeed a widespread viewpoint that the KJV is the real Bible.

    It was produced in the 1600's......over 1500 years after the Bible itself was complete.

    'The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions' says:

    “Almost every edition, introduced corrections and

    unauthorized changes, often adding new errors in the process.

    So many changes have been made, that the Committee on Versions of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version!"

    So, at best it is of weak quality.

    Perhaps that's why so many like it.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The Bible is God's inerrant Word sent to mankind as a guidebook for how we are to live our lives. It foretold of the coming of Jesus and He did come and reconciled man to God through His death and resurrection. We have a choice made of the free will God gave us to accept or deny Jesus Christ as Savior and spend eternity in Heaven with God or eternal agony in hell apart from Him.

    Stop looking where you are looking and trying to compare what is real with what is counterfeit.

    God loves you and wants you to be a part of His family forever.

    I wonder what would happen to you if you attended RCIA classes? Maybe you would see that Catholicism DOES line up with our faith.

    Seek the truth....not ignorance.

    The old King Jimmy version is one of the worst translations ever; James I reigned as king of England from 1603 to 1625. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots, and he had been king of Scotland before succeeding to the English throne at the death of Queen Elizabeth I. He was prompted to produce an English Bible because of the poor and tendentious copies being circulated in England. He feared these could be used by seditious religious and political factions.

    His authority was one usurped from the Catholic Church, beginning with his predecessor King Henry VIII. Henry had broken with the Catholic Church and made himself the head of the Church in England, which soon enough became the Church of England. You could say James had no more authority in biblical matters than any head of state, basically none. What authority would a "George Bush Bible" have? The true authority and safeguard over Scripture was and has to be the Catholic Church, to which Christ gave his authority. No secular authority has any rightful authority over the Bible.

    Jesus Christ started a church in 33AD, not a religion. Religion came about with Martin Luther and reformation. All Christians prior to the reformation were of the Catholic Church

    Most non-Catholics don't know their history. Many of them convert after learning of it.

    Source(s): The Catholic Bible (called the "Douay-Rheims Bible")This is the classic Catholic translation of the Latin Vulgate that is poetic and accurate. Experience the dignified English of this excellent translation.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Some people are convinced that the 'King James Bible' is the only 100% accurate translation of the bible, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Others might just be specifying that a quote they are posting is from the KJV in order to keep confusion down.

    Although the first is more likely.

    Unfortunately for 'christians', their holy book has been heavily edited, redacted, modified. None of the variety of translations available are true to the originals.

    Fortunately it is a moot point, since the originals were made up too.

  • 1 decade ago

    In my case, it is to be accurate, though sometimes when using that specific one will not mention the version. For my personal use I will use whatever helps me understand the easiest or makes the clearest points, and many times will use several side by side. When speaking or writing to others, I generally use the KJV Bible, but will use whichever translation seems to best explain what I am looking for or what point I am trying to make at the time, if one version is clearly superior to another. I also will say New International Version or use the initials NIV or whatever translation it is from. I have long been aware of a bias, but I also like the style and sound of the language, so for partly that reason also I will usually use the KJV, but I was in a church service one time a few years ago when I very specifically and distinctly heard the preacher say the King James version was the only one we should use because that is what Jesus spoke. unfortunately my kids were in the congregation. My ex-wife never went herself, but sent them there on a bus and threatened me with their disappearance if I ever dared try teach them about my religious beliefs. To make sure I heard and understood him correctly, I politely and with as much friendliness and showing as little as I could of my incredulity asked him about it after the service. That is exactly what he believed. I also remember from childhood that the (mostly) Southern Baptist preachers I heard would for various reasons stress the King James version and would strongly imply and in some cases state that to use any other was tantamount to blasphemy and "denying the Word of God." I think that mind-set is fairly common to some degree in virtually all of English speaking Protestant Christianity, and even if one uses other versions, bows to tradition at least slightly and probably unknowingly. Exceptions? I am sure there are, but in general the KJV seems to have the most respect even though I feel there are others that more accurately reflect the original intent and original scripture. In deference to that mind-set, I generally defer to the King. James that is. For what I found to be the best and clearest by far explanations of many Bible verses is what you will find in the Baha'i writings, but far too many people have a bias against the Baha'i Faith so generally unless doing a one on one sharing and exploring with a non-Baha'i will not use that directly, but will sometimes heavily rely on what I have learned and/or read therein. I have found one of the best tools for studying the Bible and other scriptures is Baha'i Ocean. I have imported many more books into it than it came with, and that is over one thousand were you to download it today. The only drawback, and to me it is a slight one, is it does not spell check you on your searches. It also has some few typographical errors, but they are being weeded out and if you choose that option, will regularly check to see if any updates are available. One of the biggest errors I have found is "ailments" when it should be "aliments." I think most would use that quote and never once even notice the error. I sometimes think I should have been a proofreader. Perhaps one of the best things about it is that it is free even though in my view it is one of the best available, if not the best, and I spent hundreds of dollars on Nelson's best Gold two-CD PC version.

  • It's very important to state which translation you use. Different translators have come to different conclusions on how to translate different words and phrases based on their understanding of the culture and writing conventions of the time in which they were written. Plus, KJV uses different source material sometimes than others.

    By the way, I never use KJV. It has its merits, but the NRSV (new revised standard version) is more accepted in the scholarly community, and therefore I trust it more!

  • 1 decade ago

    The American Standard version is an excellent and accurate translation from the King James Version (KJV). The KJV has a poetic flow to it with its Old English writings.

    The important thing is to base your research on credible sourceS (plural) that is to use varying texts and other credible resources in your research, on a given topic.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Those who do so are usually the more orthodox Protestants, who reject other versions of the Bible, including the more modern ones. They claim that the KJV, comes closest to the original Bible.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.