Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 8 months ago

Christians, is it true we don't need the "early manuscripts", because we have the King James Bible which is 100% perfect?

I read that we don’t need them and the King James is 100% perfect. Is that really so?

23 Answers

  • 8 months ago
    Favourite answer

    The KJV is a poor translation and it was influenced by the political demands of King James I. There are many better translations into English than the KJV but all of them have errors, translations always do.

  • 8 months ago

    No. The best Bible version is the Douay-Rheims Bible because it was translated from the original transcripts, the Latin-Vulgate.

  • 8 months ago

    Certainly not. That's silly. The KJV has its problems, and so does the Masoretic text it was translated from. Jews have changed their scriptures, too, just like Christians did.

  • 8 months ago

    I'm not an expert in Bibles, but "100% perfect" does not exist anywhere.

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

    You can Google it and find that Greek manuscripts were translated, but not the original autographs.

  • TeeM
    Lv 7
    8 months ago

    Why did the translators of the:

    ASB, NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, Amplified, NJB, YLT (and the list could go on) feel the need to re- translate the bible into English?

    Because as one translator put it. (Benjamin Wilson)

    "It is a notable fact that King James Translation is far from being a faithful reflection of the mind of the Spirit, as contained in the original Greek."

    "There are some thousands of words which are either mistranslated, or too obscurely rendered; beside others which are now obsolete."

    "It has been highly colored in many places with the party ideas and opinions of those who made it, to be worthy of being placed in it as a genuine record."


    Dr. Macknight said about the KJV:

    "it was made a little too complaisant to the King, in favoring his notions"

    "that their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one sect."

    Dr. Gell:

    "and only adapted to one sect;"

    "some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment in the matter, but were restrained by 'reasons of state'."

    What about the "New World Translation"?

    Jason BeDuhn

    Associate Professor of Religious Studies, and Chair

    Department of Humanities, Arts, and Religion

    Northern Arizona University

    States that the NWT is different not because of bias, but because it is more accurate.

    Jehovah's Witnesses are not the first to re-translate the bible into modern English,

    They just did it better.

  • Doug
    Lv 5
    8 months ago

    I believe the KJV is the best English translation based on the best line of manuscripts (i.e. the Textus Receptus). Having said that, I disagree with those who are hard-core King James Onlyists. If one accepts the "Ruckmanite" view that the KJV is perfect in every way, it would lead to the following unscriptural conclusions:

    1) The italicized words constitute additional revelation. (My belief is that revelation ceased with the completion of the New Testament, and I do not believe that God breathed again in 1611).

    2) The Apocryphal books were properly included in the King James Version of 1611. (I believe that they should not have been included in the 1611 edition of the King James Version, and I applaud their subsequent removal).

    3) The way the King James Version was translated would be the only way it could have been translated. Some even go so far as to claim that the English translation of the Bible might be used to correct the Greek text! (While I believe that the King James Version is accurately translated, I do not believe that it is necessarily the only way something might have been translated and still be accurate. Instead, I believe that it was accurately and correctly translated from the right set of manuscripts).

    4) It would lead me to conclude that it would never be in need of revision. However minor the revisions have been, there have been a number of revisions of the King James Version of the Bible; and we are no longer using the 1611 edition. If the King James Version were given by inspiration of God as the New Testament manuscripts were, there should have been no need of revision, even minor spelling variations, because God would have gotten it right in the first place.

    For these reasons and others, I consider myself to be "King James Preferred," but I am not King James Only.

  • 8 months ago

    The K J Bible is NOT 100% accurate, though it is probably one of the best versions available today. Only a very small number of Christians claim it is 100% accurate but they are not scholars able to understand ancient Hebrew and koine Greek. We DO have thousands of early manuscripts but not the autographs (the originals, which were inspired of God, unlike copies of them.) We do need these early manuscripts, which confirm the pedigree of the KJV to be the soundest one around, even today.

  • Anonymous
    8 months ago

    Which KJV? The version people use today was standardized, with a number of errors by one man in 1769, then had the apocrypha and editor notes removed in the late 1800s. If it was perfect, why has it been changed a number of times? 

  • yesmar
    Lv 7
    8 months ago

    No, that's not true, that's wishful thinking and self-delusion.

    Source(s): Jesus follower
Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.