who believes that the KJV is the only true, authentic bible?

The scripture sources used to make the king james version: more than 4500 at over 95% accuracy in the texts.

The scripture used to make modern translations 45, where it is difficult to find two consecutive sentences the same.

God said that he preserved the scriptures, which one sounds preserved? I am not saying that the other translations are very bad, but the King James is the best of the translations.

I have read the Bible extensively, though I do so much less nowadays. The KJV has always been my translation of choice, primarily due to how pretentious it sounds (it sounds much cooler for God to say "thou shalt not" rather than "don't", right?).

However, it is probably less authentic a translation than the New American Standard (NAS).

As a language purist, I maintain that the only truly authentic version of the Bible would be one that gives you the Old Testament in its original Hebrew and the New Testament in its original Greek. If you wish to know what the Bible truly says, you'll do yourself a favor and study these languages. Both of them are fascinating to learn.

I don't believe that any versions of the Bible are true, however. No truer than the Rigveda, "The Night Before Christmas," or the Qur'an.

No I don't. The KJV, just like every other version we have, is a translation from Hebrew and Greek. How can a translation be the only true, authentic Bible?

Biblical scholars work from several ancient versions of the biblical texts to make their translations. Since the KJV has been translated, better, older versions of the Biblical books have been found, so it's safe to say that the KJV is in fact the least reliable of the English translations.

ROFLMAO

Let's see. It was translated by the GAYEST King in the History of the English Isles and was BADLY, I REPEAT BADLY translated at that. There are DOZENS of better translated bibles on sale today. LITERALLY. These Holy Bibles have been "compared" to the new finds such as 1st century texts from Qumran and other sources that "verify" their accuracy, whereas KJV DOES NOT! But, I don't think YOU WANT ACCURACY, I think you're probably a bigot that as the Bible says "wants her ears tickled." Meaning, you go whereever it is that says what YOU want to hear. Just like these people who say, "I haven't found a church I like yet." LOL. God's NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF PLEASING YOU! Just the opposite!

It's a beautiful, but flawed, translation. When I read the Bible for its beauty, I almost always reach for the Authorized Version (KJV). But the one and only true, authentic Bible. There is no such.

Yes I do because since I was a teenager the kjv I believe is the

one and only true Bible that I"ve read for 33 yrs now To me other

bibles I would be afraid to read because I fill they take away and add things which is what Gods says not to do.

Sola Scriptura does not make considering. Nowhere interior the Bible does it say that the Bible is the only authority. as an issue of fact is says that the Church has the divine authority to control (Matt. sixteen:13-20 and Luke 10:sixteen). The Bible additionally tells us that the Church is the pillar and commencing place of fact (Tim. 3:15). finally, the Bible needless to say states that no longer each little thing is recorded interior the Bible (John 21:25) So how can the Bible be the only authority whilst it needless to say says that it is not? God bless, Stanbo

It seems that the people who insist that the KJV is the only true English version of the Bible don't really understand why they believe that way (their Pastor told them to say it).

King James was NOT a prophet, and his translators never claimed to be inspired. They were mere humans just like you and me.

..............................

...One story is told of a pastor who tried to introduce a revised version of the Bible to his rigidly conservative congregation. “So what’s wrong with the King James Version?” said one woman in defense. “In my opinion, if it was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for us!” The amusing irony is that Jesus obviously did not speak the Old English of the King James Version — neither was the Bible originally recorded in English. Despite the sacred tradition that many revere of the KJV, it is merely a translation of the inspired Word of God, not the initial source...

...Finally in 1604, in an effort to resolve severe factions between Englishmen over Bible versions, King James I authorized the translation of another version that came to bear his name. Forty-seven scholars spent six years on the translation, with all work meticulously reviewed and refined by their combined collaboration. The four existing Massorec texts were used for the Old Testament, and a third edition of the Byzantine Greek text by Stephanus (often referred as the “Textus Receptus”), was used for the New Testament. The King James Version was finally published in 1611, and together with its four revisions (in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769), it remains as the most widely circulated Bible in existence. A few other translations were produced over the centuries, but the real revolution of new Bible versions began to erupt in the 20th century, largely due to the widening language barrier...

...Many scholars feel that the older manuscripts have been somewhat more accurate and important to the refinement of the newer translations. However, this has been disputed by others, especially since the older copies make up a tiny portion of the large quantity of manuscripts available. At least 90% of the 5,400 existing Greek manuscripts come from the Byzantine family (the basis for the Textus Receptus), and due to the overwhelming numbers of copies with which to compare and verify for accuracy, some scholars feel that the small handful of older texts should not be used to overrule the credibility of the majority. Although textual criticism shows only slight differences between the manuscript families, in those passages where the older text differs with the newer, the modern translators usually deferred to the older, primarily from the Alexandrian Family manuscripts — Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. It should be emphasized that none of the revisions in the new era translations, such as the NIV or NASB (compiled with Alexandrian Family Manuscripts), conflict with any rule of faith or doctrinal issue, but some conservative church leaders refuse to accept any tampering with the “tried and proven” Textus Receptus translation of the King James Version. In response to such concerns, the theological community came to see the need for another version, one which would satisfy the need for updated language without venturing beyond the traditional text source. Thus, in the late 1970’s, Thomas Nelson Publishers commissioned a company of scholars to produce a revision of the traditional King James Version. Relying on the familiar Textus Receptus, 130 translators made the needed revisions to modern English and corrections to minor translation errors, while making every effort to retain the traditional phraseology of the old version. This New King James Version, as it was called, was completed in 1982.

All the authors and writers of the New Testament were Catholics. The Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (deciding which books are sacred and which are not) at the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the late fourth century. She alone was given this authority by Jesus Christ and she alone has the authority to translate it.

Men with agendas, who wanted to make up their own religions, broke from the church starting in the sixteenth century and have developed all these spurious versions of the Bible.

KJV was used by us for a great many years. Enough so that the errors in it became plain to users. After a great deal of discussion and many prayers, it was decided that a corrected translation was needed, and is available to all in many languages from our website and personal delivery.

Here too is an on line version.

KJV writers were subject to the King's moods and some of the writers feared for their lives should they displease him.

The KJV is only a translation like the NIV and NASB. You would have to go back to Greek/Hebrew manuscripts to get the real Bible. The closest translation to these manuscripts is the NASB because it is a word for word translation from the orginal manuscripts.

http://www.realanswers.net/newsletter/BornFreePres...