Why would you believe and follow the KJV of the bible?

King James did not write the Bible nor did he translate the Bible.

What in the world is your point?

Well, regarding the bible, King James wanted a translation that would

a) supercede the extremely popular Geneva Bible

b) not include that bible's inflammatory anti-Roman Catholic sentiment

In fact, his effort succeeded - though it took many decades for the King James Version to replace the Geneva Bible as the most popular. What King James wanted was to suppress the religious unrest that was present in England at the time. He largely succeeded by arranging the production of an English bible that was, from a scholarly standpoint, superior to all previous versions.

Jim, http://www.bibleselector.com/r_kjv.html

It was interesting to see this as the first R&S question when I came online today. I was just glancing through my copy of the 1611 edition this morning prior to coming online.

My initial answer, to be expanded upon further down in my later comments, is that I would believe and follow the KJV in some ways no more than any other version, as they are all works of men.

That said, the KJV of 1611 likely had more errors and mistranslations then any version since.

Those who have elevated the KJV to a status above all other versions need a copy of the first edition. Especially those who believe that this is an inerrant version and the only one inspired of God. The following are some reasons the "KJV ONLY" people need the first edition copy.

It includes the Apocrypha.

It included a preface in which the translators themselves admit to imperfection. For some reason this preface is no longer included in KJV Bibles.

On page 39 of my copy, there are 15 "Rules" the translators were to follow. The first listed rule was that the currently existing "Bishops Bible" was to be followed and edited only where the translators felt was necessary. This made the KJV essentially a revision of the Bishops Bible and not a new translation.

Although the KJV was most influenced by the Bishops Bible of 1568, it took into account the previous English versions which included the Coverdale version of 1535, the Thomas Matthew Bible of 1537, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva Bible of 1560, and the 1582 New Testament from the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic scholars.

The translators did not have access to some earlier manuscripts.

The translators included many marginal notes, many of which, give alternate possible readings. The obvious implication is that they just were not sure how something should be translated in many cases.

The committee who produced the Revised Standard Version of 1946-1952, a revision of the ASV of 1901 which was a revision of the 1611 KJV, included in the preface the following comments. "...the King James version has grave defects...these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation." "The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek Text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying...We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text...the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931. An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870's"

One reason the KJV of 1611 does not serve us well today is the change in the meaning of words. One reason the KJV never served anyone well is the practice of translating one Hebrew or Greek word into many different English words.

The revision of the KJV began in 1870 by authority of the Church of England with the first result being the English Revised Version published in 1881-1885. This was then followed by the aforementioned American Standard Version of 1901.

Enough of the KJV bash. Most other versions also need to be recognized for what they are not. They are not inerrant since they are all works of men. This includes all commentaries, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. as they are all works of men.

The popular NIV has rightly deserved the name "New Inconsistent Version" by its habit of taking a word from the original language and translating it into different English words. One quick example as I need to bring this to a close. The NIV took the Greek word "hades" which has a primary meaning of "unseen" and in Luke 16:23 called it "hell", in Acts 2:27 called it "grave", and in Revelation 20:14 left it untranslated as "hades". I smell bias here.

Most of the "popular--ie best selling" versions that are known for their easy reading have taken a liberty that is more akin to being a commentary rather than a translation. The literal versions, I find, are better for determining truth, although none of these are flawless.

Some of the literal that I find helpful for study are the Concordant Literal Version, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, and Young's Literal Translation.

What king James wanted and what he got, were not necessarily the same. He got a very decent translation from Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. For the most part the translation is very accurate. There are some words in the three original versions that can not be literally translated, as there are no English words that match exactly, but the translators did their best.

There are many newer translations that are very well accepted today, and for some people, make the scriptures easier to understand.

As we come along, and more translations are introduced, we find the King James Version was a good version. There is a huge language problem because of American English.

As far as your "look at history" . . . You were very vague about what you were getting at . . . so that leaves me to guess: the Bible is full of examples, of men and women who acted one way and believed another . . . it is a human problem . . . one that only God can solve.

I'm sure you do not have this problem but most of us do.

I don't think the problem is in which version people choose, it is more of a matter of not following what it teaches that creates the problems among believers

Many of the believers in this day and age have no clue what it teaches. They don't study it as they should. This is the very thing that will allow "even the elct to be decieved" in the last days.

The Book is not and was not ever about him. The church of England wanted the Word of God in English, so to appease them and secure their support for his kingship, he Financed the transcription of the Bible into English. It would be so nice if people would study the entire history of a subject instead of hitting upon just one point and making that the object and focus of their entire knowledge of an historical event.

King James did not write or translate the "King James Version," he only authorized it to be published.

The message of the Bible is not about King James, but about the Lord Jesus Christ.

It is Jesus Christ that Christians believe and follow.

honestly i prefer the NIV. its much closer to the original Hebrew and greek wording of the texts. the KJV was simply the first widely available copy in a word where only preists owned a bible. as such, the KJV has numerous translation errors which have led to controversy. Still it was a step in the irght direction.

Uh - excuse me, but you, yourself, obviously have no understanding of history! I mean - well, DUH! and DOUBLE DUH! King James didn't write the Bible, nor did He translate it! He commissioned 70 scholars to go to the most ancient texts, and translate it into their common english vernacular! (Saying foolish things only reflects back on the person saying them!) I use a translation that is more modern in it's English, but when you take all the translations side by side, you soon discover that they all say the same basic thing, just different wording! Now, go tell your mommy you need your diapers changed!