The title is tongue in cheek, but does seem to be a strong contention for many christians.

Typically, there are those who feel only the KJV is acceptable, and no other bible is ok at all. Typically, the stance also follows that the KJV is actually better than the original languages the bible was written in. Better, as in from God, that it is more true than the original language.

The NIV is sometimes thought better since the translations were made from documents older than the ones used for the KJV. That's thought that since they are older, there is less time for them to alter copies from the original documents. I am not aware of any significant movement for those who use the NIV to suggest only the NIV is authorized, but that other translation, including KJV, can be used.

For those not familar with the background of the 1611 KJV,



The 1611 edition does include the Apocrypha, a series of books that is not in later editions of the KJV. The only other bible I know that includes the Apocrypha books is the Douay-Rhymes version which is used by catholics.

Also those who are not aware, there are different editions of the KJV. Typically, the 1769 edition is the one used, since it is the ones that has corrected the mistakes that were in all the previous editions. All KJV that were editions not from 1611, do not include the apocrypha books.

I think Mentat was reffering to a 1769 edition of the 1611 KJV. (And yes I know that sounds odd) Perhaps he will clarify.

"Reasonable guidelines" leaves a lot of leeway, such as I mentioned on the other thread.

But the bible you are reading is not in the original tongue. It is due to an educated man that the translation to a language you can read the bible at all. If you are educated enough to read the original, then let's make the comparison to the "common" man who cannot read several languages. We do need to rely on people more learned then ourselves. Quite simply not every common man has the ability to read several languages and study history to know the use of word as they way it would have been used back then. For example, without knowledge of the way insect feet were counted, the common man would think the writer cannot count.

It also occurs to me that the KJV has a language that is not fully clear. Many people use a second book to understand some of the odd words that are no longer used in today's language. In other words, the common man does not understand some of these words, and need educated assistance from those who have studied history of the old style english.

Well there are many Bibles the Jerusalem Bible is one I find very well done and accurate in areas such as the Book of Genesis, the KJV (severl versions) and the NIV. I find except for those created by the fringe ,such as The Way Bible, are quite accurate. All use differnent styles of translation and unless one can read Hebrew and Greek we must rel on Godly translators doing their best. I think it strange any endeavor blessed by God should have any errors so grave a Bible cannot be used.

But I must add is not a Bible meant to be read by the common secular man its not supposed to be difficult to read but in a form you, I and the janitor down the street can read. The Catholics used to forbid reading the Bible by limiting all copies to the Latin a tongue known to clergy, wealthy mervchants and tradesman and the nobility all who could afford to learn the language. The protestant reformation was a direct move to give the Word to the hands of common people so THEY can study the scriptures themselves. The older KJV Bible is no longer easy to read to the modern reader as much as I adore the language even I with a college education and experience have trouble in spots. I think requiring the KJV 1611 as the only text smacks of elitism and goes against the reasons for the protestant movement. We are to have a Bible that breathes and lives and can be read by all to glorify God.

Then there is another problem every translation to a native language other than English surely if deciphering and scribing the holy words is hard to English. Putting those same words in French, Japanese or Hindi is even more of a challenge. Is it not better than to take the scrioptures and using all the skills of the translators guided by God they translate the text into a native language. Surely God if He didn't mind the Torah in Hebrew, New Testament in Greek and the earliest assembled Bibles in Latin is not offended by doing a translation in a modern language.

That's an interesting point. It becomes difficult for the KJV only argument, since anyone who can't speak english could not read the KJV without a translation, and therefore that would mean much of the world would be forced to use a translation that is different than the KJV original.

The irony is that what we call the 'old king james' is not the 1611 edition at all.  Back in 1611 words were spelled differently, so it looks like there are a whole bunch of misspellings.

If God really re-inspired the bible in 1611 why did we need to edit / spell check  it?

Thank you, everyone.

Yes, Rogue is correct. I am referring to the 17th century version. The other versions underwent several spelling and grammatical corrects, the only one of any doctural significance was when a passage in Psalms was changed from "good" to "God" and that error was corrected within the lifetime of many of the KJV's authors. Once corrected the rest of the passage made a lot more sense.

The grammatic and spelling errors are actually of very little significance, barring the one just mentioned. Why? Because most of the people who actually recorded the Bible's passages and preserved them were NOT scholars or scribes. They were common believers who had almost no training in how to write, and because of this their writing tend to be dismissed as inferior. Much of the Textus Receptus was actually formed from these peoples writings. Brave on there part too. Greek at one point was actually proclaimed by the Catholic church to be the language of the Devil. (This was largely responsible for the Dark Ages.) Guess what many of the New Testament writings available at that time were written in? The fact that they have spelling/grammer errors does not diminish the idea that the writings are divinely inspired. All it does is prove that a common man believed in them enough to risk death over writing on a scrap of whatever they wrote it on. Even tanned fur was used.

I wouldn't have any problem with an update to the Bible's Middle English. Yes, it is cumbersome and some words in it could use a serious update. However, not everyone who writes the Bible does so with a true heart in mind. I know that may shock more than a few people here and really get me put under heavy fire, but know this: the Bible, the Word of God, has been Satan's primary target for about 7000 years now. Give or take a millinia or two. Men are offended by the idea that God may send a soul who falls short of His standard to an everlasting lake of fire. They presume God is joking or their must be some kind of mistake in the translation. Read the NIV. Nearly every mention of damnation or Hell has been removed. Lucifer is NOT mentioned by that name in the Book of Isaiah, no doubt leading some of you to wonder what the heck I was talking about in earlier passages. Instead, he is referred to as the morning star, and is cast down to earth, not hell.

The absence of Hell or damnation informs me that the authors of several of the modern versions are not interested in preserving the Word of God. It tells me that they want a Bible that agrees with what they want to believe. In fact, it was the threat of damnation which motivated God to take a finate form and die for us in the first place. Without the threat of divine punishment, the whole "he died for your sins" thing actually becomes rather pointless and stupid. I speak from the perspective of someone who once thought Christians in general were self-deluded and stupid.

In point of fact, nearly all moderrn spinoffs of the KJV don't use the Textus Receptus as their guide. They use the Westcott-Hort version, which in turn borrow nearly all of their ideas from just two sources: Vaticanus B and Sinaiticus (I may have mispelled these). These two were regarded as false in their own time, taking 900 years for a man to get desparate enough to prove God wrong to dig them up and use them again. Vaticanus is accurate when it comes to Old Testament, but cannot be trusted with the New. Indeed, the last passage i the Book of Mark is missing. There's even a large blank space where the passage should be, implying that the author knew about it and ignored it anyways. As for Sinaiticus, it was rescued from a trash can and was found with markings proving that it had been "corrected" several times, as one author modified the other's work.

As for the Apocrypha, note that in the New Testament, neither Christ nor any disciple following in his wake ever quotes them as scripture. This is because while they were well-known in his time to all who studied the Word of God, whether or not they were divinely inspired was a matter of question. The Scriptures may astonish at times, but it is consistant with itself if nothing else. The Apocrypha, being of questionable inspiration, was later removed from the KJV as England offically broke its ties with Catholicism altogether.

If it could be done with a pure heart, and an intent of keeping the Word of God true to itself, than I would take a different tune. I don't see any evidence of this happening however, and as a result I'll choose to read a clumsy dead language for my scripture rather than trust writings from men unwilling to take a honest look at there own hearts.

So, what did I miss or fail to address?

You realize that you have just said translations are ok into other languages, but have pointed out earlier, translations into modern english is not ok?

Again, if it could be done with a true heart, I'd sing a different tune. The point is one of distrust. I wrote in another post that doubt is first line of defense against the devil. I am exercising that doubt. Christ himself wrote that there would be wolves in sheep's clothing rising up among the flock. That is how I view the authors of many of the variants. They are aiming to glorify themselves at the expense of God's followers.

I don't think it's quite clear. KJV went through updates, and changes to match the language as it changed.

Why can't other bibles be translated into updated english like the KJV was? It's still a bit unclear why translators can translate just fine into non english languages, but not english. Should we distrust anything not in english?

To add to the problem, you stated mistakes aren't a huge issues for minor stuff, only doctrine issues. Would that allow for modern bibles that are not different in doctrine?

I don't think it's clear why other bibles are from satan? Does the bible say that anything translated from old english is from the devil? Or something else from modern man is stating this idea? Does the bible refer to the wolf in sheep clothing speaking modern english? How do you bring that verse up and say it is a reference to modern english?


Lots of questions, I know.

I think you meant 18th century? 1769.

According to what you said, not anyone does so with a true heart. However, it was clear the KJV was updated several times, so updating shouldn't be an issue. Why update it? Because it needed to be.

I have read quite a few translations, I have never been given the impression that hell is a joke, nor a mistake about the eternity of hell. More detail should be spent on the differences you mention, and I will come back to that later.

I am under the impression you are stating that hell or damnation does not exist in non KJV bibles?