Which is correct the King James christen Bible or the Torah?
399086
its amazing to me that christinans say that the Torah has been in some way fulfilled when the Bible clearly states that it is a eternal decree for the nation of Israel for all generations. As for the Ten Commandments they do not follow them. It says to keep the sabbath it also says not to light a fire in your home on the sabbath. I do not know of a single Christian that obstians from doing that. Oh and the commandments the Jews have are 613 biblical Commandments. \n\nand yes everyone should study the 7 noacide laws.
655017
I say any verse in the bible is the word of God and is the truth. Jesus is the truth so the word is the truth.
930210
What you are looking for is called a "loose leaf Bible".  I used to have one and they are really nice.  It comes in different translations but the KJV is probably the easiest to find.  The loose leaf Bible is a Bible in a three (or more) ring binder form.  So not only can you remove just the books you need and put them in another binder, but you can insert your own note pages anywhere you want since it's like a notebook.  Another answerer mentoned a J. Vernon McGee Bible study series.  That is also another good option.  You can get each individual book really cheap at used book stores.  J.Vernon McGee is a very good commentator and offers some very easy to understand insights into the scriptures.  There are other commentaries like his that come in individual books as well.  So, you have a lot of good options out there.  You can also download for free individual books of the Bible in the King James Version and print them out and make your own loose leaf Bible that way.  (The King James Version is free because there is no copyright on this version.)  Just Google search "free Bible downloads" and you'll come across it.  Good luck and I hope I've been of some help to you.
615735
I dont believe there are any versions outside of the original texts that are more accurate than the next. There are flaws in the 1611 KJV as well as the NIV and every other version... I dont like the NWT though because it deliberately changes text to fit the Jehovah's Witness doctrines. (if you dont believe the KJV has flaws, contact me and I'll be happy to share them with you)
338774
Because they think it's God Sent, it has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.  It's long, feel like I just wrote a novel\n.\nPeople in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.\n\nDo these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?\n\nThe purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.\nFrom almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”\n\nThe translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.\n\nThe reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.\n\nKing James Bible has already been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals wa
1021489
at least 400, for some odd reason.\nKJV\nNKJV\nNIV\nNew NIV\nESV\nCSV\nNLT\nthe message\nGod's word\nLiving Bible\nthose are the main argumentives\nNothing compares to the KJV  \nBleive it or not, they have a 100 minute Bible and the "Jesus loves Porn Stars" Bible.\n\nWHAT NEXT?
6167
The Old Testament was agreed upon by several Hebrew scholars collecting and translating the existing documents they had in their posession 2-3000 years ago...\n\nThe King James Version was the English translation of both the Old & New Testaments agreed upon by a panel for King James in 1611...
369753
That was the version that Joseph Smith declared to be the most accurate.  He was working on a "devinely inspired" translation at the time of his death.\n\nAnybody familiar with the science of Textual Critism, however, knows that this is horse hockey.  The KJ is riddled with translation errors.\n\nDespite the claim that it was translated from the original languages, it was actually translated from the 1624 Textus Receptus, which is considered by some to be the most flawed of all the Biblical texts.  The TR was then translated into Greek and Aramaic, and then into the English KJ.\n\nThe fact that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints continues to insist that the KJ is accurate should tell you something about the value of their words.
986676
In my opinion it is the Quran..... because not even a comma has been changed since it was revealed. When Prophet Muhammad revealed God's words they were written by scribes right at that time (they were later organized by length)..... This is a sincere conviction of mine and a billion others\n\n***however this does not mean that i do not respect a Christian's right to believe that the current Bible is irrefutable truth. but in response to your question the above reasons are why the Quran is so close to my heart\n\npeace and blessings to all
730156
Bible is older and they both make up stories.
501617
a. Pentateuch\nor the first five books of the bible. i dont know but other refernce said that it was the Torah or the first seven books. Actually this books are the one which define who the Jews are through story and law.
716196
The content of the Bible has remained constant for many centuries.  It has been translated many times, into different languages.  It has also been "revised" to make the language more accessible to the masses.  For example, the King James Version (my personal favorite) is written in Shakespeare-like language.  The Revised Standard and the New Revised Standard update the language so people can understand it, but when you line up the 3 Bibles and read all 3 versions, the meaning is the same.  It is like reading "Taming of the Shrew" by Shakespeare, and then reading a modern version of the story written by the New York Daily News.  Same story, different words.
763053
birdman,\nI think that one of the most influencial Gay people in all the annals of history is . . . . King James (Prince James) who was responsible for the translation of the King James Bible. He was about as Gay as anyone could be. \n\nIt's not like there weren't any bibles before that, there were. The Great Bible was the main bible of the time, but the King James became more used sometime after that. \n\nBut look at it's influence upon so many people, for so many years. I have no doubt that King James was a saved man, though Gay, and could quote verses and argue effectively with the clergy of the day. He would look forward to the chances that he got to do so.\n\nStrangely enough, those that are most strict with their condemnation of Gays, use the King James Bible, while saying proudly that they use the "inerrant word of God" the King James 1611 version. \n\nAnd they don't.\n\nNo. The 1611 King James Bible had the Apocrypha in it. The Puritans decided that it should not be in there, and so it was taken out.\n\nSo the Fundies that condemn Gays are:\n1) Wrong about the Bible.\n2) Wrong about condemning Gays, rather than presenting the Gospel to them\n3) Are using a Bible that was funded lovingly by a Gay \nking.\n\nI call that VERY influential!
960100
You have to understand that the Bible was an oral tradition for hundreds of years.  People told the stories long before they were written down.  Do you remember the story of Goldilocks and the three bears?  Do you remember the exact words in the story from the first time you heard it?  I doubt it.  But you remember the message and could still tell the story to your children.\nWhen the Bible was first written it was in Hebrew (atleast, the Old Testament was).  You're reading an English translation.\nIn all of this, things change, and we shouldn't focus on one word "Us."\n\nMore to think about: Royalty in medieval brittain referred to themselves in the plural (i.e. "We are not amused.")  When the Bible was translated by King James (the most famous English translation) any royal attributes of the day may have been given to God as the Almighty King.  \n\nNo one knows for sure.  You could study this for years and not know.  I hope this summation here does the subject justice.\n\np.s. many people referred to the Trinity (I don't want to say they are wrong, but I don't agree with them).  \nThe trick with that is that the Trinity as a concept wasn't known to humans until the Coucil of Nicea in 325.
837593
Try looking on the wikipedia site. They are controlled by the publishers of the NIV Bible and are pushing it and its ideas. Of course there has been a lot of controversy over that version just because it reverses the meaning of some sections by changing the wording.\n\nI will always prefer the unannotated K.J. version, at least the political and philosophical biases in that are from a culture that is fading away (Monarchy).\n\n\n.
329936
Why not trust the original, the Hebrew Torah
460451
Your question starts with a faulty presupposition.  The King James version has many flaws and does not reflect the best of Textual Criticism that we know today.  That beind said, no significant anti-gay passages were added and the 6 main texts that are used to argue against it are found in the original Hebrew and Greek.