Is the King James Bible the Holy Scriptures in English?  Is it really God's preserved WORDS?  (Psa. 12:6-7)
472879
I stick to my good ol King James Version.  Here's a site that really lays out the differences in bibles......\nhttp://www.av1611.org/biblevs.html
268686
Yes! i have read it, its very much like the Kings James version.
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.
251823
What is wrong is that both the Amplified and the King James are translations, and if you want to know what the Bible really says, LEARN HEBREW!
258160
Scriptures are given by God and are True from the Beginning\n\n\nThe Holy Scriptures are not the private interpretation of men (2 Pe.1:20 below), but they are given by God through the Holy Spirit.   ALL Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Pe.1:21, 2 Tim.3:16, 2 Samuel 23:2, Eph.3:5 below).\n\nGod’s word is true from the beginning (Ps.119:160 below).\n\nGod is the God of truth (Ps.31:5, Deut.32:4, Ps.25:5, Jn.17:17 below). \n\nAll Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim.3:16 below).\n\nThe spirit of Truth will guide you into all truth (Jn.16:13 below)\n\nIf a religious author’s writings do not speak according to the Holy Bible, there is no light in them (Isa.8:20 below).\n\n\n2 Pe.1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.\n\n2 Pe.1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.\n\n2 Tim.3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:\n\n2 Samuel 23:2 The Spirit of the LORD spake by me (David), and his word [was] in my tongue.\n\nEph.3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;\n\nPs.119.160Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.\n\nPs.31:5 Into Thine hand I commit my spirit; Thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.\n\nDeut. 32:4  He is the Rock, His work is perfect; for all His ways are judgment, a God of truth and without iniquity; just and right is He.\n\nPs.25:5Lead me in Thy truth and teach me, for Thou art the God of my salvation; on Thee do I wait all the day.\n\nJn.17:17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.\n\n2 Tim.3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:\n\nJn.16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that] shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.\n\nIsa.8:20  To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, [it is] because [there is] no light in them.\n\n\n\nPat (ndbpsa ©)
839372
I had a book, once upon a time, about numerous different translations of the Bible, one of which was the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (I still have copy of the translation though).  It was rated by religion scholars as one of (if not the) worst translations for the very fact that the translators did not have a working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek (by the translators' own admissions, they felt they didn't need it!).  They worked by translating individual words with dictionaries.  It also mentioned that a review of it came out in some scholarly magazine titled "How Not to Translate the Bible."  It has been accused of being very biased towards their religion, and I would have to agree.  Despite their claims, the name "Jehovah" (actually "YHWH", "Jehovah" is an English corruption) does NOT appear in any of the original New Testament manuscripts, although in the NWT, the word "Jehovah" does manage to appear.
266341
A modern analysis using Microsoft Word 2000 yields a count 31,102 verses for the King James Version.\n\nClick this link for other interesting facts from Wikipedia about the Bible.  This stuff is kinda cool.\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Bible_versions_and_translations
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.
398715
As a seminary student it is a known fact that the NASB is the closest to the original text than any other version of the English Bible. The KJV is merely a translation of the Latin Vulgate. King James of Scotland ordered the English translation of the Bible in the 1600's from its Latin translation so the common people can read it. However, the Bible wasn't written in Latin.\n\nThe NASB however is a direct translation of the original Greek/Hebrew text of the scriptures taken from the Masoretic text. The NIV is a close second.\n\nIf you truly want to read and know the scriptures as close to the original text as it can get, then I suggest the NASB or NIV. Stay away from the KJV, it will only complicate the learning process.
369238
I tell people that if the King James Bible could not make holy people after 400 years then the other version will not either.  Jesus said in Luke 16:17 "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, then one title of the law to fail."  Well what is a title?  Smaller then lice, even smaller.  Jesus also said in Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pas away, but my words shall not pass away."  Why are we looking for a new bible that is missing over 4,000 words and scriptures twisted?  The simple reason is because Christianity today and from the time the apostles left have been seduced, and bewitched by these soph called bible scholars.  People in the churches are sick and gettting sicker with no truth no bible just socials, holidays and funny teachings and funny bibles outside of the truth the King James. \n\nThe bible says in Galatians 1:6-9 "I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; butt there be some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. (The King James Bible) But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you then that which we have preached unto you let him be accursed.  As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you then that which ye have received let him be accursed."  Today we are stuck with the same serpent that deceived Eve in the garden the same slick subtile teachings in all denominations, TV, Radio, Internet ministries.  And God and Father of Jesus gave them strong delusions to believe a lie because they refuse the love of the truth 2nd Thessalonians 2:10 "And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.  And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the love of the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."  This is what the churches today have pleasure in unrighteousness.  Jesus said in Luke 8:14 when he talked about the parable of the seed and the sower of the different ground that it would end up on. "And that which fell among thorns are they which, when they have heard, go forth and are chocked with cares and riches and pleasure of this life and bring no fruit to perfection."  The problem with Christianity today is that they don't bring forth fruit unto perfect but unto death.  These new bibles that are out are worse.  Things that the church never endorse 25-30 years ago when the King James was around and a little truth of still around, (Not the whole as man still perverted the bible back then as well) the churches are endorsing all types of sin and iniquity.  Why? 2nd Cor. 11:14-15 "And no marvel for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.  Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works."  Christians are so seduced by the devil who transformed himself as an angel of light bewitching the people the Greek was wrong or the Hebrew or the whatever was wrong, so he has bible scholars to seduce people not to believe the bible.  The devil's workers will always go opposite of the bible, as a matter of fact they don't read the bible any more and they tell people a lie not to worry about the bible and give them a sermon like Eve had in the garden of Eden.  Yes the devil know his bible but he doesn't want you to know your bible because he got kicked out of heaven.  \n\nRevelation 22:18-19 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of th
552773
Yes. When the dead sea scrolls were discovered in 1947 the scholars compared the book of Isaiah to the King James Version of 1611 to see if there were ANY differences. Well, there were. Tons of differences. Lots and lots of words were different. How many? 47. That's right. Only 47 words were different. From 450 B.C. to 1947 A.D. the copying of scripture was so accurate that only 47 words were different in the book of Isaiah! And NONE of the words affected ANY meaning or theological meaning of the book. Yes. I believe the Bible is the Word of God.
1083945
There is only one Bible but many translations so that people will understand Gods saving grace easilly. Different translations but the same saving gospel, the same God and Jesus amd messages and they are certainly not against each other, by assuming that it is against each other I'm also assuming that you didn't researched enough to see ig this notion is true. Do you agree that even ur Quran has been translated to english so engish speaking muslims can understand it? It's the same purpose as to why the Bible has many translations.
225528
Just so you know where I stand. I asked a question of whether or not all the Bible should be taken literally or not. The best answer chosen was a good one.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ales.wK5IftnZfqP3dD5hbHsy6IX?qid=1006012504879\n\nWhen Jesus said regarding the bread and the wine, "this is my body and this is my blood of the New Covenant", He was not speaking literally. When the Bible says that the blood of Jesus washes away sin, we do not go off to mount Calvary and look for spots of blood to wash our sins away. Jesus said, "I am the door, whoever enters by any other way is a theif." The disciples did not turn to Jesus and see a large board with hinges and a knob. Jesus was saying there is a single way to heaven, and He is the Way.\nQuite a bit of the Bible is spoken in allegorical and metaphoic language. Jesus said that He was the Light of the world, the Good Shepherd, Living Water, the Bread of Life, and more. He came as the Lamb of God. He will return as the Lion of the tribe of Judah. All of which is true, but all spoken in a metaphoric language.\n\nWrath, I have not run in to any Christians who believe the Bible is 100% literal. However, there are many areas of the Bible that ARE literal and many are trying to change the statement because it is not politically correct, or they have an agenda or they find it personally offensive.\n\nCase in point:\nRobert Anderson worked for Scotland Yard during the Victorian era. He was the main investigator for finding Jack the Ripper. He took the prophecy in Daniel and was able to calculate the coming of the Messiah to the DAY. This is in the his book "The Coming Prince". He started this project based on taking the prophecy as being literal. He was rewarded for this effort with knighthood from Queen Victoria and became Sir Robert Anderson. However, in this same book, he notes the prophecies about Israel being gathered together and becoming a nation once more. Seeing how this has never happened in history, he dismissed the literal meaning as pure fantasy. In May 14th 1948, this brilliant man was proven wrong. The idea that the Jews would return to the land and make it Israel was so preposterous that this brilliant man equated it to being metaphorical--the literal interpretation was too hard to believe. So we could easily make a mistake by either way.\n__________________________\n\nBTW-This topic reminds me of a very good movie called "Lady Jane". One of the main focuses was the rise of the Protestant movement against the Roman Catholic church--especially in regard to transubstantiation. The Roman Catholics took the sacraments as being literally the body and blood of Christ, while the Protestants kept arguing that it was metaphorical. Check it out sometime!
1052540
Check these out.\nhttp://etext.virginia.edu/kjv.browse.html\nhttp://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html
1011809
The Bible is true.  It was written by men who were inspired by God to write what they wrote.... sorry for the confusing wording.  Even if you don't believe in God, the Bible is full of historical facts.  You can go back thousands of years in history and some of the same events will be recorded in the Bible.\n\nThe English versions are different because people translate the Greek and Hebrew text differently.  Like, the King James Version was translated by candlelight in the 1600s, and since it is one of the oldest versions, it is taken by some as the one and only true Bible.  The newer versions, however, may even be more credible because of newer technology and electric lights.  There are different versions of the Bible because there are not always English words that acurately portray what was written in Hebrew or Greek, so the people who translate it are forced to get creative in what the foreign word means.  Also, our language changes so dramatically over time that newer versions are needed so people who speak the newer English will more easily understand the Bible.  Like, we don't speak with "thee" and "thou" or "shall" and "needst" so it is adjusted for better understanding, but the stories are the same, wonderful events that happened so long ago.
739717
The KJV was meticulously translated.  By man.  And, no surprise, it isn't perfect.\nThere IS no perfect translation because, even if you have a Hebrew, Greek or Chaldean lexicon, you don't have the meaning of the words from 2,000 years ago.  Meanings change.  Take the word "gay" for example - means something VERY different today than it did 20 years ago.\nWithout taking the time to learn the original languages, then do have the lexicons as well as a Strongs (or other) Concordance.  Read the same passages in different versions for richer comprehension.  A passage read from the KJV, the NIV and The Message takes on new dimension.\nRead it - and read it sloooowly and patiently!  Read it reguarly.  And read it again and again.  What had no relevance (seemingly) last month can suddenly leap out at you today.
519572
The Bible is the most widely distributed book in the world. It has been translated into scores of language for people across the globe. As far as English translations, there are numerous ways to translate a sentence or phrase from one language to the next. Various people are going to have differing opinions on how to properly structure the wording of what the original Greek or Hebrew is attempting to convey. If one checks the various translations against one another it can be easily seen that they all say the same thing, only with varying verbiage. Choice of which to use comes down to personal preference (mine is NIV). I began using the NIV many years ago. At the time, it was the first translation to utilize ancient scrolls that were discovered since the time of King James. While those scrolls did not change the message of the Bible, they did help to clarify some areas where the wording was unsure (due to deterioration of parchment etc).  For the most part, it comes down to personal preference in readability...