• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is King James bible THE best bible? Why?

Protester

Active Member
There is corruption and deception in the Church for sure. But all are not corrupt. There are some slightly corrupt 'versions', as well (only need a small % of poision to kill a rat), but there are excellent ones, too. Truth is more than 95% of our Bibles are in agreement, with some minor differences in wording and such. I think God was faithful to preserve his word in a way we could understand it as he promise.

Ah, in spite of the message following yours, you have it well neigh correct!

The Preservation of Scripture:yes:

One of the best commentaries around and it isn't all that long.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Then God failed miserably, because his word was totally hidden for a millennium. When it finally came to light, in England, it was twisted and circumscribed, in England, largely by the so-called King James translation, which inured millions to God's word for another four hundred years, though by the 20th century it simply put people off Christianity because it sounded nonsensical, if not absurd, and certainly old-fashioned. Modern translations are far more slick, but also just as thick with heresy as the KJV, if not more so. One needs only one word, either slipped in, or altered, in a key sentence to change the whole meaning of a Bible teaching. A variation of 5% is more than enough for those who would change God's word to man's.
For those who would find out what the Bible says, the only solution is the use of original languages.

Ancient manuscripts can be consulted.

What is unique about the Bible is that it has corresponding or parallel verses or passages that can be compared by subject or topic arrangement.

That way a complete picture is being presented as to what the writers are conveying to us. That comparing of passages shows the internal harmony between the Bible writers.
 

Villager

Active Member
Ancient manuscripts can be consulted.

What is unique about the Bible is that it has corresponding or parallel verses or passages that can be compared by subject or topic arrangement.

That way a complete picture is being presented as to what the writers are conveying to us. That comparing of passages shows the internal harmony between the Bible writers.
Indeed, this is true- but it is only noticeable in those ancient mss. Published translations always contradict themselves.
 

Protester

Active Member
Hi, Its kinda long. Hey, I really need to know, what about my message was flawed or not correct? (I'm not perfect so I'd like some clarity there if you don't mind sharing). :)

Well, I can think too much was wrong with it. It's interesting that the KJV translators thought any Bible that had sincere work on it could and should be called a Bible. The Preface of the King James Version and the King James Only Position had this to say,

The translators argue that all previous English translations can rightly be called the Word of God, even though they may contain some “imperfections and blemishes.” Just as the King’s speech which he utters in Parliament is still the King’s speech, though it may be imperfectly translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin; so also in the case of the translation of the Word of God. For translations will never be infallible since they are not like the original manuscripts, which were produced by the apostles and their associates under the influence of inspiration. However, even an imperfect translation like the Septuagint can surely be called the Word of God since it was approved and used by the apostles themselves. But since all translations are imperfect, the Church of Rome should not object to the continual process of correcting and improving English translations of the Bible. Even their own Vulgate has gone through many revisions since the day of Jerome.
---Dr. W. Combs

Well, now this one isn't too short, I'll admit that, but this excerpt covers what I was probably getting at. I don't think I was giving you a hard time at all, I hope.

But there had been a Bible around a formal one, for a 1,000 years or more, called the Vulgate, and this is the Bible all the Reformers such as Calvin and Luther used! They basically got the message without the later versions of the Bible. So, I suppose I was really answering that message about a Bible not being around until an English one came on the scene, and that of course was the The Geneva Bible of 1560

 
Last edited:

javajo

Well-Known Member
Well, I can't think too much was wrong with it. I don't think I was giving you a hard time at all, I hope.
I enjoyed that, yeah, no disagreement on anything here. :) I liked the parts:

The translators argue that all previous English translations can rightly be called the Word of God, even though they may contain some “imperfections and blemishes.”

For translations will never be infallible since they are not like the original manuscripts, which were produced by the apostles and their associates under the influence of inspiration.

However, even an imperfect translation like the Septuagint can surely be called the Word of God since it was approved and used by the apostles themselves. But since all translations are imperfect, the Church of Rome should not object to the continual process of correcting and improving English translations of the Bible.
 

Villager

Active Member
In evaluating any work, it is useful to note its distinctives, if any. What are the distinctives of the book described as 'the King James Bible'? It certainly has several of them- which may or may not be considered qualifications for the title' 'Best Bible'. Alternatively, it may be considered to be obsolete-what many British Christians described as 'the steam Bible' in the days when steam railway engines were being replaced by diesel locomotives.

a) It is the only translation of the Bible that has no proper name. It was never described as the 'King James' until comparatively recently, and that mainly because the previous name for it was found to be either inaccurate or embarrassing. This book was never authorised for general use by any monarch or Parliament. In the USA, the country in which the 'KJV' is most used, one can hardly use the epithet 'authorised' because many of the settlers of the USA were escaping the authority of James (and indeed could still be said to be in rebellion against the British Crown).

b) It is the only translation used and presumably approved by those who oppose or are skeptical of Christianity- humanists, atheists and the press.

c) It is the only English translation in common use that retains archaism, that many people find a strong disincentive to reading. (In Britain, it is no longer in common use in book form by actual readers. There are very few other than humanists, atheists and the press who use it, and they, one may presume, mostly in electronic form. British evangelicals who use it (except for Strong's numbers) are very hard to find, and probably of very great age.)

d) Before publication of the NKJV, it was the only English translation in common use to be based on Greek manuscripts now believed by the majority of scholars to be more or less unreliable, though of course the advocates of this translation dispute their view. It is certainly still the only one to fail to take advantage of the considerable advances in scholarship, that nobody disputes, in every relevant discipline. Even the translators of the NKJV, realising the need to modernise, expressed their misgivings about a repeat use of the same source text used in the 'KJV', but presumably accepted, along with the publisher, that sales would be seriously affected if a more modern source text was used.

e) It is the only translation of the Bible in common use that contains passages or renderings that are of doubtful provenance without indication of the doubt. In particular, the Comma Johannaeum, that some have used to justify trinitarianism (though the Comma does not actually do that), is retained after four hundred years, despite clear evidence that it was a spurious modern addition of the second millennium. The 'KJV' translators knew of this doubt, but included it.

f) It is the only translation (afaik) made by considerable numbers of people who were never paid for their work. This may indeed be a measure of justice, because there is very sparse evidence that many of the translators knew much about the source languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (Curiously, over fifty detailed records of the proceedings of translators were made, but only one of them has survived- and that arguably hints at a low level of knowledge of source languages.)

g) The 'Authorised Bible' was the only Bible other than the Vulgate to be the only Bible in common use for hundreds of years, even though there were significant advances in availability of texts and of much greater understanding of Greek in this period; though evangelicals used it only as a start point, and went to Greek and Hebrew for exegesis, a phenomenon that has (regrettably, in the eyes of some) diminished because of the use of more accessible and up-to-date versions. It could be that the 'Authorised' was 'the best' because it was 'the worst' (though there was no real choice), and drove those who wanted to know what the Bible actually said to use of source languages.
 
Last edited:

Protester

Active Member
In evaluating any work, it is useful to note its distinctives, if any. What are the distinctives of the book described as 'the King James Bible'? It certainly has several of them- which may or may not be considered qualifications for the title' 'Best Bible'. Alternatively, it may be considered to be obsolete-what many British Christians described as 'the steam Bible' in the days when steam railway engines were being replaced by diesel locomotives.

a) It is the only translation of the Bible that has no proper name. It was never described as the 'King James' until comparatively recently, and that mainly because the previous name for it was found to be either inaccurate or embarrassing. This book was never authorised for general use by any monarch or Parliament. In the USA, the country in which the 'KJV' is most used, one can hardly use the epithet 'authorised' because many of the settlers of the USA were escaping the authority of James (and indeed could still be said to be in rebellion against the British Crown).

b) It is the only translation used and presumably approved by those who oppose or are skeptical of Christianity- humanists, atheists and the press.

c) It is the only English translation in common use that retains archaism, that many people find a strong disincentive to reading. (In Britain, it is no longer in common use in book form by actual readers. There are very few other than humanists, atheists and the press who use it, and they, one may presume, mostly in electronic form. British evangelicals who use it (except for Strong's numbers) are very hard to find, and probably of very great age.)

d) Before publication of the NKJV, it was the only English translation in common use to be based on Greek manuscripts now believed by the majority of scholars to be more or less unreliable, though of course the advocates of this translation dispute their view. It is certainly still the only one to fail to take advantage of the considerable advances in scholarship, that nobody disputes, in every relevant discipline. Even the translators of the NKJV, realising the need to modernise, expressed their misgivings about a repeat use of the same source text used in the 'KJV', but presumably accepted, along with the publisher, that sales would be seriously affected if a more modern source text was used.

e) It is the only translation of the Bible in common use that contains passages or renderings that are of doubtful provenance without indication of the doubt. In particular, the Comma Johannaeum, that some have used to justify trinitarianism (though the Comma does not actually do that), is retained after four hundred years, despite clear evidence that it was a spurious modern addition of the second millennium. The 'KJV' translators knew of this doubt, but included it.

f) It is the only translation (afaik) made by considerable numbers of people who were never paid for their work. This may indeed be a measure of justice, because there is very sparse evidence that many of the translators knew much about the source languages of Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. (Curiously, over fifty detailed records of the proceedings of translators were made, but only one of them has survived- and that arguably hints at a low level of knowledge of source languages.)

g) The 'Authorised Bible' was the only Bible other than the Vulgate to be the only Bible in common use for hundreds of years, even though there were significant advances in availability of texts and of much greater understanding of Greek in this period; though evangelicals used it only as a start point, and went to Greek and Hebrew for exegesis, a phenomenon that has (regrettably, in the eyes of some) diminished because of the use of more accessible and up-to-date versions. It could be that the 'Authorised' was 'the best' because it was 'the worst' (though there was no real choice), and drove those who wanted to know what the Bible actually said to use of source languages.

while there is quite a bit I liked about you comment, (I did give you a frubal, but I didn't read your whole comment, but still keep that frubal;)) Because your comment at:
f.
is not correct.

The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work, instead a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well paid livings as these fell vacant.[44] Several were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted to bishoprics, deaneries and prebends through royal patronage. excerpt taken from, Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia So, many were rewarded much better than perhaps any modern translator.

g.

Yes, unfortunately the AV did outlive it's usefulness for at least a couple of centuries, as Dr. Daniel Wallace (who is now a head of a Bible museum in Dallas, Texas, I believe pointed out, in part of his series on the History of the English Bible, Part II: The Reign of the King James (The Era of Elegance) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site ,

...Frankly, it is my conviction that every Christian should own a copy of the King James Bible. It may not be the most accurate, but it is the most elegant. And you only deny your own rich literary and religious heritage if you do not own and read a King James Bible. . . .The supremacy of the King James is one of style, not of scholarship. The men who made it did not set out to manufacture a literary classic—classics are seldom made to order. Yet they did produce one: perhaps the only classic ever turned in by a committee…

The above kept it popular and as Dr. Wallace pointed out in, Part III: From the KJV to the RV (from Elegance to Accuracy) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site Essentially, the KJV stayed in power because of the mixture of political clout, religious compromise, and
literary power. And that’s a threefold cord that’s not easily broken.

The above by Dr. Wallace covers your point e. quite well, as well.

On point c.
I would like to emphasize this article about what sources what translators use, The Biblical Position on the KJV Controversy* --* John MacArthur really shows that they will use what they think is logically best.:yes:

So quite a few good points. Atheists love the KJV because of all the errors in it.

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!
 

Villager

Active Member
while there is quite a bit I liked about you comment, (I did give you a frubal, but I didn't read your whole comment, but still keep that frubal;)) Because your comment at:
f.
is not correct.
It is perfectly correct.

The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work, instead a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well paid livings as these fell vacant.[44]
But that is not being paid. It cost James nothing in those cases. And of course James had them by the short and curlies, because they did not dare translate in a way that he would disapprove. That was entirely typical of James, and consistent with his deviousness and meanness throughout his awful reign. The most disastrous king of England, in the view of many. Corruption and theft marks the KJV's birth. James' translation was a low, cynical, political act of suppression, light years from the spirituality that KJVOers claim for it.
It may not be the most accurate, but it is the most elegant.
It's anything but, much of the time. Clumsy, over-worded, comical, at times. Which is another reason why atheists love it.
 

Faxecura

Member
I admire your reading skills! I think the KJV is anything but readable. I mean, I can understand it, though some words are just confusing.

My three favorite are NAB,Douay-Rheims and then the New Jerusalem.

I read the Douay-Rheims most of the time, myself. I also have a Vulgate Bible, but my knowledge of Latin is limited, so I don't really read it as much.

I tend to stay away from the newer translations like the New Jerusalem because of the way certain verses are translated. For instance:Exodus 20:17: "You shall not set your heart on your neighbor's spouse," rather than "neighbor's wife" or "neighbor's woman"
 

Protester

Active Member
It is perfectly correct.

But that is not being paid. It cost James nothing in those cases. And of course James had them by the short and curlies, because they did not dare translate in a way that he would disapprove. That was entirely typical of James, and consistent with his deviousness and meanness throughout his awful reign. The most disastrous king of England, in the view of many. Corruption and theft marks the KJV's birth. James' translation was a low, cynical, political act of suppression, light years from the spirituality that KJVOers claim for it.It's anything but, much of the time. Clumsy, over-worded, comical, at times. Which is another reason why atheists love it.

Very little did cost the King then or now. I think the first time the QE II dipped into her personal wealth in a big way was to repair a castle that burned. The British public while usually quite happy with her, were and probably not happy with most of her off-spring, and she wisely paid the repair bills out of her own money.

It really didn't matter if the translators were paid off with money or with jobs (jobs are probably better, nothing like "the gift that keeps on giving.") ;)

and the translators kept, the leader of the pack happy, q.v., The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV:bow:--who was more than happy to keep the king happy.

No, the English of the KJV isn't that good, but it should be remembered that it was designed to sound good from the pulpit. The grammar and general layout of The Geneva Bible of 1560 made it better overall, than the KJV of fifty years later.

But, you noticed I agree with you that atheists love the KJV, it has long outlived it's usefulness --as a Bible--as a work of literature one might want to keep it around for the same reasons that you keep the works of Shakespeare around.
 

Villager

Active Member
Very little did cost the King then or now.
Then how did James manage to empty the Crown coffers? English monarchs were always going cap in hand to Parliament for funds. Except Henry VII. Especially James, who lavished money on 'favourites' (reckoned to be homosexual partners) and other worldly pursuits (including bear-baiting) but could hardly spare a dime for his pious book.

The real point here, that nobody seems to think anomalous, yet alone appalling, is that a secular monarch decided that a whole nation was going to read his 'Bible' and no other. The fact that he was a man of appalling personal habits and reputation seems to bounce off pious American fundamentalists, but at least their anti-monarchist heritage might count for something here. Paul would have had forty fits.

No, the English of the KJV isn't that good, but it should be remembered that it was designed to sound good from the pulpit.
To make the puppets of a king who said, "No bishops, no king" sound good, you mean.

The grammar and general layout of The Geneva Bible of 1560 made it better overall, than the KJV of fifty years later.
My personal pov is that this was no accident. At a time when English was passing rapidly from Middle to Modern, James tried to make his version old-fashioned. And of course it only got worse thereafter.

But, you noticed I agree with you that atheists love the KJV, it has long outlived it's usefulness --as a Bible--
Indeed, you did, my apologies. It's good to agree, and to say so.

as a work of literature one might want to keep it around for the same reasons that you keep the works of Shakespeare around.
Well no, because Shakespeare was written for elegant language, which the Bible was mostly not, and the poetic parts are well represented by modern translations such as the RSV and the NIV. Also, there are many excellent English poets of the period, beside the Bard, to reward those interested. Shakespeare was written in Early Modern English, and is not usually translated into Modern English, because the beauty and the subtlety get lost, and literary people are prepared to learn the vocabulary and other contemporary features to appreciate them. The Bible otoh was written in three other languages, and two of them, Hebrew and Greek, do not transfer well into any contemporary target language. The only Bible that can be relied upon and appreciated properly is the one in those languages. The general rule is, the more recent the translation, the more contemptible it is likely to be- the ESV is particularly evil. The GNB is probably the safest for those who cannot handle Hebrew and Greek. There is no reason for keeping a KJV except to use it to a) find Strong's numbers; b) confound KJVOers; and c) press flowers. Or if you can find nothing better than an ESV.
 
Last edited:

chazz

Member
I read the King James Bible, but I was happy to see the dead sea scrolls being on the net especially Isaiah where you can see the scroll and get the meaning in english, maybe it will prove the truth of Christianity, the Isaiah scroll is laid out and easy to see the meaning in english, I would recommend opening your bible at Isaiah to follow it.
Here are 2 verses from the scrolls

9.1 The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light; they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.

9.5 For a child is born unto us, a son is given unto us; and the government is upon his shoulder; and his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom;


See The Dead Sea Scrolls online
 

Protester

Active Member
Then how did James manage to empty the Crown coffers? English monarchs were always going cap in hand to Parliament for funds. Except Henry VII. Especially James, who lavished money on 'favourites' (reckoned to be homosexual partners) and other worldly pursuits (including bear-baiting) but could hardly spare a dime for his pious book.

The real point here, that nobody seems to think anomalous, yet alone appalling, is that a secular monarch decided that a whole nation was going to read his 'Bible' and no other. The fact that he was a man of appalling personal habits and reputation seems to bounce off pious American fundamentalists, but at least their anti-monarchist heritage might count for something here. Paul would have had forty fits.

To make the puppets of a king who said, "No bishops, no king" sound good, you mean.

My personal pov is that this was no accident. At a time when English was passing rapidly from Middle to Modern, James tried to make his version old-fashioned. And of course it only got worse thereafter.

Indeed, you did, my apologies. It's good to agree, and to say so.

Well no, because Shakespeare was written for elegant language, which the Bible was mostly not, and the poetic parts are well represented by modern translations such as the RSV and the NIV. Also, there are many excellent English poets of the period, beside the Bard, to reward those interested. Shakespeare was written in Early Modern English, and is not usually translated into Modern English, because the beauty and the subtlety get lost, and literary people are prepared to learn the vocabulary and other contemporary features to appreciate them. The Bible otoh was written in three other languages, and two of them, Hebrew and Greek, do not transfer well into any contemporary target language. The only Bible that can be relied upon and appreciated properly is the one in those languages. The general rule is, the more recent the translation, the more contemptible it is likely to be- the ESV is particularly evil. The GNB is probably the safest for those who cannot handle Hebrew and Greek. There is no reason for keeping a KJV except to use it to a) find Strong's numbers; b) confound KJVOers; and c) press flowers. Or if you can find nothing better than an ESV.

Ah, I see you must have been in a lot of "debates" with KJVO's:help: But, I will even admit that the the KJV is a literary masterpiece, and it's effect on the English speaking World shouldn't be underestimated. I would suppose to quote quotes from this part of series of well-done articles on the history English Bible.

H. L. Mencken, no friend of Christianity, declared that the KJV was “unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world.” quotation taken from, Part II: The Reign of the King James (The Era of Elegance) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

I think I can safely assumethe translation of what Luther said is in the public domain:

Luther went into a strong diatribe against those pastors-in-training who resisted learning the biblical languages. And characteristically, he didn’t mince words. What he had to say then is still valid today. Listen to Luther:

  • In proportion as we value the gospel, let us zealously hold to the [biblical] languages. For it was not without purpose that God caused his Scriptures to be set down in these two languages alone—the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek. Now if God did not despise them but chose them above all others for his word, then we too ought to honor them above all others.
    If through our neglect we let the languages go (God forbid!), we shall lose the gospel too. It is inevitable that unless the languages remain, the gospel must finally perish.
    When our faith is held up to ridicule, where does the fault lie? It lies in our ignorance of the languages; and there is no way out than to learn the languages. It is also a stupid undertaking to attempt to gain an understanding of Scripture by laboring through the commentaries of the fathers and a multitude of books and glosses. Instead of this, men should have devoted themselves to the languages.
    Since it becomes Christians then to make good use of the Holy Scriptures as their one and only book and it is a sin and a shame not to know our own book or to understand the speech and words of our God, it is a still greater sin and loss that we do not study [the biblical] languages, especially in these days when God is offering and giving us men and books and every facility and inducement to this study, and desires his Bible to be an open book. How sternly God will judge our lethargy and ingratitude [if we do not learn Greek and Hebrew]!
It’s almost as if Luther had been sitting in on faculty discussions at half of our seminaries in this country! excerpt from, Part III: From the KJV to the RV (from Elegance to Accuracy) | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site

You should like that part, anyway, Dr. Wallace and you concur with Luther that one would hope that pastors can read the original languages.:yes:

ESV is an excellent translation, since it was done by conservative Christian scholars who had the rights to really a good translation, the pre-NRSV, the RSV.

However, the best, translation is the New American Standard Bible, q.v., Comparing Bible Translations--Conclusions

which sometimes even painfully follows the structure of the original languages, you can look at Realms of Faith: Comparing Bible Translations: Analysis one of the several parts of that lengthy look at Bible translations.

So, my, my, ran into those who support, King James Onlyism ? Ah, that always make your day.:D Just pop this one onto them, Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today. They really love :ignore: Dr. Wallace's comments!
 

Villager

Active Member
H. L. Mencken, no friend of Christianity, declared that the KJV was “unquestionably the most beautiful book in the world.”


Of course he thought so. It smothers the truth in mist! Dawkins likes it, too!

The kiss of death.

ESV is an excellent translation

Why is it so important to keep saying so in a thread about the KJV?
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
I read the Douay-Rheims most of the time, myself. I also have a Vulgate Bible, but my knowledge of Latin is limited, so I don't really read it as much.

I tend to stay away from the newer translations like the New Jerusalem because of the way certain verses are translated. For instance:Exodus 20:17: "You shall not set your heart on your neighbor's spouse," rather than "neighbor's wife" or "neighbor's woman"

I like the New Jerusalem a bit more then the NAB. Though my all time favorite is reading the Duay-Rheims with commentary by Fr Haydock and of course the commentary from Caetena Aura

Nab is good for casual reading, but the commentary from the Bishops is horrible. Only downside of the New Jerusalem is the spelling of Gods name. I prefer a more respectful tradition of not repeating it.
 

Villager

Active Member
More than just reckoned.
But merely to permit suspicion of homosexuality was enough to disqualify him as a fit member of the church, let alone to be its Governor. He was anyway regarded by many as a rank heretic, as he attempted to return his country to Catholicism (and failed, to general relief in England). The high probability is that, like perhaps all educated Catholics, he regretted that the Bible was translated out of a dead language at all, and attempted to make it dead as possible, by obfuscation and inurement. If the Bible had to be translated, and he could not prevent it without assistance from Rome, he would wrap its message in obscure English, and make it overfamiliar by repetition, so inuring ordinary people to its message.

It worked, too. When the NIV was first published, many rejoiced, but others went into shock, because they realised for the first time what the Bible really said (a lot more than what the KJV or even the RSV had provided, anyway). It was only after the NIV that the KJVO movement was started. Previously, the wide circulation of the RSV and other modern Bibles and New Testaments had provoked not a squeak from these people, so their objections on technical grounds are spurious. If confirmation of that is needed, a simple experiment suffices. If a translation of a passage of the Bible is made that is a verbatim copy of the KJV, except for modernisation of verb endings, pronouns and prepositions, KJVOers will not accept it. There can hardly be more convincing evidence that KJVOers would prefer the Bible to be in Latin, or preferably, completely wiped off the face of the earth.
 

Protester

Active Member

Of course he thought so. It smothers the truth in mist! Dawkins likes it, too!

The kiss of death.


Why is it so important to keep saying so in a thread about the KJV?

. . . there's a good possibility it is! Now you may not think so, and of course that is according to your likes and dislikes, but it's influence on English speaking peoples can't be denied, and as a person, who think it is a third-rate Bible, I certainly wouldn't deny its literary effect! It would be completely irrational to deny it, King James Bible Influences English Language Centuries Later | Langology , or a much longer piece, The Influence of the King James Version on English Literature as a Bible it has plenty of errors, if a person is somewhat rational about the matter, he would admit there are Indisputable, universally recognized errors in the KJV. When one talks about The Preservation of Scripture we aren't talking about it being preserved in English or German!:facepalm:

You really should be angry with Tyndale, since the KJV translators copied so much of his work, :D as the PBS show, SECRETS OF THE DEAD . Battle for the Bible | PBS pointed out.
 
Top