The Authorized Version of 1611

[McCulloch]

Doesn't matter. KJV is the infallible word of God, and if it has a comma so we can understand the original context, then it has a comma.

In support of his view, he provided these links:

• How I Know The King James Bible is the Word of God I believe the King James Bible is the preserved and infallible words of God.
• Fundamentalist Ministries (KJV) We believe the King James Version to be this Holy Bible, the inspired, preserved Word of God in the English language. We do not mean that the English language translators were inspired as they translated. However, because what they translated is an accurate and faithful translation of the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts, the King James Version is therefore the inspired, preserved Word of God in the English language. We believe the Masoretic Hebrew text and the Textus Receptus Koine Greek text to be the inspired, preserved Word of God in the Hebrew and Koine Greek languages.
• Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and...The Most Accurate We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.
• Why I Use the King James Version In conclusion, we advocate the use of the King James Version of the Scriptures, and believe that It should be treated as the Word of God italics and capitalization in the original.
• Why Do We Only Support The King James Version Of The Holy Bible? No one has ever proven that there are errors and contradictions in the KJV. [...] The King James language is NOT hard to understand.

Questions for debate: Is the Authorized Version, also known as the King James Version the one version approved by God for use by English speaking Christians? Is it better than other English versions? Are there any English versions published which are better? In what ways?
_______________________________________
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)

[harvey1]

By far this is the strangest belief that I've ever heard a Christian hold. And, it has many strange consequences. For example, a great deal of biblical understanding comes from knowing the Greek words (e.g., agape), and it is hard to believe how a group could call themselves Christian and deny the words that the New Testament were written in. Very, very strange. I don't even see how it is even a topic for debate.

This reminds me of the old Catholic Church that insisted that the scriptures must be read in the latin Vulgate.

[harvey1]

Hey, what do you know, the KJV is not the only translation that is seen as the one true translation. We have another in the Catholic tradition.

[micatala]

Is the Authorized Version, also known as the King James Version the one version approved by God for use by English speaking Christians?

No.

Christians who make this claim are simply making an arbitrary claim, based on tradition and their own biases. There is no justification within scripture for the idea of 'one authorized translation.'

I would point out that Bart Ehrmann, among others, has made a fairly good case that the KJV is actually a very inferior translation. The Textus Receptus upon which it is based is far from the best Greek translation.

Frankly, the Catholic version has a lot more going for it than the KJV.

[McCulloch]

By far this is the strangest belief that I've ever heard a Christian hold. And, it has many strange consequences. For example, a great deal of biblical understanding comes from knowing the Greek words (e.g., agape), and it is hard to believe how a group could call themselves Christian and deny the words that the New Testament were written in. Very, very strange. I don't even see how it is even a topic for debate.

This is a topic for debate because a Christian on this site has made this claim and has provided support that there are Christian leaders who also hold to this belief.
As an outsider, why should I regard this particular item taken by faith be any more or less valid than other Christian beliefs also taken by faith?

[harvey1]

This is a topic for debate because a Christian on this site has made this claim and has provided support that there are Christian leaders who also hold to this belief. As an outsider, why should I regard this particular item taken by faith be any more or less valid than other Christian beliefs also taken by faith?

McCulloch, you were a Christian, surely you know that this view is extremely rare. It was never held even by King James himself. Of course, the Christian faith has kooks. Besides, I'm still not convinced that this person is actually a Christian. They spoke glowingly of the KJV but refused to use the KJV when it spoke of humans being animals (as does the Hebrew), and instead used a translation that fundamentalists as a whole hate because of its erroneous departures from the text. That smells of the tactic of an atheist, perhaps someone who posts here frequently.

[harvey1]

Frankly, the Catholic version has a lot more going for it than the KJV.

Actually, I love the King James version. I prefer the New King James for the correction of many errors, but often it conveys an interpretation that I think is more consistent with the text. However, my favorite version is the New International for overall clarity.

[McCulloch]

I just came across this (don't ask me where):

God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.

God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?

He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.

But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

All of the other English translations that I have checked translate this as wild ox. However, I would think that überliteralist supporters of the KJV would have to support the idea of the existence of unicorns. And they seem to have existed subsequent to the Flood.
_______________________________________
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)

[McCulloch]

I've run into this point of view more than once while I was a Christian. It had bene usually expressed by Christians who were, quite frankly, ignorant. One had told me, "I read the Saint James Bible. If it was good enough for Paul, it is good enough for me." She was a sweet and rather old lady so I let it drop. Until recently, I thought, like you, that this view was rather rare. But BigChrisfilm did express this view and he provided support for it, indicating that he is not just some isolated kook.
I have seen nothing in his posts here and elsewhere which would lead me to believe that he is an atheist troll.


_______________________________________
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1 Thessalonians 5:21 (KJV)

[micatala]

Numbers 23:22 (King James Version) wrote:
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
Numbers 24:8 (King James Version) wrote:
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.
Job 39:9,10 (King James Version) wrote:
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
Psalm 29:6 (King James Version) wrote:
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
Psalm 92:10 (King James Version) wrote:
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

Interesting. Not having spent any appreciable amount of time looking at the KJV (I also like NIV), I did not know there were unicorns mentioned therein.

I could see some arguing that these passages are poetical or metaphorical in nature, especially Psalms and Job, because these works are not historical, but poetic or in the wisdom tradition.

Still, I have heard people insist that the Bibld shows dinosaurs and humans coexisted because of the Leviathan mentioned in Job. It is spoken of as having a tail 'like the cedars of Lebanon.' From this, it is construed that it must be some sort of Brontosaurus like creature, not a crocodile, as the more mundane interpretations would suggest.

Certainly, one could make the case that a person making this 'dinosaur' argument would also be obliged to believe in the literal existence of unicorns. I am not sure how they might try to explain this.