Do you think the kjv bible is the best. Here are some things about it.

• https://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/why-doesnt-the-catholic...
  The King James Version of the Bible, completed in 1611, sought to be a precise translation coupled with a majestic literary style. It should be noted, however, that the editors of the King James Version were instructed by King James I of England to make sure that the translation was in harmony with the theology of the Church of England.
• King James Version - Wiki

The editores were instructed by King Jame to make sure that the tralslation was in harmony with the Theology of the Church of England.

Is it then the head covereings, and the divorce issue, was directly with keeping with the Catholic Bible.

Though The Angelican Church of England, did remove it's self from the Catholic Church, because a King then, wanted a divorce from his wife who couldn't give a male son. They still practice confessions to a Priest, so are we reading a mini version of the Catholic Bible, and hating them as well.

IT IS NOT A CATHOLIC BIBLE AT ALL. PROOF? CATHOLIC BIBLES HAVE SEVEN EXTRA BOOKS IN THEIR OLD TESTAMENTS (MARKED WITH ASTERISKS AND OUT OF THE APOCRYPHA).

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Josue (Joshua)
Judges
Ruth
1 Kings (1 Samuel)
2 Kings (2 Samuel)
3 Kings (1 Kings)
4 Kings (2 Kings)
1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles)
2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles)
1 Esdras (Ezra)
2 Esdras (Nehemiah)
Tobias (Tobit *)
*Judith *
Esther
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Canticles (Song of Solomon)
Wisdom*
*Ecclesiasticus*
*Isaias (Isaiah)
Jeremias (Jeremiah)
Lamentations
Baruch*
Ezechiel (Ezeckiel)
Daniel
Osee (Hosea)
Joel
Amos
Abdias (Obadiah)
Jonas (Jonah)
Micheas (Micah)
Nahum
Habacuc (Habakkuk)
Sophonias (Zephaniah)
Aggeus (Haggai)
Zacharias (Zachariah)
Malachias (Malachi)
1 Machabees* (1 Maccabees)
2 Machabees* (2 Maccabees)

I have no idea what bustedhalo represents, but before you go much further, kindly do some serious research into the King James Bible. There is a lot of anti-KJV propaganda out there, and the facts usually get swept under the rug.

Do I think the King James Bible is the best? Absolutely. And I have the facts to prove it. But there are plenty of threads on this topic.

Oh come on . Really? We have enough threads of this type . I am not a KJV only guy but please for the sake of peace among brothers and sisters in Christ drop this . Go back and read the other 124+ threads about this subject.
Asking please leave it .
Blessings
Bill

If people do not like the KJV they should post scriptures from the KJV and the version they like, and show that the KJV teaches different than their version.

If their version has the correct interpretation of the creation, post scriptures where the KJV in the creation story is in error.

If their version has the correct interpretation of the flood, post scriptures where the KJV is in error.

If their version has the correct version of the Exodus, the same thing.

If correct version of the call of Abram, and the Jews inheriting the land of Canaan, the same thing.

Concerning David the same thing.

Concerning Jesus being Lord and Savior the same thing.

The saints having eternal life the same thing.

Being led of the Spirit acting Christlike the same thing.

Or where ever the same thing.

Post scriptures of your version, and show the KJV teaches something different.

king james and many other nobles were big believers in the divine right to rule doctrine, they wanted a bible that would be more frienly to this idea which in turn would make the masses more easy to manipulate.

I have made this same sentiment time after time concerning King James being ruthless, and that his Bible was conducted based upon his own personal views. Ironically, those with access to the internet (where this particular site we are participating in comes from), has numerous scripture versions that many actually date just after the ascension of Christ. And for the better part, not much of it aligns with the kjv views at all.

The Essenes Bible, which is only 8 verses of discovered text, never speaks of Christ as a child and places Christ making His first appearance around age 30 (which king Herod was in rule then - and that actually coincides with historical fact - meaning the kjv of king Herod is off by more than 40 years).

And there are enough original documentations from the Aramaic and the Greek to reveal several inconsistencies with kjv. Most notably the conversation between Christ and His Disciples discussing the coming Holy Spirit. The kjv uses the word (he) 7 times, where the Aramaic uses the word (it). Now that does not seem like a big deal. But if you put it into context, it changes the meaning of the verse. And goes from Jesus calling the Holy Spirit (he), to calling it (it). And if king James dictated by his personal views, we can see it in this verse alone.

But nevertheless, the kjv Bible does give us enough truth to go by. And thankfully, we do have the Torah to ensure we are actually reading the correct version of the Old Testament. After all, in the Book of Isaiah, written 700 years before the language of Latin Vulgate was first used, we have the Latin Vulgate word "Lucifer" found within a Book written in 100% Hebrew. So clearly, king James was not the only tyrant shaping the Bible!!

You know you’re making a huge claim and I hope you are well versed to support such a claim through years of studying the issue. I hope you’re just not posting material from a website but have studied the King James Bible yourself.

Thankfully God has used such people throughout human history to bring us His word.

As a former catholic who renounced that false religion and now a supporter of the KJV i can say without a doubt that the KJV is not a catholic Bible... Many people where threatened with death by the catholic church because they dared to work to produce it..

In these end times the KJV is without doubt the most attacked translation in the World and that tells me something.

Agreed. The RCC did not want the comman man to have access to God’s word. They wanted to have the sole authority on “religion.”

The RCC had adopted so many corrupt doctrines that they knew that allowing the common people to read the Bible for themselves would lead to a collapse of their cult.. So they did and still do their best to discourage people from reading the Holy Bible for themselves..

I know as a former catholic i did not pick up a Bible to read it until one was given to me as a gift by a friend at work.. So i read the Bible for the first time in my early 20's and it changed everything for me..

I suspect that if you separated out the anti-Christian/anti-Bible material, the reasoned criticisms of the KJV and the responses to ridiculous KJV-only claims from all alleged "attacks", you would be left with very little.

The only real criticism I have for the KJV is that in 1 Corinthians 13 they should have used "Love" instead of "Charity".

But I think the same general concept can be gleaned by interchanging the two words.

*I love the KJV* its my favorite. My daughter likes the NIV and she is a Youth Pastor. Whenever she has questions about the bible I tell her lets look at what the REAL BIBLE says... lol

But, really, when it is kind of difficult to understand what a certain bible version is saying it is quite helpful to look at other versions to see how the same concept might be expressed in a different way.

unfortunately evil men have twisted the scriptures for their own personal agendas.

Dont think so because Henry the eighth was long gone by the time King James ascended the throne. He was King over sCotland too, and they were not part of catholicism either, as it was the free church of scotland from which presbyterians came from.

I dont know every detail of history but I do know that the OPs claims are rather baseless. The only part of the KJV that was conforming to the theology of the anglican church was the letter dedicated to King James in the preface, none of the scripture was actually changed to align with the anglican church. Its a translation word for word not an interprtation. Some of the headings may have been added as helps but they are not scripture but describing the chapters contents.

In the dedication, it says James is the King of great Britain, France and Ireland. There were many translations at the time, some were actually translations by church officials eg the Bishops Bible, and comformed more to church dogmas at the time. But we know the KJV was actually an independent translation as its main translator william tyndale was actually not a clergyman but an ordinary christian. That King James, a believer (thankfulky) gave his Kingly approval to this translation had nothing to do with the church of england needing a translation or what the previous king Henry did or believed. William tyndale actually did not agree with Henry the eighths annulements.

its a translation of what, what did they translate to make the KJV?

Nothing from Rome or Egypt, that’s for sure.😉

The original tongues, from the hebrew and the greek.

The kjv was translated from the byzantian manuscripts as I recall, other bibles seem to rely on the alexandrian ones. The difference between them is that the byzantian ones were fuller and didnt have missing pieces. The kjv translation they call it from the textus receptus - the recieved texts.

Other translations also relied on the latin vulgate which was translation from the greek septugint and they werent from the orginal tongues, so you could say that things were lost in translation. Do your research and find out...!

Except the last few verses of Revelation... which Erasmus had translated from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and which were brought forth into the KJV.

im not an expert on the sources of the different translations. the little that i have learned was the the KJV relied heavily on the MZ rather than the LXX, but recently i learned it relied heavily on the bishops bible which would more or less make it a copy of a copy. this is what wiki says on it:

"The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois's notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of versions and patristic sources; including explicitly both Henry Savile's 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom and the Rheims New Testament,[146] which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes. "

just a note, the Rheims New Testament would be of the The Douay–Rheims Bible which is a Catholic bible.