I have always wondered this?

Don't wonder gamming. Do your reasearch. Start at a book store. My favorite is a pistol called the Strongs-Concordence. Good luck bro.

"Is the king James bible the only bible?"

Uh, no. The Bible was in existence long before the year 1611 A.D.

Which bible was the very first?

The first Bible was and is the Torah. Which is the first section or first five books of the Jewish bible. However, Tanach is more commonly used to describe the whole of Jewish scriptures.

There are many different versions of the Bible. I feel that the KJV is not the First Complied Printed Bible and not the absolute end all.

hmmmm

The first Bible was written in Hebrew(OT) and Greek(NT). Written and all inspired by the Holy Spirit! Then translated into English having some words being questioned but, it meaning was made to express God's word. Now, in order to have a new bible(book) there must be 1500 changes! If, rewritten, it is written in a personal impression with a personal expression. WOW! Satan plan is workig by destroying The Word of God!

The King James Version is God's preserved Word in English. The History of the King James Bible begins with Erasmus of Rotterdam in 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament. This is probably the MOST IMPORTANT BOOK written which started the Protestant Reformation. (Textus Receptus verses the Church's Latin) Then came William Tyndale's New Testament in our "modern" English. He was burned at the stake in 1536. Myles Coverdale finished his work of the Hebrew Old Testament. Then came the "Matthew's Bible" which Tyndale prayed for Henry the 8th eyes to be opened. Then came "The Great Bible" under Henry the 8th. Then the "Geneva Bible." The Geneva Bible is the first Bible with verses. The Geneva Bible came over to the Unites States on the Mayflower. Then came the Bishop's Bible in England which never caught on. In 1603, King James of Scotland became King of England. He realized that the Geneva Bible had issues and that the Bishop's Bible had issues. So he gathered 53 Scholars of Great Intellect and he divided them up into 6 groups and he commissioned them to translate the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts into English. What they did was exhaustive. These men were brilliant Scholars and proficient in these languages. It took them 7 years! NONE of the "so-called" Translators of TODAY could "hold-a-candle" to ANY of these men who translated the texts into the King James Version of the Bible.

In the 1800's, archeologists found the codex Sinaiticus in Egypt and they also found the codex Vaticanus in the Vatican Library. Westcott and Hort published these texts as "more information" on the Bible, but they DIDN'T AGREE with the Authorized King James Version. However, ALL THE NEW VERSIONS (NIV, ESV, NLT) use these "corrupt" texts in their Translations.

In a Nutshell, EVERYTHING in English AFTER the King James 1611 Authorized Version are just corrupted, mistranslated Bibles. Use them as paraphrases ONLY, but NOT as teaching tools or for DOCTRINE. Teach people NOT to use them for personal Bible Study. You will find that these corrupt Versions remove "words and verses" that the King James has in place. STAY WITH THE KING JAMES ONLY!

Supposedly there is one called the lampas bible. It was written before the king James bible? I havnt done any research on it. I use the king james bible. There are lots of bibles with lots of interpretations . king james is just one of the earliest written that I know of.

There is The New American Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, The St. Joseph Bible and may other bibles.

I knew that it wouldn't be long before the worship of the KJV would be presented in this thread.

The "KJV Only" drivel is sad at best.

Oh. Guys don't forget the dead Sea scrolls found in 1947.

Since we are on the subject . . .

Have you ever heard someone refer to a Bible as being the authorized version? What does that mean?

In the early 17th century, England's King James I was the official head of the Church of England. James was power hungry, and he wanted absolute rule over everything including churches. However one thing stood in his way, the Bible that the people of England were using - the Geneva Bible.


Regarding the Geneva Bible, church historian Ernest Trice Thompson writes, "It had become the popular version in England, but was detested by James because it had footnotes strongly opposed to the divine right of kings, to which James was committed. James cried that he would have a new Bible."

When the King James Version was produced, the king outlawed other English versions. As a result, British citizens - including colonists in America - were restricted to using the King James Version.

Today, citizens of the USA are no longer under British rule, and so they are free to use whatever version of the Bible that they choose. The expression "authorized version" has no meaning outside of the Church of England.

That's right, Folks. The KJV was created to serve a political purpose, and it's original use in North America was due to the fact that other English versions of the Bible weren't available (in general).

Anyway, no English version of the Bible is the standard for comparison, because the original biblical manuscripts were not written in Elizabethan English.

Quote Source:
Thompson, E. T. (1965). Through The Ages, A History of the Christian Church. Richmond: The CLC Press.

Even the KJV has been revised from its original state.

One person mentioned doing your own research, I second his suggestion.

We have more manuscripts available to us and scholars have been able to give more accurate translations. The original Scripture of what Christians call the Old Testament was oral, not written. That is why in the book of Numbers we read the same thing over and over and over. When something is repeated multiple times, it is committed to memory. The very original text was oral tradition.

At some point, it was committed to written literature. I believe (I could be wrong) that it was around the Jews Babylonian exile that it was committed to writing. If it had been done before the Babylonian exile, there is a good chance most of the text would have been lost. About 200 years before Jesus came on the scene, the Hebrew was translated to Greek because so many Hebrews could not speak nor read Hebrew as fluently as Hebrew. The Scripture the Apostles would have been most accustomed to would have been the Greek translation. The New Testament was yet to be written but once the Gospels began to be written as well as the letters by different authors, they would have been in Greek.

So, if you are looking for an accurate modern translation, look for one that has gone all the way back to the original Hebrew and Greek. Do not let one person or another say "this is the version is the right one". Dig for yourself. Ask questions. One of my professors knew the man who translated the book of Isaiah in the New Living Translation. These people have banks of scholars trecking and re-checking their work.

I will say The Message and The Living Bible are more like paraphrases. They are not true translations and do not claim to be true translations.

The same ones who praise KJV usually crucify homosexuals and good ole King James preferred the company of men. (P. 196)

Gonzalez, Justo L. (2010h. The story of christianity: The reformation to the presen day (2nd ed.) New York, NY: HarperCollins.

You are correct that the original manuscripts were not written in Elizabethan English - and you would find much information in the preface of the King James Bible as to the standards to which the Translators used and that they didn't want what they did to be "worshiped" in any way whatsoever.

I find it fascinating that critics to the King James ONLY never put forth ANY superior intellect or translation techniques or even scholarly people in mass to even match the incredible endeavor or the "Focus" of the Project itself to translate from the fragments of textus receptus THAT AGREED with one another to form the New Testament and the Old. (Majority Text)

Then in the 1800's, archeologists dug up codex Sinaiticus in Alexandria, Egypt - the Land of the Gnostics. The codex Vaticanus was pulled off the shelf of the Library of the Vatican about the same time. BUT GUESS WHAT? Neither of these texts AGREED with the MAJORITY TEXTS. They didn't even agree with each other! Oh! But Westcott and Hort thought that because they were Older, that they were more "correct and authentic". WRONG!

This is where the NIV comes from. (The Non Inspired Version) And the ESV comes from. (The Extremely Stupid Version) These Versions LEAVE OUT Verses and Words - Change Christian Doctrines. This is NO SMALL Thing!

Sorry. The King James Version is God's preserved Word in English. There are Documentaries out there which explain this, but I can already tell that there are people who will not watch them. They would rather "argue." I pray that one day your eyes would be opened.

Video: New World Order Bible Versions by framingtheworld (youtube)

This is what is called begging the question.

Seriously? A logical fallacy? Is that all you can come up with as a refutation?

OK. Let's suppose that the codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus are really the TRUE Word of God and the Textus Receptus and the Majority Text are wrong. Why would God have His "True" Word buried in the sands of Egypt for over 1800 years and His Church following and believing "False" Doctrines? The codex Sinaiticus and the codex Vaticanus don't agree with the Textus Receptus, let alone with each other - yet Westcott and Hort "decided" that because they were "older" texts, that they were more "reliable." Now, that's what I would call a logical fallacy, if I ever heard one.

Not only that, but in Jeremiah 44:20-28, God "curses" all that would be found in the land of Egypt for what Judah had done in their worship to the "queen of heaven" (sound familiar?)

God said in verses 27 & 28 "Behold, I will watch over them for evil, and not for good: and all the men of Judah THAT ARE IN THE LAND OF EGYPT shall be CONSUMED by the sword and by the famine, until there be an end of them. Yet a small number that escape the sword shall return out of the land of Egypt into the land of Judah, and all the remnant of Judah, that are gone into the land of Egypt to sojourn there, shall know whose WORDS shall stand, mine, or theirs."

God allows us to find the truth through a search of the scriptures. The LORD wanted His people OUT of Egypt. He consumed any of them who remained there. The modern critic, like Westcott and Hort, wants us to believe that God then used this same region to preserve His word through the Roman Catholic CODEX Vaticanus and the CODEX Sinaiticus manuscripts. As we read on, we see that isn't true. God emphatically differentiates between HIS WORDS and those of the Jewish Egyptians!

In verse 28, it sounds as if God insured that the remnant of Judah would be able to differentiate between His words and theirs. It is unfortunate that man does not seem to possess the same capacity to discern truth from error today. There are MANY other biblical passages which cast a definite NEGATIVE light on Egypt. In spite of all of the scriptural evidence against the possibility of God’s using Egypt to preserve His word, the Bible critics continue to hold to this unscriptural position. According to the critics of King James Only, the modern versions are necessary because God chose Egypt (CODEX Sinaiticus) and Roman Catholicism (CODEX Vaticanus) to preserve His word which had been corrupted by well-meaning, overzealous scribes. However, according to the Bible ITSELF, God used Antioch (Acts 11:26), not Alexandria, Egypt (Acts 27:6, 28:11) to preserve His magnificent Word.

I have no need to believe the false claims of the KJV-Only sect, because those claims were debunked by Christian theologians a long time ago.

Let me guess. The year was 1881 with the Westcott-Hort New Testament. Everything (Modern Bible Versions) just "snowballed" (became perverted) from there.

It's a good thing the "Authorized" Text or the "Received" Text (the one without the copyright) is still considered God's preserved Word in English.