Biography - The King James Bible

1 of 2

Comment on The King James Bible

ITS REAL LIFE TO ME AND MY WALK WITH GOD. ITS MY LIFE. AND THANK GOD FOR THE BIBLE. THE WORD WHICH IS MY TWO-EDGED SWORD AGAINST THE ENEMY.

Comment on The King James Bible posted 2008-02-21 by RUTH CORETTA from TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Comment on The King James Bible

The bible is the DIY book of life, so does it really matter who lays claim to it? As long as the written words find the same truth...

Comment on The King James Bible posted 2007-10-25 by Glenn from uk

The King James Bible is sadly covered in inocent blood

This is straight out of Exodus 22:18 in the King James translation of the Bible: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". The King James version was translated from Greek texts, and the original Greek line read: "Thou shalt not suffer a venefica to live". The Latin word "venefica" means "female poisoner". Thus, the correct translation should be: "Thou shalt not suffer a female poisoner to live". King James's translator decided that the term "witch" was synonymous with "poisoner". King James I was well known for his persecution of "witches" in England. In other translations of the Bible, this passage is translated differently. For example, in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible this verse is translated as: "You shall not permit a sorceress to live," which isn't any more accurate than the King James version. This is a good example of scripture being deliberately misinterpreted to support Satanic hysteria. As you can see, this is not a new idea. Kerr Cuhulain

Comment on The King James Bible posted 2007-07-03 by David Hardingham from tampa fl USA

History Proves Which Is the True Bible in English

The King James Bible contains in English the Hebrew Masoretic Text which was preserved by Israel as the true word of God. This text's validity was established by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It also contains in English the true Greek text preserved and guarded by the true church which reported back to Asia Minor where Paul the Apostle preached. These believers fellowship with Asia Minor started long before and also long after Catholicism emerged. No other book posing as the Bible can make these claims. The church of the Vaudois (later called the Waldenses) in northern Italy was formed in AD 120 and also reported back to Asia Minor long before Jerome. They made their translation called the Itala (called the Vulgate long before Jerome published his "Vulgate") not later than AD 157. They did this by sending one of their number to the source in Antioch where the translation would be done. This took thirty years to be accomplished. It was written in Old Latin which at the time was the language of the common people. It used the "Syrian Text" which matches that of the King James Bible. Jerome's text was not much accepted till 400 years later when Old Latin passed out of use. In fact the first Latin translations continued to hold their own against Jerome's "Vulgate" for nine hundred years. Jerome's text was procured by Eusebius of Caesarea from Origen (a great scholar of Greek philosophy) in Alexandria in Egypt for Emporer Constantine. Origen is known to have been very willing to play fast and loose with the text. He even inserted portions of his "new testament" into the text of his "old testament". He altered things a bit to match his Platonist beliefs. The Church is older than Catholicism, after all the Gospel came to areas of Scotland as of AD 37. See the book: "Which Version is the Bible?" by Floyd Nolan Jones, Ph.D. Th.D.

Comment on The King James Bible posted 2007-01-30 by Simon Todd from Jamaica WI

Comment on The King James Bible

From reading the previous comments two things are clear: King James I was Scottish and not English and the Bible that bears his name is not the correct translation of the true Bible compiled by Saint Jerome which existed for nearly 1500 years before. Add to this the fact that King James I was not the legitimate successor to Queen Elizabeth I: The will of Henry VIII and an Act of Parliament both clearly stipulated that the crown should pass to the descendants of Queen Mary. The KJB can never be considered an English icon. There has been some allusion that, in some perverse way this 'icon' has united the country. On the contrary, what about the Western Uprising, the Northern Rebellion and the Midlands Uprising to name but a few of the revolts that occurred? The reformation divided the country. Virtually every abbey and monastery was destroyed, fathers, mothers murdered in front of their children, torture worse than anything done in a Nazi concentration camp. You only have to read about how they were cruelly murdered: hung, drawn, quartered, disembowelment, boiled alive, crushed to death to understand the true malevolence and brutality of the reformation. But I can't help quoting from one of their number, Edmund Campion, "In condemning us you condemn all your own ancestors - all the ancient priests, bishops and kings - all that was once the glory of England ..." ? now there is a true English icon!

Comment on The King James Bible posted 2006-11-24 by Mr. R. Jones from Swansea

Comment on The King James Bible

Your previous commentator is correct, King James was James VI of Scotland who became James 1 of England, following the death of Elizabeth I. I would object to the inclusion of the King James Bible purely because of this. If it's an icon of anything, it's of Britain.

Comment on The King James Bible posted 2006-11-10 by Louise M Thorburn from Aberdeen

Comment on The King James Bible

From a purely religious perspective, the KJV of the Bible will remain the only version that will prevent the slide of Christianity in this country - it needs to be used & preached in all the traditionally Protestant churches in the UK to demonstrate the benefits that the Reformed Church gave to our country during our darkest hours....long may it survive !

Comment on The King James Bible posted 2006-11-10 by Brian Smith from Lymm Cheshire

Comment on The King James Bible

This is complete and utter rubbish! The King James Bible is derived from Martin Luther?s ?bastardised bible? and not from that compiled by St. Jerome. For example, where?s the book of the Maccabees? Ripped out! Why? Because Luther sought to forbid the belief in purgatory. And there are numerous others examples of removals, rewrites and distortions. This book is an instrument of agnosticism and not Christianity. The true bible is that of St. Jerome, that of the Catholic Church, the true translation being that of Douay-Rheims.

Comment on The King James Bible posted 2006-11-09 by David from England