ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Did Christians Write The KJV

What do you think about the concept that because some of the scholars who translated the King James Version were not Christians that the KJV is not inspired of God?

Join Our Free Chat and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Sally on 1/19/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (9)

Post a New Blog



catherine, You are confusing your own conscience with Jesus' voice, because my Lord did not tell you that Matthew Henry's commentary is one and the same as the Holy Bible.
---Eloy on 2/19/07


The full six-volume edition of Matthew Henry's commentary (for many years just about the only one in English) has been found devotionally useful by many.

However, discoveries in Biblical archaeology and related studes have gone beyond what Henry knew in the 18th century. (He died in the early 1700's.)
---Jack on 2/19/07


KJV is accepted by Christians as inspired by the Holy Spirit even by those who do not believe Jesus Christ is Lord and God. All KJV translations approved by the International Bible Society are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Highly intellectual person cannot translate the Holy Bible unless inspired by the Holy Spirit. We read the Word as pure milk, unadulterated. We use other bible commentaries with discernment. We should be aware the author is spirit-filled and does not deviate from the truth.
---agnes on 2/19/07


Dave, I really study the word of God. It was God Himself, that told me to get MATT. H.C. It has all the scriptures plus explains them. And get this, Jesus says, "That Eloy doesn't know that it's one of the same." Everyone needs to know, and this is it.I, CATHERINE, PRAYS ABOUT EVERYTHING. Thanks for the kind words.
---catherine on 2/18/07


Though the bible is the best book to read to understand God's words for us, Catherine. it is not wrong to read books on many doctrines of the Savior. Jesus the Christ, by James E. Talmage, is an excellent book to add to your collection if you want to know the Savior and His life. I can tell you about many books to help you on the road through life.
---Dave on 2/18/07




.catherine, Study tools are a good thing, but the Holy Bible is the best study tool, rather than any commentary. And you are mistaking your own inclinations for God's voice, because God did NOT tell you to go quicker to commentaries then to his Holy Bible, and he would never tell you to follow commentaries instead of his spoken word, you catherine chose to do that all on your own. A commentary is just that, comments on Holy Scripture, but the Holy Bible itself is God's holy word.
---Eloy on 2/17/07


This is in response to Catherine's comment on the Matthew Henry Commentary. No other book or no other person is greater than God or his holy book, the Bible. The commentary is only one man's interpretation of the scriptures. His word is not the absolute authority. We should always be enlightened and led by the Holy Spirit. He is our Teacher and Guide in our Christian walk. He never leads us astray or wrong, if we listen and trust Him. I feel God has been insulted by your saying this.
---robyn on 2/17/07


Eloy== It was God who told me along time ago that I need some study tools.
---catherine on 2/17/07


.lee, compare the 1560 Geneva Bible or else Tyndales's or the 1611 King James Bible for this revelation, with any modern so-called Holy Bible, and you will see the gross differences. Modern versions wrongly change God-spoken words into man's words, they add their own words and they remove large portions of Holy Scripture, then after publishing this corruption they have the audacity to say that God spoke those lifeless words when God did no such thing, neither did any of those words come out of his mouth.
---Eloy on 2/17/07


the KJV of the bible is the closest book we have to the word of God. over the years, many scholars have rewitten it and changed many words, which changes meaning too. if you read genesis, you will see gaps where verses do not flow properly. God taught a simple gospel for us to follow. men complicate it, by believing they know more than God and His words. the constitution was inspired even though men were from different backgrounds. follow one book, not man's interpretation of that book.
---Dave on 2/16/07




Sally, I would like to know where u got this info from about non christians who helped translate the kjv. If there were, do u think the belivers would allow 4 something that is not of the truth b printed? Think very carefully dear..Or R U just stirring to discredit the True Word of God?
---jana on 2/17/07


Matthew Henry's commentary is a good one, howbeit, of an older generation. I would be surprised if Catherine found everything in it to agree with her Adventists doctrines, particularly as Daniel 8:14 MH speaks of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn that prevented the sacrifices.
---lee on 2/16/07


Catherine, pray to the Lord about leading you to go quicker to his Holy Bible, rather than that commentary.
---Eloy on 2/16/07


Eloy - *lee, I know because whenever someone says, God says this....., or Jesus says this...., or the Holy Bible says this....But in truth God did not say what these people are saying, neither does the Holy Bible say what they say it says.*

Anyone can misquote or be careless, but I would beg you or others to show me where I was wrong. I would readily admit it if I am wrong.
---lee on 2/16/07


If you People who are truly born-again want to get a really good Bible Tool check out Matthew Henry'S COMMENTARY. I love it. Don't stone me, But I will go to it quicker than the Holy Bible.
---catherine on 2/16/07


lee, I know because whenever someone says, God says this....., or Jesus says this...., or the Holy Bible says this....But in truth God did not say what these people are saying, neither does the Holy Bible say what they say it says. Therefore they are bearing false witness and lying, and also by their falsehoods they are not only maligning Holy God but advertizing giving him a bad reputation.
---Eloy on 2/15/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


jana - *God wanted the Hebrew bible etc to b readily available, He will c 2 it*

He has seen to it as you will find the Hebrew Bible in any respectable seminary and university in the world.

yes, you must adhere to the King James only as that version is the only one that supports some of the unique beliefs of Adventists (e.g Investigative Judgment, etc.); modern scholarship is an anathema to the Adventist.
---lee on 2/15/07


you obviously r against the KJV like Lee n Johnt u repeatedly come on this blog n ask such silly questions.Whose inspired word did this people write sister? God's word of cause. Whats the problem then. KJV is the only bible closer to the truth..it is widely available and if God wanted the Hebrew bible etc to b readily available, He will c 2 it.KJV speaks truth and the devil knows it so there4 sent u to blog about it 2 get negative commments.
---jana on 2/15/07


** Can anyone out there verify that some of the translators of the 1611 were not Christians?**

All of the translators of the KJV were Christians who believed in infant baptism, which would disqualify them from being pop-evangelicas which is trying to set itself up, at least in the USA, as the norm of Christianity.
---Jack on 2/14/07


the prophets isaiah and jeremiah by the inspiration of the holy spirit spoke about a people who "acknowledge me with their lips but their hearts are far from me". they had a darkened understanding and had ears but could not hear, eyes but could not see. jesus told the pharisees "you dilligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you posess eternal life. these are the scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. what version did they read
---nick on 2/14/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


Can anyone out there verify that some of the translators of the 1611 were not Christians?
---john on 2/13/07


2. If a person is saved, just about any Holy Bible will speak to him as to his conduct and for teaching of God's word. Though many commentaries in those Bible's are opinions of the writer of the perticular revise Bible, they are not to be understood as truth. If God moves a person to go into Theology, then he will want a better translation in order to find the specifics of certain words in passages.
---Lisas on 2/13/07


What good does a Bible do, which ever one it is, when the person is not Godly enlighten by the Spirit to understand God's words? No Bible will ever bring light to a mind that is lost. The Spirit brings light to God's words. No Holy Spirit, no understanding, no matter how great a Bible you have. It is the Spirit that brings light.
---Lisas on 2/13/07


ELOY, I love the King James Version but I have come to love the Geneva 1560 best. All you people out there that haven't read the GENEVA 1560 try it. I think you will enjoy it. I do and I read it everyday.
---TRUTH on 2/12/07


Send a Free Easter Ecard


Eloy - *I tell you when I hear popular Christian churches and broadcasts publishing uninspired words for Christ's words, it is very displeasing to the Lord.*

How do you know that modern versions are 'very displeasing to the Lord' as we read of the many testimonies of people that now understand what the Bible has been saying but simply could not understand the archaic language?
---lee on 2/12/07


Eloy - *I favor the 1560 Geneva Bible..."

I rather doubt that you will go too far off center in that as you can use it or most other modern versions and establish the same doctrines that the church believes in.

Yours, however, is a very minority view and unless someone has the means to market the old Geneva Bible, it will remain on the shelves of history instead of being utlized by the church at large.
---lee on 2/12/07


lee, I favor the 1560 Geneva Bible, dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I, called the Thanksgiving Bible, which our forefathers brought to America on the Mayflower. You will notice that the English translations produced after this will contain copious errors. God's spoken words bring resurrection and life, not man's words. I tell you when I hear popular Christian churches and broadcasts publishing uninspired words for Christ's words, it is very displeasing to the Lord.
---Eloy on 2/12/07


Eloy - *I reject the NKJV, they did not only update the grammar, but they have changed inspired words that need no changing,...*

So your dispute basically lies not with the Greek source but what English words better fit those Greek words. Those of us who have some training in the Greek, can understand your problem in not accepting the NKJV.

What modern version do you find acceptable?
---lee on 2/11/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


I reject the NKJV, they did not only update the grammar, but they have changed inspired words that need no changing, thereby it is just another commentary and not a true "Holy" Bible. I would not recommend any translation after the 1611 KJV, and I highly recommend the 1560 Geneva Bible (which you can get online for $100. to $200.).
---Eloy on 2/10/07


I am a Catholic and I have a NKJV Catholic Edition Bible in my house. I have a KJV New Testament and Psalms in my purse. The KJV was not "written" by the English, and is based upon the inspired Word of God. I prefer the Douay-Rheims, but the KJV is a good translation or modification however you see it. It would only matter if a non-Christian put errors into it that were not caught.
---lorra8574 on 2/9/07


What do you think of the New King James Version?

I understand that it is based on the same Greek manuscripts as was the Old King James but with the English grammar corrected as well as a few obvious mistranslations.
---lee on 2/9/07


hahahaha...Eloy yeah...right brother...KJV it is for me then...sooo many attack it n say they have the true bible yet is not available easily 4 all to get. If God wanted it, He would sure make it readily available. That is why I guess KJV is made easier for us 2 understand texts correctly as someone said. I've yet 2 discover it.
---mere on 2/9/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


Mere,type in "History of King James Bible" in you search engine and you will see that there were many men used, who were Schoolars, to translate the KJV of the Bible. The majority of the KJV ,80 % verses,comes from Tyndales translation and 90 % of the words. It really wasn't a new translation just mostly an old one set to a new Title. Tyndale was a Christian,Cardinal Wolsey branded him a heretic for his translation. He was hanged for heresy.
---Darlene_1 on 2/8/07


The transcriber is not the author of the words that he transcribes. Therefore the concept of the scriptures being uninspired because some of the translators were not Christians is falsehood. If God who opened the mouth of the dumb donkey and spoke with a man's voice to Balaam, would have turned the donkey's hoof into a hand with a pen and commanded the donkey to write his words, then the words would still be inspired from God's mouth eventhough the donkey was the one which wrote God's inspired words down.
---Eloy on 2/8/07


thats interesting..Can you name the ones who are not christian writers please? It would seem the KJV is the only bible under attack by the devil and his representatives. mmmm interesting indeed..Jesus said "You will be attacked bcos of truth." I should go buy a KJV b4 they run out. HOOOOOOrayyyyy ....
---mere on 2/8/07


**Jack. The eucharist is a greek word.**

So what? "Bible" is a Greek word, too. What's your point?

** The catholics don't keep it either. They only take the bread, not the blood. **

WRONG!

In Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, communion in both kinds was NEVER stopped. Communion in both kinds growing in Latin churches.
---Jack on 2/6/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


**Are you calling Bunyan, 'pop-lite?!'**

Bunyan was born AFTER the translation of the KJV. Quite possibly the first Bible he heard read was the Geneva, which was still popular among the Dissenters.

Baptists in the USA, however, are definitely Christianity lite/pop-evangelical.
---Jack on 2/4/07


Jack: I believe the first poster here who commented on Baptists actually used the word 'Anabaptists'; which did pre-date the KJV by some decades at least. And it wasn't all that long (a few decades later) that ALL scholars recognize Baptists existed; such as John Bunyan (who wrote Pilgrim's Progress). Are you calling Bunyan, 'pop-lite?!'
---danie9374 on 1/25/07


lee: You seem to have crossed over into opinion about King James' involvement; what evidence do you have for his 'helping in the translation'? I think you should clarify that. He was not one of the listed scholars assigned any portion of Scripture; nor one of its editors. He did approve the 'ground rules' for the type of work he wanted to see; but that's not being a translator. He did, however, 'have the ear' of Bancroft, so maybe one of the last changes was at his request?
---danie9374 on 1/25/07


Jack ... I know that very well ... but it does show part 2 of yours 22/1 was inaccurate.
I expect there are other Christian gropus who are not pop-evangelicals who don't practive infant baptism.
I challenged anti-Catholics because they use faulty "facts" (and been vilified for that) ... and thought your comments should also be clarified.
---alanUKquent64534 on 1/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Jack. The eucharist is a greek word. The catholics don't keep it either. They only take the bread, not the blood.
---jhonny on 1/25/07


lee, once again you are in error. i believe i have informed you that king james had NO part in the translation. the question in this blog is flawed. all 56 tranlators of the kjv were definately Christians, believing and trusting the Lord for due diligence in their endevor.
---r.w. on 1/24/07


** Jack ... In Bitain, the Baptist Churches do not practice infant baptism, and they are definitely not pop-evangelical.
And neither does the Salvation Army, which is definitely Christian**

Baptists did not exist at the time of the translation of the KJV. And the Salvation Army doesn't baptize anybody at all (or observe the Eucharist, for that matter).
---Jack on 1/24/07


*What do you think about the concept that because some of the scholars who translated the King James Version were not Christians that the KJV is not inspired of God?*

Old King James himself who helped in the translation, was probably not much of a Christian himself if at all as he murdered innocent people whom were declared to be witches and was rumored to have sexual relations with another man.
---lee on 1/24/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Alan, I'm not Pop-Lite, either.

I'm a heavy hitter; TKO, right hooks, left jabs, rope-a-dope, dance like a butterfly and sting like a bee.

The only "Pop" about me, is my Pop, he likes heavy-weight boxing. It's not my sport, but I like to listen to Pop. My Pop, he's a fighter. Retired Marine. He taught me how to fight on my knees. I love my Pop. So let's hit it, I'm ready.
---Cindy on 1/24/07


Alan, I am not a Pop-Tart, either. :)
---Cindy on 1/23/07


Jack ... In Bitain, the Baptist Churches do not practice infant baptism, and they are definitely not pop-evangelical.
And neither does the Salvation Army, which is definitely Christian
---alanUKquent64534 on 1/23/07


Catherine, you are not using any Scripture whatsoever. I'm not sure what pipeline you are listening to.

Something is not right, Catherine.
How can we help you? Where have you been these past few years?
---Cindy on 1/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Jack, you really didn't answer the question. I do not doubt that God may call infants, John the Baptist was one such infant called from the womb. But you are making a statement that CHrist and the Apostles called for infant baptism. Acts 2:37-40 does not specify infants therefore your claim is not founded in scripture. "How do you know they weren't?" is not a solid scriptural proof of your claim.
---Ryan on 1/23/07


Jack you have a very good list of churches that promote infant baptism but you have forgotten one group that I would deffenatly not call a Pop-evangelical church the anabaptists. they are one of the reformation churches but they do not promote infant baptism but adult baptisms. I think you are being pretty narrow with your ideals. infact the anabaptists do not call themselves protestant either so you can't lump them with the popevangelicals since the majority of them consider themselves protestants.
---Jared on 1/23/07


** Jack in Acts 2:37 There were infants and babies in the crowed who were 'pricked in their hearts' and asked what they needed to do for salvation?**

How do you know they weren't?

Faith is not the intellectual assent to certain propositions, but is a REALATIONSHIP with God, a relationship in which HE takes the initiative, and as we know from diverse passages of scripture, can begin in infancy.
---Jack on 1/23/07


I like Frank's answer. The Word is our source of faith. God gave it to the world.
It is not a man's product. It is not the property of any one religion or any one interpretation. It's what God says that counts.
---Cindy on 1/23/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


I will let you know what God said to me on this here subject. He said, and I quote Him,don't worry about your commentary it might be as good as any ones. Does it really matter if we get everything just right. We are not going to. The important thing is, are you saved?
---CATHERINE on 1/23/07


It's an irrelevant point, since there's no such thing as an inspired translation! However, if one is searching for point-by-point reasons to show people why the KJV isn't inspired, they should be made aware of the fact Bishop Bancroft over the protestations of Miles Smith made 14 changes AFTER the translators FINAL EDITED version was completed! The only one(s) we know of for sure are the word 'bishopric'; even for Judas, in Acts 1:20.
---danie9374 on 1/23/07


No Helen am not defending RCC heresy! I am defending Jack's right to believe any way he wants to believe. Sure I know he is wrong(in my mind) but I think this is be kind to Jack week!!!
---Mima on 1/22/07


Jack in Acts 2:37 There were infants and babies in the crowed who were 'pricked in their hearts' and asked what they needed to do for salvation?
---Ryan on 1/22/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Mima no one is denying that you can believe what you want. Many desire deeper biblical knowledge. When Jack makes this claim people obviously want to see the scriptural support, since this is a Christian blog site. THe bible is an authority in the life of all Christians.
---Ryan on 1/22/07


Mima - You are defending Jack. Are you at the same time defending RCC heresy?
---Helen_5378 on 1/22/07


It seems pretty odd that from king James day until about 20 years ago the King James Bible was what preachers used and saw miracles. Today these so-called scholars use everything but it and most of the miracles are man made hoaxes. There is a difference between a translation and an interpretation. The Spirit honours the translation. It will not honour what you or I interpret the word to be.
Frank
---Frank on 1/22/07


Acts2:38 is an excellent scripture as it implores us all to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (see 8:12). The question I have for verses 38-39 being the justification to baptize infants is that it says the people should REPENT first. How do infants and small children "repent" when most don't even understand the word, much less the significance of the act?
---mikefl on 1/22/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


** "4. Baptize infants as Christ and the Apostles commanded?"

Jack....SCRIPTURE!!!!**

Acts 2:38-39, for one place.
---Jack on 1/22/07


**
Jack - The "church" you speak of is not Jesus' church. You will find absolutely nowhere in Scripture that Jesus or anybody else said to baptise infants. That is RCC doctrine.**

You're wrong again, Helen.

But what can be expected of someone who doesn't believe that Jesus truly took flesh from the Virgin Mary--and hence is NOT descended from Abraham (as the Bible says twice) or Adam (as the Bible says once).
---Jack on 1/22/07


Part 2:

Infant baptism is NOT a Roman Catholic practice, but is taught and done by EVERY Church:

Methodist
Lutheran
Presbyterian
Anglican
Orthodox
Coptic
Armenian
Assyrian
Syrian

except for Christianity Lite/pop-evangelical groups.
---Jack on 1/22/07


I come in defense of Jack!!! Please remember that we all get to believe what ever we believe on this blog. Thank you
---Mima on 1/22/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


"4. Baptize infants as Christ and the Apostles commanded?"

Jack....SCRIPTURE!!!!
---Susie on 1/22/07


Jack where is this command:

4. Baptize infants as Christ and the Apostles commanded?
---Ryan on 1/22/07


Jack where is this command:

4. Baptize infants as Christ and the Apostles commanded?
---Ryan on 1/22/07


Jack - The "church" you speak of is not Jesus' church. You will find absolutely nowhere in Scripture that Jesus or anybody else said to baptise infants. That is RCC doctrine.
---Helen_5378 on 1/21/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


To answer your question in more detail, Matthew, does your church

1. Have the three-fold ministry of bishops, presbyters, and deacons?

2. Use incense as the Prophet Malachi said the Gentiles would do?

3. Believe that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ?

4. Baptize infants as Christ and the Apostles commanded?

If you answer NO to any of this, your church is pop-evangelical--Christianity Lite.
---Jack on 1/21/07


REV Herb ::If the transalators were God fearing & afraid of making a MISTAKE they would have left the word of God alone.Apparantly they were more fool hardy than God fearing.!you can see the result Right here on these Blogs of misunderstanding!!!Result CHAOS which is another name for SATAN the confuser.
---Emcee on 1/21/07


** Jack what is pop evangelical. You say that alot yet I don't understand what that means.**

The kind of Christianity most of the people on these blogs hold to. I've already defined it on the blog entitled "Eastern or Western Christianity."
---Jack on 1/21/07


Jack what is pop evangelical. You say that alot yet I don't understand what that means.
---Matthew on 1/20/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


I will say again only Satan would discredit the word of God, to make it not a credible witness makes it worthless, even one jot or title, then any thing can become truth and nothing can be used as a guide, what a wonderful tool of the Antichrist.
---exzucuh on 1/21/07


If someone is translating a book from one language to another the only things they really matters is that they know the language, and that they love the book they are translation (or at least see it as important) that being said they all thought it was important so obviously God was working in and through them.
---Jared on 1/20/07


As others say, the originals were written by those inspired by God. Most interpretations were made by people believing to do the "right thing". The KJV is a very good translation but it too has additions and changes (for clarification) from the writings they used. The translators also naturally swayed toward the doctrines of the Church of England when word or thought conflict occurred. That is why we have exhaustive concordances, search engines, & other resources. Search the scriptures daily...
---mikefl on 1/20/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.