What version of the bible was used or called commonly before the KJV and when was the Kjc version made?
552920
There were different versions, and there were different translations.   The Latin Vulgate was translated by St. Jerome around 380 A.D., and the first English translation  occurred in 1380 A.D. \n\nHere's an interesting Website that shows manuscripts and translations of both the Old and New Testaments:\n\nhttp://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html\n\nWork on the KJV began in 1604, and it was published in 1611.
510495
I prefer the King James Version because I believe it to be the most correct. \n\nOne of my favorite scriptures is:\n\nJames 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."
690958
the NIV was translated by many (including a homosexual woman) who chose to leave out things that would be offensive to their causes.  That's why many of us stick with the KJV, as it has been tried and true for centuries.
121868
BibleGateway.com - Version information: King James Version  \nEnglish (EN) Español (ES) King James Version. Version " King James Version. Testaments. OT/NT. Version Information. In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. ... prose rhythm has had a profound influence on the literature of the past 300 years. The King James Version present on the Bible ... Bible-Book List ...biblegateway.com/
556654
I prefer to read the KJV of The Bible.
574551
The whole New testament was written in Greek and some Aramaic. \nSometimes you need to look at how they translated words to understand better. We use a book called a Lexicon which gives us the greek word and how they translated it. \nOld English words are still used sometimes such as Jesus said I won't leave you comfortless. The word comfortless didn't mean the Holy Spirit it meant I won't leave you as an Orphan. \nThere have been many translations into English. The King James was translated 1611. Probably the most accepted. \nThe New King James version was in 1982 a more American form of English.\nThe first known is John Wycliffe and Oxford scholar 1380's.\nUp until 1880's the bible had 80 books instead of 66. The books that are not in there now is called the apocrypha.
173063
Original?  They were called scrolls.  The Jewish (believe it or not) put scrolls together in a specific order and thus evolved to what we know as a Bible.
406165
In 1611 the King James bible was published as the first official English translation. There were other English translations in circulation before this date but they were never authorised and some were even banned by the King and were published in Holland and other locations abroad...
1066091
I also use the KJV as it is the version of my Church and I wouldn't use another one.  I love the KJV.
49145
Heh, heh... thanks bro. ;)\n\nI have seen some rare textual changes that have changed the meaning or even elimination of a word because they could not see how it fits. Hebrew letters can look very close to one another, much like our "l" and "i". So any distortion in the leather parchment could be a problem or the flaking of the ink could cause problems as well.\nMy mentor once told me that when the military creates a complex code, they transmit it with parity, or multiple times, so that if the coded message is in any way garbled, they can compare it to earlier or later transmissions. The Bible does the same thing by repeating the important messages several times. This is why Deuteronomy is called Deuteronomy. It's "repeating what we already know is true".\nCan these people explain to me why the entire 2,000 year old Isaiah scroll found in Qumran is virtually identical with the modern copies found in every synagogue in the world?\nRemember that Revelation carries an eternal curse of damnation for anyone who adds or subtracts from the text of scripture, and I do not think King James was hoping for political advantage at the expense of his soul.\nToday, we still have the original Hebrew and Greek text. Changing the scriptures would offer us ZERO political gain. Yet is still translates the same as the original King James, only with todays vernacular. \nI wonder if these people even research beyond their own notions. Do they have such skepticism when they read their dosage instructions for medication?
277737
I've never heard of the The Jesus bible before, where did you hear about it?
1118111
I would like to clarify the difference of translated and changed. Translated is when something is written in one language and is copied or written into another language that one can understand. And when something is changed it means that it is totally worded different from its original text. The bible has not been changed. It has been translated.\nFrom what I found there has been over 400 versions of the English Bible since the King James Bible was published in 1611. Starting with the Revised Version (1881); to the American Standard Version (1901); to the Amplified Bible (1958); to the Living Bible (1967); to the New International Version (1973); to the New King James Bible (1979);
19292
Because they cant read the original Hebrew for the Hebrew Scriptures, or the original Greek for the Christian's New Testament. Therefore they must rely on someone else's translation. \n\nRemember that modern translations are copyrighted, and the organizations that translated them make money when every book of their translation is sold. The KJV is so old, going back to 1611, that it has no copyright anymore, so it is free. That is why it accompanies many, if not all, computer Bible Programs.\n\nAlso keep in mind that the KJV was the only version available, and then the only version acceptable, to many denominations of Christianity for a very long time.\n\nPlease also remember that the person or organization who does a translation is biased, and their translation will reflect their own theology, regardless of whether or not a verse in the original actually says what they claim it says. No translation is totally right, and some are better, and some are worse, than others.
1068056
basically yes that is how the bible started out.  It was in several different scrolls.  The jewish bible or Old Testement was canonized before the time of Christ.\n\nThe Jews recognize the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible as the Tanakh. Evidence suggests that the process of canonization of the Tanakh occurred between 200 BCE and 200 CE. The first suggestion of a Jewish Canon comes in the 2nd century BCE. The book of 2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describes Nehemiah (around 400 BCE) as having "founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings" (2 Macc 2:13). The book also suggests that Ezra brought the Torah back from Babylon to Jerusalem and the Second Temple as described in Nehemiah 8. Both I and II Maccabees suggest that Judas Maccabeus likewise collected sacred books. They do not, however, suggest that the canon was at that time closed; moreover, it is not clear that these sacred books were identical to those that later became part of the canon.\n\nAdditional evidence of a collection of sacred scripture similar to portions of the Hebrew Bible comes from the book of Sirach (dating from 180 BCE and also not included in the Jewish canon), which includes a list of names of great men in the same order as is found in the Torah and the Nevi'im (Prophets), and which includes the names of some men mentioned in the Ketuvim (Writings). Based on this list of names, some scholars have conjectured that the author, Yeshua ben Sira (Joshua son of Sirach) had access to, and considered authoritative, the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve minor prophets. His list excludes names from Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, Daniel, and Job, suggesting that he either did not have access to these books, or did not consider them authoritative. In the prologue to the Greek translation of ben Sirach's work, his grandson mentions both the Torah and the Nevi'im, as well as a third group of books which is not yet named as Ketuvim (the prologue simply identifies "the rest of the books"). Based on this evidence, some scholars have suggested that by the 2nd century BCE the books of the Torah and Nevi'im were considered canonical, but that the books of the Ketuvim were not.\n\nWhen Christianity began, it had no well-defined set of scriptures outside of the Septuagint[1]. The New Testament refers to the "Law and Prophets", for example the Gospel of Luke 24:44-45 records Jesus stating: "written. . .in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms. . .the Scriptures" and Acts of the Apostles 24:14 records Paul of Tarsus stating: "I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets". The earliest Christian canon is found in the Bryennios manuscript, published by J.-P. Audet in JTS [3] 1950, v1, pp 135-154, dated to around 100 AD, written in Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew; it is this 27-book OT list: "Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, 4 of Kings (Samuel and Kings), 2 of Chronicles, 2 of Esdras, Esther, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Minor prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel" (2 of Esdras might include 1 Esdras; Esther, Jeremiah and Daniel might include their Septuagint additions; Jesus Nave[2] is an early translation of Joshua son of Nun). Early Christianity also relied on the Sacred Oral Tradition of what Jesus had said and done, as reported by the apostles and other followers. Even after the Gospels were written and began circulating, some Christians preferred the oral Gospel as told by people they trusted (e.g. Papias, c. 125 AD).\n\nBy the end of the 1st century, some Letters of Paul were collected and circulated, and were known to Clement of Rome (c. 95 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (died
18964
The word "Bible" comes from the Greek word (τα) βιβλια.  This can be approximated in English as (ta) biblia, "(the) books."  The Bible is a collection of many individual sacred writings written at different times.    Each of these writings was called a book.  Thus, together they were called "the books."  When the Greek word entered into English, the pronounciation and spelling of the collective name changed so that they came to be called the Bible.
1023896
The original bible of Jesus was what we refer to as the Old Testament in the Bible, or the Torah, from which He quoted many times.  It's still very much around.
574120
There is a Book called the Bible....\n\n\nOne example, Romans 9:13