Did the early church fathers view "monogenes" as "only" or "only-begotten"? The following Bible verses have "monogenes" in it: Verse KJV NET John 1:14 only begotten the one and only John 1:18 only begotten only one John 3:16 only begotten one and only John 3:18 only begotten one and only 1 John 4:9 only begotten one and only Luke 7:12 only only Luke 8:42 only one only Luke 9:38 only child only child Hebrews 11:17 only begotten only son With only one exception, the King James Version translates it to specify that the only is a child. However, modern translations, such as the New English Translation, use "one and only" most of the time. How was this word understood by the Church Fathers?

It's only in the King James and the New King James, but why is Jesus' name in all caps? > And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: > for he shall save his people from their sins.**Matthew 1:21** > > And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, > and shalt call his name JESUS. **Luke 1:31** It isn't like this anywhere else in the Bible. The word in the Greek is the same as in other instances of the name. Why? And why only in the KJV?

One of my favorite Bible translations has always been the King James (I suppose because of the medieval feel), but I have always been fascinated by the much longer history of the Catholic Church and I recently was informed that the KJV is not considered a valid translation in Catholic canon. This sparked curiosity on my part I was wondering in what ways the KJV was different from a traditional Catholic translation, and can the differences be chalked up to slightly different translations of ancient Greek? Or was it fundamentally changed to fit a Protestant perspective?

Are there any advocates of "King James Bible Only" today who insist using only the original 1611 version? What reasons do they give? For example, do they reject the Young Literal Translation that is also faithful to *Textus Receptus*? The real old English is extremely hard to understand.

Hello I've been confused by the amount of KJV bibles there are. The AKJV means the authorised King James Bible but AKJV also stands for American King James Bible as well. From my understanding the Authorized KJV (1611) is the KJV but I've read that the 1611 version is not the KJV used today. Been told "Get a 1611 AKJV". So they are referencing a certain type of KJV. The website bible gateway has the AKJV and KJV as options as if they were different versions but I haven't noticed any differences in it yet. Except someone said the AKJV has British English? I looked at it on Wiki and the 1611 version has a section to itself and it doesn't seem this is the same KJV we use today? I'm confused how it is the same bible of 1611 we call the AKJV. https://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091024144529AA84Ts5 Then there comes the AKJV (American KJV), pure Cambridge, 1769, the NKJV (which I own) KJ21, MKJV, the MEV which seems to be a form of the KJV and others....seems like many versions exist. But is it just modernised text? What is the difference between all of these? What KJV should I get? How can I tell the difference between a "1611 and a standard KJV" if they are different which they seem to be? (I own a KJV already) On Amazon if you look up 1611 KJV you find only a few results and they especially have 1611 on the cover. Seems there is a conflict between the AKJV and the KJV being the same or not by searches I've done. Are they really the same or not? There also seems to be "counterfeits" used in stores (not illegal books just a fake KJV...not sure what they mean) http://www.biblebelievers.com/believers-org/counterfeit-kjv.html ???

How did Judas die: by hanging himself as described in Matthew 27:5, or by falling and his body bursting open as described in Acts 1:18?

In Genesis 3:13 (King James Version) we read that Eve was "beguiled": > And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. In this context, what does "beguiled" mean? I am not so much looking for a linguistic explanation. I have looked up the definition and etymology of the word "beguile" and see that there are many different meanings for the word (to charm; fascinate; to delude; influence by slyness; deceit, wile, fraud, ruse, trickery; sorcery, witchcraft). I really want to understand what it means that Eve was beguiled.

I am planing to get one of these translations for my personal use. If these are _too different_ from one another, I would like to get both. I love to compare _(for my personal study)_ different versions _(even different languages within the same version)_ of Bible. I own many Bibles, but as of **KJV** or **NKJV** I presently do not own any translation. This is why __I want to get some knowledge about each__ before deciding which one I will get... I have read a [Wiki webpage](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version) about NKJV, but the results there are not enough, as I'm not about modernized English language. I'm interested for the accuracy to the original scriptures. **What are the differences between _NKJV_ and _KJV_ translations?**

Many years ago, I heard someone say that the KJV came about because King James I wanted a version of the Bible that supported him getting a divorce. Nowadays, I can't help but wonder how true this is. Thus, I'm asking for the historical reasons the KJV came about.

The KJV translators almost always translated the Tetragrammaton into English as "LORD" (all capital letters). For example, in Deut. 6:4: But, on the rare occasion—**extremely** rare—they chose instead to write "IEHOVAH" instead of "LORD." Now, this question is NOT about the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. The question is, why did the KJV translators seemingly break their rule of writing "LORD" for the Tetragrammaton in these instances? For example, in Exo. 6:3: in Psa. 83:18: in Isa. 12:2: in Isa. 26:4:

What’s special about Exodus 6:3, Psalms 83:18, Isaiah 12:2, & Isaiah 26:4? Why does the Authorized Version translate the Tetragrammaton as Jehovah in those four verses, but [replace it with LORD or GOD everywhere else](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/67403/214) ?

During bible study I noticed that Acts 8:37 was missing from my bible. Verse 36 goes straight onto verse 38. Some cursory Google searches show that this happens in the NIV but not the KJV. Is there some controversy with the verse? A translation error? Hidden conspiracy? Are there other verses of the bible like this? What is the story here.

Bible translations like the NKJV and the ESV are meant to be descendants of the KJV Bible. Why then are these written in American English as opposed to traditional British English?

Sometimes, when I talk with LDS missionaries about passages in scripture, they'll reject some verses I have memorized because they are NLT or NIV, not KJV. I had tried memorizing the KJV first in the past, but I got discouraged really quickly. It was hard for me to remember the older versions of words (thee/thou/ye), older grammatical conventions, slightly devolved word definitions. I gave up and decided to stick with the NLT. But recently, I encountered another pair of missionaries, prompting me again to re-evaluate my NLT decision. Sometime in the past I dismissed the NKJV to be just as difficult to memorize as the KJV, but after giving it another look... I can't imagine why. Surprisingly, the NJKV seems to fall on the easier side of the memory-difficulty spectrum😄. I was very relieved and happy when I discovered this, so I'm more than comfortable with switching over... but only if it would be useful for discussions with Latter Day Saints. What is the LDS perspective on the NJKV? Is there an official stance? Crucially, a stance that *most missionaries* would know about and reiterate? On a practical level, would the NJKV be a safe choice to memorize and recall for discussions? Or would it become just as futile as an NLT when there are word/phrasing differences? **Edit:** Thanks to Hold To The Rod for clarifying to me that Latter Day Saints are not actually KJV-only. My mistake!

> Psalm 139:16 (KJV) Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being > unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in > continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them. *My understanding of this verse:* God has written down the process of how our bodies will be formed. Thus, referring to ***embryology***. > Psalm 139:16 (NIV) Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days > ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to > be. *My understanding of this verse:* God has written down how many days I should live on this earth. Thus referring to ***predestination***. This translation is very hard to digest for me. How should we interpret this verse? I myself cannot accept the NIV way of translation because that would put God responsible for everything in my life, whether good or bad, and that even my destiny of going to Hell or Heaven is predestined. Some writers like Rick Warren prefer this NIV way of translation. What is the view of Mainstream Christian Denominations on this verse?

I cannot understand why people think they need another version of the Bible besides the King James Version.

I have recently been reading through the [CES letter](https://read.cesletter.org/bom/#_17th-century-italics) . My question comes from this excerpt: >When King James translators were translating the KJV Bible between 1604 and 1611, they would occasionally put in their own words into the text to make the English more readable. We know exactly what these words are because they're italicized in the KJV Bible. What are these 17th century italicized words doing in the Book of Mormon? Word for word? What does this say about the Book of Mormon being an ancient record? >ISAIAH 9:1 (KJV) Nevertheless the dimness ***shall*** not ***be*** such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her ***by*** the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. >2 NEPHI 19:1 Nevertheless, the dimness ***shall*** not ***be*** such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterwards did more grievously afflict ***by*** the way of the Red Sea beyond Jordan in Galilee of the nations. >The above example, 2 Nephi 19:1, dated in the Book of Mormon to be around 550 BC, quotes nearly verbatim from the 1611 AD translation of Isaiah 9:1 KJV – including the translators’ italicized words. Additionally, the Book of Mormon describes the sea as the Red Sea. The problem with this is that (a) Christ quoted Isaiah in Matt. 4:14-15 and did not mention the Red Sea, (b) “Red” sea is not found in any source manuscripts, and (c) the Red Sea is 250 miles away. >MALACHI 3:10 (KJV) ...and pour you out a blessing, that ***there shall*** not ***be room*** enough ***to receive it***. 3 NEPHI 24:10 ...and pour you out a blessing that ***there shall*** not ***be room*** enough ***to receive it***. >In the above example, the KJV translators added 7 italicized words to their English translation, which are not found in the source Hebrew manuscripts. Why does the Book of Mormon, which is supposed to have been completed by Moroni over 1,400 years prior, contain the exact identical seven italicized words of 17th century translators? Reading the bottom excerpt will tell you my question.

As you know, there are Baptist and Protestant sects throughout the English-speaking world that believe that the King James Version is the best - or only - completely trustworthy theological resource. They believe that the translators behind the King James Version were not mere literary scholars, but Spirit-filled saints who were placed by destiny to create a completely perfect Bible for the people of their place and time. It's just now occurred to me that those people had their own thoughts and opinions about their place in history. What would they say, if we could ask them? Conjecture aside, are there any historical quotes from those men regarding whether they believed their work was inerrant? Did anybody working on the King James Version ever say something to the effect of, "We are filled with the Holy Spirit and we believe that the work we created is perfect" ? Or conversely, "Even experts make mistakes, we gave it our best shot" ? It is of course very unlikely that committee members could independently "leak to the press" their personal opinions, and have their words preserved in history. But did the government of James I's own time or the Church of England of his time make any official statements regarding the inerrancy of the King James Version?

To what extent can we be sure that the red letters in a KJV Bible are the actual words of Jesus?

Many Christians believe that [the King James Bible is the *only* correct translation of the word of God](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/284/11471) . And they say that all other versions of the Bible are *not* inerrant. What is the historical origin of this way of thinking?