Holy Bible: King James Version: Standard Text Edition | 
|  | | | Title: | Holy Bible: King James Version: Standard Text Edition | | Author: | Baker Publishing Group | | Publisher: | Cambridge | | Type: | Book / Hardcover | | Publication Date: | 01 March, 1995 | | ISBN / ISBN-13: | 0521508827 / 9780521508827 | | List Price: | $19.99 | | You Save: | $6.40 | | Amazon Price: | $13.59 | |
 This book is also available, brand-new, from 3rd-party marketplace sellers at Amazon.com, from $12.12. |
The HTML code below can be pasted onto your web-site, your MySpace page, or blog - or any number of similar places - to create a link to this page: If, instead of a text link, you'd like to create a link to this page which will display the book cover, if it's available, then the code below will do exactly that:
Check for the same book at these other US book sites:
• [ Abebooks ] • [ Alibris ] • [ Barnes & Noble ] • [ Half.com ] • [ Powells ] … or check UK bookstores
| Editorial Review / Publisher's Information:
Product Description
The King James Version of 1611 has been the most widely known and quoted version of the Bible for over three centuries, and has shaped both Western culture and the English language. The Standard Text Bible offers the text of the King James Version in an exceptionally clear and readable type. The size of the Bible makes it a handy buy for someone who wants an easily readable type, but not a Bible that is too heavy or bulky to carry. This Bible also has a glossary of 14 pages which explains some of the lesser known words of 17th Century English, and a Bible reading guide. Bound as a hardback with an attractive jacket, the economical price of this Bible represents exceptional value.
| Other Items You May Enjoy:
Browse Books From These Related Subjects:
Customer Reviews:
• Excellent For Our Purposes 05 December, 2007
We purchased this for the large print and the recipient was very happy with it.
- Reviewed by customer ID: AHKPZ11JT110F
• God, The Complete Works (authorized Version) 31 October, 2008
A Zondervan Corp sales person with an overstock of new NIV Bibles to sell may tell you, "Do not listen to the 'KJV-Only!' crowd." He may tell you that King James I of Great Britain was "a flaming, red-haired homosexual Scot who nearly every weekend buggered the members of his own Privy Council."
Okay, maybe that's true. But should we therefore suspect that a flaming "King James Version Only" man, such as the Rev. Marion "Pat" Robertson, is homosexual as well? I think not! I cannot believe that Pat Robertson is a closeted gay just because he strongly prefers the so-called "Sodomy-tolerant" KJV. That Pat suffers from a deep homosexual panic about the very possibility of closeted gayness? Okay, sure. But can you blame him? How would you like to have spent your puberty and Saturday nights in the dorms and closets of an all-boys military school in Tennessee if you were a cute teenaged, sexually ambiguous, youth named "Marion"? Truly, if the atheists and homosexuals of this world knew one tenth of what the bullies at that military school put him through, such as the nickname, "Minnie Mouse," then I think they'd better understand Pat Robertson's passion to "ride with the king" - with King James, that is!
But let me add this, in Pat's defense: if King James and Pat Robertson should ever meet in Heaven, it will not be Marion "Pat" Robertson who is the first one to say, "Tickle me Elmo!" I know Pat well enough to vouch that he would never ask another man to tickle his elmo; or another woman, for that matter. If anyone tickles Pat Robertson's elmo, it will be Pat himself.
Besides, King James did not personally translate the "King James" Version. As the King of England, James merely put up the cash for the fifty British scholars who did the actual work - most of whom, granted, were gayer than Truman Capote on a spring day in Amsterdam. That interesting historical fact may explain why the allegedly "homo-tolerant" Authorised Version goes easy on the biblical heroes, David and Jonathan, and on the prophet Daniel, and the apostle John; but it can shed no light on the Marion Pat Robertson mystery, nor will the behavior of those fifty dissolute KJV translators ever get Pat to change his position. For one thing, they're dead. Seriously, in these "end times," when Jesus could be returning at any minute, it would be a mistake for English readers to reject the Authorised Version of the Bible simply on whatever nagging doubts they may have concerning the Jacobean nature of Rev. Pat Robertson's concealed sexual proclivities.
--L.
- Reviewed by customer ID: A3SED48SWHNV56
• Simple And Great 12 December, 2007
This Cambridge Standard Text Edition is great. It has great binding, a nice font size, and overall very attractive. It does not have words of Christ in red, nor a ribbon marker. But for a simple, readable text Bible, this is the best out there.
- Reviewed by customer ID: A31AF3KXBENLQ6
• Why I'm Not A Christian 30 December, 2008
The Bible is the basic holy scripture of Christianity. It is also the best argument against Christianity. Reading what the Bible *actually* says, without the seemingly coherent interpretations or smooth harmonizations of theologians and preachers, can be a real eye-opener. Or shocker, if you like. Personally, I studied Christianity for several years, and eventually decided against it. There are many reasons for this, and here are some of them.
The Bible cannot possible be a real supernatural revelation. For starters, it's riddled with internal contradictions and inconsistencies. It's also contradicted by modern science, from the Big Bang theory over the age of the Earth to Darwinian evolution. The attempts by various Christian groups to "solve" these contradictions are singularly unconvincing. More importantly, these contradictions go to the very heart of the subject matter: the crucifixon and resurrection of Jesus Christ, supposedly *the* central event, not only of the Bible, but of world history itself. The synoptics and the Gospel of John can't agree on when Jesus was crucified, or on the exact order of events after the resurrection! Indeed, John seems to be changing the sequence of events of the synoptics precisely to prove a theological point. Yet, all four Gospels are canonized, and Christian groups desperately try to harmonize them, to no avail.
Many Christians claim that Judaism and Christianity were unique and must therefore be true. But how unique were they really? The first known monotheist religion was the Egyptian cult of the Aten, the deified sun disk, invented by the Egyptian pharao Akhen-aten long before Moses. The religion of the "Old Testament" (Jewish Bible) contains similarities with other Semitic religions: temple worship, the legend of the Deluge, the legend of the Nephilim, the rejection of a real afterlife, the idea that slain enemies and their property should be dedicated to a warrior god, etc. True, there are differences as well, but there are differences between various "pagan" religions as well. Indeed, Judaism didn't start to believe in angels, Heaven and Hell, and the resurrection of the body, until influenced by Zoroastrianism. These ideas was later incorporated into Christianity, together with the near-dualist view of the Devil. Yet, poor Zoroaster isn't even mentioned in the Bible!
Nor is Christianity completely unique. If read carefully, the descriptions of the resurrected Jesus sound like the description of Jewish angels, who could materialize physical bodies from thin air, and even eat food. (Compare the angels who visited Lot at Sodom!) Even the story of the empty tomb isn't completely unique. In Tibetan Buddhism, there are legends about accomplished masters whose bodies mysteriously disappear from their death-beds at the exact moment of death, being transformed into beings of light.
Early Christianity was based on the idea that Jesus was foretold in the Hebrew scriptures, the "Old Testament". The book of Isaiah is supposedly rich in such prophecies. If read in context, however, these prophecies are about something else. The famous verse about a virgin that shall concieve, is probably about king Hezekiah, and the Servant Song is about the Jewish people, not an individual Messiah. Of course, if the OT doesn't contain real prophecies about Jesus, the so-called unity between the two Testaments is destroyed. The NT then simply becomes the attempt by early Christians to interpret, almost esoterically, the claims of the Jewish Bible.
The large number of quite different Bible manuscripts, and the changes made in these over the centuries, is another strong argument against the supernatural character of the Bible. How come that God went through such pains to reveal his message to mankind, but didn't care about preserving it? His ways are truly mysterious. Of course, some Christians have attempted to solve this problem by simply decreeing that a certain Bible version is correct. The Orthodox Church considers the Septuagint (plus the NT) to be divinely inspired, the Catholic Church at least traditionally regarded the Vulgate as the only true translation, and some Protestant fundamentalists insist on the King James Version (minus the Apocrypha) being a divinely inspired translation. Somewhere in far-away Sweden, there is still a small group of people who insist on reading "Karl XII's Bible", published during the Great Northern War almost exactly 300 years ago. And let's not forget the Jehovah's Witnesses and their famous New World Translation.
That a literal reading of the Bible is contradicted by 200 years of scientific research hardly needs to be pointed out, but many Christians feel that this doesn't matter, since the Bible is about spiritual and existential matters. But in what way is such a Bible different from *other* early attempts to speculate about our spiritual and existential condition? While it's certainly possible for an ancient philosopher, sage or prophet to say relevant things about existential matters, it's unclear why this should lead us to become Christians rather than, say, Platonists or Confucians. Or even Epicureans!
But the most damning indictment against the Bible is surely the moral one, so damning that we would have to oppose the Biblical god even if he had existed! Christians constantly argue that atheists cannot have a ground for morality, but it's unclear how a voluntarist-nominalist God can be a ground for morality instead? The Biblical God constantly changes his moral commandments. In the Book of Joshua, genocide is commanded. In the New Testament, John the Baptist admonishes the soldiers not to plunder the civilians. And later, Jesus says "Love thy enemies". Even later, Jesus promises to punish his enemies with everlasting Hell (or everlasting annihilation, on another reading.) So where exactly is the "objective morality" in all this? Rather, one gets the impression that different human groups, with different and sometimes contradictory moral precepts, wrote the Bible. Ironically, the Bible itself is the best argument that morality is indeed fluid. That perhaps it shouldn't be is another matter. But wherever morality might actually be found, it sure isn't in the Good Book!
Yes, the Bible is fascinating reading. Often, you realize that modern Christian groups, both fundamentalist and liberal, distort their own Scripture beyond recognition. It can be really humorous to compare interpretations of the Bible with what the Bible is actually saying. Indeed, virtually all the elaborate modern theologies are based on purely subjective speculations, and the Church Fathers didn't agree with each other either.
The truth is out there, but it's not accessible through the subjective speculations of religion, any religion. Not even the religion of the Bible.
- Reviewed by customer ID: A2VMT89TCSF105
• Horrible (-1 Star) 07 May, 2007
I've given up on the so called "Cambridge Quality". They are sloppy in comparison to years past. The books are still sewn, however, they are using glue in addition to sewing the signatures. I do not mind although the glue is being used in excess to the point where the pages toward the binding have either glue drippings on the tail band or on the edge of the pages. Then on another occasion when I ordered directly from Cambridge through Baker Publishers, the two copies that I ordered were the hardcover text edition that were sent to me with the back covers detached down half the length of the spine. The fact that they sent them out in such condition makes no sense. You know I can understand if they want to increase the pace of their production, however, if they are not even going to inspect their production before sending them out to the consumers, then that explains where their commitment is. They are not the same as they use to be Twenty- not even Ten years ago. If you are considering buying a Cambridge bound Bible. Save your your money and buy on that has been bound in the States instead, because you will be getting the same quality for alot less money.
- Reviewed by customer ID: A3T9QL48WDUHFL
|
