The King James Bible

Imagican · #1 27th September 2012, 10:50 AM

There are MANY that have a difficult time choosing a particular version of The Bible.

Here I would like to discuss the King James Version so far as it's CREATION. What actually went INTO the creation of the Authorized King James Version.

I once did a lengthy study on this subject. So I feel that I am plenty capable of offering MUCH as concerns the TRUTH.

Hopefully those that have YET to figure out which translation they will choose to use will find this interesting enough to use it in making their decision.

Blessings,

MEC

he-man · #2 27th September 2012, 10:56 AM

Originally Posted by Imagican

There are MANY that have a difficult time choosing a particular version of The Bible. Here I would like to discuss the King James Version so far as it's CREATION. What actually went INTO the creation of the Authorized King James Version. Blessings, MEC

Who do you think translated the Bible? It certainly was not an elephant. Where do you think the private interpretations came from if not from these faulty translations [based on the corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate] by Wycliff, 1380's AD translated out of the [faulty] Latin Vulgate;

Thomas Linacre, 1490’s who said, " comparing [Greek] it to the Latin Vulgate, Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.”

and then in 1496, John Colet, followed by Erasmus, who unfortunately included the spurious 1 Jn 5:7, only had 6 faulty manuscripts, none eariler than the 10th Century, was so moved to correct the corrupt Latin Vulgate, that in 1516 Greek-Latin New Testament of Erasmus further focused attention on just how corrupt and inaccurate the Latin Vulgate had become, and how important it was to go back and use the original Greek (New Testament) and original Hebrew (Old Testament) languages to maintain accuracy… and to translate them faithfully into the languages of the common people.

Luther, 1517, and also William Tyndale's 1530's based on the same faulty 1516 Erasmus text burned at the stake by King Henry VIII in 1536, just three years later in 1539,

Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, hired Myles Coverdale at the bequest of King Henry VIII to publish the "Great Bible”.the others up to "The 1611 King James Bible" all based up opon the faulty Latin Vulgate used by Erasmus, who unfortunately included the spurious 1 Jn 5:7. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-en...bible-history/
http://www.bible-researcher.com/

Proverbs 28:21 in the 400-year-old classic English translation known as the King James Version (KJV) cautions, oddly, that "to have respect of persons is not good." But 400 years ago, "respect" meant "to be partial," and the point was to avoid favoritism. Additionally, the KJV's "turtle" whose voice is heard in the beautiful imagery of Song of Solomon is a bird. These examples demonstrate a fourth problem plaguing modern translations: the power of history.

Unfortunately, etymology, internal structure, and cognates are the three pillars of Bible translation. And with them, the power of history and a focus on the wrong parts of metaphor degrade all English Bibles even more.
So your Bible translation contains flaws as bad as: mixing up "ballot" and "bullet" (etymology), thinking that all officers work in offices (internal structure), mixing up requests and demands (cognates), thinking that turtles fly (history) (Quote: Dr. Joel Hoffman)

Not to mention the 1,000 years of the Dark & Middle Ages when the Word was trapped in only Latin.

Imagican · #3 27th September 2012, 11:08 AM

Let's start here:

the REASON for a NEW Translation at the TIME that King James commissioned the Authorized version.

At the time, there were basically TWO versions of the Bible in English that were being widely used. There was ONE considered to be the 'people's Bible' and there was another considered to be the 'Bible of the ROYALTY'.

Each was biased in that the Bible of the people had been translated to paint a negative picture of ANYONE of 'means'. And the other was biased in it's appealing to the wealthy in the manner in which is it was translated.

What King James, and MANY OTHERS desired was a translation that leaned NEITHER direction. A translation that was as close as humanly possible from Greek to English. Not a BOOK to push people in one direction or another. But a BIBLE that was merely an ACCURATE translation as CLOSE as possible to what was ORIGINALLY offered.

54 scholars were originally chosen of which 47 actually worked on the translation. It took SEVEN YEARS to complete. And King James also sent out letters throughout his entire Kingdom inviting ANY and EVERYONE that considered themselves to be versed in the Bible to offer what they were able as well.

The Bible was broken down into seven units according to the 'books of the Bible' and there were seven groups that the 47 scholars were divided into.

They were told from the beginning to ONLY alter what were OBVIOUS errors. That whatever was contained within the original 'people's Bible' was to remain so long as it offered NO apparent error.

Each week the groups convened to discuss what was being introduced. It was DISCUSSED before a decision was made for the information to be CORRECT.

I'm going to stop here for now. I have offered enough already that I am SURE there are going to be those that wish to debate these issues.

But let me add, as in ANYTHING that can be debated, there are going to be some things that one MUST take on FAITH. If a preacher delivers a sermon, it is up to those that hear it to either accept it as 'inspired' or to denounce it as inaccurate or lacking in inspiration. It is NO different with this issue. I haven't even TOUCHED on which manuscripts were used in the formation of the KJV. This in and of itself is enough to inspire debate from now till doomsday.

But I am not through yet. I will offer MY opinion on WHY I believe that the manuscripts used were the MOST ACCURATE. And they are pretty much the SAME reasons that those that USED them to translate the KJV opted for THEM over others.

But as it stands now, this is a good enough place to start for us to SEE 'why' the KJV has been the MOST popular version ever printed in English. It is certainly not the EASIEST to read, (although it has been updated on numerous occasion to alter the OLD English it was originally written in to a more modern form), it is still a bit archaic compared to completely MODERN English. But to me, that is part of the FLAVOR of God's Word. That it reads oftentimes MORE like poetry than clinical instruction. And I believe that it is the NATURE of the manner in which it is written that is able to bring MULTIPLE meanings to the SAME sentences as one's understanding GROWS. Almost as if it's very inspiration to be written in this manner was DESIGNED to offer MORE meaning as one reads MORE OF IT.

So let us see what arguments exist over this introduction and I will MOVE on from there.

Blessings,

MEC

gasman64 · #4 27th September 2012, 11:43 AM

The KJV has undergone thousands of corrections since 1611 and modern scholars consider up to 12% of it is still spurious to this day and most other translations are even worse.

Hillsage · #5 27th September 2012, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by gasman64

The KJV has undergone thousands of corrections since 1611 and modern scholars consider up to 12% of it is still spurious to this day and most other translations are even worse.

I just learned last year that the original KJV even had the Apocryphal books included between its covers. Book now considered uninspired to protestants. But it really is infallible now since they removed them.

Phantasman · #6 27th September 2012, 01:24 PM

Maybe:

The Codex Sinaiticus may prove KJV to have the flaws described. You can read much of the progess for yourself at Codex Sinaiticus - Home

"Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book."

Of course the CS includes two books lost somewhere down the road.

Soulgazer · #7 27th September 2012, 01:48 PM

I don't have a loyalty to one text; I use several. I like the poetic feel of KJ, but sometimes I like a translation that uses a dynamic equivalent like the NIV.

The problem with "accuracy" is not just errors in translation, but changes in culture.
Metaphors are particularly difficult to translate, because words have different metaphoric meanings in different cultures. Shepherds in the Bible were symbols of might, ferocity and royalty, whereas now they generally represent peaceful guidance and oversight. So the image of the Lord as shepherd in Psalm 23 originally meant that the Lord was mighty, fierce and royal. The impact was roughly the same as "the Lord is a man of war." But in most English-speaking cultures, "the Lord is my shepherd" conveys a wholly different, and therefore inaccurate, image.

When Jesus told the Pharisee they were children of the devil, second century Christians knew that as a man who was full of errors. Statuary of Moses depicted as a devil soon popped up all over the place. Today, because of culture, people think of the mythological being.

Unfortunately, no matter how accurate the words are, they remain just that ----words. Like all physical things, they are subject to decay. Which is why we should "store our treasure"(put faith in) Heaven.

Senecharnix · #8 27th September 2012, 02:25 PM

In my opinion, the King James Version is among the worst translations of the Bible. Besides it translation errors, it is atrocious from a literature perspective....

Hillsage · #9 27th September 2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Soulgazer

I don't have a loyalty to one text; I use several.

Amen, the best 'translation by man' will never measure up to the 'inspiration of God' IMO.

When Jesus told the Pharisee they were children of the devil, second century Christians knew that as a man who was full of errors.

Hmmm I thought it meant they had really bad mothers.

1TI 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers/diabolos, sober, faithful in all things.

1228 diabolos: a traducer, spec. Satan; false accuser, devil, slanderer

Soulgazer · #10 27th September 2012, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Hillsage

Amen, the best 'translation by man' will never measure up to the 'inspiration of God' IMO.

Hmmm I thought it meant they had really bad mothers.

1TI 3:11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers/diabolos, sober, faithful in all things.

1228 diabolos: a traducer, spec. Satan; false accuser, devil, slanderer

Well, you know from talking with He-man the Judaic belief about "Satan"--- The devil wasn't anthropomorphized until about the late middle end of the second century, about the time"Titus" was written; The Naasene(the Group the Gospel came out of about 90AD) used Platonic reasoning in story form; I'll try to string the verses together here so it will be easier to understand their thought process. I'm neither promoting nor defending, just explaining.

9:28And they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are disciples of Moses.
8:38I speak the things which I have seen with my Father: and ye also do the things which ye heard from your father.

This draws a firm line of separating the beliefs.

8:44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and standeth not in the truth, because there is no truth in him

EX2:12 So he looked this way and that, and when he saw there was no one around, he struck down the Egyptian and hid him in the sand.

The closest surviving document that expounds on the disillusionment with the Torah found in Christianity, without going over the top, I feel, comes from Ptolomy:

First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God alone, and his legislation; the second to Moses - not in the sense that God legislates through him, but in the sense that Moses gave some legislation under the influence of his own ideas; and the third to the elders of the people, who seem to have ordained some commandments of their own at the beginning. You will now learn how the truth of this theory is proved by the words of the Savior.
In some discussion with those who dispute with the Savior about divorce, which was permitted in the Law, he said Because of your hard-heartedness Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife; from the beginning it was not so; for God made this marriage, and what the Lord joined together, man must not seperate. [Matt 19:8] In this way he shows there is a Law of God, which prohibits the divorce of a wife from a husband, and another law, that of Moses, which permits the breaking of this yoke because of hard-heartedness. In fact, Moses lays down legislation contrary to that of God; for joining is contrary to not joining.<>Therefore it is indisputeable that here the law of Moses is different from the Law of God, even if we have demonstrated the fact from only one example.