• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

KJV Version

Moriah Ruth 777

Encourager/Exhorter
Oct 3, 2012
7,058
2,156
Canada
✟20,616.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I am currently looking for information on how the KJV version bible was put together as well as history on King James himself who put the bible together. Could anyone assist me please? This would be greatly appreciated. Any books or websites would help.

Moriah Ruth
 

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,176
8,505
Canada
✟882,482.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

Gregory Thompson

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.
Site Supporter
Dec 20, 2009
30,176
8,505
Canada
✟882,482.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Hi Michael,

Thank you so much for the book suggestion. I checked to see if the book was at the library here in my city and was happy to see that it is. So I will pick it up this week.

Any other thoughts come to mind?

Moriah Ruth

Not much more but, I recall the translators went back to using their own bibles after the translation was done . and the copy we see in stores today was not finished in the opinion of religious leaders until later in the 1700's . the original kjv also had the apocrypha .

http://www.davince.com/download/kjvbiblea.pdf

so far as King James, I've heard many things .. and because of the controversy over the interpretation .. I'm not entirely sure that any of the commentary can be trusted . i'd say look in a reference library for a book with photocopies of actual documents from back then to substantiate any commentary on the life of King James of the translation
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi moriah,

Well, to start with, it is improper to write 'KJV version'. It is either 'KJV' in which the 'V' stands for the word 'version' or 'KJ version'. What you are asking is 'how did we get the King James version version?'

In today's world, the easiest way to find the answer to your question is to simply ask the question on a search engine. The short 'version' of an answer would be that for whatever reason, king James, despite the papacy's admonition against it, decided that there needed to be an updated translation of the Scriptures for the man of 15th century England to read. In his position as king, he set about attaining that goal. He set out to first determine which version of the Scriptures were believed to be the most accurate in that day and had that version translated into english.

It's the same process that Scripture translators use today. However, there are some issues regarding the source of some of the source materials. Just as there are today. Here's one such site:

Story Behind King James Bible

And another:

King James Bible

And another:

Brief History of the King James Bible by Dr. Laurence M. Vance

There are many other sites that discuss the KJV, but they often seem to deal more with the question of accuracy rather than the specific issue of why the king set out to translate the Scriptures.

I hope this helps.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

Moriah Ruth 777

Encourager/Exhorter
Oct 3, 2012
7,058
2,156
Canada
✟20,616.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you Michael, I certainly will do that. I have talked with some people who are for KJV who state that other translations are from the devil and the other side say the same thing about the KJV. No one is right in their translations is my thought. Man will always put their interpretation to God's word.
 
Upvote 0

Moriah Ruth 777

Encourager/Exhorter
Oct 3, 2012
7,058
2,156
Canada
✟20,616.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you so much Ted. I was inquiring about the actual KJV version and the person who put it together. Thank you also for your wise council in searching for the info. I am sort of questioning the accuracy of the KJV however other translations are not perfect either.

Moriah Ruth
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,480
10,847
New Jersey
✟1,310,911.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
The Wikipedia article, King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, is a bit clearer than the three articles above on the specific goals of the translation. It wasn't done just because scholars felt they could do a better job. It was intended to support the authority of kings, and Anglican ecclesiology. These biases are probably not more serious than biases of any other translation, but they're there.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
A couple of points that perhaps need clarification:

King James did not write the KJV. He empanelled the scholars who did so.

And they did not merely update the wording of an earlier English language Bible translation. The translators did what the translators of the versions that have been produced in our lifetimes did--work as much as possible from the ancient manuscripts and translations.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you so much Ted. I was inquiring about the actual KJV version and the person who put it together. Thank you also for your wise council in searching for the info. I am sort of questioning the accuracy of the KJV however other translations are not perfect either.

Moriah Ruth

Hi moriah,

Yes, you are correct about all versions having some questions as to their authenticity to the original autographs. Unfortunately, we don't have a single original and so we, as feeble humans, have to do the best we can with what we do have. My initial point to you was that when you write or say, 'I was inquiring about the actual KJV version...', what you are actually saying is the King James version version. The 'V' in the abbreviation 'KJV' stands for version. You wrote it correctly in your last sentence by saying that you were 'sort of questioning the accuracy of the KJV...'. One can either write or say 'KJV' or one can say 'KJ version' or one can say 'King James version'. To say 'KJV version' is not correct.

However, as far as translations and my understanding of them, I must first understand God's purpose for even causing the Scriptures to be written. It is my foundational belief that God gave unto mankind the Scriptures so that we may know Him; so that we may know all that He has done in creating and sustaining this realm in which we live; so that we may know and find the way of His promised salvation. For me, when I understand this purpose, then I find that pretty much all reliable translations are sufficient for the purpose for which God sent unto us His Scriptures.

One can find the truth of God in the NIV, NASB, NLT, KJV, NKJV and many, many other translational works of men. Yes, we can all argue and debate whether this single word is translated properly or whether this part of a passage was copied correctly or whether this whole verse is in error, but...

The purpose for which God sent unto mankind His truth is upheld in all of them. Of all the petty differences that I've had pointed out to me regarding the various differences, not a single one has yet left the reader who reads the whole of the Scriptures with any doubt as regards what God wants us to know. Yes, there are some that stray a bit far in their efforts to translate by using the thought for thought method and I'm not particularly fond of them, but even in them, God's glory and power and purpose shine through to the reader. Yes, there are some that I consider complete garbage such as the message, good news for modern man, or the NWT.

I'm completely confident on the day that we all stand before God in judgment He is not going to ask us which version we read, but just whether or not we believed what we read and lived our lives based on that belief. Jesus broke it down to Israel that there were two laws. The first and greatest to love God and the second to love others as ourselves. I have yet to find any reliable translation that leaves the reader with an inkling of doubt regarding those two laws. Besides that He asks us to believe that Jesus is His Son and that his death made it possible for us to be forgiven our sin. I similarly have found none of the reliable translations lacking in giving that testimony. Finally, He asks us to live a life worthy of our calling and I have also found no lack of testimony on that point with any of the reliable translations.

I like to think that I'm more like Phillip in telling others about the truth of God. I want to be used of God to help others to understand what it is they are reading and leave the quibbling over minor matters to those who find pleasure in such things. Paul warned us to be careful in such matters.

God bless you in your search.
In Christ, Ted
 
Upvote 0

PaladinValer

Traditional Orthodox Anglican
Apr 7, 2004
23,587
1,245
43
Myrtle Beach, SC
✟30,305.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I am currently looking for information on how the KJV version bible was put together as well as history on King James himself who put the bible together. Could anyone assist me please? This would be greatly appreciated. Any books or websites would help.

Moriah Ruth

The King James Version is the third Authorized Version (AV) of my church, the Anglican Church. It came into being because of the petitions of a group then still affiliated with my church known as the Puritans.

The Puritans believed that the Anglican Church wasn't reformed enough. They rejected its episcopacy, sacramentalism, insistence on vesture of the clergy, and other beliefs and practices, notably kneeling at Communion.

When King James IV of Scotland inherited the throne of England after Elizabeth I's passing, being a direct descendant of Henry VII of England in two ways through Henry VII's daughter Margaret Tudor, the Puritans thought their prayers for a reform were answered. Scotland, unlike England, was Reformed and presbyterian; it was, after all, the home of John Knox, founder of the Presbyterian denomination. Upon his ascent to the throne of England, which united the kingdoms of Scotland and England and made him King James I of England in 1603 in March (the coronation was in July), they saw hope.

The Puritans acted quickly. In the same year, they issued the Millenary Peition, supposedly signed by 1,000 Anglican Puritan clergy (this has never been proven), that demanded that the church be reformed further: the cessation of the sign of the cross at Holy Baptism, the end of Confirmation, the end of emergency baptism by midwives, the end of the use of the ring during Holy Matrimony, the cessation of bowing at the Name of Jesus during the liturgy, the end of requiring the use of vestments, the removal of the words "priest" and "absolution" in the rubrics of the liturgy, as well as several other practices and beliefs they thought were wrong.

However, the new King of England had other ideas. The very next year, he offered his official and final decision on the subject at the Hampton Court Conference in January the next year. Very few of the Puritan requests were met to their satisfaction. The rise of Richard Bancroft, who was strongly opposed to the Puritans, to the Holy See of Canterbury (and therefore Primate of All England, the highest ecclesiastical office in the Church of England), named and consented by the king himself, only seemed to make his position even more clear. He also made it clear that all were bound by the Articles of Religion, which worried the Puritans for a larger reason: the Articles weren't absolutely Calvinist.

The Puritans may have thought that the Gunpowder Plot, the third plot against the king by a Roman Catholic or a Roman Catholic group, might have instigated a change in James I, but it didn't. The King was no idiot; he knew full well how well Anglicanism worked as a State Religion, with a single church for all. Yes, the Popish Recusants Act of 1606 in May seemed to have pushed forward their agenda that things "Popish" needed reforming in the Church, but the King had other ideas. Like Queen Elizabeth I, all he cared was to see outward conformity. In fact, he quite tolerated "crypto-Roman Catholicism" even in his own court, and any outward-comforming-but-still-Roman Catholic who took the Oath of Allegience was given leniency. Of course, that didn't make the king a Roman Catholic, but he wanted to make sure the church remained a place where even they could outwardly conform to, and "reforming" it, as the Puritans wanted, would have derailed this.

The one thing, however, the Puritans thought they had solace in was in their petition that all Christian men and women could know God's word without intermediaries was granted...in a way. How it was granted was in his proclamation of a new translation of the Bible to be the new official and authorized translation for ecclesiastical use in the Anglican Church, what would be called the "King James Bible." However, their solace would turn to tears:


  1. The King put Archbishop Richard Bancroft in charge as chief overseer of the new translation of the Bible. This would be telling, as the language used in many areas of Holy Scripture that might have agreed with the Puritans, instead agreed with the orthodox Anglican position.
  2. The King liked episcopacy, and accepted it for its actual historic nature of church polity. Not only was the word "bishop" used in the KJV, King James I worked to return the Scottish Kirk to its episcopacy, and to a point succeeded.
So the KJV is actually an Anglican translation with the intent of promoting Anglican polity, theology, and interpretation. It isn't Calvinistic, is largely sacramental, episcopal in polity, and enshrines the classic beliefs of Anglicanism in it, including the Real Presence of Christ in Holy Communion, the salvific nature of Holy Baptism, and has a very high view of the authority of priests and bishops to pronounce Absolution.


Without this context, it is impossible to truly read the KJV as it would have been read by the English people of the time.


The Aftermath of this was telling: the Puritan resistance to the orthodox Anglican way of things made them drift apart. Eventually, it helped to lead to the English Civil Wars under James I's son, St. Charles I, who was like his father and emphasized even more strongly the Catholicity of the Anglican Church, particularly with his choice of Archbishop of Canterbury, St. William Laud. The Puritans schismed and had both Laud and King Charles Stuart executed for religious as well as secular reasons. Both men are considered Saints even today, and St. Charles Stuart I, King and Martyr, is the only person post-Henry VIII to have been officially canonized in the Roman way of doing so in the Anglican Church.
 
Upvote 0

Moriah Ruth 777

Encourager/Exhorter
Oct 3, 2012
7,058
2,156
Canada
✟20,616.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you Paladin and Albion for your thoughts.

Thank you Hedrick for the website link to the King James Version. Greatly appreciated.

Ted, my thoughts exactly and I see it as you see it. We will all find out when we get to heaven. If there was anything that we have missed or translated incorrectly with regards to God's word He will reveal it to us. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Moriah Ruth
 
Upvote 0

Grafted In

Newbie
Site Supporter
Apr 15, 2012
2,511
737
Upper midwest
✟214,978.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It sure seems to me what with all the denominations and Bible versions that the tower of Bable must still be falling. I mean all of the arguing and finger pointing leads me to think that God may still be keeping use devided so we don't become proud in our own ignorance. Just look at all of the different denominations represented on this website. There's a forum that came right out and told me not to be posting on their forum because I do not believe every jot and tittle of their faith. That was in responce to something I posted that I honestly thought was of worth to the whole forum. How do you suppose God views that attitude? Am I out of line here?
I'd be interested in hearing how others feel about my thoughts. I mean we are all believers. Can't we all just get along. How do you suppose the world sees us? It's a wonder they see love for one another in any of us.
As for translations, my thinking is that regardless of which version we choose The Holy Ghost will know our hearts and honor our desire to know Jesus better. If one was to conclude that no version was 100% correct do you suppose God would turn His back on us for choosing this or that version? All we have to work with is what's out there. He'll honor our efforts and teach us Truth regardless, won't He?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,262
✟583,992.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
By the way, I prefer the King James version. I find it easier to memorize.



And it's far more beautiful--and familiar--than any of the other translations, even if some of them may make a difficult passage here or there more easily understood.

If that's anyone's problem, a good way to approach it is to compare the KJV (actually entitled the "Authorized Version [AV]") with one of the modern language versions, and you'll have the 'best of both worlds.'
 
Upvote 0