King James Bible? What is different in it?

Answer 1

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

As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.
One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."
The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom."
Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."
They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:
"We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."
And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.
Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.
The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. *** Privilegio."
The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.
A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."
The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.
The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:

"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision."
As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially "authorized," Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament, stated that:

From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.
This article was taken from the book A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.

Answer 2

I am a 25+ year student of New Testament Greek. In a small seminary in the 1980's I made a commitment that if I was going to really learn the language, I needed to leave my English New Testament closed and use only Greek as much as possible. Today I can easily read and translate it as I read.
From that background, I would never recommend anyone using it. If it is the only thing someone will accept, I can explain the meaning of the original and help them get some understanding, but it is much easier to just read a modern translation.
There are many myths about the version, the name being a big one. The assignment to James was done after the fact to hopefully allow the translators to stay alive - many people had been killed in recent years because they had attempted to translate the Word.
The translators worked with a bias, parts of that bias have persisted through many English versions since 1611. I recently searched 39 different English translations to find ONE that translated the Greek word baptizo rather than the traditional TRANSLITERATION of that word as 'baptize.' The word meant to dip, immerse, or wash. Many modern churches have changed the meaning of the word believing that man can change what God delivered and still be acceptable to him. This didn't start with the kjv translators, but they clearly understood the meaning of the term because they translate it properly when it is used talking about things besides John's baptism or Christian baptism. cf. Mark 7:4 where it is translated wash. In Acts 12:4 the translators translate the word pascha as 'Easter' while 26 of the other 26 times that word is used, they translate it as 'passover.' Why would they choose to change the word except to lend false authority to the imported pagan celebration? The early church did celebrate a memorial of Christ's resurrection. The did this every week following the apostle's example as they were instructed by Christ before his death.

Someone mentioned 'missing verses' in the modern translations. When we look at manuscripts, the handwritten copies of sections of the New Testament, we apply a scientific approach to try and learn the most likely ORIGINAL reading among several variant readings. There are thousands of these ranging from alternate spellings of words to extended passages where the evidence is very poor. The ending of Mark is a prime example. The best manuscripts end the gospel abruptly in the middle of Mark 16:8. Reading this passage in Greek, one notices a shift in the language that it doesn't seem the same. It is very probable that there was a different ending that was lost or possibly the original writer never finished it. Either way, the level of confidence in the remainder of the book is very low. What does this mean to us? really, not much. The traditional ending has Jesus telling the apostles to go everywhere and teach everyone about him. Look at Matt 28:18-19... again, what are we missing?
The kjv generally applied a theory that most of the manuscripts would have the right reading without considering the origin of that manuscript. This doesn't take into account the age of any particular copy or the place where it was likely to have been copied. By applying a scientific approach, we search for the original reading which best explains the origin of the variant readings. We have cases where part of a word may be missing from an early manuscript and many later manuscripts have a different form or spelling of the word.
The 'majority' method over-weights later copies against the earlier copies which were made before them. Consider a theoretical manuscript xx. And a system where each manuscript is copied 10 times denoted xx0 thru xx9. Then these are copied 10 times xx00 thru xx99 and so on. At each 'generation' we have 10 times as many copies. An error in xx3 becomes 11 errors when xx30-9 are added and 111 errors when xx300-399 are added... So instead of 1 error we may have thousands and when the 'library' copies which were copied and handled by hundreds of people had errors, these were greatly magnified by the interpretation system. Where if we look at the earliest manuscripts as most important, the later errors are insignificant.

Answer 3

different in the whole THEOLOGY of Christianity.

i disagree with the people above who said that message is the same. because KJV preaches trinity in 1 john 5:7 . this is the only verse regarding trinity.



====

In the Revised Standard Version of the Bible (R.S.V.) revised by 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different co-operating denominations, this verse which is the keystone of the Christian faith of trinity has been removed as an interpolation . Its no longer there in the RS Version of the bible, because the RS Version of the bible takes back more closer to the source, approx. 200 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus Christ pbuh. The more closer to the source, the more authentic it is.

It has NOT been expunged from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by the Muslims or by non-Christian scholars, but by 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 different cooperating denominations as a fabricated insertion of the church, because this verse does not exist in the original manuscript.

GOOD NEWS BIBLE
1st Epistle of John, chapter 5
verse no 7 - There are three witnesses:
verse no. 8- the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony

REVISED STANDARD VERSION
1st Epistle of John, chapter 5
[7] And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
[8] There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.


This verse (1 John 5:7 of KJV) is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church. All recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why?
Don't you think it is possible that other passages in the Bible may likewise be later additions?

=-==============


In the preface of the RSV 1971 , The thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations says about the King James Version (KJV).

"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."

They go on to caution us that:

"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"

-------------------------

there are other interpolations as well. e.g.

The word begotten is not there in origiinal manuscript of Gospel of John, Chapter 3 verse 16.
New International Version says - For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son.
Living Bible Version says - For God loved the world so much that he gave his only son.
Good News bible says - For God loved the world so much that he gave his only son.

==========================

hope this answers.

=====================
Quran(15:9). We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)

Answer 4

it uses some words that aren't in useage in the english language anymore.
it has a lot of thees, thous, shalts that today are written you and shall.
over all, the main difference is that the king james bible flows better because it was translated in a poetic way. i've mostly read that one my whole life and don't have any problem understanding the obsolete words so i preferr it. but since most people read the new king james or the new international version now you might have trouble comprehending the meaning of what you read in the king james. i think everyone would enjoy reading the bible and any other holy books if they just gave it a try. everybody and him who pisseth against the wall(excuse my king james)

Answer 5

The King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611 and thus uses the style of English that was common at that time in Great Britain. It is seen by many to have a more fluid style than some of the more recent translations, and is therefore used more frequently when quoting the BIble.

Answer 6

King James of England sponsored a translation of the bible into English. In that particular edition of the bible "the divine right of Kings to rule"is shall we say highlighted...

Answer 7

The KJV is written in old English and there are a few verses that we never in any earlier texts, thus left out by some of the newer translations. The message is still the same though there are some errors as far as names and numbers go but the context leads to Salvation through Christ which is most important.

Answer 8

The King James Version is no longer completely intelligible to all readers. It is no longer the most accurate and most readable English rendering of the Word of God. Who wishes to affirm that the KJV in all its aspects accurately represents what the inspired writers originally gave us? It is a sad commentary on the attitudes of those who claim to love the Bible that they, with oratory about its literary merits, are zealous to bind men to that which has demonstrated inaccuracies and is not completely intelligible in all its parts.

Answer 9

Among all other things stated, no one mentioned how King James evidently had the authors name Joshua's (Jesus') brother Jacob (or Ya'akov) after himself. Or can someone find a version with the actual word "James" in it for him prior to that?

Answer 10

King James version is harder to read than the more contemporary versions. If you were to study the Word, use a more modern version (NIV) for simplicity.
Sully, U R dumb for putting all of that crap up on this page.

Answer 11

King James is what God really said