King James ordered a translation of Scripture into the English of his kingdom. Biblical scholars did the actual translating and he approved its final form.
Since the scholars used Martin Luther's list of Biblical books and translated from the Greek and Latin through the German, it's Luther who did the changing. James' scholars were punctilious in their work and didn't change a thing. They just picked the wrong Bible to start with.
And your cited passage refers ONLY to the Book of Revelations, NOT the entire Bible. Luther made no changes to this Book (or indeed to any of the New Testament writings, although he would dearly have loved to have trashed the Epistle of James to the Hebrews), and neither does the King James Version.
2006-07-01 01:37:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Granny Annie 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
Those who say it is translated, not edited, have not read the Greek. There are lots of places where the KJV deviates fro the original. For example, in the original Greek the people who are referred to as the brothers of Jesus are actually close relatives (which could be cousins).
There is a more serious concern to those who take this passage seriously. The Protestant Bible is changed from the Original Bible because Martin Luther decided that several passages did not belong.
When the books of the Bible were put together by St irenius and later varified by the Catholic Council of Rome they included several books that are not part of the KJV or the Protestant Bible.
Of course, the other possibility is that St John was only referring to changing the text of the letter he was writing to the Churches of Asia (which became Revelations) -- since the Bible didn't exist at the time.
2006-07-01 02:31:01
·
answer #2
·
answered by Ranto 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
If all this is false then how much of the bible is true?
74. A woman of Canaan besought Jesus
Matt 15:22
It was a Greek woman who besought Him
Mark 7:26
75. Two blind men besought Jesus
Matt 20:30
Only one blind man besought Him
Luke 18:35,38
76. Christ was crucified at the third hour
Mark 15:25
Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour
John 19:14,15
77. The two thieves reviled Christ.
Matt 27:44/ Mark 15:32
Only one of the thieves reviled Christ
Luke 23:39,40
78. Satan entered into Judas while at supper
John 13:27
Satan entered into him before the supper
Luke 22:3,4,7
79. Judas committed suicide by hanging
Matt 27:5
Judas did not hang himself, but died another way
Acts 1:18
80. The potter's field was purchased by Judas
Acts 1:18
The potter's field was purchased by the Chief Priests
Matt 27:6,7
81. There was but one woman who came to the sepulchre
John 20:1
There were two women who came to the sepulchre
Matt 28:1
82. There were three women who came to the sepulchre
Mark 16:1
There were more than three women who came to the sepulchre
Luke 24:10
83. It was at sunrise when they came to the sepulchre
Mark 16:2
It was some time before sunrise when they came.
John 20:1
84. There were two angels seen by the women at the sepulchre, and
they were standing up.
Luke 24:4
There was but one angel seen, and he was sitting down.
Matt 28:2,5
85. There were two angels seen within the sepulchre.
John 20:11,12
There was but one angel seen within the sepulchre
Mark 16:5
86. Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave
Matt 12:40
Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave
Mark 15:25,42,44,45,46; 16:9>
87. Holy ghost bestowed at pentecost
Acts 1:8,5
Holy ghost bestowed before pentecost
John 20:22
88. The disciples were commanded immediately after the
resurrection to go into Galilee
Matt 28:10
The disciples were commanded immediately after the
resurrection to go tarry at Jerusalem
Luke 24:49
89. Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at
Jerusalem
Luke 24:33,36,37/ John 20:19
Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee
Matt 28:16,17
90. Christ ascended from Mount Olivet
Acts 1:9,12
Christ ascended from Bethany
Luke 24:50,51
91. Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice, and stood
speechless
Acts 9:7
Paul's attendants heard not the voice and were prostrate
Acts 26:14
92. Abraham departed to go into Canaan
Gen 12:5
Abraham went not knowing where
Heb 11:8
93. Abraham had two sons
Gal 4:22
Abraham had but one son
Heb 11:17
94. Keturah was Abraham's wife
Gen 25:1
Keturah was Abraham's concubine
1 Chron 1:32
95. Abraham begat a son when he was a hundred years old, by the
interposition of Providence
Gen 21:2/ Rom 4:19/ Heb 11:12
Abraham begat six children more after he was a hundred years
old without any interposition of providence
Gen 25:1,2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
now Glorious Qura,an is the final testament wich has no mistakes and proving itself to mankind the best law for mankind
best way of life
read it once with understanding you will realize the truth
2006-07-01 02:05:14
·
answer #3
·
answered by Deepest-Blue 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, no. King James authorized an English version to be translated. Up to that point most all Bibles were in Latin. There were a few (very few) English version available to the very rich (and brave). The church (RC) attempted to execute anyone who would dare to translate the Bible into English-so they were scarce. King James, who was NOT subject to the pope, ordered a translation. The translators had the protection of all of armies of England . So-they could do a thorough job. And they did.
The clause you refer to in Rev 22, is for those who would change what the bible says-not translate it.
2006-07-01 01:50:58
·
answer #4
·
answered by Terrence J 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes along with members of the church . they left out many book that did not fit into there idea of what should be in the bible. Like the Gospel of Thomas , that would destroy the modern church . so take it only at face value.
"1, Ad he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."
77 Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained.
Split a piece of wood; I am there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find me there."
...............................
"The King James Bible is based upon Koine Greek manuscripts that contain fewer 'atticisms' than those used by most 'modern' bibles. This means that the King James Bible is based upon more accurate manuscripts. So this site holds the King James Bible to be the final authority concerning discrepancies between bible translations, being the inerrant word of God, from a Dispensational point of view."
2006-07-01 01:39:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by Scott c 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The King James Version of the Bible is one of the earliest translation to english from greek and hebrew. He did not get the plague because he just translated it he did not change or twist any word of it. when they discovered the scrolls in Qumran they compared it to Kings James Version IT WAS PERFECT.
2006-07-01 01:38:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by jp 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The bible is not one book, but it is a group of letters and writtings, When Rev was wrote the writter would have not even read many of the other writings.
The term book referes to that specific writings.
2006-07-01 01:35:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Oh yeah, it was edited like a @#%^U*$$%@#$^. So has been the trend of times through out history when powerful leaders don't like something so they change it. . . Lilith was dropped from earlier forms of the bible because she was a rebel, you go girl! Powerful men can't be intimidated by a powerful woman.
2006-07-01 01:39:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by noirsolaris 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
king james formed a group of scholars to create an english standardised version of the bible
and no, there were no plagues
2006-07-01 01:33:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ivanhoe Fats 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
to respond to one among your edits: A 'actual' Jew is absolutely everyone whose mom is Jewish, or who replaced into born into yet another faith, yet chosen to transform to Judaism. you do no longer must be orthodox to be a 'actual' Jew! EDIT TO ASKER, no, we are no longer a race; we are a faith, a human beings, and it passes down contained in direction of the mummy's line. So in different words confident, if the mummy is Jewish, so is the baby. If the father is Jewish, then the baby isn't regarded as Jewish yet in Reform and cutting-element synagogues, that are greater comfortable, they in all threat will. i understand this is slightly complicated, wish that enables!
2016-11-01 01:06:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋