Is the King James Version of the Bible all that we think it is?

Question

Why don't we speak the Kings English in the United States?

Answer 1

No, check out the book "Mis-quoting Jesus" written by a man who graduated from the same seminary as Billy Grahmn.

The KJV was based on one of the WORST translations of Scriptures of all time.

King James told his scribes "Make it poetry" not "Make it accurate". Of course after 1500 or so years of translation and transliteration that would be impossible any how.

These facts or any others will not convince the majority of Christians who will insist that the KJV is the one that Jesus himself read.

Answer 2

I have a computer program that compares about 10 different translations as well as a literal word-for-word translation in the original Hebrew and Greek languages. That is a great way to really see how much variation there can be in translation. Remember that all translations are translated by men who are influenced by their own opinions and beliefs, regardless of how hard they strive to be objective. The King James has strengths and weaknesses just like all the others.

Same way with the New World Translation that was mentioned. One of its strengths is that it restores the name of God (translated as Jehovah) in the Old Testament where the Divine Name originally appeared. Its major weakness as far as accuracy is that it went overboard and also translated kyrios (Lord) and theos (God) as "Jehovah" in the New Testament in dozens, if not hundreds, of places where the Divine Name has never appeared in any original-language manuscript.

Just to show you the variation, some of the translations such as the Jerusalem Bible translate the Divine Name as "Yahweh", some use "Jehovah" and some use "Lord". "Lord" is not really a translation but a substitution used by some translators rather than guessing at which vowels are correct since no one really knows . Basically, it's a judgment call based on the judgment of the translator (s).

As I understand it, the King James when it was translated was a version that was acceptable to both the Protestants and even to Catholics at the time, although it did not contain all the books of the Catholic Douay.

If you can find an interlinear translation, that is the best! You don't need to feel tied to the King James....the modern language translations like the New World and the Jerusalem Bible are much easier to read and they all contain the Holy Scriptures, so use them all and compare!

Answer 3

Trivia: The language of the United States is a blended sound of all European languages mixed into what would have originally been the King's English - but when you take into account the various dialects, needless to say, sounds get changed! Also, it only by a 1 vote margin that we speak English and not German - as these two were quite competitive languages and divided complete towns into two sides - the English speaking side of town and the German speaking side of town - much like we see today where everything has to be in English and Spanish - see we've been here done this once in our country - so it was put to a congressional vote as to which language would be considered the national language by which all citizens would be required to use and all production would be produced and labeled with - English carried the vote by 1. I assume if Bush continues bed-letting with Mexico we will once again have to make this vote or else we will all have to become bi-lingual - it already difficult as an USA citizen to do some shopping at some locations as the products have the English language in very small print and the Spanish is dominant. So, as time travels along, it will be interesting to see if history repeats itself and by a narrow margin we once again are able to see English on all consumer goods, or if I at an old age will be forced to learn a new language if I'm to do my own shopping.

Answer 4

KJV is the most accurate form of the Bible, that has the least "mistakes" and the best translators. New King James Version is translated into modern English.

Answer 5

It has hundreds of errors, and it was not the first Bible printed in English, it just happen to have King James backing.
.
People in the English-speaking world use and accept the King James or Authorized Version more than any other single Bible translation. In fact, so highly esteemed is this translation that many persons venerate it as the only true Bible. This raises some questions.

Do these countless persons who use the King James Version know why, despite objections from churchmen, modern translations keep rolling off the presses? Do they know why the King James Version itself was once opposed by the people? Do they know why, despite vigorous protest and opposition, the King James Version entered into the very blood and marrow of English thought and speech? Do they know what illuminating document is probably missing from their own copies? In short, do they really know the King James Version?

The purpose of Bible translation, then, is to take these thoughts of God, originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, and put them into the common languages of today. Bible translation makes God’s Book a living Book. So true Christians read the Bible, not to be entertained by clever turns of expression, unusual words, excellency of style, striking rhetorical devices or felicities of rhythm, but to learn the will of God. It was for this reason that the King James Version came into existence. That was in 1611.
From almost every quarter the King James Bible met opposition. Criticism was often severe. Broughton, a Hebrew scholar of the day, wrote to King James that he “should rather be torn asunder by wild horses than allow such a version to be imposed on the church.”

The translators, not unaware that people preferred to keep what had grown familiar, knew that their work had unleashed a storm. They tried to calm the people down. They wrote a “Preface of the Translators” to explain why the King James Version was made. This preface is called by the Encyclopedia Americana “a most illuminating preface describing the aims of the translators which unhappily is omitted from the usual printings of the Bible.” Thus most Authorized Versions today, though they contain a lengthy dedication to King James, omit the preface. Its presence would clear up many misunderstandings about the purpose of the revision. The reader would learn that strong opposition was expected.

The reader would learn that the King James Version was a revision of earlier works made with a modest hope of improvement and no thought of finality, In time the clamor died down, and the King James Version prevailed over the Geneva Bible. For more than two and a half centuries no other so-called authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. Little wonder that many people began to feel that the King James Bible was the only true Bible. Like many people who once objected to any change in the Geneva Bible, many persons today object to any change in the King James Bible. They oppose modern translations perhaps as vigorously as the King James Version itself was once opposed.

King James Bible has been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.”

So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version!

What, then, of the objections raised by persons who say they do not want the King James Bible changed? Since the King James Version has already been changed, they lie on a crumbled foundation. If these persons do not want it changed, then why do they use, instead of a copy of an edition of 1611, an edition that has been changed?

They appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. They do not like the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; they do not want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it. Thus improvement, when needed, is appreciated, even by those who say they object to any changing of the King James translation.

One of the major reasons the Authorized Version is so widely accepted is its kingly authority. There seems little doubt that, had not a king authorized this version, it would not today be venerated as though it had come direct from God

Answer 6

The KJV was a wonderful thing- in its day. Nowadays, however, it is outdated, outmoded and outclassed by better and far more accurate and understandable translations.
The best translation out there , if you are TRULY wanting to study and get the TRUE translation of the original scriptures , is the New World Translation of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. It was translated by over 40 scholars of greek and hebrew and is amazing in its accuracy. It is in modern english ( no slang or anything ) and is so easy to read and understand!! I use it in my studies and it is fantastic.
If anyone would want a copy, email me and I'll help you get a copy of it for free.
[e-mail]

Answer 7

The King doesn't run things here. There are also modern English translations, but I guess you were too busy to find that out.

Answer 8

we speak American English now because its easier. however we should read the King James version because its the closest English version to the original one.

Answer 9

Yes it is! From the Textus Receptus--- certainly not perfect but VASTLY BETTER than the abortions Horte and Westcott came up with.

""Why don't we speak the Kings English in the United States?""

We are too sloppy. Very soon to be semi illiterate!

Daaaaaaaaaa and Ya know-- ya know! ==YUK!

Answer 10

The people in biblical times didn't speak any kind of English !!!!! so what does the way we speak have anything to do with it ???