2006-10-20 08:37:41 · 11 answers · asked by man of ape 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Levi G
How accurate is it to the original they were translating and do the original books they translated still exist
2006-10-20 08:49:51 · update #1
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
2006-10-20 09:10:25 · answer #1 · answered by BJ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The King James Version was composed in 1611. King James appointed a committee of 47 English Bible Scholars to produce an "Authorized Version"
Copies of ancient Bible documents, called manuscripts, are so abundant and so accurate that scholars universally agree the Bible is beyond question a historically accurate document. More than 5000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exists.
2006-10-20 08:57:18 · answer #2 · answered by creeklops 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
King James version of the Bible was done in the year 1611. It is basically accurate in all the important-to-salvation information. There now is the New King James version, copyright 1983 that I have. It is a corrected translation using some of the latest findings of original pieces of manuscripts found in the ancient caves of Egypt, commonly known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.
2006-10-20 08:46:04 · answer #3 · answered by hillbilly 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I may take some heat for this, but seeing as how it was translated from Greek and probably Hebrew, too (maybe some Latin as well?), I don't think it is totally impossible that some things may have been mistranslated--or maybe just translated in a way that does not entirely reflect the original meaning. This is not impossible, because when you translate something from one language to another, you will run across some words and phrases that will not translate directly into the other language. There may also be some words in one language that mean one thing, but mean something a little different when put together in a phrase--and it's possible that a translator may overlook it.
2006-10-20 08:50:45 · answer #4 · answered by I'm Still Here 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
somewhat, the "classic" flow (from which the KJV is translated) has no longer replaced because the time of Christ. There are 2 different streams (the "Western" flow and the Alexandrian manuscripts) both one in each and every of that were heavily altered from the unique NT Koine Greek manuscripts (that are literally lost). both the Western kinfolk and the Alexandrian kinfolk are lacking texts that are literally not lacking in the "classic" flow. the classic flow is in concordance with the overall public of extant NT manuscripts (a million,900 of them). All Bibles written in overseas languages previous to 1900 are all in contract with the KJV. The Catholic/Jesuit Bibles all come from the Western kinfolk, and contain mistakes. This flow gave upward push to the old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Codex D, Codex D2, Codex E3, and the Douay version, which the Jesuits use. The Alexandrian manuscripts gave upward push to the Papyrus seventy 5, Papyrus sixty six, Codex B, Codex Aleph, and the revised version of 1881, which gave upward push to the yankee wide-spread and the hot English Bible. those contained the Aryan heresy that Jesus replaced into no longer God. the classic flow got here from the received textual content, and this replaced into the flow the KJV got here from. different variations that got here from this flow were the Gothic, Peshitta Syriac, Codex W, and Codex A the most precise streams got here from Pella and Antioch, no longer Rome. also the Gallic and Celtic church homes, besides because the Waldensian and pre-Waldensian church homes. The Alexandrian copies were rubbed out and re-written as a lot as 70 situations! Eusebius were commissioned by technique of Constantine to jot down an "ecumenical bible" that is optimal to both Christians and pagans. Christians known this as unacceptable and rejected it. Later, those copies might want to be found in historic libraries and touted as "older" manuscripts (yet no longer "extra constructive"). The apocryphal books were no longer protected in the KJV because they both a million) contained mistakes, or 2) were extraneous to the Gospel message.
2016-12-05 01:20:13 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The King James version was composed in 1611 and revised in 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769.
I have no idea what you mean by the end of the question?
2006-10-20 08:44:38 · answer #6 · answered by Levi G 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The assertion that the KJV must be accurate becasue many died to produce it doesn't make much sense. While the KJV was certainly an amazing accomplishment, it is NOT the most (or even close to the most) accurate version available, especially in light of recently discovered NT manuscripts. The NASB seems to be the most lexically, syntactically, and semantically accurate.
2006-10-20 08:54:17 · answer #7 · answered by Michael T 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well everyone has told you the year it was put out. It must be pretty accurate if someone is willing to die just so the word could continue on. Many people was martyred for the KJV. No one has ever died for the new versions you have out. If someone is willing to die then I think I will stick with the KJV.
2006-10-20 08:51:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was translated about 400 years ago, based on a Latin translation. It is a poor translation.
2006-10-20 08:59:05 · answer #9 · answered by crm451 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Meh. Better just to stick to the Douay-Rheims Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate.
2006-10-20 09:06:21 · answer #10 · answered by lovehound6 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋