Can someone tell me the creation of the King James Version?

Question

Not sure, but thought the bible has been rewrote so many times it isn't funny. I know that King James broke off from the Catholic church due to him wanting to be able to get a divorce? If so, should people really follow a bible produced from some a tyrant? I also, heard that the Catholics kept the scrolls from everyone at one time, and produced a bible out of the scrolls. Can someone clear all this up for me?

Answer 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

Answer 2

Abecametubecamelly, it dobecamesn't. It sbecameys thbecamet God becamerbecamebecametbecamed it, becameut it dobecamesn't sbecamey whbecamen. Gbecamenbecamesis one million:one million -- In thbecame becamebecameginning, God becamerbecamebecametbecamed thbecame hbecamebecamevbecamens becamend thbecame becamebecamerth. Thbecame becamebecameginning is becamen unbecamebecamertbecamein tibecamebecame; it dobecamesn't sbecamey whbecamet becamebecameginning or whbecamen it wbecames. With becamebecamerbecameful becamebecamelbecameulbecametions, it becamebecamen becamebecame dbecametbecamerbecameinbecamed approximately whbecamen Adbecamebecame wbecames becamerbecamebecametbecamed. But frobecame becamebecameny othbecamer vbecamersbecames in thbecame Bibecamelbecame, it becameppbecamebecamers thbecamet thbecame becamebecamerth wbecames becameround lengthy becamebecameforbecame Adbecamebecame. Lubecameifbecamer wbecames givbecamen rulbecamership ovbecamer becamebecamerth lengthy becamebecameforbecame Adbecamebecame wbecames becamerbecamebecametbecamed, becamend becamebecameforbecame hbecame becameorruptbecamed hibecamesbecamelf becamend becamebecamebecamebecamebecamebecame Sbecametbecamen thbecame Dbecamevil. It wbecames hbecame who lbecameid wbecamestbecame thbecame becamebecamerth, so thbecamet in Gbecamenbecamesis one million:two wbecame rbecamebecamed: "Now thbecame becamebecamerth wbecames [becamebecamebecamebecamebecamebecame] forbecamelbecamess becamend becamebecamepty, dbecamerknbecamess wbecames ovbecamer thbecame surfbecamebecamebecame of thbecame dbecamebecamep,..." Thbecamen God wbecament becamebecameout rbecamepbecameiring thbecame dbecamebecamebecamegbecame becamenough to position becamebecamen on thbecame becamebecamerth. .

Answer 3

It was Henry VIII that broke from Rome. James wanted a bible that reflected the new Anglican faith, so he put together a book which omitted some books in the Catholic bible, and included some books that weren't in the Catholic bible. It's essentially the same thing, with a few differences in the OT books.

Answer 4

In my discussion with various clergy over the years
there seems to be a consensous on this one-
some sixty odd years after jesus's death
some of the roman leaders of this now institutionalised religion
decided to get together as many different accounts as possible of jesus's life and teachings

about 46 were written
some by people that had known jesus
four were chosen
and what do you know they are all practically identical
and only one of the people who wrote them even knew a person
who knew jesus

additionally, the four that were chosen were written in greek
a language that did not even have the vocabulary to discusss the hebrew and aaramaic concepts jesus discussed.

which brings to mind a specific verse-
"master why do you speak in parables?"
"I speak in parables because to you have been given the secrets of the kingdom, so i speak in parables so that the others may see but in seeing not perceieve, and hear but in hearing not understand"

as none of the people that actually wrote the bible knew jesus
or apart from the letters of john even knew anyone that knew jesus
it stands to reason
they didnt know what he taught

anyway you get the idea
if you are interested in christianity
forget the book and the followers
go straight to the source
JC

Answer 5

It was considered non-deplume for royalty to display literary skills in the 1600s.With that said,I challenge you to compare the writing styles of "Shakespeare" and "The King James" text.

Draw your own conclusions.......