who else find this concept ridiculous? It was edited by King James the third a mere mortal man with agendas of his own--why do these vapid Xians try to use it to back up their bigoted drivel regarding homosexuals? It's not worth the paper it was printed on!
2006-11-23 16:32:15 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Not only that, you can buy it DVD dude! Wouldn't you think they'd want to give it away if they really believed in that stuff and followed all of Jesus' teachings?
2006-11-23 16:36:23 · answer #1 · answered by Dude, you're goin to hell! 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
First, King James the third had nothing to do with the editing or translating of the Authorized Version of the Bible. The major of the translation was done by William Tyndales about 50 years before James came to the throne of England. But under English law, before a translation of the Bible could be read in the Church of England, it had to have the seal of the head of the English church (who is the current King of England). While the book was submitted to King James in 1611, he never did give official permission of its usage in the Church of England.
Christian believe that the Bible is the complete and inerrant word of God. I do not know of any serious Christian scholar who holds that the King James - or any version - is complete and inerrant. It is impossible to translate the Bible - or for that matter any work of literature - from one language into another with 100% accurateness. The will be words in one language that will have a slight difference in meaning in another language. Plus if you do not understand the culture and expressions of the time when the period when the literature was written, any translation will lose some of the meaning.
So unless you can read the original Hebrew and Greek, it is recommended that you get three or four good translations and compare them on verses where you have a question. Often the wording differences in the translations will help to bring out the entire meaning of the scriptures.
Plus as good as the King James version is as a translation, the English language itself has undergone changes over the 400 years since it was made that have changed the meaning of some of the words (such as when Paul states that he wanted to visit Roman, "but so far satan had let him". In the English of 1611, "let" meant to hinder - today it means to "allow".
If Christians believed that the King James Version was perfect, there would be no newer translations. We do teach that the original books are inerrant. We do not teach that any translation of those works is without error. But they are as accurate and reliable as possible.
If you are unhappy with the way the King James Bible translates the verses dealing with the sin of homosexuality, you are welcome to try any of the couple dozen other translation available on the market today. Or check them on a site like biblegateway.com, which makes available several translation including the King James. You can also check the original language if you want. But you will find they all say the same thing.
2006-11-23 17:00:27 · answer #2 · answered by dewcoons 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
i'm unsure who advised you the KJV is the only suitable translation of the Bible. And no the "J" did no longer come from Greek. Who talked to you approximately any of this making all of us no longer have faith in Jesus....? when I examine the Bible i take advantage of a translation that extremely has the unique Greek with a literal English translation--be conscious for be conscious--, the KJV and the NIV. i'm able to learn the unique Greek with the two the literal and KJV and NIV translations. If one reads the literal English translation, of course the be conscious order is off, with the aid of fact Greek does not have the comparable sentence shape, yet i'm able to ensure how the NIV has replaced lots of the unique words....and changing the be attentive to God isn't a reliable element. The KJV only is a greater precise translation, and so greater effective displays the be attentive to God because it became into left for us...and in my e book, that's greater effective. It does no longer mean that the syntax of that age is holier....or greater effective. It only capacity the translation is greater precise and that i think of that accuracy is greater effective...i might extremely recognize precisely what Christ suggested and did, as antagonistic to understanding "approximately" what Christ suggested and did. The least (mis)interpretation, the greater effective. does not you agree.
2016-10-04 07:39:20 · answer #3 · answered by bugenhagen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well its the "pure" version since it made the following sound nicer:
"When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property." Exodus 21:20-21
"If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Some say this concerns consensual premarital sex? i dont know
but this is nothing.....compared how the books of the bible got together. meow
2006-11-23 16:50:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
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
2006-11-23 16:47:40 · answer #5 · answered by BJ 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The King James Bible was actually translated and written by a consortium of the most gifted scholars and poets of the age, and was written in near perfect iambic pentameter to give the verses the natural rhythmic ebb and flow of good poetry and in the process perhaps a few tidbits were lost in the translation.
2006-11-23 16:52:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
The only thing that is the 100% pure word of God is the ten commandments. That is the only thing he wrote that we have.
People misinterpret the bible all of the time to try to back up their arguments.
I personally believe that homosexuality is not the way things are supposed to be, even though i believe it is caused naturally - by hormones and such.
The ultimate purpose of sex is to procreate. Two men can't do that, two women can't do that. Therefore homosexuality goes against the natural order of things.
But i believe it comes about by perfectly natural causes - it's just hormonal development.
2006-11-23 16:38:22 · answer #7 · answered by ChrisB 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Totally ridiculous....I agree!
Our lives as we experience them....this journey that we are all on, this is the only 100% word of God.
No book was ever intended to replace the experience of living.
2006-11-23 16:46:21 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I trust it as the most God honouring translation available for the English language. When doing comparison studies, the newer translations cast doubt upon the deity of Christ, Take hell out completely, and omit numerous passages if not complete chapters of scripture. I'm gonna stick with the good ol' KJV!
2006-11-23 16:45:14 · answer #9 · answered by lookn2cjc 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If I remember, King James also persecuted Protestants.
2006-11-23 16:37:46 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The KJV was nice for its time, but there are much better versions out now. Try the New Revised Standard Version.
2006-11-23 16:36:41 · answer #11 · answered by The Doctor 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋