Is the King James version , a reduced version of the original Bible at the time of King Justin?

Question

I am referring to the Emporer Justin, who I think succeeded Emporer Constantine. My information is that during the Justin's rule, they were to have a meeting of the Ecuminical Council to finalize what shouuld be included in the Bible to benefit all. But due to severe storms and very bad weather only less than half of the members of the council appeared in the meeting. Those present dictated the choices and removed many important aspects reflecting significant concepts such as reincarnation were removed to serve the purpose of controlling their own constituancies. King James researched anmd revised version came into existence in the 16nth century but never includes what was lost in the 6th century. I don't recall where I read this info, but this aspect of it stuck to my memory.

Somehow a sect called "Gnostics" also enters into this controversy. I thought someone might know about this. But I want to thank everyone who responded to the question because every answer enlightens a different approach to answering the question and frankly I didn't know there is so much history behind the King James Version. Thanks again.

Answer 1

The King James Version of the Bible is a reinterpretation of the Bible. It lacks several books that are a part in the original Christian Bible.

King James VI of Scotland, son of Mary, Queen of Scots, become King James I of England upon the death of his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I in 1603.

Upon James' accession to the English throne he knew he needed to solidify his position as Head of the Church of England, which had continued to use the Catholic Bible since its creation under King Henry VIII, about 60 years previous. By rewriting the Bible, the king was able to create a difference between the protestant faith and the catholic faith, thereby satisfying the protestant desire to have this accomplish.

It also served to consolidate the kings political power at a time he needed it. Hence, the Bible was rewritten to be more in-line with protestant fundamental beliefs. This won the support of the religious leader of the Church of England on behalf of King James.

They got what they wanted religiously, and he got what he wanted politically - a safe throne on which to sit comfortably.

Answer 2

The "mistakes" you cite on your letter almost about the unique King James version were typographical no longer having any element to do with content.The printing press became new then and likely typesetters did misspell words. This became for this reason corrected. get your information instantly... The Apocrypha books were no longer seen to be divinely stimulated so were by no ability lined. i have study them and that i agree. Christians who've truly researched "different variations" can no longer help yet come to the right that the King James version is the most authentic and solid version.Now there's a"new kjv bible NKJV out" it really is a wolf in sheep's outfits, i do no longer believe it. I follow the 1611 Kjv.i'd inspire each person to in my opinion analyze the distinct bibles to work out for themselves why we should be very discerning on which version we settle on.once you note the differences you'd be as bowled over as i became. the web has many reliable web pages which could assist you on your adventure. might want to your eyes be opened too;

Answer 3

The King James Version includes all the standard scriptures, there is even a translation of the Apocrypha as part of the King James translation, although it is rarely printed as a part of most Bibles using that translation. There are a lot of writings that the King James and others translators do not consider as an accepted part of the canon.

Answer 4

Two emperors had the name of Justin, 6th century Rome.

Were the manuscripts used in the King James Version of the Bible the same as those that were available in 6th century Rome?

i'd have to do some more research.....

Answer 5

Just me: The Holy Spirit is not a she --- leave the inclusive language stuff alone. If the Holy Spirit is she then this advocates homosexuality because Mary has been known as the Spouse of the Holy Spirit for Generations. Also the Holy Spirit Hovered over Mary and she conceived a child ? What else is this but homosexuality if the Holy Spirit is a she as you say. Be very careful of inclusive language. It is fine on a parallel but, never is it to be used on a perpendicular level.

The King James Bible has missing books. They know it and do not want to admit it. Too much pride

Answer 6

King James gathered the oldest copies and the best Bible scholars of the day (early 1600's) to translate a "Modern English Version", so his people could read the Bible for themselves. They worked very hard to make it accurate.

Answer 7

no, just a more accurate translation into English. King James did not need a to change the Bible, what he needed was to have an approved, totally accurate Bible for the Church of England instead of using the Bible of the Pope and the Church of Rome

edit I am assuming you mean the Pope (emporer) Justinian and not King

Answer 8

Well, the name says: it is 'his version', not the original. He also has to answer for adding or taking out the bible if the revelation is correct!
The book of wisdom is missing. It it stands: Wisdom-SHE is THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. So women are in the image of the Holy Spirit...! No mistake of God's after all...

Answer 9

I NEVER HEARD OF THAT ONE