Was King James the actual translator of his namesake bible?

Answer 1

No!

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

First, James had nothing to do with the translation. The translators affixed his name to it in an attempt to stay alive. Second, there are many deliberate mistranslations in the text, most notably "easter" in Acts 12:4. The translators did not translate baptizo from the Greek, rather they translaierated the word so readers would not understand the original meaning in contrast with the church's current practice. The word means wash or dip, a drop of water on the forehead wasn't it. They were not the first to do this, but they had a good chance to improve people's understanding and refused to do it. Third, they were denied access to the best manuscript available, the codex Vaticanus, which was in the Vatican. The best they had was Codex E, copied several hundred years later.

Answer 3

King James came to the throne after the famous Queen Elizabeth died. The Church of England was still a budding institution, and it was under attack by many groups vying for the church to follow their ideas.
King James decided to have the Bible translated into a standard English version (something that had never happened before) so each man, not just clergy who knew Greek, could read the scriptures for themselves.
King James assembled a crack team of historians and language experts, and it took them about eight years to translate the Bible into English.

.

Answer 4

No, he just ordered it done.
And he didn't help create the first complete bible. This is a very interesting story.
Wycliff's bible was the first translation into English around 1380.
Wycliff (or Wycliffe), an Oxford theologian translated out of the fourth century Latin Vulgate, as the Greek and Hebrew languages of the Old and New Testaments were inaccessible to him. Curiously, he was also the inventor of bifocal eyeglasses. Wycliff spent many of his years writing and teaching against the practices and dogmas of the Roman Church which he believed to be contrary to the Holy Writ. Though he died a nonviolent death, the Pope was so infuriated by his teachings that 44 years after Wycliff had died, he ordered the bones to be dug-up, crushed, and scattered in the river!

King James wasn't around until the 1600's.
Read about the history of the bible, VERY interesting. And God got his bible translated in spite of the Roman Catholic Church who tried very hard to keep it out of the people's hands! Even punishing them with death for owning one! The only true church my foot!

Answer 5

Good question, had to look up the answer.

According to wikipedia:

Although it is often referred to as the King James Version, particularly in the United States, the only active part King James took in the translation was lifting the death penalty attached to its translation and setting very reasonable guidelines for the translation process, such as prohibiting partisan scholarship and footnotes. It is more commonly known as the "Authorised Version" in the United Kingdom.

So it seems like he had nothing to do with translating it, he only declared that attempting to translate the Latin into English wouldn't require your head. I am sure that went along way towards making monks thankful, and they repaid his decree with a Front page listing.

Answer 6

Although it is often referred to as the King James Version, particularly in the United States, the only active part King James took in the translation was lifting the death penalty attached to its translation and setting very reasonable guidelines for the translation process, such as prohibiting partisan scholarship and footnotes. It is more commonly known as the "Authorised Version" in the United Kingdom.

Answer 7

No, King James was not a translator of the so-called "King James Version" of the Bible.
King James merely funded the translation and printing of this Bible, using taxpayer money.

If you would like to know more about the various English language translations (versions) of the Bible:
You should start with a comprehensive history of the English language translations of the Bible,
which started with John Wycliffe's English translation in the late 1300's.... and moved through several other English translations of the Bible in the 1500's and 1600's... (such as the 1537 Matthew-Tyndale Bible, the 1539 Great Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1539 Taverner's Bible, the 1568 Bishops Bible), culminating in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible... which was approximately the tenth English translation of the Bible.

You can review the full details on the History of the English Language Bible Translations right here:
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html

Regarding specifically the 1611 King James Bible, consider this:

The King James Bible was translated into English from the original Greek and Hebrew between 1607 to 1610, and published in 1611 in London by authority of the King of England (King James).

If you want an original "King James Version" you need to get a true facsimile reproduction of that original, unaltered, uncharged, first edition printing of 1611. It is available at GREATSITE.COM if you click on "Facsimile Reproductions" and then select "1611 King James Bible" Here is direct-link:
http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

It is important to understand that in the 1760's the wording and spelling of the original 1611 King James Bible was "updated" by Blaney (1762) and Baskerville (1769)... so "King James Version" Bible printed after the 1760's are not the original 1611 version.

It is also important to understand that in 1885, the influence of textual critics Westcott & Hort contributed greatly to the removal of the 14 Inter-Testamental Books (the "Apocrypha") from the King James Bible, so all "King James Version" Bible sprinted after 1885 have 66 Books instead of 80. King James originally stated that if you printed his Bible WITHOUT the Apocrypha, he would put you in jail for one year and fine you one year of your wages. (Note that, contrary to popular misconception; there is absolutely nothing "Roman Catholic" about The Apocrypha... it was written around 400 B.C. by Jewish Believers, and the Apocrypha was part of every Protestant Bible, every Anglican Bible, every Christian Bible, for almost 2,000 years until its relatively recent removal in 1885).

That is why I say that if you want the original, unmolested, unaltered, uncharged "King James Bible", you need to get one printed in the 1600's... such as the 1611 First Edition, which you can obtain using the webpage links provided above... right here in my answer.

Answer 8

No, but it was funded by him. It was translated by a council created by King James.

Answer 9

He had nothing to do with any of the work of translating or of deciding content... he just "authorized" the paying of the bills.

Answer 10

NO!!! But, hired the best translators in that time period. So, no word will be misinterpreted. And, if a word was misinterpreted he would execute that translator.