2007-03-02 18:04:05 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Yes so what? Was that a question?
2007-03-02 18:08:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Originally, yes. It was published in 1611. It has been through a number of revisions.
My favorite edition is the 1632 edition. It was intended to be an exact reprint of the 1611, however, the word "not" was left out of one of the Ten Commandments.
The commandment was supposed to read:
"Thou shalt not commit adultery."
You get what it really said. heh heh.
2007-03-03 02:13:42 · answer #2 · answered by Angry Moogle 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One interesting fact is that King James had quite a rowdy gay life.
Don't believe me? Look it up ...
I don't say this to cast aspersions on the King. But it is rather ironic that the version of the Bible that is most cherished by Bible thumpers is not only the least reliable translation in the English language, it was also authorized by a king who was anything BUT a heterosexual family man.
2007-03-03 02:29:40 · answer #3 · answered by pasdeberet 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I find it amusing that people who have enormous difficulty understanding Shakespeare, who died in 1616, seem to have no trouble understanding the KJV Bible which is written in the same early Modern English. I enjoy the language of the KJV but it is not an accurate version of the Bible, there are much better more recent versions. Being a Biblical literalist is impossible with any version but it is particularly so with the KJV.
2007-03-03 02:11:51 · answer #4 · answered by tentofield 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
To learn how the books of the bible came to be assembled as such see: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm
Catholic and Episcopal bibles have the same number of canonical books. The Catholic and Episcopal bible also includes some non-canonical books, grouped as the Apocrypha.
Many versions of the bible existed before the King James and the advent of mass printing. See: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
If you run across what you think is a biblical contradiction, please study the two sites' content below for a comprehensive list of so-called biblical contradictions.
http://kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Home.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm
Accuracy of bible:
http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm
http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/reliable.htm
2007-03-03 02:55:22 · answer #5 · answered by Ask Mr. Religion 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The original King James was a translation of another Bible. King James himself did none of the translating but he had ideas of exactly how he wanted it done. Notice that God's name was only included a few times although the ancient scrolls include it almost 7,000 times.
2007-03-03 03:07:12 · answer #6 · answered by Sparkle1 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Of course, the last revision from 1769 is actually the commonly cited KJV. That means its only been around for 238 years.
2007-03-03 03:13:33 · answer #7 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is correct. And has been updated as language usage changes. That is also why there are different versions of the bible. The substance has not been altered; the language usage has been updated.
2007-03-03 02:23:18 · answer #8 · answered by Esther 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Which is a drop in the bucket compared to the Latin Vulgate.
2007-03-03 02:06:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
If you can read the KJV and understand every single "thou", "hitherto", and "runnistethly" or whatever words they have, go for it. I speak English.
2007-03-03 02:14:35 · answer #10 · answered by Christian #3412 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well maybe publishers have found manuscript after 369 yrs
what say?
2007-03-03 02:11:21 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋