that they were not "Authorized"? The 1769 revision was the one that was finally Authorized by the Church of England, and is accepted by many not of the church. Further, why was it revised again in 1982?
2007-03-12 17:22:23 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I wonder if the Church of England still has any copies of the first versions still around? This may not be a good time to question them after what the Bishop said about handicap children.
2007-03-12 17:40:18 · update #1
The KJV used Textus Receptus as its source for Greek texts and it did everything "with respect" or "with regard" to the Latin Vulgate. The issues with this are that there were translation issues in the Latin Vulgate which are pretty obvious (though usually minor, with a few exceptions), yet they did not want to contradict the Latin Vulgate.
The other major issue is that Textus Receptus was compiled in a hurry. The author of the text specifically stated that he did not have access to some of the texts that he wanted, because it would take too long to receive or he was simply unable to obtain them. So, instead of using the oldest versions of some of the Greek texts, he used more recent copies of these texts.
Additionally, many new Greek texts have emerged which shed new light on some of the translations, because new meanings for words and phrases have been discovered. Additionally, older versions of Biblical texts have emerged. I note the contraversy regarding 616 being the name of the beast, because that text fragment predates the ones that state 666.
2007-03-12 18:40:39 · answer #1 · answered by Geoffrey J 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The English language has changed so much that the King James version is hard to comprehend. Any interpretation is tough, even in modern languages so there is always the tendency of another scholar convincing the right people that something is not quite correct. But really, in the broad picture, the changes were not all that significant - minor details - so there is nothing wrong with the KJ Bible.
2007-03-13 00:30:47 · answer #2 · answered by Caninelegion 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its 1769 version differs from the original mostly in spelling (like shew = show) ... It still contains HUNDREDS of DELIBERATE MIS-TRANSLATIONS and SHOULD NOT be relied on or considered in any way authoritative.
The 1611 edition IS currently published. Because of all the archaic spellings it can be rather difficult to understand.
2007-03-13 00:41:04 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Papa, I am going to look into this one, but I'm guessing you'll have more on the topic than I will gather -
You don't sound like 'King James only' type.
First of all, the Latin Vulgate is the source of the KJV translation, and was written before the dead sea scrolls were found. Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew were not the original source of the KJV. Not an answer to your question, but wanted to get that out there - looking to answer your question more accurately.
2007-03-13 00:26:46 · answer #4 · answered by super Bobo 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Same reason any book is revised in subsequent printings. Remove typo's, revise the contents and organization, add verse numbers, make the spelling consistent (there were no spelling conventions in the early 17th century).
2007-03-13 00:27:04 · answer #5 · answered by NONAME 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have no idea what was wrong with the original KJV. I would certainly like to have a copy of the original version. (translated perfectly into English). LOL!
It makes me question the integrity of the version of the Bible we read today, when I consider that hundreds of years of revising was necessary.
I will have to do some research!
Thanks for the informative question.
2007-03-13 00:36:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
nothing. they are just revisions of the bible that we use for better understsnding of the word. Did you know that the first documents of the bible was not written in english? So they had to translate the bible from many years ago to give more and more people understanding of it.
2007-03-13 00:27:54 · answer #7 · answered by Melissa Svetlana Flavored Coffee 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The best thing I can tell you is to go to the group:
whichversion@yahoogroups.com.
They discuss and debate the authenticity of the KJV and other versions of the Bible. It's a good and informative group, of which I am a member.
2007-03-13 00:45:46 · answer #8 · answered by curious cat 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good question! The KJV was translated from the original languages to English, and that doesn't always jive! To me, the confusion over God's name is the big thing...His true name is virtually lost! Jehovah, Yahweh, Jah, and Theo are all still used, and probably accurate to some...but what is His true name! "By my name I will be known to you"...how could we not know today?
2007-03-13 00:56:27 · answer #9 · answered by delete 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Just some of the words were changed to help clarify the meaning. The message of the Word of God is the same.
2007-03-13 00:28:22 · answer #10 · answered by KingDavid6268 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋