is it like...
old and new testaments
opus dei & cafeteria catholics
a dilema....
2007-04-11 16:13:08 · 13 answers · asked by AtThePub 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The first thing to remember is that the KJV is not the original but a translation as well. The original texts were written in Hebrew, Greek and some Aramaic. It was then translated into Latin by the Romans. I am not sure the actual date of the KJV but I believe that it was in the 1300's. Also Martin Luther translated the latin version into German around the same time.
Whether you prefer the KJV, the NIV, the ESV or any number of translations, most go back to the proof text for their translations, but differences occur due to the varying meanings of the words used. For example there are 5 different words for love in the greek language alone.
2007-04-11 16:26:31 · answer #1 · answered by wolf_man_mike 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The King James was authorized by King James (oddly enough). It was the first authorized edition. Other Bibles are not different except in verbiage. For example, the Amplified adds some descriptive words which help you get the meaning of the original language. Hebrew and Greek are pictorial languages (the words generate mental images) while English is more definitive. Exact translation, word for word, is not possible. That's why there are other versions that give you the option of learning more. I personally prefer the Complete Jewish Bible. It's translated by those who understand the Torah and the customs so many points of confusion caused by our lack of cultural understanding are clarified.
2007-04-11 16:26:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably the main difference is in the language.
KJV has Elizabethan language as the translation was made in that time period. It says on the inside coverage that it is the authorized edition because it was authorized by King James I of England for his subjects.
I prefer modern languages. I don't think you are going to find much difference in interpretations in most of them.
Remember when you read a Bible in English you are reading a translation. It is good to have a commentary from someone who is familiar with the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. To translate from these languages into English is difficult to keep the original meaning and make it readable.
2007-04-11 16:44:04 · answer #3 · answered by Shirley T 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Catholic Bible incorporates the Apocrypha it is a number of extra books that are actually not coated in Protestant's Bibles. something of the Bible is same to the Protestant Bible. The King James Bible exchange into the 1st English translation of the Bible. it fairly is seen to be between the main precise translations of the unique Hebrew and Greek, in spite of the actuality that the English language usuage is now a splash archaic (it makes use of thees and thous). The previous testomony is an identical because of the fact the Jewish Torah. The Christians did no longer exchange it in any way. in actuality, to be sure that new translations to be completed (such because of the fact the NASB version of the Bible, they went lower back to the unique Hebrew and Greek, even consulting the lifeless Sea Scrolls). the hot testomony starts with the beginning of Jesus. The Bibles in inn rooms are Protestant Bibles--maximum possibly King James variations.
2016-12-20 12:15:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
KJV was translated into English from Latin in the 1500's. King James of Scotland had mute monks translate it into English so he could read it, he did not know Latin. The KJV was translated from a bible that Luther had removed 7 of the original books from. The first bible was compiled by the Catholic Church around 325 AD
2007-04-11 16:28:54 · answer #5 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Kings James Version has been published in various forms, some containing the Apocrypha, matching book for book with the Vulgate Latin Bible.
2007-04-11 16:23:45 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the king james version has its roots from a man named eramus look it up. it was around 1500 when he translated the bible. unfortunetly it had many errors in translation. since 1500 great advancements have been made in translation. so the best bible is a literal translation from the hebrew and greek like the new world translation of the holy scriptures or the emphatic diaglott or other transliteration of the scriptures.
2007-04-11 16:36:11 · answer #7 · answered by gary d 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The newer versions are easier to use and have eliminated the words that we don't use in everyday grammar. Some are thou, thus, and others. I personally like mine which has the King James side by side with The Living bible. I can read both translations. Different people have their own preferences.
2007-04-11 16:20:34 · answer #8 · answered by Jan C 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The KJV and other mainstream Bibles are the same, there are just some translation differences. KJV is like talking older English.
2007-04-11 16:27:40 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i use the gideon, the amplified, new king james, but also want charles stanleys new bible, john mcarthur's new bible, and new american standard and a world english, i have researched the niv but found unless you read all the footnotes, you loose very important parts of scripture, most people don't read all the footnotes
2007-04-11 16:31:03 · answer #10 · answered by grace 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋