Please elaborate. I ask that those who respond not display hostility or cast aspersions, but simply answer with rational explanations. Thank you and God bless you.
2007-05-02 14:48:37 · 15 answers · asked by danny_boy_jones 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Although Middle English is a beautiful language, the pronouns, verb conjugation, and many word choices make this translation rather difficult for many to follow.
Since Middle English has not been spoken since the 1470's, I find Modern English translations to be much more enlightening and informative.
2007-05-02 15:04:59 · update #1
The KJV is not the only version of the bible. Personally in my bible studies I like to look up passages from a variety of different translations (thank-you biblegateway.com) that way I feel I can get the clearest understanding. Each translation is worded slightly differently.
2007-05-02 14:54:42 · answer #1 · answered by Laura H 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The King James was called the Authorized Version of 1611. It was called the Authorized Version, give by DR. Paul Reynolds, in Honor of King James. In the development of the English Bibles, if a translation did not have a rulers approval, it was not accepted.
The interesting point about the original Authorized Version of 1611? It did not have a copyright date. Like all other translations after it.
My study Bible is a King James along with the Strong's Concordance.
2007-05-02 22:01:21 · answer #2 · answered by n_007pen 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The KJV was the first edition that was produced by faithful Biblical scholars who were determined to translate as accurately as possible from the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts. They did their best, but there were errors. In fact, every italicized entry is a word or phrase that the KJV scholars could not agree on, and decided to annotate it with italics.
The other editions that have followed have been re-translations of that original KJV. The problem with the later editions is that the interpretations of the scriptures were without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that the scriptures were at the level of understanding of the translator at the moment that he/she rewrote the scriptures. Also, the modernization caused inadvertent loss of depth of meanings, leaving only one level of understanding to be gained by the reader. Once again, the new edition was at the level of the current author at the moment that he/she published a new version of the Bible.
When we study the scriptures, hopefully we will gain new insights every time that we read.
More original texts have been found since 1611, and they have added new light to the KJV. I prefer a KJV with the recent discoveries included in the footnotes or in appendixes in the back.
2007-05-02 22:02:07 · answer #3 · answered by Free To Be Me 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's only called the authorized version because King James I was the one who ordered that it be done, so it had royal authorization, that's all. There's nothing unique about that, especially. That said, it was a magnificent accomplishment, and that translation of the Bible has probably had more impact on English-speaking Christians than any other. I myself like it very well, but I'm not averse to comparing it with other translations in order to better understand a passage.
2007-05-02 21:55:13 · answer #4 · answered by Billy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A lot of people tend to think so, and it's my preference. Also, I would prefer a church I was going to would use it exclusively. The idea, as far as I've heard, is that the King James' majestic translation is the best English translation and also is worth using because it was translated by people whose commitment and belief in the historic, unchanging principles of Christianity are certain.
2007-05-02 21:57:08 · answer #5 · answered by wjtherman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
KJV is the most popular, most widely used, and when compared, many other translations, change the meaning of His Word. I don't know about authorization, that is another question. As for myself, I read nothing but the KJV.
2007-05-02 22:18:00 · answer #6 · answered by Auburn 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I believe King James is the only authorized version. I haven't heard anything different. Sorry I can't elaborate more.
2007-05-02 21:52:39 · answer #7 · answered by lisaandpathailey 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't think there's a wrong version. But the KJV works for me because it seems a bit closer to the original writing (so to speak.) I have one where it states that the italics in the OT are not in the original writing, allowing me to read it in the way it was.
2007-05-02 22:03:13 · answer #8 · answered by Da Mick 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think it's even authorized. (not by the Church, anyways.) There's the New American Bible (NAB) and the Revised Standard Version (RSV) too. Those are Catholic Bibles
2007-05-02 21:53:12 · answer #9 · answered by Atticus Finch 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The 1611 was the very first KJV of the bible. I have one of those which I use, but I also use my NAB bible..
2007-05-02 21:53:11 · answer #10 · answered by tebone0315 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋