Why is the King James Version of 1611 the accurate translation of the Bible?

Question

Why do you believe the people who chose which books to include and which to exclude were on the inside track? What about the 7 books thrown out by Saint Jerome...was he a prophet?

Can we only truly know the Bible if we learn the ancient texts and read them in context to the times, customs, beliefs and education of the day and age?

If you say the people in 1611 were inspired by God...how do you not know that the JW's, Mormons, or other groups who have added to or taken away from the Bible were not inspired too?

How do you pick and choose who is inspired?

Doesn't this show that we should not interpret the Bible literally?

Answer 1

It's not accurate. No modern version of the bible is. At best, there are word-for-word translational flaws in all the accepted versions in print today, and a lot of syntax and grammatical errors, as well. The Greek, Hebrew and Chaldaic languages just simply WORKED differently than modern English does, and therefore, there is a lot used in the modern versions that is not actual in the original languages. Many of the things we understand about modern faith come from the interpretation of the modern works, rather that the originals (especially since there are no more of the original manuscripts around, but only some of the ancient copies. Who knows how many errors there may be in transcription from the first copy on). Also, the scriptures are little more than recorded accounts of events, the gospels alone, written to specified audiences. However, they are the only place that we are able to get the spoken teachings of Yeshua (Jesus), from eyewitness accounts. The truth is that we have no way of knowing if any of the early copies were changed or not from the originals, so we can never be truly sure. I guess this is where FAITH comes in.

Now, as reference to the 7 books thrown out by St. Jerome, I assume at the Council of Nycaea (sp?), It is understood and believed by many that these books were rejected to strengthen the argument that Christ was God personified, a hypostatic union, and that these books somehow would apply an argument against that tenet of faith. This would undermine the political stronghold the early church had over people.

Hope this helps...

Answer 2

Don't assume that everyone is enamored of the King James Version. The Roman Catholic Church has never used it because they are not interested in using a "translation" of the Bible produced by an English head of state. Would you want to use a Tony Blair Bible or a Jacques Chirac Bible? The RCC has always used the canonical Bible that can be traced back to the first Councils of the early Christian Church (like the Council of Nicaea, for example). And those 7 books were not thrown out by St. Jerome - they appear in his Latin Vulgate. King James threw out the 7 Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament.

Answer 3

Indeed, why is the 1611 version of the King James Version of the bible the "accurate translation"? What makes it THE authoritative one? Is it THE authoritative one? Jesus and his apostles used the Greek Septuagint version that DID have those 7 "thrown out" books. Except....the Jews threw them out...not Jerome. At the time of the Council of Jamnia in 90 A.D. -- 20 years after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D., the Jews could not find any Hebrew counterpart to the 7 "questionable" books (they later did with the Qumran Scrolls). They specifically dropped some books like 1 & 2 Maccabees because they were found to be too Christocentric and contained Catholic things such as praying for the dead.

In order to truly understand the Scriptures, one has to be fairly well versed in Hebrew, Greek, archaeology and other subjects. That seems like a lot for the common person to do which is why in Catholicism and within the Orthodox Christian churches, there exists a teaching authority that has the gift of the Holy Spirit to interpret.

If people are left to their own interpretation -- like Protestantism is "famous" for, one ends up with today's 30,000+ denominations....with no-one completely in communion with the other.

Was Martin Luther "inspired" when he changed, "It is by grace you have been saved", to "It is by grace ALONE you have been saved"? (See Eph. 2:8). Is it inspiration when one changes the wording of Scripture to fit ones needs/beliefs? Indeed, Luther wanted to throw out the Book of Revelation, Hebrews (because the author is unknown) and the Ltter of James which he called "an epistle of straw" because James insists that faith without works is dead. (See James 2:14-24).

No....changing Scripture to meet our needs is never inspired of God....rather, we can change our UNDERSTANDING of Scripture as the Holy Spirit guides us -- even when new archeological sites are discovered and studied....like the finding of 900 scrolls in 1947 in the caves of Qumran.

Answer 4

Darling, it was Martin Luther who threw out books. Not St. Jerome.

There are biblical codexes in archival libraries all over the world. Valid biblical texts.

A man named John Mill found some 30,000 textual differences between some 100 New Testament manuscripts. All genuine manuscripts.

I'd say that backs up your arguement a bit doesn't it?

Edit: Suzanne - the English Standard Bible (which is what the King James bible was called in 1611) was NOT the first bible ever printed. Not even the first bible to be printed in English. Before that there was the Douay Rheims, the Guttenburg, Luther's special edition, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Egyptian Coptic... I could go on. There were many many printed before King James commissioned his own little translation to go with his own little religion.

Edit: Nard? King James didn't throw out the 7 books. They were taken out later. Much later. By the Puritans who disliked the English Standard Bible beccause it was too Catholic. So they pulled the 7 books and renamed it the King James VERSION (note it's not called bible). They edited it to match Luther's bible.

And another Edit: Julian: You are confusing James with Henry VIII.
http://www.britannia.com/history/monarchs/mon41.html

Answer 5

The king james version is not the most accurate. But it is the first into english likely. The first text was written in ancient form of greek and every time a modern bible is written they translate the language further and sometimes it can turn out to be different than the original intention. With all things you have to read and understand and decide for yourself. No one is telling you what you have to believe. they'd like you to believe what they do but, that is with every person in every religion even atheism. Those first leaders in the religion that chose the books to include in the bible had to come to a decision. just like in government, you'll have many different view and many different sides its best to reach out and have the majority come to a conclusion.

Answer 6

It's NOT!!! However, it is good enough to serve it's purpose. King James wanted a Bible for the "Masses" of his people. That he got by assembling the finest scholars of the time & all the writings that they could study so as to give the best possible rendering of the time. Does it still hold today, yes & no, but will it get U to Heaven??? YES!!! The scholars were inspired of God as this task took quite some time to research & complete but in the end all came to an agreement. Our "Guide" to interpretation is the Holy Spirit, just as it was for the scholars. John

Answer 7

Actually, it was the forth revision of the King James, as the previous four, done during a 150 year time period, did not sufficiently match the teachings of the Church of England to be Authorized. The King James, named such to immortalize his memory, was not a translation, it was always a version.

Of note, from it the Bishop of the Church of England drew his conclusion last November that children born with birth defects should not be allowed to live.

Answer 8

You are asking for 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 fo 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 9

The Pope, before King James went on a divorsing spree, had named King James "the protector of the Faith"...

So when King James decided to leave, it was as if though he was "protecting the faith" from the church itself. Don't you love the irony?

I don't know anything about being inspired by god...I've read the bible and its all pretty gory and bigotted... I don't think the Joseph Smith was every declared anything before he went of on his adventure...so he doesn't have the credibility that King James had (at the thime).

Answer 10

It is considered as a quite accurate translation not the most accurate translation.
But the best way is to read the original Greek text. I did studied Greek in college and I found it extremely spiritual to be able to read the original text.