have a REAL 1611 King James Bible???
Chances are you don't. The version you have is a revision, to the revision, to the revision. It doesn't make it wrong. They just simply updated the style of English. You can buy a unedited, unrevised 1611 version but you probably won't be able to understand but 65-70% of it. I just looked at one in a Bible book store yesterday.
2007-06-14 06:52:44 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
WOW...funny how questions really get missunderstood. I was just pointing to the fact that the English language was much different 400 years ago and it many of the words are written differently. The fact is that there have probably been about 5-6 King James Translations since the one written in 1611....Yes I do know the Bible was written Hebrew, Aramiac and Greek and I know why those languages were used. I am learning Greek and so I can better understand.
2007-06-14 12:39:03 · update #1
Go KJV!
Saw one of those 1611 versions yesterday. Yep! It was hard to read!
2007-06-14 07:39:55 · answer #1 · answered by socmum16 ♪ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
English has changed a great deal over the last 400 years. The men who translated the Authorized (1611) Version didn't have the same perspective as contemporary translators do. Many manuscripts including the Dead Sea Scrolls hadn't been discovered. The main drive of all Bible translators has been to uncover the true meaning of the ancient texts and to deliver the truth in a form that easily understood by everyone.
2007-06-14 07:08:52 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Many people use that Bible version, and I have one in my library, it is very old.
Did you know that the Bible was originally written in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages?..Do you read those languages?.. Are you not gratefule that the Bible has been translated into English.
Genesis the first book of the Bible, was completed in 1513 BCE. Some 2,900 years passed before the complete Bible was translated into English. And over 200 more years elapsed before translation of the KJ version, was completed,
Since the 17th century, English has undergone many changes. Which we have seen in our lifetime, so many people appreciate that modern translations, that carefully express the same original truths in the language we speak today.
2007-06-14 07:06:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do.And yes,I own a 1611 King James Bible.Not true that you can't understand it.There's some words that are not used today,but a little tract on those definitions solves that problem.Those translators chose the proper words that would not leave room for ambiguity throughout history as languages corrupt over time from multiculturalism.
2007-06-14 07:36:12 · answer #4 · answered by Trish 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The King James Version of the Bible is the least accurate of the English translations. Other versions of the Bible have gone back to the source materials (well, the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies...) and have generally done a better job at translating.
The fact remains, however: nothing we have today in any language represents anything like an original text. We have only copies of copies of copies of copies of copies...
2007-06-14 07:06:14 · answer #5 · answered by pasdeberet 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I use the 1611 KJV but it is a later copy... I do not recomend any other "modern" translation... with the exception of The New American Standard(updated)... I do not know about translations into any other Language... but The KJV is the best english translation... with the NASB(updated) for those who do not want to spend the study time with the KJV.
If you care to know why I feel this way here is a link to more of my pov on The Bible.
http://user1292138.sites.myregisteredsite.com/mikesinternetoutreach/id4.html
2007-06-14 07:01:56 · answer #6 · answered by idahomike2 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
KJV may be the worst of all Biblical translations. I prefer NIV but there are even better translations out which explore the meanings of the Hebrew (old testament) language and the Greek (new testament) language since the translation is not word for word.
2007-06-14 06:57:16 · answer #7 · answered by Scott B 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Did you comprehend it was once within the King James bible a couple of instances after which was once ripped out, and reprinted because the New King James bible? Did you additionally realize that using the title Jehovah has been forbidden via the Vatican? I'll keep on with utilizing probably the most correct bible, The New World Translation, and following what Jehovah has commanded of his humans.
2016-09-05 16:35:40 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I started out thinking that the big four, NIV, NKJV, KJV, NASB were all ok. Through the years, i've narrowed it down to KJV, NKJV.
NIV is very bad. I don't trust NASB anymore either. Sometimes it takes a while to grow in understanding to be able to see where the other translations fall short. Some of them have a clear agenda against the true Word.
2007-06-14 07:00:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The best English version is the KJ, but do not try to tell me that God waited that long before He gave us His word.
Also, are you in effect saying that people from other countries, speaking other languages, are out of luck...that God didn't give them His word, that they MUST learn Elizabethan English in order to get it?
Go for the Greek.
Avoid falling into the King James Only trap...
I have seen too many people bicker over it. They can talk and debate for hours, they know all about it...but that's all they do. They RARELY ever get around to speaking about what's IN the Bible.
2007-06-14 07:01:20 · answer #10 · answered by Jed 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋