Do you thinkg anything was lost or added in the translation of original Hebrew bible to King James version?

Question

Let's rephrase, do you think anything crucial was lost or added. And yes, I realize there were several steps along the way, but I was asking about the KJV.

The original KJV

Answer 1

Of course. There were several steps in between, by the way.

Edit: Ah, you mean was anything selectively 'lost' or added to change the message(s)? Probably. I don't know a great deal about the history of the Christian bible, but it is my understanding that many of the medieval clergy weren't particularly spiritual (or scrupulous) men - they had simply inherited positions of power. It seems logical that at least some of those men would have been interested in 'adjusting the letter of the law' to suit themselves. While I would expect that there are documented examples out there to be found, I'm afraid I can only speculate.

Of course, all of this says nothing about the difficulty of translating Hebrew into a Latin or Germanic language. Hebrew is a very different language from those with which Westerners are most familiar - a single Hebrew word conveys much more information than a single word from a Western language. For example, there is a great deal of talk about Adam in the first few chapters of Genesis. Now, the word "Adam" (which is, of course, treated as the man's name) means not only "man," but also has distinct connotations of "earth (dust)," "blood," "red," etc. These levels of meaning are lost in translation.

Answer 2

You mean the original King James bible? It was not even translated from the original Hebrew, so I'd have to say things were definitely added or lost. It was heavily influenced by poetic license, translation problems due to not using original texts, and biased views due to the political/religious environment of Britain when it was originally produced. That said, most of the problems with the KJV have been fixed in recent decades by language and religious scholars. The New King James Version of the Bible is probably as accurate as any version available. So it ultimately depends on which version you are referring to.

Answer 3

easily, the Douay-Rheims version. King Jimmy's version did not come for hundreds of years later, and it became such an abridged version of the Bible that i can not see the way it could somewhat be considered a Bible. A smattering of learn will coach you why the Douay-Rheims version is lots greater precise and an more desirable translation. i'm now copying that version with the help of hand onto looseleaf paper with a ballpoint pen for an exceptionally extreme learn of it, and the Revised prevalent version, an the two precise and better translated Roman Catholic Bible. God Bless you.

Answer 4

The idea that all revealed truth is to be found in "66 books" is not only not in Scripture, it is contradicted by Scripture (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Peter 1:20-21, 2 Peter 3:16). It is a concept unheard of in the Old Testament, where the authority of those who sat on the Chair of Moses (Matthew 23:2-3) existed. In addition to this, for 400 years, there was no defined canon of "Sacred Scripture" aside from the Old Testament; there was no "New Testament"; there was only Tradition and non-canonical books and letters. Once Scripture was defined from the many competing books, Bibles were hand-copied and decorated by monks, were rare and precious, so precious they had to be chained down in the churches so that they would not be stolen.

In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15).


Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder one in coming to God.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly

Answer 5

Yes. There are several demonstrable variations from the original Hebrew text translated for the Old Testament version of the KJV, where the then popular latin vulgate disagreed with the Hebrew text. The same type of variations appear when the Greek Textus Receptus disagreed with prevailing theology.

In addition, Hebrew scholarship was not as well developed by non-Jewish linguists as it is today, so some rubrics of translation have evolved since the KJV translation project was undertaken.

King James proposed that a new translation be commissioned to settle the controversies; he hoped a new translation would replace the Geneva Bible and its offensive notes in the popular esteem. After the Bishop of London added a qualification that no marginal notes were to be added to Rainold’s new Bible, the king cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the notes offensive. King James gave the translators instructions, which were designed to discourage polemical notes, and to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.

King James's instructions made it clear that he wanted the resulting translation to contain a minimum of controversial notes and apparatus, and that he wanted the episcopal structure of the Established Church, and traditional beliefs about an ordained clergy to be reflected in the new translation. His order directed the translators to revise the Bishop's Bible, comparing other named English versions. It is for this reason that the flyleaves of most printings of the King James Bible observe that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised (by His Majesty's special command.)"

For their Old Testament, the translators worked from editions of the Hebrew Bible by Daniel Bromberg (1524/5); but adjusted the text in several places to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate - especially in passages to which Christian tradition had tended to attach a Christological interpretation - as, for example, the reading "they pierced my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22:16.

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza; which also presents Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate; both of which versions were extensively referred to - as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener (1884) identifies 190 readings where the King James translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the Bishop's Bible or another earlier English translation. In about half of these instances, the King James translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or the Complutensian Polyglot; but in several instances he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds closely to the English of the King James version - which in these readings derives from the Vulgate. At least 80% of the King James New Testament is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.

The King James Version was translated by 47 scholars (although 54 were originally contracted) working in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. They worked on certain parts separately; then the drafts produced by each committee were compared and revised for harmony with each other. The scholars were not paid for their translation work, but were required to support themselves as best they could. Many were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge.

Answer 6

Yes, I certainly believe there is plenty of room for error in the translation (of many different languages) of the bibles, handed down throughout 2 milleniums. It would be naive to think other wise.
EDIT: Especially considering the bible contradicts ITSELF quite a bit. Sometimes when I'm reading the bible myself, I wonder if anyone ever really does read it on their own and make their own conclusions. Being told what to think was never my forte.

Answer 7

Well, technically there was no original Hebrew "bible."

There were a lot of Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and the early church fathers sorted through them and chose which ones they agreed with to make the bible.

Answer 8

SOme. We do not have all the verb forms in English that there are in Hebrew and Greek. There was no deception involved- it is just that there are limits of expression in English.

Answer 9

KING JAMES AUTHORIZED THE KJB TO BE TRANSLATED.

HIS FIRST DUTY WAS TO BE A DEFENDER OF THE FAITH WHEN HE WAS ANOINTED KING.

THE KJB IS THE INERRENT WORD OF GOD....AND WAS WRITTEN BY HOLY MEN OF GOD.

THE HOLY PART MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.

IT USES PARABLES, TYPES AND SHADOWS, AS EXAMPLES AND YOU NEED THE HOLY SPIRIT TO REVEAL WHAT THE INTERPETATION IS...

JUST LIKE DANIEL IN THE BIBLE. HE COULD INTERPET DREAMS.

JOSEPH COULD TOO.

GOD REVEALED TO JOSEPH THE ANSWER OF PHAROAHS DREAM AND WHEN HE DID THAT, PHAROH PUT HIM IN CHARGE OF THE FOOD BECAUSE OF A FAMINE.
JOSEPH WENT FROM PRISON TO FIRST UNDER PHAROAH BECAUSE OF HIS GOD GIVEN WISDOM.

Answer 10

yes, it is a little known fact that god wanted us to have own, respect and admire sea otters above all other animals.

Do you dare defy the will of god!?!?

http://image55.webshots.com/155/0/74/38/417407438nZNPiu_fs.jpg