I've noticed this morning that a lot of Christians seem to think that the KJV is the original translation of the Bible. I think I even saw one person say it's the original version. (OK, yeah, I know I'm slow...don't know why it took me this long to notice. :-P)
So, my questions are: Who is teaching this falsehood and why is nobody correcting the error when we see it? Or am I misreading these answers?
I am not bashing anyone, I'm just curious.
2007-08-12
02:12:20
·
23 answers
·
asked by
Jim K
4
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
OK, I guess I need to elaborate a little.
I know that the KJV was first published by royal edict in 1611. I know that it was translated by scholars from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
What I don't know is why people think this is the "original" translation when it wasn't even the original English translation.
2007-08-12
02:23:44 ·
update #1
Sahar: Ok, but who taught you that?
2007-08-12
02:25:18 ·
update #2
Man of Ideas: GFT? What did I miss there?
2007-08-12
02:26:35 ·
update #3
Faw Kif Ino ™: Thank you for your honest answer. BTW...did I say Aribic? If I did, I meant Aremaic. If you have learned today, blessed be...and if I was the agent of that knowledge, then I am honored to have been of service.
2007-08-12
02:32:35 ·
update #4
istvan c: You make an excellent point. Thank you.
2007-08-12
02:34:14 ·
update #5
Rhonda F: Excellent and very informative history. Thank you very much for taking the time to put all that down. I wish I could give you more than one thumb up for that answer. You definitely deserve it.
2007-08-12
03:04:16 ·
update #6
soul reaper 101: Thank you for your input. I do wish that in the time it took you to come up with a sarcastic answer and attempt to insult me, you could have used your brain for a more researched, intelligent, and relevant answer. I did not give you a thumb for your answer because you did not even attempt to answer any of my questions. May you learn the Peace of our Lord and Savior. God be with you.
2007-08-12
03:19:55 ·
update #7
Thank you all for your answers. I'm going to leave this question open for a while in case anybody else decides to add or edit. Peace to you all.
2007-08-12
03:21:04 ·
update #8
*********************************************
There is a lot of REALLY good info and history here. Maybe we should make this question a part of the indoctrination process. (hehehe...j./k)
But seriously, for those of you who think the KJV was the first english translation, please read some of the links provided in the answers. It wasn't. I was the first AUTHORIZED english version. Meaning, it was the first English version authorized for use in the Anglican community.
My thanks to all of you who took the time to research and answer. It's going to be really hard to pick a best answer.
God be with you all.
**********************************************
2007-08-13
13:02:21 ·
update #9
Some people have fallen into the trap of being KJV only because they have listened to preachers who instead of teaching about Jesus get their congregations stirred up by claiming that the Devil is out to trick people by giving them "perverted" versions of the Bible.
The KJV is a fine translation that has fewer errors than many other translations but it's authors never claimed divine inspiration for their work of translation and there ARE errors in it.
Here's a simple example.
Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
None of those peachers would say that the Holy Spirit is an "it" but one of the 3 persons of the trinity. Here's a more accurate rendering of the Greek.
ESV Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words.
2007-08-12 02:20:52
·
answer #1
·
answered by Martin S 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
The original Western Bible was put together somewhere between 340 and 420 AD (CE actually) under the Captaincy of Bishop Jerome of Dalmatia and based on the works of Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Constantine had previously tasked Eusebius to put together some scriptures for his new Churches being built in Constantinople and for his new festival called Easter. These selected (from countless available) and compiled scriptures became the first Eastern Bible (as it is known today). Prior to this there were numerous scattered manuscripts.
The KJV Bible was the first English Translation.
It must be noted that little is known of what writings were available before Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria began his task because what is currently known and available is known (in most part) to be those that passed his scrutiny.
We also know that Eusebius was very concerned about the contradictions and ambiguities of the scriptures he gathered and that he realized the political bombshell that could ensue should those contradictions and ambiguities become a matter of dispute among the masses.
2007-08-12 10:32:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I correct it all the time.
One thing that I find I always have to correct is the opinion some Protestants have about the Catholic Bible and the "Extra" books. I often hear, "If it was not in the KJV...", but, the Apocrypha was in the KJV originally, but was not in the original canonization of the Bible by Constantine so it was eventually removed from Protestant Bibles.
As a result Catholics use a "more complete" version of the KJV than protestants do.
Then there is the "Holy name of Jes-us" idea that bugs me, as if an English translation of a Greek translation of a Hebrew name, and we are not sure which Hebrew name, is a magic word of some kind.
PS: I posted a link below to an essay I uploaded onto my website. It is NOT my essay, but, I thought it very good and I wanted to keep it around. The original author never returned my e-mails and the original site where I got it back in the late 90's is now gone.
2007-08-12 02:32:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
There is nothing wrong in reading other versions of the Bible, but you must remember that they will always have a leaning to towards the wrong doctrines that have been introduced since the first century Christians wrote the originals. The only honest translation was the made by Tyndale. Alas the style of English is not easily understood by English speaking people today. The next best version is the 1611 AV but the same difficulty in understanding applies. The MKJV or NIV are useful but beware of the bias.
2016-04-01 07:25:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
This false and recent teaching is spread only in America.
Mostly among protestants, although some catholics are beginning to be influenced by it.
They are partially correct however, the bible shouldn't be edited and it should be followed ofcourse.
The closest you can get to the "original" copy would be the hebrew Torah and the greek or maybe latin New Testaments. Learing ancient greek and hebrew is very very diffcult however.
2007-08-12 02:22:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think we need to do more research if we are going to be answering theological question. I admit that I think the KJV is the first translation to English. Was the first translation from Arabic to roman then to Greek? You know we have to correct when possible, without being crass and arrogant. I am gonna look this up right now and then I will know
2007-08-12 02:22:20
·
answer #6
·
answered by Marla ™ 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
The KJV is written from the original Aramic and Greek languages. The other Versions have subtle changes and/or complete omissions of verses. We know this because of the ancient scrolls and letters that were found, and there are over 5,000 of them. They line up with KJV completely. Sure there are little changes e.g. Noe/ Noah, but these are minor.
2007-08-12 02:30:42
·
answer #7
·
answered by michael m 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
I don't know of anyone teaching that it is the original version. I think that many people who do not know their Bible well, seem to think it is because it has been around a long time, and the language is very eloquent, and it is the most often quoted.
2007-08-12 02:24:28
·
answer #8
·
answered by TJ 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Some people just assume it is the original because it's the first version they know of. They do a "google search" and assume because that's the first version in English, it's the first version ever.
This isn't for all people, i'm not trying to generalize.
God bless.
2007-08-12 02:27:12
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's to be expected... Of course everything that's written or said will not be true, a very large portion won't be, in regards to anything; and of course it will go uncorrected. That's just the way it is in this world. Only thing to do is try and spread the truth of what really matters: Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. God Bless.
2007-08-12 02:23:19
·
answer #10
·
answered by B Z 4
·
1⤊
0⤋