Was this version created just for him? and where is the true version? I just want to know what you think...
2007-10-12 09:09:12 · 19 answers · asked by CILLA 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
1st, comments on some of the answers:
Unlike 1 answer read, the King James Version (KJV) was by no means the first English translation of the bible, nor was it even the 1st translated from the original languages.
King James' involvement was, essentially, restricted to the funding of the translation. Well-respected scholars created the translation with the intention of producing a modern version with no footnotes delineating divisive interpretations (as the Geneva Bible contained). The translators made it clear (in their foreword, here http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvpref.html ) that
1) They were aware that their translation was not perfect
2) They felt that reading *any* version was beneficial to the reader
3) Their primary objective was to produce an accurate translation in modern English
4) They considered it *necessary* to provide alternate translations for ambiguous passages in the margins
The 1st answer seems to be unaware that the complete KJV includes all the books in the Roman Catholic canon, plus 2 others. However, it does not include 3 and 4 Maccabees or the extra psalm found in most Eastern Orthodox bibles.
1) What I think about the KJV
a) Uses 400-year-old (i.e. outdated) English
b) Uses 400-year-old (i.e. lesser) scholarship
c) Uses 400-year-old sources (fewer and less-well authenticated)
An excellent version for its time, the KJV is no longer an excellent translation.
2) Was this created for KJ? No, it's creation was funded by him (to help resolve religious disputes around the country), but it was not created *for* him in the sense that the translation was altered at his whim.
3) Where is the true version? If you mean the true version of the KJV, here are the 3 editions that I recommend:
KJV (Paragraph) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FKJV-Cambridge-Paragraph-Bible-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0521843863%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044700%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
A scholarly effort to duplicate the original KJV *translation* (as opposed to any particular printing). Spelling is modernized (not the wording) and the complete contents of the original translation is here, including the excellent marginal notes.
KJV (Oxford) - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FBible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha%2Fdp%2F0192835254%3Fie%3DUTF8%26qid%3D1190233697%26sr%3D11-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
Similar to the above, this edition lacks only the marginal notes and is much cheaper (and paperback). It is pretty well-put-together for a paperback.
KJV 1611 - http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FHoly-Bible-King-James-Version%2Fdp%2F1565631609%3Fie%3DUTF8%26s%3Dbooks%26qid%3D1189044819%26sr%3D1-1&tag=wwwjimpettico-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325
This is a "replica" of the original 1611 printing. Each word on each page is in precisely the same position as in that original printing. It also includes the excellent marginal notes. The *spelling* in this edition is also identical to the original, and at 1st will cause readers some difficulty (but only at 1st). Once you have mastered the transposition of u and v, and of i and j, you will likely find it just as easy to read as an Oxford Revision KJV. Fortunately, this edition does not use the original Germanic lettering of the original, and instead uses the Roman lettering to which we are all accustomed. Possibly the best bible to use when discussing scripture with a KJV-only Christian, as this is about as close as you can get for under $100 to the *actual* *original* KJV. It is also quite reasonably priced.
Note that none of these have been abridged (except for the marginal notes in recommendation #2).
If you mean, "where is the true version of the bible", we do not have the autographs (original texts by the authors). It is not impossible that they still exist (especially considering that God has an interest in scripture), but if so their location is unknown. Fortunately, bibles keep getting more accurate, archaeologists keep finding new, more ancient manuscripts, and what we have is (I believe) sufficient to guide us to salvation.
My "how to choose a bible" answer: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AjWJ_jv9MYuFVQb1qw2iI__ty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20070920130341AAoffkb&show=7#profile-info-05d1b531c365f9bd8bac0a7eca3af999aa
My chart detailing "physical" differences between translations: http://jimpettis.com/bibles/chart.htm
I hope this helps.
Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/
2007-10-12 14:22:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The true Bible version isn't in English, and the KJV was made so King James could understand the Bible in his time.
2007-10-12 09:25:18 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's called the King James version because King James I was the first to translate the Bible into English. (Middle English was the version of the language spoken in his time which is why is reads strangely to contemporary people.)
In regards to a true version, there is no true version as the Bible is a collection of manuscripts that were chosen by religious officials long after they were written originally.
If you want the version that is most readable by today's language standards, the New International Version is a modern translation based on the most agreed upon common interpretations of ancient biblical texts in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and other ancient original languages.
2007-10-12 09:18:03 · answer #3 · answered by raskal66 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
The king james version of the bible is just written in old English
2007-10-12 09:12:49 · answer #4 · answered by sceneofdarhyme 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
convinced. One pretend addition come at a million John 5:7. There, it reads: "For there are 3 that undergo record in heaven, the daddy, the note, and the Holy Ghost: and those 3 are one." The word "in heaven, the daddy, the note, and the Holy Ghost: and those 3 are one" changed into extra 1000's of years after the Bible were achieved to make it look that the Bible helps the pagan trinity. maximum cutting-edge Bibles have disregarded that spurious word. Matt. 6:13 is likewise spurious, as you stated. "actual, I settle for a million John 5.7 as Sacred Scripture. "In Heaven are the three: the daddy, the note, and the Holy Ghost, and those 3 are One." unusual the way you reject one falsehood and settle for yet another.
2016-10-09 02:42:56 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to start with 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
John Wycliffe's translation (done in the late 1300's) was made from the Latin Vulgate... so no, it has very little connection to the 1611 King James Bible translation, which was done from the original Hebrew and Greek.
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.
2014-02-23 05:51:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the KJV turned out just as King James wanted it to.
The original Bible? The original manuscripts said to be used to write the new testament are no longer in existence. Hard to imagine how such priceless documents all disappeared, isn't it?
2007-10-12 09:14:37 · answer #7 · answered by Sun: supporting gay rights 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Great version with beautiful language.
The version though is not as reliable as more modern versions since it is based on a less reliable manuscript base.
Since its release we have found much more reliable Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and most modern versions account for these manuscripts in their translations.
There is nothing inherently "wrong" with the translation just a few minor items that are presented better in modern translations.
2007-10-12 09:15:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Considering the KJV was translated 7 times (because King James did not like the prior translations) - I am curious what the first translation said.
~ Eric Putkonen
2007-10-12 09:17:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
He was the reigning monarch then and there, and things being as they were, they needed his blessing in order to do the translation. So he gets the credit.
The translation is ok, given the time period and the level of scholarship for the time, but they did tend to translate some things with their contemporary understanding instead of translating them in the context of the time the originals were written.
.
2007-10-12 09:15:39 · answer #10 · answered by Hogie 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋