What is the difference between the bible that we are having now and James I's authorized version of the bible?

Question

James I's authorized version of the bible was completed in 1611..

Answer 1

The answer is complicated by the fact that there are many different English translations available today. I'm not sure whether you are asking for a comparison with one specific modern translation or lumping recent ones all together. So my answer will mostly apply to things that are true of more recent versions/translations in general, despite the fact that there is a LOT of variety amongst them.

Key differences from the "Authorized Version" of 1611:

(1) The English LANGUAGE has changed. Though much of the King James Version is still understandable to us, there are a lot of subtle ways in which people THINK they understand it, but there are many cases where the precise meaning of the English words used in the KJV has changed.

This is even more the case since the KJV itself was NOT a brand-new "from scratch" Bible. Rather, much of it simply used the translations of the previous century (esp. William Tyndale's translation of the 1520s and the Geneva Bible). Note that the 16th century was a time when English was changing rapidly so some of the OLDER terms and style, current in Tyndale's day, but a bit "dated" in 1611, was kept for that version. (This includes obvious things like "thee/thou", which were rapidly on the way out in the late 16th century.)

(By the way, it is a bigger problem when the words are still used but a bit differently. If a reader finds an archaic, unknown word, they know to look it up. But if they "know" the word, but do not know that it has changed meaning, they may be misled. One very simple example -- KJV in John 14 has "In my Father's house are many MANSIONS." But "mansions" in 1611 meant "dwellings" or even "rooms" --an accurate translation of the Greek word used here-- and NOT the stately building WE mean by this term.)

It is important here to recognize that MANY "changes" in modern translations, particularly ones that TRY to follow the KJV as much as they can, are actually "more faithful" to what the language of the KJV meant at the time of the translation. This means a reader of something like the "English Standard Version" may at times be CLOSER to the meaning of the KJV than are those who try to continue using the KJV text itself. You see, not every CHANGE is a real DIFFERENCE.

(2) Improved RESOURCES for and KNOWLEDGE of the original languages and cultures of the Bible. Men like Tyndale and Luther (contra their Catholic critics) did an incredible job.... and those who worked on the King James Version were fine scholars of Biblical Hebrew and Greek. But scholars have learned a great deal about these languages (and about language in general) since that time.

This includes many ARCHAEOLOGICAL discoveries of the past 150 years, which have even unearthed ancient Semitic languages and literatures of the Near East related to biblical Hebrew with writings and to some of the literary styles we find in the Bible. This makes it more possible to understand some very difficult words and expressions (rare ones that may have only appeared once or twice in the Bible), because we have information those translators did NOT have.

(3) Discovery and study of Biblical manuscripts. This relates mostly to the Greek New Testament texts found in recent centuries that have some DIFFERENT readings form the "Majority Text" used by the medieval church, though we ALSO now have some different readings for Hebrew texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. (The "Textus Receptus", used as the basis for the KJV's translation of the NT, is a specific example of the "Majority Text" -- the one published by Erasmus. Many "Majority Text" supporters recognize the Erasmsus's text is weak at some points, partly because he was in a great hurry to publish it. He did not even HAVE a Greek text for parts of the book of Revelation, which helps account for a few oddities in the KJV of Revelation that you will NOT find in the Majority Text Greek... or any known Greek manuscript.)

Big supporters of the King James Bible who dislike modern translations tend to argue that the many EARLIER manuscripts we have found are actually corrupt and were therefore ignored by the Church. This is a complicated debate that I cannot lay out here. But it DOES help to recognize that the actual differences in wording between the Majority Text and other readings are MOSTLY very small and have little to no effect on the sense of the verses where they occur. (In fact, quite often the scholarly INTERPRETATION of difficult words and expressions makes for much more significant differences than do these manuscript differences.)

Also, when the differences in reading DO make a difference in our understanding of a particular verse, when you read the entire passage, or even better, large portions of Scripture, it is VERY unlikely that those differences will change the basic teaching.

(This relates to something theologians called the "perspicuity" of Scripture -- the teaching that the important, central teachings are CLEAR because they are based on many passages and points that are repeated. In other words, one difference in a reading of one verse will not skew an important truth, because OTHER verses help make it clear.)

When all this is taken into account, I am NOT worried about the state of our English Bible. We have MANY good translations, and though I think this or that one is a bit better at this or that point, there is much solid scholarship behind all of them, and I do not think anyone who is faithfully reading the Word (not just isolated verses, but becoming more and more familiar with the WHOLE) and learning from others who have known and studied the Word (including the original languages) is in grave danger from the translation differences amongst them.

Answer 2

I am not sure which one you are currently using however the The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible by the Church of England begun in 1604 and first published in 1611. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha was translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX).

The King James bible was mostly in latin and because of revisions it is a more how would you say it user friendly version. Look at the front of the bible and it will tell you which version you are reading

Answer 3

There are several versions of the Authorized Version (commonly called the King James Bible) The original 1611 would be very difficult to for most people to read. These revisions however have not significantly changed the Authorized Version they have simply made it more accessible. As for the confusing titles. In the U.S. there is no copyright on the Authorized Version and you can find it called many things such as "The Authorized Version", The King James Version" The Authorized King James Version" They are all referring to the same thing.

Answer 4

The "Authorized" or "King James Version" still found today is no different than the one published in 1611. EXCEPT possibly they fixed one or two typos from the original and possibly standardizing spelling (making the same word always spelled the same, which wasn't done in 1611)

Other than that.. no difference. IT's still the most popular version of the bible and easy to find.

BUT.. it is very different than the New International Version (NIV) and other more modern versions. The King James (Authorized) may be a bit harder to understand, with it's older english, but it is a MUCH more reliable version, due to which original texts it was translated from.. Other newer versions (like NIV) have undue catholic influence or were translated from corrupted manuscripts. The King James is the most accurate English translation we have today.


WOW Isabella has her facts more screwed up than I would have imagined anyone could!! Catholic Bias much?? The Catholic church was deliberately keeping the scriptures from the common man by refusing to allow it to be translated into any language except Latin (which only priests and scholars knew..no common Englishmen).. William Tyndale was one of the TOP scholars and incredibly gifted in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and several other languages. It was the Latin translations that were corrupted.. Tyndale went to the pure textus receptus.. He desired the common man of England to be able to read the Bible for himself, something the Catholic church did NOT want (for obvious reasons.. people would see that many catholic doctrines and traditions had no foundation in Scripture).. His translation was the best and most accurate and purest ever made. Unfortunately he didn't get to finish the Old Testament.. but what he DID complete was so good that, in 1611, Tyndale's work was used almost word-for-word in th King James version.

Answer 5

James 1st version is different because James was a protestant and not a catholic. This means it was translated with a different point of view then the traditional catholic beliefs.

Answer 6

It was only by the authority of the Catholic Church, which collected the various books of Scripture in the fourth century, that we have a Christian Bible at all. And it is only because of the Church that the Bible survived and was taught for the many centuries before the printing press made it widely available.


John Wycliff had produced a translation of the Bible, that was corrupt and full of heresy. It was not an accurate rendering of sacred Scripture.

Both the Church and the secular authorities condemned it and did their best to prevent it from being used to teach false doctrine and morals. Because of the scandal it caused, the Synod of Oxford passed a law in 1408 that prevented any unauthorized translation of the Bible into English and also forbade the reading of such unauthorized translations.

Tyndale was an English priest of no great fame who desperately desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied him for several reasons.

First, it saw no real need for a new English translation of the Scriptures at this time. In fact, booksellers were having a hard time selling the print editions of the Bible that they already had. Sumptuary laws had to be enacted to force people into buying them.

Second, we must remember that this was a time of great strife and confusion for the Church in Europe. The Reformation had turned the continent into a very volatile place. So far, England had managed to remain relatively unscathed, and the Church wanted to keep it that way. It was thought that adding a new English translation at this time would only add confusion and distraction where focus was needed.

Lastly, if the Church had decided to provide a new English translation of Scripture, Tyndale would not have been the man chosen to do it. He was known as only a mediocre scholar and had gained a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He was infamous for insulting the clergy, from the pope down to the friars and monks, and had a genuine contempt for Church authority. In fact, he was first tried for heresy in 1522, three years before his translation of the New Testament was printed. His own bishop in London would not support him in this cause.

Finding no support for his translation from his bishop, he left England and came to Worms, where he fell under the influence of Martin Luther. There in 1525 he produced a translation of the New Testament that was swarming with textual corruption. He willfully mistranslated entire passages of Sacred Scripture in order to condemn orthodox Catholic doctrine and support the new Lutheran ideas. The Bishop of London claimed that he could count over 2,000 errors in the volume (and this was just the New Testament).

And we must remember that this was not merely a translation of Scripture. His text included a prologue and notes that were so full of contempt for the Catholic Church and the clergy that no one could mistake his obvious agenda and prejudice. Did the Catholic Church condemn this version of the Bible? Of course it did.

The secular authorities condemned it as well. Anglicans are among the many today who laud Tyndale as the "father of the English Bible." But it was their own founder, King Henry VIII, who in 1531 declared that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people."

So troublesome did Tyndale’s Bible prove to be that in 1543—after his break with Rome—Henry again decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Ultimately, it was the secular authorities that proved to be the end for Tyndale. He was arrested and tried (and sentenced to die) in the court of the Holy Roman Emperor in 1536. His translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas—not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself. In fact, the Catholic Church would produce a translation of the Bible into English a few years later (The Douay-Reims version, whose New Testament was released in 1582 and whose Old Testament was released in 1609).

When discussing the history of Biblical translations, it is very common for people to toss around names like Tyndale and Wycliff. But the full story is seldom given. This present case of a gender-inclusive edition of the Bible is a wonderful opportunity for Fundamentalists to reflect and realize that the reason they don’t approve of this new translation is the same reason that the Catholic Church did not approve of Tyndale’s or Wycliff’s. These are corrupt translations, made with an agenda, and not accurate renderings of sacred Scripture.

And here at least Fundamentalists and Catholics are in ready agreement: Don’t mess with the Word of God.