1611 King James version is the most Holy Bible, Do you agree ?

Question

The Book of Daniel, chapter 9: shows the most Holy arrives at 77, and first year of the English Church was in 1534 add 77 brings you to 1611

http://www.geocities.com/thecarpenterfiles/7.htm

Answer 1

first my favorite is the KJV (it is really 1796)

as for the 1611 I do read that to for fun mostly as having no letter J and the U and V being changed around is amusing, and the spelling can be quite differant too.

Example:
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.

Answer 2

In 1611 the King James Bible was the best English-language bible available. It included the latest in biblical scholarship, and was written in the vernacular.

400 years later, the KJV is completely out of date. We have learned so much about translating ancient Hebrew and Greek in the past 400 years, and we have learned so much from archaeological digs and other findings about the people and times of the bible. Not to mention that we no longer speak the way people spoke in 1611 England.

Jesus did NOT speak in King James English, and the King James Version of the bible is dreadfully outdated. In some places it sounds very poetic -- the 23rd Psalm sounds better in the KJV than in any other English bible -- but it is not a good translation, and it is extremely difficult to read and understand.

Go buy a Today's New International Version, or a New Revised Standard Version. You'll be a lot better off.


.

Answer 3

1) No. What makes the King James Version (KJV) more holy than another version? Certainly, nothing in your post.

2) Dan 9
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=dan%209&version=49
I confess, I read this twice and could find no reference to the number 77. I decided to resort to the KJV (I have the very good Oxford version, 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 ). Again, the numbers 70 and 69 appear, but not 77. The term "most Holy" appears in verse 24, and here the value specified is "Seventy weeks".

3) For the sake of argument, let's pretend that Daniel actually *does* mention 77 instead of 70. This was the time designated "to anoint the most Holy".

a) Time to produce the KJV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#The_Project
This shows that the KJV was, at the earliest, first seriously considered in 1601, before James was king. I don't recall reading anything about "10 weeks" in Daniel 9. More realistically, you could say it took 7 years from *authorization* (1604) to publication (1611). As we can see from this article, the King, through directives, assured that his political and religious objectives would be included in the translation.

b) It is true that the Church of England split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1534. This was for the express purpose of allowing Henry VIII to divorce Catherine of Aragon in what, to all appearances, was a legal marriage. In other words, Hank8 wanted to disregard the express instructions given in New Testament scripture. Hardly the basis for any type of "holiness" that I would want to propose.

c) Oddly enough, Daniel does not mention, in verse 24, that the holy city is London, or that the "most Holy" is a book. Odd, because the "most Holy" is anointed in verse 24, and verse 25 speaks of "the Messiah", more accurately translated "the anointed". I strongly suspect that the anointing with which verse 24 is concerned is not that of a book in a language not yet known. Additionally, where is the mention in Daniel of
i) The "most holy" Spanish bible?
ii) The "most holy" French bible?
iii) The "most holy" Latin bible?
etc. etc. Apparently Daniel, a speaker of (presumably) Hebrew and Aramaic, was primarily concerned with the translation of scripture into a particular language that would not be spoken for about 1,500 years and would never become the most widespread language (by population) either in the world or among the Christian population. Kind of nice of Daniel and Gabriel, when you think about it, to be so overly concerned with the English language translation of the bible, neglecting the translation into much more influential languages.

4) That link you gave - you've *got* to be kidding. I'll just laughingly analyze the first sentence.

"USE THE KING JAMES BIBLE BECAUSE JESUS TESTIFIED IN MT 13 52-57 THAT A PROPHET [A SCRIBE]
* 1st error - a prophet does not indicate a scribe, not a scribe a prophet. Indeed, Jesus regularly roundly criticized the scribes of the time.
IN HIS OWN COUNTRY [A KING]
* 2nd error - a country does not signify a king, nor a king a country. A *kingdom* signifies the *rulership* of a king, but usually not the king himself. This should be obvious to even the most marginally educated. The verses mentioned do not refer to a king at all, but to the reception a prophet receives in his own country (i.e. a country not foreign).
WOULD BRING FORTH A HOLY THING AS IS WRITTEN IN LK 1 34-37 THE SON OF GOD HERE IS THE BIBLE BECAUSE YOU DO NOT REFER TO A PERSON AS A THING."
Honestly, I couldn't make heads or tails out of this. I know that v 52 mentions that a scribe "instructed unto the kingdom of heaven" brings forth "out of his treasure" "new and old" (plural indefinite pronouns) - inserted in KJV as "things". It does not mention the son of God but, of course, we know that there is only *one* of him, so this verse cannot be referring to him when speaking of plural somethings or someones that are brought forth by a scribe. And, surely, the son of God is not the product of a scribe.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 4

You're in need of vitamins. The KJV is such a poor example of translation, especially from Hebrew into English, it's a wonder that people like you exist.

Look into a JPS Tanakh to see how the people who ACTUALLY SPEAK the language interpret things. The KJV is only eclipsed by the NIV (Not Inspired Version) in it's errant translation. Good luck with whatever you are trying to establish, because truth is not found in the KJV.

Answer 5

You are asking for 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

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.

Answer 6

"77." Oh well, that should convince just about ANYONE!

You are doubtless aware that the Authorized Version has been revised numerous times, just to correct glaring mistakes, that it is essentially a reworking of the Tyndale Bible (He produced all the poetic phrases), which was based on Erasmus' amateur translation of a collection of damaged Greek manuscripts (he had to back-translate the last page of Revelation from the Vulgate), and that the Greek "originals" dated from no earlier than the 12th Century. Other than that, it's perfect.

Answer 7

The Bible, the Scriptures of the Old Testament and the New Testament, preserved for us in the Masoretic text (Old Testament) Textus Receptus (New Testament) and in the King James Bible, is verbally and plenarily inspired of God. It is the inspired, inerrant, infallible, and altogether authentic, accurate and authoritative Word of God, therefore the supreme and final authority in all things.

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Peter 1:20-21

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Revelation 22:18-19

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." 2 Timothy 3:16-17

This comment is not true for any other book written in English. The rest of them like the NIV, TNIV, NASV, RASV, etc. all have error in them.

Zondervan, a major publisher of the NIV and the catholic church have known for years for what I'm about to state: Other than the comment made about the KJB at the www.chick.com website, if "anyone" can prove that the KJB has mistakes or has flaws in it, there is a one million dollar offer to anyone who can prove it. You understood me right, $1,000,000. This statement is not made to be taken as a joke. That said, before you claim you can prove it, consider this: As much as the catholic church has bad mouthed the Bible over hunderds of years and has killed people for writing it, not once have they came fore to take up the offer. Zondervan has bad mouth the King James Bible for years because it out sells their NIV and has all but called the KJB a dog because of it. Wouldn't you think, here's their chance to prove that their book is better than the KJ and yet they won't take the offer up? Click on the websites below and you will see why.

As God promised, He has preserved His word for the English people in the King James Bible. Proverbs 16:10 says, "A divine sentence is in the lips of the KING. . ." Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a KING is, there is power . . ." King James. "James" is not an English word but a Hebrew word. Did you know the Hebrew word for James is Jacob! You'll never guess what Psalms 147:19 says, "He showeth His WORD unto JACOB..."

This also proves that the catholic church had nothing to do with given us God's Holy Word.

If nothing else, put God's Word to the test (below):

Answer 8

Do you really think that that God waited 1600 year for a certain King James to give us the Holy Book along with some inacurate translations?

Answer 9

KJV is Holy Bible bcz it's the seventh of seven
1. Tyndale's Bible
2. Matthew's Bible (by Tyndale and John Rogers)
3. Coverdale's Bible
4. Cramer's (Great Bible) printed by Whitchurch
5. Geneva Bible
6. Bishop's Bible
7. Holy Bible (KJV)

It's not Holy Holy Bible, nor bi-polar like carp

Answer 10

You're using numerology to argue the KJV is the most "Holy" version? What cult are you part of?

Why should be edited in the 17th century make one translation more holier than another?

This goes to the top of my list of silliest questions I have seen on Yahoo this week!