What do you think of Tattoos?

[GoldenEagle]

13 hours ago, HAZARD said:

2nd Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

       There are some wayward pastors and Christian leaders today who teach that the King James Bible is a divine preservation of the inspired originals, but not itself inspired. Nothing could be further from the truth. God's Word is inspired into whatever language it is translated. How could the Bible not be inspired? “Inspiration” means that God got a hold of the head of those men, the heart of those men, and the hand of those men, and guided them to say what He wanted them to say!

“God has preserved His inspired Word for us. It is preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic text and in the Greek Textus Receptus. It is also preserved for us in the English in the King James Bible. What He at first inspired, the Lord God has now preserved. Therefore, when I hold the King James Bible in my hand, I hold the inspired text. It was inspired and now that inspired Word has been protected, preserved and provided for us!”

 

11 hours ago, Davida said:

The Damnable English Standard Version

By David J. Stewart

       The English Standard Version (hereafter referred to as the ESV)...

 

 

8 hours ago, post said:

you want me to find a couple pages of criticism of the KJV to copy/paste? 
those exist too, you know.

or were you going to address the topic? you know, those questions i had? 

thanks. 
 

Feel free to start a new thread about Bible translations if you'd like folks. But this thread topic is not discussing specific translations. Thanks!   
God bless,
GE

[seraph]

12 hours ago, post said:

i've read discussion a few times, whether that particular verse ((Leviticus 19:28)) is being read correctly in associating all tattoo marks or all marks on the body with that prohibition. it is in the same context with the prohibition against making cuts on the body for the dead ((a pagan practice, mentioned also when Elijah strove against the prophets of Ba'al)), and it could be that this is specifically prohibiting the Jews from also following pagan ritualistic, idolatrous customs of making tattoo marks ((which involve cutting the body)). 
it is not, for example, considered wrong by rabbinic tradition to lance a wound ((which is cutting the body)) - because the prohibition is against doing it for the sake of idolatry. and it is not wrong according to their tradition to put ashes in a wound, which also leaves a mark just as a tattoo would -- because the wound itself shows that it was not meant to be a tattoo, but a medicinal practice. tattoos were sometimes used religiously as a symbol of 'ownership' identifying a worshiper with the idol. if the mark was made in a non-permanent way, a vow could be broken, but if it was tattooed, the devotion to that idol was sealed. there is some thought that it is exactly this kind of religious use that is being prohibited -- not tattoos in general -- because it is directly associated with the prohibition against cutting, which is directly related to idolatry by the text itself. the context does not change in the text of the law, so the principle is that the following prohibition, against permanently marking the body, is with regard to the same context. 

i don't know what to think of all that. thank God i am not under law, but grace! it's a headache, and how dangerous to get it wrong, if there was no mercy in God! 


since a lot of this thread has to do with appeals to the Torah, and the Law, i thought someone might be interested in what Jewish rabbis have to say about it -- since if you were actually under the law, this should be your authority on interpreting it. they are very conservative on the issue: marking with a pen is OK, but no marking whatsoever that is permanent is OK, though with varying levels of 'not OK' ((as though breaking the law in some ways isn't as bad as others, lol)) and a Jew with a tattoo can still be buried in a Jewish cemetery, and it is not required that tattoos be removed. 

so here's a link to a rabbinic discussion -- http://www.rabbimanning.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Tattoos-and-Body-Piercing.pdf

I just happened to click on this and haven't read through aaallllll the pages, so sorry that I will likely repeat what's already been said. 

What post said is pretty much my take on it... it wasn't the tattoo specifically, but the expression of pagan worship that was the issue. If we take it to mean we should not mark or cut (i.e. pierce) our bodies, those who have their ears pierced really can't say much against tattoos. Personally, I like tattoos and piercings in general.

I know some argue that a tattoo would 'defile' our body/temple (I Corinthians 6:19), but that is an opinion. What one sees as unattractive, another sees as art. Many Christians choose to get a tattoo that declares their faith and expresses their relationship with the Lord. I have designed one expressing the freedom I have found in Christ and truth that I will have a tattoo artist do.

I've also heard some who are against tattoos say that people only get them out of pride - to draw attention to oneself. That is the motivation of some. For myself, I do not like being the center of attention, but I do see it as sharing a little bit about who I am and about my faith... people often ask why someone got a particular tattoo or what it means, which can open the door to witnessing to someone who might not otherwise ask. I also see it as sharing art, like I would a photo or a painting... it just happens to be on the skin... permanently.  

[HAZARD]

17 hours ago, Davida said:

The Damnable English Standard Version

By David J. Stewart

       The English Standard Version (hereafter referred to as the ESV) is deadly and needs to be exposed! The publishers mislead people when they claim that the ESV is a "word-for-word translation" of the original Greek.1 What they DON'T tell people is that there is a raging debate over which "original" Greek texts are trustworthy. The ESV is based upon an entirely DIFFERENT Greek text than the precious King James Bible. I wouldn't give you a dime for the ESV or any other modern "version" of the Bible, because they're all based upon the corrupt Greek work of heretics Westcott and Hort. Thank God for the reliable King James Bible!

The Bible teaches in John 8:44 that the Devil is a LIAR and the father of all liars. The Bible also teaches in 2nd Corinthians 11:13-14 that Satan masquerades himself as an Angel of Light who relentlessly works to pervert, corrupt and deceive. Satan's teachers are everywhere.

In today's apostate world, few people can distinguish between truth and error. The Word of God is our only defense. This is why Jesus commanded in John 5:39... SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES!!! Is it any wonder why Satan is corrupting the Scriptures to prevent people from obeying Jesus' command in John 5:39? Not at all. The ESV is just another attempt of Satan to malign and twist the Word of God into a lie.
 

The ESV Corrupts 1st John 5:7

Here's 1st John 5:7 from the ESV...

"For there are three that testify."

Now here's the trustworthy King James Bible...

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Obviously, the ESV is not anywhere near accurate and is a lie of the Devil. Like all other corrupt modern versions of God's Word, the ESV removes the GODHEAD.
 

The ESV Corrupts Philippians 2:6

Now here's Philippians 2:6 from the ESV...

"who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,"

Now here's the trustworthy King James Bible...

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"

Clearly, the ESV robs Jesus Christ of His deity, claiming that He couldn't grasp being equal with God. Yet the King James Bible proclaims that Jesus is Almighty God (Revelation 1:8). God deliver us from the apostasy of our day, from all the Bible-corrupters and Christ-rejecters.

There are THOUSANDS of similar problems with the ESV and a large book could be written exposing it's deceptions and lies. I beseech you my friend, use only the King James Bible (and NOT the New King James Version either, it's corrupted too). Here's a compelling article exposing the numerous problems with the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible. By close comparison, you'll find that the SAME perversions are similar in the ESV and NIV, because they both originate in the same corrupt Greek text of heretics Westcott and Hort.
 

Lies, Lies and More Lies!

The following is quoted from the official website of the English Standard Version of the Bible...

The English Standard Version (ESV) Bible is a new, essentially literal Bible translation that combines word-for-word precision and accuracy with literary excellence, beauty, and depth of meaning...

SOURCE: Introduction to the ESV Bible

What they DON'T tell you is that they are using the CORRUPTED Greek texts of heretics Westcott and Hort, two unsaved men who hated the Word of God. The King James Bible came from an entirely different Greek text (the Textus Receptus) which originated from Antioch, Rome, where believers were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:26). The corrupted Greek text which Westcott and Hort used originated from Egypt.

Second, the ESV is special because it is a “word-for-word” translation. The Bible says every word was “breathed out by God” (2 Timothy 3:16). For this reason, the ESV seeks to translate the original Greek and Hebrew words with the greatest possible accuracy and precision.

SOURCE: Introduction to the ESV Bible

How can you have "accuracy and precession" if you have a perverted manuscript to begin with?

Third, the ESV is special because it carries forward the great historic stream of Bible versions in English—with literary excellence, beauty, and depth of meaning, in a fresh and compelling way.

SOURCE: Introduction to the ESV Bible

The ESV is a piece of garbage, containing the same lame mumbo-jumbo of the New International Version (NIV). All modern bibles are corrupt because they are all translated from the corrupt Greek texts of Westcott and Hort.

The ESV website further states...

Would you believe it took nearly 500 years to translate the ESV Bible? That’s because the ESV builds on the great translations of the past—including William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 and the King James Version (KJV) of 1611.

But the ESV Bible also builds on the best Christian scholarship of the last 100 years. The result is a fresh and compelling Bible translation with a timeless quality, that’s trustworthy and true ...

The result is a Bible that conveys the timeless quality of God’s Word and that remains trustworthy and true to the original words breathed out by God. As Moses wrote more than 3,000 years ago, the words of God are “your very life, and by this word you shall live” (Deuteronomy 32:47).

SOURCE: Introduction to the ESV Bible

What a bunch of rubbish! Please don't be deceived by the rhetoric, the ESV is no better than the perverted NIV. They've even stooped as far as to exploit the scholarship King James Translators...

With the greatest respect for the KJV and deep gratitude to its translators for their work, the English Standard Version Translation Team endeavored to carry on the KJV’s historic translation legacy in a way that is fresh and compelling for today and that will endure for generations to come.

SOURCE: From KJV to ESV: A Historical Legacy

It may all sound good on the surface (and I'm sure a lot of naive people will buy into the lie); but the ESV translators butchered the Word of God, even denying the Lord's deity in Philippians 2:6. Just as with the NIV, the ESV removes the word "worshipped" in Matthew 8:2, replacing it with the weaker word "knelt." Please read, Worship Jesus. Just as with the NIV perversion, the ESV removes important Biblical terms such as: Godhead, Calvary, Lucifer, sodomite, et cetera. I challenge you to compare all the problems with the NIV to the ESV and you'll find a striking similarity.
 

Beware of the ESV!

The English Standard Version is of the Devil. There's not a more trustworthy Bible available today in English than the precious King James Bible. Homosexuals, Christ-rejecters, sin-lovers, apostates, liberals, ecumenicals, false teachers who teach false gospels, the self-righteous and sinister ministers will love the ESV.

Westcott and Hort: Translator's Beliefs

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!

 

 

[HAZARD]

A Brief History of the King James Bible

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

       As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom."

Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgment of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."

They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."

And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."
The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.

A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:

"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision."
As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially "authorized," Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament, stated that:

From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.

This article was taken from the book A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.

http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/kjb-brief_history.htm

[HAZARD]

18 hours ago, post said:

 

then the ESV is every bit the inspired word of God as the KJV is. 

i'm glad you agree 

Sorry I don't agree.

[Guest Robert]

I prefer magic marker: far less painful and a LOT easier to remove if I decide I no longer want the thing!

(And cheaper to boot!)

[markdohle]

I believe tattoos are neutral neither good nor bad.  I have seen many that are faith expressions.  However when people cover their whole body with them, I think that is going overboard.   Today they are not any kind of statement that is counter cultural, since it is now main stream.  I like tattoos, but not for me.  If I see someone with demonic looking tattoos I tend to avoid them, for I believe what kind of tattoo is chosen says something about the one who wears them.  One problem, they are very hard to get rid of. 

Since we are temples of the Holy Spirit, I believe they should be chosen wisely with the understanding that they just don't fade or go away.

 

[Jean74]

I have no qualms against tattoos unless they are devilish or Satanic, or way too much. Or just really over the top. You know what I mean!

[woundeddog]

Tattoos are fine if you are in the circus or are a sailor

 

[markdohle]

On 7/5/2016 at 5:42 PM, HAZARD said:

A Brief History of the King James Bible

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

       As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."
Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service."
The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work, learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom."

Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgment of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor."

They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did not disdain:

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance."

And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.

The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

"THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."
The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those words not in the original languages.

A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work, recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."

The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769 Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concrdances was A Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a printing of 1632.

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic priest, who in 1792 issued the first colume of his own translation of the Bible, accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:

"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision."
As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially "authorized," Brooke Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New Testament, stated that:

From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.

This article was taken from the book A Brief History of English Bible Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.

http://www.jesusisprecious.org/bible/kjb-brief_history.htm

Maybe having the King James bible tattooed on your forehead would be a good idea.

Edited July 7, 2016 by markdohle