King James Bible Debate!!!

[irishcowboy]

How did the King James Bible become 'Authorized"? How did G-d authorise it? How did those who wrote the KJV know HE was giving the thumbs up? How do we know that the NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, etc are not 'Authorized'?

Prince James followed Bloody Mary to the throne and then became King James, James did not lead a life that would be considered to be blameless (as stories of the time come out).

how he came about "authorizing" it was that he authorized the Bible to be printed in English and availible to all people, not just the Bishops.......

if you look at how the ORIGINAL king james version reads, it is very difficult to read, thus meaning that the king james version that we read today is not the ORIGINAL, and has been changed over the years to update the language and spelling as we go along in time..... the "1611" version has a plate in it ( a label of sorts, explaining about the authorized use of the book)

the 1611 is not the first english version authorized to be printed in english, but was the first to be authorized for distribution to the people..... yes, King James did Authorize it.... I did not, nor did another leader, King James was a human being, not unlike you or me.....

It took many years for the 1611 Version to overtake the Geneva Bible in popularity with the people, but eventually the King James Version became the Bible of the English people. It became the most printed book in the history of the world. In fact, for around 250 years...until the appearance of the Revised Version of 1881...the King James Version reigned without a rival. During all that time, the authorized version contained the original 80 books (with Apocrypha) of the 1611 version. The Aitken Bible by American Robert Aitken  (a `King James Bible` but calvinised, americanised) appeared in 1782, but was not recognized as Authorized (so short after Yorktown!!). The Apocrypha was officially removed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in 1885 leaving only 66 books.

the Geneva Bible would have to be chained to the pulpit, because people would try and steal it, because they wanted a copy of the Word of God for themselves that they could read... this might have been one reason that King James authorized the printing and release to non-clergy, so that the Breaches (Bishops) Bible would be left intact on the pulpit. hard to say the exact reason why and what was in his heart....

there is a great amount of information to the history of the Bible, that it would be unfeasible to type it all out...

most people ( i still say ) do not actually read the "1611" version of the king james version, but rather an updated shortened version, and do not realize the actual history behind it.... that the versions used to come about with the King James was also the Geneva, the Wyclif, and the Tyndale as well as the greek, hebrew, latin and even the other languages that it had already been translated into... at the time they did the best they could at the translation that they could, just as now, people translating the Bible, and updating it, are still trying to get the most accurate translation they can, it is very difficult to try and convey an idea/thought some one several hundred years ago was thinking or feeling or trying to explain when they were putting it on paper..

even now, if i were to write something, and give it to you, and you were to try and relate what was going on when it was written, you would have a difficult time.....

mike

[kittylover0991]

I disagree.

love you Butero

Absolutely wonderful answer that can never be refuted except, the behold, in this case, you, decides to change that opinion... lol there is not morals that say "You can't say you disagree" lol lol absolutely splendid without any form of explanion I'm just kidding Butero, you know I love you

But seriously, back to the statement that the KJV could have been translated literally becuase the original text was hard to read, and then also that we are humans.... I still stand with my original statement from many threads ago. We, as humans, are constantly in error. We can all agree that we are sinners, we are imperfect, especially compared to God becuase of sin and carnal nature(hand in hand of course). However, the part that we leave out is that God is Almighty, he is perfect and with Him, all things are possible. With that in mind, where the "preserved word" that God said he would "perserve.. from this generation forever" which was said in David's time. If the KJV is not it becuase of translation, most of the original manuscripts are destroyed because of use(there are copies Praise the Lord ), and if the newer versions, as previously said, are "shortened versions" of the Textus Receptus(means it is not whole and does not contain ALL of God's Word), then where is God's preserved Word that He promised He would preserve. I do'nt mean in heaven folks, but here on earth that we can have, read, learn, study and grow from? Where is that perfect, infallible, inerrant Word of God?

[kittylover0991]

I used to be a KJV only person until I discovered that the publisher stuck in the word Palestine where it should read Philistia in Joel Chapter 3:4 The NIV has it correct. I now cross reference everything, and I use a good Hebrew/Greek concordance {e-Sword} on line that you can download free.

My Web Blog

I am not KJV only, but that use of the word "palestine" was not incorrect. Palestine is a correct reference to that land area. The problem is that today the word "palestine" has aquired a meaning and connotations that did not exist at the time of treanslation.

[anitarose]

What's the website where you can download e-sword for free? I went looking and can't find it....

Anita & Chikachu

[anitarose]

http://www.e-sword.net/

Thanks!

Anita

[He giveth more grace]

But seriously, I've been learning so many things in this class.. I had never known about Aleph (Sinaiticus) and B (Vaticanus) or even Westcott and Hort.. not to mention the Nestle Aland Greek Text.. and then the "M" that stands for "Majority texts" in the Nestle Aland that represents about a hundred manuscriputs.. I also never knew that all the new modern versions are based off of the work of Westcott and Hort... this can be proven not only by the book Westcott and Hort (W-H) wrote, but also in the fact that the same verses are missing, bracketed or footnoted(to say they shouldn't be there), etc... nto to metnion that in the Vaticanus, the last 12 verses in the book of Mark are left out... The Vaticanus was discovered, oh, approxiamately 1450 A.D. and was kept in a musuem from there... until a man somehow copied. But anyways, I find it interesting that because it was written on vellum, that priests would start the next book in the next column, however, there is an entire blank column between Mark and Luke, and just enough space for the verses of Mark 16:9-20! So cool!!!!

Not to mention, they say that the newer versions are based on the most reliable manuscripts, but because it is based off the work of W-H, which is based off of only Aleph and B, they are only based off of two manuscripts. That is becuase W-H dismissed anything that was "Syrian"/ Byzantine/Textus Receptus(Recieved Text)... so cool!!!!

Your learning some good stuff, "Majority' and 'Minority' text's, the "Textus Receptus", Drs. Westcolt and Hort who were heritic's.

<h1 style="margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center;" align="center"></h1>

________________________________________________________________________________

_

<h1 style=margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; text-align: center;" align="center">HORT AND THE ATONEMENT</h1> It is often only a step from confusion regarding man

[kittylover0991]

minority text? one of those things I don't quite understand. Wait, W-H wrote hte Minority text? and how did this all relate to the Nestle Aland is where I'm confused.. I have Bible Institute tonight

[RGR]

minority text? one of those things I don't quite understand. Wait, W-H wrote hte Minority text? and how did this all relate to the Nestle Aland is where I'm confused.. I have Bible Institute tonight

Clear as mud to me, lol!

[He giveth more grace]

minority text? one of those things I don't quite understand. Wait, W-H wrote hte Minority text? and how did this all relate to the Nestle Aland is where I'm confused.. I have Bible Institute tonight

Hort and Westcolt didn't write the "Minority Text", they so-called, translated the Minority Text into English from heritic's perpective.

[Ovedya]

Well I suppose the original translators of the 1611 KJV acknowledgment of the future need for revisions/translations in the preface of that volume means nothing. Or.......?