Did King James Change Bible?

Did King James Change Bible?

Posted in the Christian Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Chuck

Greenock, UK

#1 Jan 18, 2010
Did King James introduce concepts into the Bible?

Is it possible the whole thing is a misinterpretation or has been altered to suit King James?

Before the King James Bible, he published somthing called "the divine rights of kings" , it explained how God wanted kings to rule the world

The idea of Kings having rights granted by God: is that based on Bible from hebrew launguage? or do these concepts only appear when they got translated in english?(or into other modern languages spoken by other monarchy type societys

Is it possible that concepts like "Kingdom of Heaven" teachs us to think of heaven and God in a heiracry monarchy sort of way?(read KingDOMINATION of heaven)

So are things really set out like that in hebrew bible or do we have a kings version of the bible? one best translated to suit him/one designed to teach people to think of bible concepts in a monarchy sort of way.

the God a Lord? LandLords?
KingDomination of Heaven?

(Or did any of these words get twisted to what they now mean today, King Lord and KingDom,)

I ask these questions from an ignorant perspective, im trying to learn i havent decided any conclusions and im not pushing any theory. i would just like to hear more, especially from sombody who speaks hebrew.
Chuck

Greenock, UK

#2 Jan 18, 2010
Is it possible King James altered the meaning of the Bible without trying? just by the act of translating it into english? Is it possible he just read the bible with a Monarchy mindset, and imagined the concepts within the bible to be structured like a monarchy,. then translated that into english?

what does it say in the old bible?
Thinking

Manchester, UK

#3 Jan 18, 2010
It says don't believe everything you're told by the church. Something like that, anyway.
Chuck wrote:
what does it say in the old bible?
Chuck

Greenock, UK

#4 Jan 18, 2010
Thinking wrote:
It says don't believe everything you're told by the church. Something like that, anyway.
<quoted text>
really , thankyou, interesting, does anyone know where this quote is within the Bible?
Thinking

Manchester, UK

#5 Jan 18, 2010
John 16:30.
Chuck wrote:
<quoted text>
really , thankyou, interesting, does anyone know where this quote is within the Bible?
mebooboo

Anderson, SC

#6 Jan 18, 2010
Chuck wrote:
Did King James introduce concepts into the Bible?
Is it possible the whole thing is a misinterpretation or has been altered to suit King James?
Before the King James Bible, he published somthing called "the divine rights of kings" , it explained how God wanted kings to rule the world
The idea of Kings having rights granted by God: is that based on Bible from hebrew launguage? or do these concepts only appear when they got translated in english?(or into other modern languages spoken by other monarchy type societys
Is it possible that concepts like "Kingdom of Heaven" teachs us to think of heaven and God in a heiracry monarchy sort of way?(read KingDOMINATION of heaven)
So are things really set out like that in hebrew bible or do we have a kings version of the bible? one best translated to suit him/one designed to teach people to think of bible concepts in a monarchy sort of way.
the God a Lord? LandLords?
KingDomination of Heaven?
(Or did any of these words get twisted to what they now mean today, King Lord and KingDom,)
I ask these questions from an ignorant perspective, im trying to learn i havent decided any conclusions and im not pushing any theory. i would just like to hear more, especially from sombody who speaks hebrew.
look in the fount of your bible it gives you hints about king James stroungs concordance helps like the word sorcery Greek word ...(pharmosudaco)( maybe spelled wrong)but its where pharmacist ..ect are word comes from Argo sorcery means drugs..i think god would Gard the bible some how
Chuck

Greenock, UK

#7 Jan 18, 2010
mebooboo wrote:
<quoted text>look in the fount of your bible it gives you hints about king James stroungs concordance helps like the word sorcery Greek word ...(pharmosudaco)( maybe spelled wrong)but its where pharmacist ..ect are word comes from Argo sorcery means drugs..i think god would Gard the bible some how
im really not sure what you are trying to say
JESUS is

Doncaster, Australia

#8 Jan 19, 2010
KING JAMES BIBLE HISTORY:
www.zionism-israel.com/old_testament/KingJame...

The translation was undertaken by six committees, comprising 54 invited participants, of whom about 47 apparently participated in the work.

FIFTEEN RULES GUIDED THEM:
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 Judgement 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.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#9 Jan 19, 2010
Chuck wrote:
Did King James introduce concepts into the Bible?.
yes he introduced the concept of witch burning

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
— Exodus 22:18, King James Version

to justify those witch burnings. nice man :o)
Thinking

Manchester, UK

#10 Jan 19, 2010
Are you sure? I believe that was in the original Hebrew text.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young 's_Literal_Translation
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
yes he introduced the concept of witch burning
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
— Exodus 22:18, King James Version
to justify those witch burnings. nice man :o)
Punisher

Brooklyn, NY

#11 Jan 19, 2010
the KJV is considered by many to be the most beautifully written versions of the older versions. but it is not considered "original" in a strict sense as it borrowed from other earlier versions...especially Tyndales, as he had a lot of influence over the work, his idiomatic biblical english is the foundation of much of the KJV's language.

the KJV has perhaps contributed most to those familiar bible sayings that are so ubiquitous in the english speaking world.(many still tyndales)

but much of the merits of the KJV have been overstated thru the centuries. especially among recent readers who seem to think that because it was "Authorized" it is somehow a better version. dare I say a "better blessed" one.

when compared to others of the day, like the Geneva Bible it is very equal in quality of translation. but it did win the book race.

most of its inadequacies are not translation related but due to the advancement of text criticism today. we have a better grasp on the hebrew and greek than when the KJV was completed. and more important is the manner in which the english language has changed sicne the 16th century. many of the words are no longer in use, and many of the passages are stilted and nearly unintelligible now.

but like all translations from the originals, the KJV has both added and subtracted from the original manuscripts. a process that continues to this day...as the desire/goal is accessibility to the text, not precision for literary, academic needs.
Adam

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#12 Jan 19, 2010
Thinking wrote:
Are you sure? I believe that was in the original Hebrew text.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young 's_Literal_Translation
<quoted text>
Exo 22:18 "Do not allow a sorceress to live." NIV

I read once that King James changed this verse to "do not suffer a witch to live", as the "reformers" liked torching witches.

I attend an Anglican church. Its a beautiful building. But the early history of the Church of England is not so pretty. I thought a humorous recap would be useful.

An overwieght monarch makes a name for himself beheading wives. He then wants to divorce. The pope says no. Henry is miffed. He wants a new wife. So he sets himself up as head of the Church.

He confiscates all the church land and property for himself. Catholics "encouraged" to join the Church of England. His successor King James commissions the Bible in English.

This verse is used by King James to justify a wholesale murder of tens of thousands of women by binding them up and setting them on light. Nice guy.

And the Christian Right in the US think this King James guy is a model Christian and a hero?! yeah, right
Punisher

Brooklyn, NY

#13 Jan 19, 2010
Chuck wrote:
Is it possible King James altered the meaning of the Bible without trying? just by the act of translating it into english? Is it possible he just read the bible with a Monarchy mindset, and imagined the concepts within the bible to be structured like a monarchy,. then translated that into english?
what does it say in the old bible?
what we have here is more about the legends around the bible. the stories told about what the bible says, not what the bible actually says. this is and has been a huge problem for the history of xtianity as the urban legends have created more misunderstanding of what the bible actually says.

one of the great or not so great aspects of the bible is that it can (and is) be used to support ones own agendas over the alleged god in its pages. so for a human King to take the words of the bible and use them for his own dynastic purposes is not new tothe KJV bible - and that trend continues today.

since the bible doesnt tell you what to read, and relys on the readers to do the interpretation - it has always been a tool of the duplicitous - and due to the often complex nature of the bible and the theologies/doctrines derived from it - most peoples have relied on others, committies, etc to due the heavy lfiting and therefore the bible has most often been understood and heard thru the "game of telephone" more than from direct study. meaning people are told what to believe the bible says before they ever even read it - leading to the huge biases we see today.
QUITTNER

Toronto, Canada

#14 Jan 19, 2010
10:34 am, Tuesday, January 19, 2010:
See, for example, the (2005) book "Misquoting Jesus, The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" by Bart D. Ehrman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misquoting_Jesus
..... On page 209 it says: "The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst manuscripts that we now have available to us!" etc.
..... I have seen no proof that God inspired any of the writings of authors, including the many different versions of the now available bibles. As I see it, the only authorized literature of the Christianity of Jesus are the writings available to Jesus, probably most of them in the Aramaic language - no others! No parts of the New Testament had been written as yet in Jesus' time.
..... By the way, I was in Leeds and also in Stoke-on-Trent. Keep well!
Thinking

Manchester, UK

#15 Jan 19, 2010
So that's not the concept of witch burning then?

Anyway I can't be bothered to split hairs over someone else's fiction.

On another thread, and as it is only a manufactured religion, as you stated below, I think the UK needs to give up the CofE rights to sit in the Lords otherwise we'll see an imam in there next.
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Exo 22:18 "Do not allow a sorceress to live." NIV
I read once that King James changed this verse to "do not suffer a witch to live", as the "reformers" liked torching witches.
I attend an Anglican church. Its a beautiful building. But the early history of the Church of England is not so pretty. I thought a humorous recap would be useful.
An overwieght monarch makes a name for himself beheading wives. He then wants to divorce. The pope says no. Henry is miffed. He wants a new wife. So he sets himself up as head of the Church.
He confiscates all the church land and property for himself. Catholics "encouraged" to join the Church of England. His successor King James commissions the Bible in English.
This verse is used by King James to justify a wholesale murder of tens of thousands of women by binding them up and setting them on light. Nice guy.
And the Christian Right in the US think this King James guy is a model Christian and a hero?! yeah, right
JESUS is

Doncaster, Australia

#16 Jan 19, 2010
KING JAMES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE. HE AUTHORIZED IT, FINANCED IT

King James had nothing to do with the translating the Bible, he merely authorized it and provided financing for its production. 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.

It remains the most printed book in the history of the world, with over one billion copies in print.
JESUS is

Doncaster, Australia

#17 Jan 19, 2010
Adam wrote:
<quoted text>
Exo 22:18 "Do not allow a sorceress to live." NIV
I read once that King James changed this verse to "do not suffer a witch to live", as the "reformers" liked torching witches.
a
WELL YOU READ WRONG!!!! KING JAMES HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WORDS CHOSEN BY THE TRANSLATORS THAT HE EMPLOYED! AND A SORCERESS IS A WITCH!
Chuck

Welwyn Garden City, UK

#18 Jan 19, 2010
mebooboo wrote:
<quoted text>look in the fount of your bible it gives you hints about king James stroungs concordance helps like the word sorcery Greek word ...(pharmosudaco)( maybe spelled wrong)but its where pharmacist ..ect are word comes from Argo sorcery means drugs..i think god would Gard the bible some how
Are you saying the word translated into the king james version as "sorcery" is actually the same word that got translated into our modern word "pharmacist" (from greek)?
Chuck

Welwyn Garden City, UK

#19 Jan 19, 2010
JESUS is wrote:
KING JAMES BIBLE HISTORY:
www.zionism-israel.com/old_testament/KingJame...
The translation was undertaken by six committees, comprising 54 invited participants, of whom about 47 apparently participated in the work.
FIFTEEN RULES GUIDED THEM:
Im just wondering if that is your answer to the question? or did you just provide that for usful backround research.?
Chuck

Welwyn Garden City, UK

#20 Jan 19, 2010
Punisher wrote:
but like all translations from the originals, the KJV has both added and subtracted from the original manuscripts. a process that continues to this day...as the desire/goal is accessibility to the text, not precision for literary, academic needs.
Don't you think this leaves room for meanings to be changed on purpose or by misintpretation by a GROUP of social dominant people, think of this in the context that it was once against church law for ordinary people to read the bible.

The interaction between Kings and Churchs and rest of us, the intpretation best suited to their own large Egos and not their truth seeking facilities.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 9 min Barmsweb 1,663
The truth is difficult, I understand. 2 hr Jake999 39
Faith during hard times 6 hr blacklagoon 107
the pauline paradox 9 hr susanblange 85
Are Your Beliefs TRUE? 9 hr blacklagoon 142
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 11 hr Big Al 2,460
George Washington and the duty of prayer 12 hr Big Al 9
More from around the web