King James Bible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P

persistent

Guest
#1
#1
From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???
 
2ndTimothyGroup

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
#2
Feb 20, 2021
5,883
1,954
113
#2
My two preferred translations are the KJV and the NLT. They usually read much differently than the other, but they almost always are conveying the same principles and messages. I see each translation as a gift just in itself. My first approach to attempting to understand a passage is by consulting approximately 15 translations through the Blue Letter Bible website. Such a great, great site and an incredible tool for near-instant clarification.
 
A

Adstar

Senior Member
#3
Jul 24, 2016
7,585
3,616
113
#3
persistent said:
From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???
Click to expand...
You read reports and you chose to believe them..
 
Nehemiah6

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
#5
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,777
113
#5
persistent said:
From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state.
Click to expand...
That is totally false and misleading. Wikipedia is not to be trusted.

Since the time of Henry VIII the monarch of England was also considered to be "the Defender of the Faith" hence the "head" of the Church of England. But the real reason for the King James Bible (or more appropriately "the Authorized Version appointed to be read in churches") was that the Puritans (fundamentalists) within the Church of England were not totally satisfied with the Bishops' Bible (then in use) and the other Anglicans were not too happy with the Calvinistic Geneva Bible. The primary objective therefore was to make a new English translation -- directly out of the Hebrew and Greek -- which would surpass all the others (and it did). The KJB became the sole English translation in use for over 300 years, and God blessed it mightily. It was regarded as the written Word of God by conservative Christians and scholars during all that time. All the commentators during that time accepted this Bible without question.

But the 47 translators of the KJB were not solely Puritans, and included many Anglican scholars. The most significant thing was the outstanding scholarship and piety of these learned men, who were also very humble. While they favored William Tyndale's translation, they had access to all the other translations, printed texts, and manuscripts available at that time. And all Reformation bibles were based solely upon the Hebrew and Greek traditional or "received" texts (which represent the bulk of manuscripts).

The only reason that the name of James I is associated with this Bible is that he was the royal patron of this translation project at that time, and did not want conflict within the Church of England. But he would not have been allowed to tamper with the translation at all regardless of his status as king. The translators had too much reverence for the Word of God. and because there were so many of them, it ensured that no personal biases would be allowed to remain.
 
P

persistent

Guest
#6
#6
Adstar said:
You read reports and you chose to believe them..
Click to expand...
Investigating history from an armchair is very limiting. Maybe Lucy Worsley will investigate this matter.
 
P

persistent

Guest
#7
#7
Nehemiah6 said:
That is totally false and misleading. Wikipedia is not to be trusted.

Since the time of Henry VIII the monarch of England was also considered to be "the Defender of the Faith" hence the "head" of the Church of England. But the real reason for the King James Bible (or more appropriately "the Authorized Version appointed to be read in churches") was that the Puritans (fundamentalists) within the Church of England were not totally satisfied with the Bishops' Bible (then in use) and the other Anglicans were not too happy with the Calvinistic Geneva Bible. The primary objective therefore was to make a new English translation -- directly out of the Hebrew and Greek -- which would surpass all the others (and it did). The KJB became the sole English translation in use for over 300 years, and God blessed it mightily. It was regarded as the written Word of God by conservative Christians and scholars during all that time. All the commentators during that time accepted this Bible without question.

But the 47 translators of the KJB were not solely Puritans, and included many Anglican scholars. The most significant thing was the outstanding scholarship and piety of these learned men, who were also very humble. While they favored William Tyndale's translation, they had access to all the other translations, printed texts, and manuscripts available at that time. And all Reformation bibles were based solely upon the Hebrew and Greek traditional or "received" texts (which represent the bulk of manuscripts).

The only reason that the name of James I is associated with this Bible is that he was the royal patron of this translation project at that time, and did not want conflict within the Church of England. But he would not have been allowed to tamper with the translation at all regardless of his status as king. The translators had too much reverence for the Word of God. and because there were so many of them, it ensured that no personal biases would be allowed to remain.
Click to expand...
Investigating history from an armchair is very limiting. Maybe Lucy Worsley will investigate this matter.
 
P

persistent

Guest
#8
#8
oyster67 said:
Are you concerned about some doctrinal error introduced in some way? Please elaborate.
Click to expand...
Investigating history from an armchair is very limiting. Maybe Lucy Worsley will investigate this matter.
 
Lanolin

Lanolin

Well-known member
#9
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
#9
No King James I was Scottish not English but he took over from Queen Mary and became King of both England and Scotland (United Kingdom) . AND also Ireland and France (to their dismay?)

He did not take over the church. He just authorised an official English translation, previous translations had been only available in Latin or badly translated English bibles, which hardly anybody could read.

The scripture was mostly based on Tyndales translation. The Scots had by then had their own church, the Church of Scotland. which we know today as Presbyterian. It had some Calvinist leanings, but thats only if you read the Bible out of order and chop and change a lot of scripture.

The Church of England was founded by Henry VII, James I was much later. He was a theologian and was interested in scripture. But first he had to have a translation that actually made sense.

Maybe read a bit more history than skimming wikipedia articles. You can read in the preface to the KJV how the translation was prepared and why it was authorised or dedicated to the King. There were other bibles around at the time. like the Bishops Bible and the Geneva Bible, but the King James Version is actually the one most English speaking people took to as their favoured translation (at the time) . It still holds up more than 400 years later.
 
Lanolin

Lanolin

Well-known member
#10
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
#10
the only bias MIGHT be discernable in the chapter headings but otherwise its scripture translated from the original tongues (Hebrew and Greek) word for word

The beauty of the King James Bible is for the most part was not annotated, footnotes or drowned in copious commentary that shows bias. Although there have been tampered KJVs eg Scofield Bible. that reflect certain biases.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#11
Jan 13, 2016
17,131
3,689
113
#11
persistent said:
From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???
Click to expand...

The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"

Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.
 
P

persistent

Guest
#12
#12
John146 said:
The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"

Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.
Click to expand...
And we here in the U.S. think democracy is "supreme". How about this 1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#13
Jan 13, 2016
17,131
3,689
113
#13
persistent said:
And we here in the U.S. think democracy is "supreme". How about this 1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.
Click to expand...
We've never been a Christian nation where God and his word is the law of the land. It sounds good. It gets people's emotions all stirred up, but it's just not the truth.
 
D

Dirtman

Well-known member
#14
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#14
persistent said:
From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???
Click to expand...
While this subject is a dead horse and has been beaten to death, there are many still riding this horse.
Not only was James a usurper of the throne in England he was a usurper of authority in the church. If you notice the old Testament forbid a king to do the duties of a priest. When Saul made the sacrifices because Samuel wasnt there in sufficient time for him. That is when God removed the kingly anointing from Saul, and he became a twisted and tormented human there after.
He also only allowed the use of the work of Erasmus the "textus receptus" he didnt allow the use of the Byzantine text. (Which the new King James Bible does use, and corrects the errors and biases of the old KJV). Erasmus admittedly altered the text by adding to it.
James wanted a Bible that supported his usurping of authority. He wanted one that gave him divine authority. He also wanted no foot notes or margin notes. He also wanted the two columns rather than as a book normally reads. Then he had his version chained to every pulpit. Foisting it upon the people.
 
P

persistent

Guest
#15
#15
Henry de Bracton English jurist & cleric 1210-1268
  • Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege.
"Not under man but under God and the law."

Note: Not under God's Law but under God and the law. And who was determining what law. Go back to Magna Carta and even that was the road to mans' law as self determined. EGO edge God out.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#16
Jan 13, 2016
17,131
3,689
113
#16
Dirtman said:
Which the new King James Bible does use, and corrects the errors and biases of the old KJV
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of an error? I'll give you a minute while you search a website.

Btw, God used this KJV to pave the way for the largest worldwide revival in human history. The "new versions" have brought about the Laodicean like church.
 
D

Dirtman

Well-known member
#17
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#17
John146 said:
The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"

Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.
Click to expand...
When most of his word was written by judges and prophets not kings and none of his disciples were kings and yet wrote the entirety of the New Testament. And God actually forbid Kings to do priestly duties.
 
D

Dirtman

Well-known member
#18
Jul 19, 2022
1,151
441
83
#18
John146 said:
Can you give an example of an error? I'll give you a minute while you search a website.

Btw, God used this KJV to pave the way for the largest worldwide revival in human history. The "new versions" have brought about the Laodicean like church.
Click to expand...
What revival would that be?
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#19
Jan 13, 2016
17,131
3,689
113
#19
Dirtman said:
When most of his word was written by judges and prophets not kings and none of his disciples were kings and yet wrote the entirety of the New Testament. And God actually forbid Kings to do priestly duties.
Click to expand...
And King James did not write the authorized version.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#20
Jan 13, 2016
17,131
3,689
113
#20
Dirtman said:
What revival would that be?
Click to expand...
God had the KJV translated for the purpose of bringing forth fruit, and it has been very obedient to the call. It was translated at the perfect time in human history. The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Billy Sunday is said to have led over one million people to Christ, and he was a KJV believer. Spurgeon, Moody, Whitfield, and Wesley were all KJV men, and the list goes on. God has richly blessed the ministries of such men as these because they stayed busy OBEYING His word rather than questioning its authority.

The KJV produces good fruit, because the Holy Spirit bears witness to it like no other book in the world. It's easier to memorize than any new version, and the beautiful old English language gives the reader the impression that he is reading a book very different and far superior to the rest. It reads different because it IS different, and it IS different because it has a different Author.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.