Friday, January 7, 2011

King James a Mistranslated Mess

1611 King James - Really?

by Todd Miller on Thursday, January 6, 2011 at 8:36pm

Any so-called "1611" King James Version you buy today at the local Christian Bookstore is absolutely NOT the 1611. .. it is the 1769 Baskerville Birmingham revision, even though it admits that nowhere, and may even say "1611" in the front� it's just not true. Prepare to be shocked! The spellings have been revised, and some words changed, in almost every printing done since 1769, and fourteen entire books plus extra prefatory features have been removed from almost every printing done since 1885!

Taken from:

The English-language King James Version of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labeled "Books called Apocrypha", or just "Apocrypha" at the running page header. The section contains the following:

1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)

2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)



Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)


Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)

Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy (all part of Vulgate Baruch)

Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)

Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)

The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)

Prayer of Manasses

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

Included in this list are those books of the Vulgate that were not in Luther's canon. These are the books most frequently referred to by the casual appellation "the Apocrypha". These same books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. But despite being placed in the Apocrypha, in the table of lessons at the front of some printings of the King James Bible, these books are included under the Old Testament.

Taken from:

When King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, there were three versions of the Scriptures in use. The "Great Bible," "Geneva Bible," and the "Bishop's Bible." The king, a man of fair abilities, but vain and cherishing to the fullest extent a belief in the divine right of kings, resolved to exercise his authority as God's anointed. So, in order that his dutiful subjects should have a uniform version of the Scriptures, by his kingly power he set aside all three of the versions then in use, and authorized a new revision of the entire Scriptures to be made, which should bear the name of himself--the King James Version.

The next few years saw stirring times in England. The king was twice in peril of his life. The Catholics hatched the infamous "Gun-Powder Plot" to blow up the king and Parliament and pave the way for the restoration of Romanism. The plan was narrowly frustrated. But amid the internal and external turmoil, the people of the united kingdom--Scotland and England--awoke one morning in 1611, to the fact that the one great act of King James' reign was complete and accomplished--the King James "Bible" had arrived.

It is little known, yet it is an incontrovertible fact, that the Authorized Version of King James was not a translation, but simply a revision of the "Bishop's Bible." The translators say in their preface, "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."

The scholars of King James' day did not have access to the treasuries of ancient manuscripts, versions, and quotations which present day scholars possess; they did not have the science of textual criticism which teaches the value and the best methods of dealing with the ancient documents, all of which has sprung up since; neither did they possess the wide and thorough acquaintance with the sacred languages and the ability to distinguish and express the delicate shades of meaning that scholars of today are capable of doing. They were also circumscribed by fourteen rules devised by King James, as to how they should proceed. Some withdrew and refused to serve when the rules were submitted. They had no system by which to effect a true version, but simply trusted to their own judgment in the matter, and when not certain, they simply arrived at an agreement among themselves on their "opinions" and put it in!

When issued, Dr. Broughton, one of the foremost Hebrew scholars of that era, wrote King James, "I would rather suffer my body to be rent in pieces by wild horses than to have such a version forced upon the church." He also said, "In fifteen verses of Luke 3 (verses 24-38), the translators have fifteen score of idle words to account for in the Day of Judgment." The italicized words of this chapter are not to be found in the original.

Taken from:

The Anglican Church's King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church's Geneva Bible. One of the greatest ironies of history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the "only" legitimate English language translation� yet it is not even a Protestant translation! It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants� and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500's, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600's. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history's greatest books, Pilgrim's Progress. Throughout the 1600's, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King's Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible.

Taken from:

· · Share
  • You, Craig du Toit, Stephen Beard and 2 others like this.
    • Darrell W. Garrett You are absolutely right. The version used today has been revised 4 different times. Funny, if it is "the perfection" that so many claim, then why was it revised? lol
      14 hours ago · · 1 person
    • Joe Justice I think God meant to say........
      14 hours ago ·
    • Mark Phillips Not to mention all the mistransaltions of words like world, forever, eternal. hell and hundreds of others written with a religious agenda to twist the truth.
      2 seconds ago ·

No comments: