A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
Besides the fact it has missing books, what else is wrong with it? When was it first translated and which james translated it? Please advise.
- Status
D
Dave_B
Guest
The authorised version 1611 was done by a team of 47 Church of England scholars on the instruction of King James I of England.
It does suffer from some drawbacks. The language is now seen as archaic.
And it has translation errors and textual variants compared to modern versions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Variations_from_recent_translations
It has been called “the most influencial book in the English religion and culture” and “the most celebrated book in the English speaking world”.
So dont be too hard on it
It does suffer from some drawbacks. The language is now seen as archaic.
And it has translation errors and textual variants compared to modern versions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Variations_from_recent_translations
It has been called “the most influencial book in the English religion and culture” and “the most celebrated book in the English speaking world”.
So dont be too hard on it
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
THANKS!!!The authorised version 1611 was done by a team of 47 Church of England scholars on the instruction of King James I of England.
It does suffer from some drawbacks. The language is now seen as archaic.
And it has translation errors and textual variants compared to modern versions.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version#Variations_from_recent_translations
It has been called “the most influencial book in the English religion and culture” and “the most celebrated book in the English speaking world”.
So dont be too hard on it
I enjoy reading from it to see the differences in wording compared to the douay-rheims and NAB!!
E
edward_george
Guest
The original versions of the KJV were not missing the deuterocanonical books. You can still buy printings of it in the older versions that have them. At some point later on they were dropped.
-ACEGC
-ACEGC
C
ChrisCath
Guest
Are you after individual verse problems?
Or just general, overall problems?
Or just general, overall problems?
A
anrmenchaca47
Guest
Individual verse problems mainly…although when I compare it to the D-R, it is very similar. However, I noticed in the KJV it doesn’t really place quotations around the quotes when referring to OT scripture as opposed to the D-R in which it does place quotations around the quote from OT. I’m debating a guy who is a strict KJV user and does not look to modern versions nor anything else.
R
rotlex
Guest
IMHO, nothing is wrong with it. I use it as my primary daily reading\prayer Bible. Oh, and it’s NOT missing any books either. (I own a beautiful Cambridge Cameo version with the Apocrypha in tact).
Frankly, I just enjoy reading it. I LOVE the old world language, and, while I like the DR as well, I feel the KJV just reads better overall. Also, I prefer the Psalm numbering, and book names, as they are more “standard” if you will, to what most people are familiar with.
(I own a beautiful Cambridge Cameo version with the Apocrypha in tact).Frankly, I just enjoy reading it. I LOVE the old world language, and, while I like the DR as well, I feel the KJV just reads better overall. Also, I prefer the Psalm numbering, and book names, as they are more “standard” if you will, to what most people are familiar with.
C
ChrisCath
Guest
Well, there’s the doxology after the Lord’s Prayer [Mt 6:13]:
“For thine is the kingdom…”
This is not found in the oldest manuscripts. Apparently it is a gloss that crept into some early manuscripts. There’s nothing wrong with it per se, except it’s not scripture.
And one I’ve been exploring lately, John 5:39
“Search the Scriptures…”
The KJV uses the imperative, so that it almost sounds like Jesus is commanding the Temple leaders to use scripture. Apparently a lot of modern Protestant and Catholic bibles changes this to the indicative “You search the scriptures…” since Jesus is instead berating them.
Apparently the underlying Greek can be read either way, but the context strongly suggests the indicative is more appropriate. From a Catholic perspective, I suppose either way works, but from a Protestant view, the imperative is highly preferable.
So, for a Protestant, it devolves to a “which bible” question. Which Bible supports my “private interpretation” of scripture.
E
Espero
Guest
Actually, the original KJV included all the books. The books you are thinking of were taken out later.
B
Bible_Reader
Guest
There are a number of virulently anti-Catholic remarks in the KJV’s “The Translators to the Reader.”
- Status