Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

The original 1611 King James venison had over 30,000 mistakes most of which have been corrected of these changes and bad translations.

That many errors show a design and plan.

Because it hard for 54 scholars to miss up that many times by accident. Either it was on purpose or they were 54 of the most incompetent scholars in history and they had no business even trying to translate the Bible. Here is a small listing of only few of them. They are thousands more.

Here is a small list of a few:

Luke 1:28

( King James Version) Hail, "thou that art highly favored,"our Lord is with thee

(Should Be) Hail "full of grace," our Lord is with thee.

Genesis 3:15

(King James Version) "Its" shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt "bruise his heel."

(Should Be) "She" shall bruise thy head in pieces and "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."

James 5:16

(King James Version)"Confess" your "faults,"

(Should Be) Confess," therefore, your "sins" one to another

Corinthians 9:5

(King James Version) Instead of "woman", they translate "wife" here also

(Should Be) Have not we power to lead about a "woman", a sister

Acts 20:28

(King James Version) Where in the Holy Ghost hath made you "overseers, to feed the church" of God

(should Be) Take need to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you "bishops to rule the church" of God

Matthew 11:10

(King James Version) Instead of "angel" they say "messenger"

(should Be) For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send mine "angle" before thy face.

1 Timothy 9:14

(King James Version)For the word "graces" they say "gift" and " presbytery" the Greek word rather than the English word, "priesthood

(should Be) Neglect not the "graces" that is in thee, which is given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of "priesthood."

1 Timothy 3:8

(King James Version) Likewise must the "deacons" be "grave"

(should Be) "Deacons" in like manner "chaste," not double-tongued

James 5:14

(King James Version) Elders for "priests" here also

(should Be) Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the "priests" of the church, and let them pray over him

Acts 15:2

( King James Version) The "priest" they say her also "elders"

(should Be) They appointed that Paul and Barnabas should go up and certain other of the rest, to the apostles and "priests" unto Jerusalem.

Genesis 47:31

( King James Version) And "Israel bowed himself upon" the bed鈥檚 head

(should Be) "Israel adored God, turning to "the bed鈥檚 head.

Romans 11:4

(King James Version)I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to "the image of" Baal

(should Be) I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal

Genesis 37:35

( King James Version) I will go down into the "grave"

(should Be) I will go down to my son into "hell" mourning

Genesis 42:38

(King James Version) For "hell" they also say "grave"

(should Be) You will bring down my grey hair with sorrow unto "hell"

3 King 2:6,9

(King James Version) "To the grave

(should Be) Unto "hell"

Hosea 6:14

( King James Version) O death, I will be thy "plagues;" O "grave", I will be thy destruction

(should Be) O death, I will be thy death; I will be thy sting, O "hell"

2 Timothy 4:8

(King James Version) For "justice" they translate to righteousness and for a "just Judge" they say a righteous judge

(should Be) Concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of "just ice," which our Lord will render to me in that day, a just Judge

1 Timothy 5: 17

(King James Version) "Elders" also in this Bible

(should Be) The "priests" that rule will, let them be esteemed worthy of double honor

1 Timothy 5:19

(King James Version) Instead of "priest" they put "elder"

(should Be) Against a "priest" receive not accusation

Psalm 6:5

(King James Version) In the grave, who shall give thee thanks?

(should Be) But in "hell", who shall confess to thee?

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

Name given to the English translation of the Bible produced by the Commission appointed by James I, and in consequence often spoken of as "King James's Bible". It is in general use among English-speaking non-Catholics. In order to understand its origin and history, a brief survey is necessary of the earlier English translations of the Scriptures. From very early times portions of the Bible have been translated into English. It is well known that Venerable Bede was finishing a translation of St. John's Gospel on his deathbed. But the history of the English Bible as a whole does not go back nearly so far; it dates from the so-called Wyclif Version, believed to have been completed about the year 1380. The translation was made from the Vulgate as it then existed, that is before the Sixtine and Clementine revisions, and was well and accurately done. Abbot Gasquet contends confidently (The Old English Bible, 102 sqq.) that it was in reality of Catholic origin, and not due to Wyclif at all; at any rate it seems fairly certain that he had no share in any part of it except the Gospels, even if he had in these; and there is evidence that copies of the whole were in the hands of good Catholics, and were read by them. The version, however, undoubtedly derived its chief importance from the use made of it by Wyclif and the Lollards, and it is in this connection that it is chiefly remembered. During the progress of the Reformation a number of English versions appeared, translated for the most part not from the Vulgate, but from the original Hebrew and Greek. Of these the most famous were Tyndale's Bible (1525); Coverdale's Bible (1535); Matthews' Bible (1537); Cromwell's, or the "Great Bible" (1539), the second and subsequent editions of which were known as Cranmer's Bible; the Geneva Bible (1557-60); and the Bishop's Bible (1568). The art of printing being by this time known, copies of all these circulated freely among the people. That there was much good and patient work in them, none will deny; but they were marred by the perversion of many passages, due to the theological bias of the translators; and they were used on all sides to serve the cause of Protestantism.

In order to counteract the evil effects of these versions, the Catholics determined to produce one of their own. Many of them were then living at various centres on the Continent, having been forced to leave England on account of the Penal Laws, and the work was undertaken by the members of Allen's College, at Douai, in Flanders, which was for a time transferred to Reims. The result was the Reims New Testament (1582) and the Douay Bible (1609-10). The translation was made from the Vulgate, and although accurate, was sadly deficient in literary form, and so full of Latinisms as to be in places hardly intelligible. Indeed, a few years later, Dr. William Fulke, a well-known Puritan controversialist, brought out a book in which the text of the Bishops' Bible and the Reims Testament were printed in parallel columns, with the sole purpose of discrediting the latter. In this he did not altogether succeed, and it is now generally conceded that the Douay Bible contained much excellent and scholarly work, its very faults being due to over-anxiety not to sacrifice accuracy. In the meantime the Protestants were becoming dissatisfied with their own versions, and soon after his accession King James I appointed a commission of revision--the only practical outcome of the celebrated Hampton Court Conferences. The commissioners, who numbered forty-seven, were divided into six companies, two of which sat at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster, respectively; each company undertook a definite portion of the Bible, and its work was afterwards revised by a select committee chosen from the whole body. The instructions for their procedure were, to take the Bishops' Bible, which was in use in the churches, as their basis, correcting it by a comparison with the Hebrew and Greek texts. They were also given a list of other English versions which they were to consult. The commissioners set to work in 1607, and completed their labours in the short period of two years and nine months, the result being what is now known as the "Authorized Version". Although at first somewhat slow in gaining general acceptance, the Authorized Version has since become famous as a masterpiece of English literature. The first edition appeared in 1611, soon after the Douay Bible; and although this latter was not one of the versions named in the instructions to the revisers, it is understood that it had considerable influence on them (see Preface to Revised Version, i, 2. Also, J. G. Carleton, "Rheims and the English Bible").

The Authorized Version was printed in the usual form of chapters and verses, and before each chapter a summary of its contents was prefixed. No other extraneous matter was permitted, except some marginal explanations of the meaning of certain Hebrew or Greek words, and a number of cross-references to other parts of the Scripture. At the beginning was placed a dedication to King James and a short "Address to the Reader". Books such as Ecclesiasticus, and Machabees, and Tobias, which are considered by Protestants to be apocryphal, were of course omitted. Although it was stated on the title-page that the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in the Churches", in fact it came into use only gradually. For the Epistles and Gospels, it did not displace the Bishops' Version until the revision of the Liturgy in 1661; and for the Psalms, that version has been retained to the present day; for it was found that the people were so accustomed to singing it that any change was inadvisable, if not impossible. Considerable changes were made, from time to time, in the successive editions of the Authorized Version, in the notes and references, and some even in the text. A system of chronology based chiefly on the calculations of Archbishop Ussher was first inserted in 1701; but in many later editions both the dates and many, or even all, of the references or verbal notes have been omitted.

It is generally admitted that the Authorized Version was in almost every respect a great improvement on any of its predecessors. So much was this the case that when Bishop Challoner made his revision of the Douay Bible (1749-52), which is now commonly in use among English-speaking Catholics, he did not scruple to borrow largely from it. Indeed, Cardinal Newman gives it as his opinion (Tracts Theol. and Eccles., 373) that Challoner's revision was even nearer to the Authorized Version than to the original Douay, "not in grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction". Nevertheless, there remained in the Authorized Version here and there traces of controversial prejudice, as for example, in the angel's salutation to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the words "highly favoured" being a very imperfect rendering of the original. In such cases, needless to say, Challoner adhered to the Douay. Moreover, while in the Authorized Version the names of persons and places were usually given in an anglicized form already in use, derived from the Hebrew spelling, Challoner nearly always kept the Vulgate names, which come originally from the Septuagint. It is partly due to this that the Authorized Version has an unfamiliar sound to Catholic ears. The Authorized Version remained in undisputed possession for the greater part of three centuries, and became part of the life of the people. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, however, it began to be considered that the progress of science called for a new version which should embrace the results of modern research. The work was set on foot by Convocation in 1870, and a Committee was formed, in which the Americans co-operated, resulting in the issue of the Revised Version (1881-84). The Revised Version has never received any definite ecclesiastical sanction, nor has it been officially introduced into church use. It has made its way simply on its merits. But although at the present day it is much used by students, for the general public (non-Catholic) the Authorized Version still holds its ground, and shows no sign of losing its popularity.

What prevented the earliest English missionaries from translating the Scriptures into the vernacular, or what caused the loss of such immediate translations, if any were made, is hard to determine at this late date. Though Christianity had been established among the Anglo-Saxons in England about the middle of the sixth century, the first known attempt to translate or paraphrase parts of the Bible is C忙dmons's song, "De creatione mundi, et origine humani generis, et tota Genesis historia etc." (St. Bede, "Hist. eccl.", IV, xxiv). Some authors even doubt the authenticity of the poetry ascribed to C忙dmon. The English work in Bible study of the following nine centuries will be conveniently divided into three periods comprising three centuries each.

A. Eighth to Tenth Century

In the first period extending from the eighth to the tenth century we meet: (1) St. Bede's translation of John, i, 1-vi, 9; (2) interlinear glosses on the Psalms; (3) the Paris Psalter; (4) the so-called Lindisfarne Gospels; (5) the Rushworth version; (6) the West-Saxon Gospels; (7) 脝lfric's version of a number of Old-Testament books.

(1) The proof for the existence of St. Bede's work rests on the authority of his pupil Guthberht who wrote about this fact to his fellow-student Cuthwine (see Mayor and Lumby, "Bed忙 hist. eccl.", 178).

(2) The "Glossed Psalters" have come down to us in twelve manuscripts, six of which represent the Roman Psalter, and six the Gallican. The oldest and most important of these manuscripts is the so called Vespesian Psalter, written in Mercia in the first half of the ninth century.

(3) The Paris Psalter advances beyond the glosses in as far as it is a real translation of Ps. i, 1-l, 10, ascribed by some scholars to King Alfred (d. 901), though others deny this view. Cf. William of Malmesbury. "Gesta regum Anglorum", II, 123.

(4) The Lindisfarne Gospels, called also the Durham Book, the Book of St. Cuthbert, present the Latin text of the Gospels dating from Redfrith, Bishop of Lindisfarne (698-721), with the so-called Northumbrian Gloss on the Gospels, added about 950 by Aldred. Cf. Dr. Charles O'Conor, "Bibl. stowensis", II (1818-19), 180.

(5) The Rushworth version of the first Gospel, with glosses on the second, third, and fourth Gospels, based on the Lindisfarne glosses. Faerman, a priest of Harewood (Harwood), made the translation of St. Matthew and furnished the glosses on St. Mark, i, 1-ii, 15; St. John, xviii, 1-3; the rest of the work is taken from Owun's glosses.

(6) The West-Saxon Gospels are a rendering of the Gospels originating in the south of England about the year 1000; seven manuscripts of this version have come down to us. Cf. W.W. Skeat, "The Gospels in Anglo-Saxon etc." (Cambridge, 1871-87).

(7) 脝lfric himself states in his work "De vetere testamento", written about 1010, that he had translated the Pentateuch, Josue, Judges, Kings, Job, Esther, Judith, and the Books of the Machabees. The translator frequently abridges, slightly in Genesis, more notably in the Book of Judges/a%26gt; and the following books; he adopts a metrical form in Judith. Cf. Nieder in "Zeitschrift f眉r historische Theologie" (1855-56).

B. Eleventh to Fourteenth Century

The second period coincides with the Anglo-Norman time, extending from the tenth to the thirteenth or fourteenth century. During this time, French or the Anglo-Norman dialect reigned supreme among the upper classes, and in academic and official circles, while English was confined to the lower classes and the country-districts. The Bible renderings during the twelfth, thirteenth, and early fourteenth centuries were in French, whether they were made in England or brought over from France. Before the middle of the fourteenth century the entire Old Testament and a great part of the New Testament had been translated into the Anglo-Norman dialect of the period (cf. Berger, "La Bible fran莽aise au moyen 芒ge", Paris, 1884, 78 sqq.). As to English work, we may note two transcripts of the West-Saxon Gospels during the course of the eleventh century and some copies of the same Gospels into the Kentish dialect made in the twelfth century. The thirteenth century is an absolute blank as far as our knowledge of its English Bible study is concerned. The English which emerged about the middle and during the second half of the fourteenth century was practically a new language, so that both the Old English versions which might have remained, and the French versions hitherto in use, failed to fulfil their purpose.

C. Fourteenth Century and After

The third period extends from the late fourteenth to the sixteenth or early seventeenth century, and has furnished us with the pre-Wyclifite, the Wyclif, and the printed versions of the Bible.

(1) Pre-Wyclifite Translations

Among the pre-Wyclifite translations we may note:

The West Midland Psalter, probably written between 1340 and 1350; some attribute it to William of Shoreham. It contains the whole Psalter, eleven canticles, and the Athanasian Creed, and is preserved in three manuscripts (cd. B眉lbring, "The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter", I, London, 1891).

Richard Rolle's (d. 1349) English version of the "Commentary on the Psalms" by Peter Lombard spread in numerous copies throughout the country (cf. Bramley, "The Psalter and Certain Canticles...by Richard Rolle of Hampole", Oxford, 1884).

Here belongs a version of the Apocalypse with a commentary; the latter was for some time attributed to Wyclif, but is really a version of a Norman commentary from the first half of the thirteenth century. Its later revisions agree so well with the Wyclif version that they must have been utilized in its preparation.

The Pauline Epistles were rendered in the North Midlands or the North; they are still extant in a manuscript of the fifteenth century.

Another version of the Pauline Epistles, and of the Epistles of St. James and St. Peter (only the first) originated in the south of England somewhere in the fourteenth century (cf. the edition of A. C. Paves, Cambridge, 1904).

A scholar of the north of England translated also commentaries on the Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. Luke.

Several manuscripts preserve to us a version of the Books of Acts and the Catholic Epistles, either separately or in conjunction with a fragmentary Southern version of the Pauline Epistles and part of the Catholic Epistles, mentioned under (5). Cf. A. C. Paues, "A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version", Cambridge, 1904.

Besides these versions of particular books of Holy Scripture, there existed numerous renderings of the Our Father, the Ten Commandments, the Life, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ, and of the parts read on Sundays and Feastdays in the Mass. In general, if we may believe the testimony of Archbishop Cranmer, Sir Thomas More, Foxe the martyrologist, and the authors of the Preface to the Reims Testament, the whole Bible was to be found in the mother tongue long before John Wyclif was born (cf. "American Ecclesiastical Review", XXXII, Philadelphia, June, 1905, 594).

(2) Wyclifite Versions

The Wyclifite versions embrace the earlier and the later version of this name.

The Early Version was probably completed in 1382, the Later Version about 1388 (cf. Madden and Forshall, "The Holy Bible . . . made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and his Followers", Oxford, 1850; Gasquet, "The Old English Bible and other Essays", London, 1897, pp. 102 sqq.). It is quite uncertain what part Wyclif himself took in the work that bears his name. As far as the New Testament is concerned, Wyclif's authorship of the Early Version is based on his authorship of the "Commentary on the Gospels", the text of which is said to have been used in the Early Edition; the style of this text is claimed to resemble the style of the translation of the Book of Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse. But the style of the text of the "Commentary" resembles that of the Later Version rather than that of the Early Version; besides, passages from both the Old and the New Testament of the Early Version are quoted in the "Commentary on the Gospels". It would be folly, therefore, not to assign the authorship of the "Commentary" to a time posterior to the Early Edition. As to the Old Testament, the translator's original copy and a coeval transcript are still extant, but both break off at Baruch, iii, 19, with the words: "explicit translacionem Nicholay de herford". It is claimed that the similarity of style and mode of translating shows that Nicholas of Herford translated the Old Testament up to Bar., iii, 19. It is claimed, furthermore, that the remaining portion of the Old Testament was translated by one hand, the one who made the version of the New Testament. But both these claims rest on very slender evidence. The extant translator's copy is written in not less than five hands, differing in orthography and dialect. Nicholas, therefore, translated at most only the portion ending with Bar., iii, 19. Besides, the magnitude of the work renders it most probable that other translators beside Wyclif and Nicholas took part in the work, and that already existing versions were incorporated or utilized by the translators.

The Early Edition was complete indeed, as far as the translators considered the books canonical, but it was soon found lacking in the necessary qualities of style and English idiom. It is at times unintelligible and even nonsensical from a too close adherence to the Latin text. A revision was, therefore, found necessary and taken in hand shortly after the completion of the Early Version. The principles of the work are laid down in the prologue of the so-called Later Version. We do not know either the revisers or the exact date of the revision. John Purvey, the leader of the Lollard party, is generally assumed to have taken a large part in the work. The style and idiom of the Later Version are far superior to those of the Early, and there can be little doubt as to its popularity among the Wyclifites. But the Lollards soon introduced interpolations of a virulent character into their sacred texts; violence and anarchy set in, and the party came to be regarded as enemies of order and disturbers of society. It is small wonder that the ecclesiastical authorities soon convened in the Synod of Oxford (1408) and forbade the publication and reading of unauthorized vernacular versions of the Scriptures, restricting the permission to read the Bible in the vernacular to versions approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the provincial council.

(3) Printed English Bibles

We are now entering the period of printed English Scriptures. France, Spain, Italy, Bohemia, and Holland possessed the Bible in the vernacular before the accession of Henry VIII; in Germany the Scriptures were printed in 1466, and seventeen editions had left the press before the apostasy of Luther. No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1538.

(a) William Tyndale was the first to avail himself of the new opportunities furnished by the press and the new learning. Tyndale went early to Oxford, thence to Cambridge; he was ordained priest, and professed among the Franciscan Fathers at Greenwich. In 1524 he went to Hamburg and from there to Wittenberg to visit Luther. Assisted by William Roye, like himself an apostate Franciscan from the monastery at Greenwich, he translated the New Testament, and began to have it printed in Cologne in 1525. Driven from Cologne, he went to Worms where he printed 3000 copies, and sent them to England in the early summer of 1526. The fourth edition was printed at Antwerp (1534). In 1530 Tyndale's Pentateuch was printed, in 1531 his book of Jonas. Between the date of Tyndale's execution, 6 Oct., 1536, and the year 1550 numerous editions of the New Testament were reprinted, twenty-one of which Francis Fry (Biographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament, 1878) enumerates and describes (see Westcott, "Hist. of the English Bible", London, 1905).

(b) Miles Coverdale, born about 1488, educated at the Augustinian monastery at Cambridge, was ordained priest in that order about 1514. After 1528 we find him on the Continent in Tyndale's society. He was favoured by Edward VI, but was imprisoned under Queen Mary in 1553; after obtaining his freedom, he remained on the Continent till the death of Mary, after which he returned to England, and died in February, 1569. He prepared a complete English Bible, the printing of which was finished 4 Oct., 1535. He was the first to omit the deuterocanonical books in the body of the Old Testament, adding them at the end as "apocrypha". His work is a second-hand eclectic translation, based on the Latin and the German versions.

(c) The London booksellers now became alive to the ready sale of the Bible in English; Grafton and Whitchurch were the first to avail themselves of this business opportunity, bringing out in 1537 the so-called Matthew's Bible. Thomas Matthew is an alias for John Rogers, a friend and fellow-worker of Tyndale. The Matthew's Bible is only a compilation of the renderings of Tyndale and Coverdale.

(d) In 1539 the Matthew's Bible was followed by Taverner's edition of the Bible, a work which in our day would be considered a literary "piracy", being nothing more than a revision of the Matthew text. Though Taverner was an accomplished Greek scholar and somewhat of an English purist, his edition had no influence on the subsequent translations.

(e) About 1536 Cromwell had placed Coverdale at the head of the enterprise for bringing out an approved version of the English Bible. The new version was based on the Matthew's Bible. Coverdale consulted in his revision of the Latin Version of the Old Testament with the Hebrew text by Sebastian M眉nster, the Vulgate, and Erasmus's edition of the Greek for the New Testament. The work was ready for the press in 1538, and the printing was begun at Paris, but had to be transferred to London on 17 December of the same year. In April of the following year the edition was finished, and owing to its size the version was called the Great Bible. Before 1541 six other editions issued from the press.

(f) During the reign of Mary a number of English reformers withdrew to Geneva, the town of Calvin and Beza, and here they issued in 1557 a New Testament with an introduction by Calvin. It was probably the work of William Whittingham, and it was the first English Bible which had its text divided into "verses and sections according to the best editions in other languages".

(g) Whittingham's work was soon superseded by an issue of the whole Bible, which appeared in 1560, the so-called Geneva Bible, also known as the Breeches Bible from its rendering of Gen., iii, 7, "they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches". The Old Testament represented the text of the Great Bible thoroughly revised with the help of the Hebrew original and other sources, while the New Testament consisted of Tyndale's latest text revised in accordance with Beza's translation and commentary. The handy form and other attractive features of the work rendered it so popular that between 1560 and 1644 at least 140 editions were published.

(h) After the accession of Elizabeth an attempt was made to improve the authorized Great Bible and thus to counteract the growing popularity of the Calvinistic Geneva Bible. Bishop Parker divided the whole Bible into parcels, and distributed them among bishops and other learned men for revision. The resultant version was ready for publication on 5 October, 1568, and became generally known as the Bishops' Bible. Several editions were afterwards published, and the Great Bible ceased to be reprinted in 1569, excepting its Psalter which was introduced into the Bishops' Bible in 1572, and admitted exclusively in 1585. The Bishops' Bible is noted for its inequality in style and general merit; it could not replace the Geneva Bible in the English home.

(i) In October, 1578, Gregory Martin, assisted chiefly by William (later Cardinal) Allen, Richard Bristow, Thomas Worthington, and William Reynolds began the work of preparing an English translation of the Bible for Catholic readers. Dr. Martin rendered into English one or two chapters every day; the others then revised, criticised, and corrected the translation. Thus the New Testament was published at Reims in 1582 with a preface and explanatory notes. The notes were written chiefly by Bristow, Allen, and Worthington. The Old Testament was published at Douai (1609-10) through the efforts of Dr. Worthington, then superior of the seminary. The translation had been prepared before the appearance of the New Testament, but the publication was delayed "for lack of good means" and "our poor estate in banishment". The religious adherence to the Latin text is the reason of the less elegant and idiomatic words and phrases found in the translation. The original Douai Version has undergone so many revisions that "scarcely any verse remains as it was originally published". Dr. Challoner probably merits the credit of being the principal reviser of the Douai Version (1749-50); among the many other revisers we may mention Archbishop Kenrick, Dr. Lingard, Dr. John Gilmary Shea.

(j) The Reims Version had its influence on the Authorized Version, which was begun in 1604 and published in 1611 (see Carleton, "The Part of the Reims in the Making of the English Bible", Oxford, 1902). The work was distributed among six committees of scholars, the Bishops' Bible being taken as the basis to work on. A body of rules was drawn up which contained both a scheme of revision and general directions for the execution of their work. The actual work of revision occupied about two years and nine months, and an additional nine months were required for the final preparation of the press. But even after its publication in 1611 deliberate changes were introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown.

(k) In February, 1870, the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a committee to consider the subject of an authorized revision of the Authorized Version. After the report of the committee had been presented in May and had been adopted, two companies were formed for the revision of the Old and the New Testaments respectively. The members of each company were partly appointed, partly invited. The revision of the New Testament was completed in 407 meetings, distributed over more than ten years, and was finally presented to Convocation on 17 May, 1881; the revision of the Old Testament occupied 792 days, and was finished on 20 June, 1884. The revised Apocrypha did not appear until 1895. At first the work of the revisers satisfied neither the advanced nor the conservative party, but in course of time it has grown steadily in popularity.

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

Could you please quote your source?

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

I'll go to Part 2 to give you a short answer.

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

Figured you must be Catholic. In Old English Douay, they translate sheol as hell all the time and never grave. My advice, get a modern English Catholic Bible such as New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible or New Jerusalem Bible and start comparing them all.

Debbie

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

the kjv is full of obvious and spectacular errors, but i stopped reading after you cited luke 1:28.

gabriel calls mary [kechitaromene]: 'most highly favoured' (kjv 1611) is a reasonable translation of this.

'full of grace' is probably better - but it is no chalk and cheese distinction.

and i think that there are even better ways of translating [kechitaromene] here - but i doubt they would be acceptable to most christians.

you need to learn greek before you attempt demolition of the kjv by textual analysis. it isn't too difficult - but you do need to know what you are doing.

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

Dude, do you really expect someone to take the time to answer all these? I think it is called throwing enough mud and hoping something sticks. I noticed you did reveal the source for the "correct" verses, what translation is that from and what are the source manuscripts? I will tackle the first one.

Luke 1:28

And having come in, the angel said to her, "Greetings, [one] having been bestowed grace [or, shown kindness]! The Lord [is] with you. _You_ have been blessed among women." [cp. Eph 1:6] (Analytical-Literal translation)

And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee. (American Standard Version)

And the Angel went in vnto her, and said, Haile thou that art freely beloued: the Lorde is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Geneva Bible)

And entering, the angel said to her, Hail, one having received grace! The Lord is with you. You are blessed among women!

(Literal Translation)

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

Everyone should understand that we rely on translations, by imperfect men. That unfortunately causes problems. We should all look for the most correct translations, wherever they may be.

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

Actually the KJV is the only true biblical text, it is the other versions that are corrupt. The NIV omitts over 16 passages and over 64,000 words from the Bible.

The NIV is publised by Zondervan who wrote the Satanic bible, and also a book on homosexuality. Those who attack the KJV are attempting to destroy the true word of God, whether ignorantly or delibertly.

God promised to preserve his word, and it definetly is not in the Alexandrian manuscripts, and from the occult writers Westcot, and Horde where all the current versions orginated.

Do you know some of the Problems with the King James Version? (Pt 1)?

Verily I sayeth unto thee , who careth ?