I had a..."conversation" about a year ago with a Southern Baptist who was convinced that his (Southern Baptist) form of Protestantism was founded by John the Baptist himself, who used the King James Bible in English. And I'm sure he's not alone in this belief.
@@christasimon9716 I call that "American Jesus". I both respect it and find it to be absurd beyond belief. If I hadn't witnessed it myself I would be forced to assume anyone describing it was exaggerating.
And as we know, making the Bible translation less anti-monarchical absolutely worked on the Puritans. (Right up until they violently overthrew James' son a few decades later and installed England's only short-lived republic.)
Hello Dan, I seem to be related to John Harmar one of the members of the second Oxford company, can you recommend any books or information about what he and his compatriots did and the resources they used? Were there any disputes between the various members of company and how were they resolved? All the best Roger Harmar.
It's popular and in the public domain. There are better modern versions, but they require licensing. There are undoubtedly other unlicensed versions, but no one has ever heard of them. Lastly, it's old, so it doesn't have any revisions or versions so there's no errata list.
1 John 5:7-8,John 7:53, John 8:12, Mark 16:9-20, Mathew 17:21, Easter are all additions made to christian bibles not in original koine Greek new testament. Isaiah 7:14 changed to " Virgin in future tense " . Just one of dozen of modifications made by Church fathers.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jythe Koine Greek papyrus p75 and other parts of the earliest original koine Greek new testament are online to review. Significant changes made to original koine Greek some are admitted insertions like 1John 5:7-8 trinity. Also significant changes made to original Hebrew scripture such as Isaiah 7:15 Virgin in future tense modification .
@@MitzvosGolem1 p75 is not the earliest manuscript, and, the earliest mss we do have are not the original text. Yes, the multiple endings of Mark, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7-8 etc. are not in the earliest mss. And rendering the text of Isaiah as a future is something I have no knowledge of as lxx texts are far from uniform so it might be that it was altered intentionally or they had a text that had it rendered in the future. Hebrew future tense is translated based on context as there was no future verb form/tense in Biblical/Ancient Hebrew. So it isn’t as if there a straight line from Hebrew perfect/imperfect tense in the patristic period.
@@MitzvosGolem1 sort of, Biblical Hebrew has perfect and imperfect verb tenses (completed and incomplete past action) with participles serving as a sort of present tense in some cases.
The concept of original sin wasn't fully articulated until the 3-400s in the works of St Augustine (which is why the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't recognize original sin).
Would you mind commenting on the Legends and/ or (conspiracy theory's?) that Shakespeare was Francis Bacon who wrote all of the spectacular secular writings we still cherish today and maybe was the secret Project Manager for the King James translation team. I know how far fetched it sounds but it is interesting. Some have tried to tie in the writing styles of the KJV and the play writer. Shakespeare the man was reported to be barely able to sign his name, never taught his daughters to read and despite all of the seeming success of his plays did not own any books at the time of his death. I would think his fans would have given him some books even though they were super valuable back then and he would have al least given them to his illiterate children to sell for an inheritance. The legend goes on to say that whoever this Project Manager of the Biblical translation team was, he threw in a little extra gematria into the writings and also some Rosicrucian symbolism. Thanks.
I’ve heard that the KJV uses a lot of archaic language, even relative to its time. Why was there a lot of archaic language if no one really used it in daily conversation?
To anyone who thinks that the KJV fosters a single understanding of "God's Word," I'd submit that there are as many understandings of these words as there are readers of them. Dan has mentioned at least once that before the actual WRITING of the gospel accounts that made it into the canon, oral presentations of Jesus' life were viewed as more authoritative than any written version. This points to an understanding of the value of one form of communication over another, an understanding that we no longer have to the same extent two thousand years later. The cultural context - of the original manuscripts, and of subsequent translations - can make a huge difference in what the original speakers and writers were trying to convey.
This assumes that the goal of using the text is to arrive as closely as possible at the author's intent. I'm not convinced that this was ever their use case.
Thank you. I asked a similar question in the comments recently and lo, here the answer be. Now I wonder how many rules Bankcroft had for dating his teenaged daughter. More than 10? Less? / **ducks** // 😊
When I was a teen, I went to KVJ "Bible church" and was told how thoroughly and accurate a translation the KVJ was. All done by a committee of learned Christian leaders commissioned by a Christian King, for only the best and noble reasons. Now, Dan is telling the King told the committee to just copy this other bible as much as possible, because he liked it's politics better that another more popular bible at time. So then, I go to Wikipedia to research this "Bishop's bible" and how it came to be, and find out it is pretty much a strewn together collection of individually translated books by church leaders. It is such a hodgepodge of a work, that the words that are translated as God and Lord in the Old Testament are different, for different books, because of who the translator was.
I can see a lot of KJV haters here but hear me out 😅: I personally recommend it to people because of the massive shadow it casts on western literary canon. You cannot deny its influence that has seeped into the entertainment we consume; from books (obviously) to comics to film/TV and even video games. Ask any nonbeliever about the Bible and I’m sure they’ll quote something in archaic English. Yes, you have the LEB and NSRV that are objectively better when it comes to modern translations, but I’d argue one reading the KJV will ascertain more knowledge by way of learning new (albeit archaic) English words. It’s kinda part of the fun… But I understand sometimes people just want a translation they can easily understand 👍
I get what you're saying. But I'd point out that you're making an argument for its literary merits rather than for its theological merits or its historical merits as relate to the period of the text's original authorship. Frankly, it's hard to love as a work of literature and it's really only ever going to hold appeal for a small few in that literary context. Like, personally, I tend to think of KJV as clownish. Like, literally unserious and full of pretense. It feels like reading a parody and that's because, intentionally or not, it kinda is. Or maybe naive is a better way to put it. Like a child clomping around in an adult's clothes. The humor arrives in part because of some sense of sincerity.
@@rainbowkrampus of course, being a lover of literature that was my focus. I understand the cultural lens that the KJV has and know that it is often not 1-1 with the original text (they had no idea what a re’em was or the concept of Lil or Lilith). Like I said before, the LEB and NSRV fulfill those roles better. However, I’d argue that the KJV’s significance is more so how it has influenced the English language and western culture.
One point in favor of the “archaic” English is that it had separate versions of the Second Person personal pronoun for number (singular _vs._ plural) and mode (nominative [subject of a sentence] _vs._ objective): • “Thou” - nominative singular • “Thee” - objective singular • “Ye” - nominative plural • “You” - objective plural “Modern” English force-fits the word “you,” originally intended to be _just_ for objective plural, into _all_ of those roles, and it can lead to confusion. Even less-educated people realized that this was a mistake and came up with substitutes in various dialects, such as the Southern “y’all” (contraction of “you all”) or “all y’all,” or the Brooklyn “you’se,” “you’ses,” or “you’se guys.” In the Bible, it can confuse even the requirements of salvation itself. Remember what Jesus told Nicodemus when he asked Him what he needed to do to be saved? Modern translations render that as, “Truly I tell *you, you* must be born again.” _Who_ must be born again? Jesus was speaking _to_ Nicodemus, so was it _just_ Nicodemus who had to be born again, or does _everyone_ need to be born again? It’s ambiguous because of “you” being made to wear multiple hats in modern English. The KJV and other classic “archaic” English translations say something like, “Verily I say unto *thee* [objective singular - He’s saying this *to* _just_ Nicodemus], *ye* [nominative _plural!_ He’s saying this _about_ *everyone!]* must be born again.” That’s absolutely unambiguous: being born again is a requirement for _everyone_ who wants salvation, not just Nicodemus. (A Southern English Bible might render it, “I’m tellin’ you the truth: _all_ y’all need to be born again.”)
Dan, can you comment on or make a video covering your thoughts on if it is coincidental or purposeful that these 66 books of the Bible seemingly illustrate many patterns, numerical, and symbolic continuity across them even though it would seem they have all just been pieced together over thousands of years by many different authors? I heard you once touch on this tangentially by commenting on how or why people read into the scriptures. So if you do comment, it will be a more precise clarification on if you feel its a nifty coincidence or a conspiracy of many people over thousands of years to write things that would later contain these mysteries.
There is no doubt that all early Christian translations of the Tanakh changed certain words to make it comport with (for instance, the infancy narrative of Mt) the core NT message which is incompatible with the Tanakh. The translators definitely played around (corrupted) curtain words which (as a consequence) changed the original context. Even you (Dan) cannot argue with that.
James is a Hellenized, Latinized, Gallicized, Anglicized transliteration of the more straightforward Jacob. It's been "James" since the first English translation.
@@doublelxp Why wasn't James also used for "Jacob" within the Old Testament? Many translations, including the Vulgate, were based more on the Greek Septuagint, weren't they?
I feel like French society still have some requirement for gay wedding, of at least one being of some nihilism phylosophy, even if one stays with some christian culture. So i am unable to create à group of friends to book à suite for the Cruise 😭
No, King James did not change the Bible. He commissioned a new translation of the Bible in 1604, but the original manuscripts and teachings remained the same. The Bible has been translated into many different languages throughout history, but the message and teachings of God have remained consistent.
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is a beloved and iconic translation, but did King James himself change the Bible? Let's dive into the history and Scripture to find out. Firstly, it's essential to understand that King James I of England, who commissioned the translation, was not a biblical scholar or translator. He was a monarch who wanted to create a unified English translation of the Bible to replace the various existing versions, which were causing controversy and division among his subjects. The actual translation work was carried out by a group of about 50 scholars, known as the Translators of the King James Version, who were tasked with creating a new translation from the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. These scholars were experts in their fields and worked diligently to produce an accurate and faithful translation. Now, did King James or the translators intentionally change the Bible? The answer is no. Their goal was to provide an accurate and readable translation, not to alter the original text. In fact, the translators were instructed to follow the original languages and previous translations, such as the Tyndale Bible and the Bishops' Bible, to ensure consistency and accuracy. The KJV's preface, "The Translators to the Reader," states, "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, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavour, that our mark" (emphasis added). Scripturally, we can look to passages like Psalm 119:160, which says, "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (ESV). This verse emphasizes the importance of preserving the truth and integrity of God's Word. Additionally, Proverbs 30:5-6 warns against adding to or subtracting from God's Word: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar" (ESV). Finally, Revelation 22:18-19 cautions against tampering with the Bible: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book" (ESV). In conclusion, King James and the translators of the KJV did not intentionally change the Bible. Their goal was to provide an accurate and faithful translation, which has become a beloved and enduring part of Christian heritage.
The warning in Revelation 22 is specifically about Revelation and not the Bible as a whole. Indeed there are several books of the Bible thought to be written after Revelation.
@@skypangolin8576 such as? I assume this must include a claim that those books are pseudepigraphic, like Hebrews or Peter's epistles not being from Paul and Peter?
@@Noneya5555 I understand your hesitation, but as followers of Christ, it is our duty to seek the truth and understand His teachings. In John 14:6, Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This means that the ultimate truth can only be found through a relationship with Jesus. As for unbiased scholars, we must remember that even they are fallible and can be influenced by personal beliefs. It is important to seek guidance from the Holy Spirit and study the Bible for ourselves to truly understand God's word.
@@skypangolin8576 I can provide you with three Bible commentaries from scholars that discuss the warning in Revelation 22. The first is from the Expositor's Bible Commentary by G. K. Beale, which states, "The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is a warning against tampering with the book of Revelation specifically, but it also serves as a general warning against adding or subtracting from any part of Scripture." The second is from the New International Commentary on the New Testament by Robert H. Mounce, which says, "The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is a solemn admonition against tampering with the words of the prophecy of this book, but it also serves as a warning against tampering with the words of any part of Scripture." The third is from the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries by Leon Morris, which states, "The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is a warning against tampering with the words of this prophecy, but it also serves as a general warning against tampering with the words of any part of Scripture." These commentaries all agree that the warning in Revelation 22 applies to the entire Bible, not just the book of Revelation.
Dan, I’m a Christian of 21 years…I’m 61, now…and I’ll have you know that I love you work. Don’t change a thing, brother!
Mike
"It was good enough for Jesus, so it's good enough for us!"
I wish I only heard that...less than 20 times. Alas, alack, another wish ungranted.
That line is most likely used out of ignorance. People in congregations probably wouldn’t question their pastor.
WWJD? Well, he tells you, go read Luke 2 ...
I used to think the KJV was personally translated by King James. In his spare time I guess.
I think that’s what a lot of lay people believe.
Inbetween writing books about daemon and witch hunting, of course :P
I had a..."conversation" about a year ago with a Southern Baptist who was convinced that his (Southern Baptist) form of Protestantism was founded by John the Baptist himself, who used the King James Bible in English.
And I'm sure he's not alone in this belief.
@@christasimon9716 I call that "American Jesus". I both respect it and find it to be absurd beyond belief.
If I hadn't witnessed it myself I would be forced to assume anyone describing it was exaggerating.
"In his spare time I guess."
On weekends when he wasn't being king. It was either translating the Bible or playing golf.
And as we know, making the Bible translation less anti-monarchical absolutely worked on the Puritans. (Right up until they violently overthrew James' son a few decades later and installed England's only short-lived republic.)
Loving the Bluey T!
Thank you.
Hello Dan, I seem to be related to John Harmar one of the members of the second Oxford company, can you recommend any books or information about what he and his compatriots did and the resources they used? Were there any disputes between the various members of company and how were they resolved? All the best Roger Harmar.
The KJV 🤦🏻♂️ I don't understand why people are obsessed with it at all.
Maybe Southern Baptists like the idea of worshiping a monarchy? 1:18
@@christasimon9716 maybe 🤷🏻♂
It's popular and in the public domain. There are better modern versions, but they require licensing. There are undoubtedly other unlicensed versions, but no one has ever heard of them. Lastly, it's old, so it doesn't have any revisions or versions so there's no errata list.
@@icollectstories5702 maybe 🤷🏻♂
@@icollectstories5702I mean, there are other versions out there in the public domain, as far as I’m aware. I know the CPDV is.
Fantastic
No. God promised His Word would always remain. Can’t argue with that.
1 John 5:7-8,John 7:53, John 8:12, Mark 16:9-20, Mathew 17:21, Easter are all additions made to christian bibles not in original koine Greek new testament.
Isaiah 7:14 changed to " Virgin in future tense " . Just one of dozen of modifications made by Church fathers.
All English words are additions made to the biblical text. And, we don’t have the “original” Greek text of the New Testament.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jythe Koine Greek papyrus p75 and other parts of the earliest original koine Greek new testament are online to review.
Significant changes made to original koine Greek some are admitted insertions like 1John 5:7-8 trinity.
Also significant changes made to original Hebrew scripture such as Isaiah 7:15 Virgin in future tense modification .
@@MitzvosGolem1 p75 is not the earliest manuscript, and, the earliest mss we do have are not the original text. Yes, the multiple endings of Mark, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7-8 etc. are not in the earliest mss. And rendering the text of Isaiah as a future is something I have no knowledge of as lxx texts are far from uniform so it might be that it was altered intentionally or they had a text that had it rendered in the future. Hebrew future tense is translated based on context as there was no future verb form/tense in Biblical/Ancient Hebrew. So it isn’t as if there a straight line from Hebrew perfect/imperfect tense in the patristic period.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy One of the earliest.
All papyrus is online to view.
Also there is present tense past tense in Hebrew.
תודה רבה שלום
@@MitzvosGolem1 sort of, Biblical Hebrew has perfect and imperfect verb tenses (completed and incomplete past action) with participles serving as a sort of present tense in some cases.
"Daily bread" is my favorite pseudo-translation.
I want to know about how the concept of, “original sin,” evolved from the creation story into Paul’s interpretation of what that means.
The concept of original sin wasn't fully articulated until the 3-400s in the works of St Augustine (which is why the Eastern Orthodox Church doesn't recognize original sin).
@@MM-jf1me doesn’t paul say that you’re sinful from the moment your parents conceived you somewhere?
Since British monarchs outrank God (Henry VIII and Victoria both demonstrated that), James was perfectly entitled to change it if he wanted to.
Would you mind commenting on the Legends and/ or (conspiracy theory's?) that Shakespeare was Francis Bacon who wrote all of the spectacular secular writings we still cherish today and maybe was the secret Project Manager for the King James translation team. I know how far fetched it sounds but it is interesting. Some have tried to tie in the writing styles of the KJV and the play writer. Shakespeare the man was reported to be barely able to sign his name, never taught his daughters to read and despite all of the seeming success of his plays did not own any books at the time of his death. I would think his fans would have given him some books even though they were super valuable back then and he would have al least given them to his illiterate children to sell for an inheritance. The legend goes on to say that whoever this Project Manager of the Biblical translation team was, he threw in a little extra gematria into the writings and also some Rosicrucian symbolism. Thanks.
so how come hell only appears in the King James version? I mean the word itself, not mentions of the afterlife
But did Shakespeare help right it?
I like the theory or rather legend. I know most of Gia is bats^&t crazy but there is a great series on there about that.
I’ve heard that the KJV uses a lot of archaic language, even relative to its time. Why was there a lot of archaic language if no one really used it in daily conversation?
Because it ws actually a conservative revision of an older translation which was also based on an even older one.
They retained the archaic elements for the same reason we still use it now, it feels dignified and beautiful.
To anyone who thinks that the KJV fosters a single understanding of "God's Word," I'd submit that there are as many understandings of these words as there are readers of them. Dan has mentioned at least once that before the actual WRITING of the gospel accounts that made it into the canon, oral presentations of Jesus' life were viewed as more authoritative than any written version. This points to an understanding of the value of one form of communication over another, an understanding that we no longer have to the same extent two thousand years later. The cultural context - of the original manuscripts, and of subsequent translations - can make a huge difference in what the original speakers and writers were trying to convey.
The KJV is super outdated. We have better Bibles nowadays.
The language was already archaic _at the time_ !
God’s word is never outdated, but it has been corrupted by newer versions of the Bible.
This assumes that the goal of using the text is to arrive as closely as possible at the author's intent.
I'm not convinced that this was ever their use case.
@@treystevenson9872Why are you here?
@@treystevenson9872I agree. What Zeus said still goes.
Thank you. I asked a similar question in the comments recently and lo, here the answer be.
Now I wonder how many rules Bankcroft had for dating his teenaged daughter.
More than 10? Less?
/ **ducks**
// 😊
For all you Christian out there, what was the book KJ wrote before the bible?hahahahaha research it.
When I was a teen, I went to KVJ "Bible church" and was told how thoroughly and accurate a translation the KVJ was. All done by a committee of learned Christian leaders commissioned by a Christian King, for only the best and noble reasons. Now, Dan is telling the King told the committee to just copy this other bible as much as possible, because he liked it's politics better that another more popular bible at time. So then, I go to Wikipedia to research this "Bishop's bible" and how it came to be, and find out it is pretty much a strewn together collection of individually translated books by church leaders. It is such a hodgepodge of a work, that the words that are translated as God and Lord in the Old Testament are different, for different books, because of who the translator was.
I can see a lot of KJV haters here but hear me out 😅: I personally recommend it to people because of the massive shadow it casts on western literary canon. You cannot deny its influence that has seeped into the entertainment we consume; from books (obviously) to comics to film/TV and even video games. Ask any nonbeliever about the Bible and I’m sure they’ll quote something in archaic English. Yes, you have the LEB and NSRV that are objectively better when it comes to modern translations, but I’d argue one reading the KJV will ascertain more knowledge by way of learning new (albeit archaic) English words. It’s kinda part of the fun… But I understand sometimes people just want a translation they can easily understand 👍
If "archaic" or new English words are the goal, go read Shakespeare. Better insults, too.
I get what you're saying. But I'd point out that you're making an argument for its literary merits rather than for its theological merits or its historical merits as relate to the period of the text's original authorship.
Frankly, it's hard to love as a work of literature and it's really only ever going to hold appeal for a small few in that literary context. Like, personally, I tend to think of KJV as clownish. Like, literally unserious and full of pretense. It feels like reading a parody and that's because, intentionally or not, it kinda is.
Or maybe naive is a better way to put it. Like a child clomping around in an adult's clothes. The humor arrives in part because of some sense of sincerity.
@@christasimon9716 Absolutely. Shakespeare’s work is undoubtedly influential and relevant since he gave us many words we use today.
@@rainbowkrampus of course, being a lover of literature that was my focus. I understand the cultural lens that the KJV has and know that it is often not 1-1 with the original text (they had no idea what a re’em was or the concept of Lil or Lilith). Like I said before, the LEB and NSRV fulfill those roles better. However, I’d argue that the KJV’s significance is more so how it has influenced the English language and western culture.
One point in favor of the “archaic” English is that it had separate versions of the Second Person personal pronoun for number (singular _vs._ plural) and mode (nominative [subject of a sentence] _vs._ objective):
• “Thou” - nominative singular
• “Thee” - objective singular
• “Ye” - nominative plural
• “You” - objective plural
“Modern” English force-fits the word “you,” originally intended to be _just_ for objective plural, into _all_ of those roles, and it can lead to confusion. Even less-educated people realized that this was a mistake and came up with substitutes in various dialects, such as the Southern “y’all” (contraction of “you all”) or “all y’all,” or the Brooklyn “you’se,” “you’ses,” or “you’se guys.”
In the Bible, it can confuse even the requirements of salvation itself. Remember what Jesus told Nicodemus when he asked Him what he needed to do to be saved? Modern translations render that as, “Truly I tell *you, you* must be born again.” _Who_ must be born again? Jesus was speaking _to_ Nicodemus, so was it _just_ Nicodemus who had to be born again, or does _everyone_ need to be born again? It’s ambiguous because of “you” being made to wear multiple hats in modern English.
The KJV and other classic “archaic” English translations say something like, “Verily I say unto *thee* [objective singular - He’s saying this *to* _just_ Nicodemus], *ye* [nominative _plural!_ He’s saying this _about_ *everyone!]* must be born again.” That’s absolutely unambiguous: being born again is a requirement for _everyone_ who wants salvation, not just Nicodemus.
(A Southern English Bible might render it, “I’m tellin’ you the truth: _all_ y’all need to be born again.”)
Dan, can you comment on or make a video covering your thoughts on if it is coincidental or purposeful that these 66 books of the Bible seemingly illustrate many patterns, numerical, and symbolic continuity across them even though it would seem they have all just been pieced together over thousands of years by many different authors? I heard you once touch on this tangentially by commenting on how or why people read into the scriptures. So if you do comment, it will be a more precise clarification on if you feel its a nifty coincidence or a conspiracy of many people over thousands of years to write things that would later contain these mysteries.
" Anti-Monarchical " ?
YEA Puritans !
YEA Pilgrims !
YEA Mayflower Compact !
There is no doubt that all early Christian translations of the Tanakh changed certain words to make it comport with (for instance, the infancy narrative of Mt) the core NT message which is incompatible with the Tanakh. The translators definitely played around (corrupted) curtain words which (as a consequence) changed the original context. Even you (Dan) cannot argue with that.
I heard that James in the bible was actually Jacob and was changed to make the king happy.
This wasn't a KJV change. It was already James in English translations of the time such as the Geneva Bible or Tyndale Bible.
@@skypangolin8576 Interesting.
James is a Hellenized, Latinized, Gallicized, Anglicized transliteration of the more straightforward Jacob. It's been "James" since the first English translation.
@@doublelxp
Why wasn't James also used for "Jacob" within the Old Testament? Many translations, including the Vulgate, were based more on the Greek Septuagint, weren't they?
I feel like French society still have some requirement for gay wedding, of at least one being of some nihilism phylosophy, even if one stays with some christian culture. So i am unable to create à group of friends to book à suite for the Cruise 😭
Perhaps you're interested in The Think Institute, who just asserted that Zeus is Satan, referring to the Bible. Warning: the guy doesn't think much.
No, King James did not change the Bible. He commissioned a new translation of the Bible in 1604, but the original manuscripts and teachings remained the same. The Bible has been translated into many different languages throughout history, but the message and teachings of God have remained consistent.
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is a beloved and iconic translation, but did King James himself change the Bible? Let's dive into the history and Scripture to find out.
Firstly, it's essential to understand that King James I of England, who commissioned the translation, was not a biblical scholar or translator. He was a monarch who wanted to create a unified English translation of the Bible to replace the various existing versions, which were causing controversy and division among his subjects.
The actual translation work was carried out by a group of about 50 scholars, known as the Translators of the King James Version, who were tasked with creating a new translation from the original languages of Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. These scholars were experts in their fields and worked diligently to produce an accurate and faithful translation.
Now, did King James or the translators intentionally change the Bible? The answer is no. Their goal was to provide an accurate and readable translation, not to alter the original text. In fact, the translators were instructed to follow the original languages and previous translations, such as the Tyndale Bible and the Bishops' Bible, to ensure consistency and accuracy.
The KJV's preface, "The Translators to the Reader," states, "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, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavour, that our mark" (emphasis added).
Scripturally, we can look to passages like Psalm 119:160, which says, "The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever" (ESV). This verse emphasizes the importance of preserving the truth and integrity of God's Word.
Additionally, Proverbs 30:5-6 warns against adding to or subtracting from God's Word: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar" (ESV).
Finally, Revelation 22:18-19 cautions against tampering with the Bible: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book" (ESV).
In conclusion, King James and the translators of the KJV did not intentionally change the Bible. Their goal was to provide an accurate and faithful translation, which has become a beloved and enduring part of Christian heritage.
The warning in Revelation 22 is specifically about Revelation and not the Bible as a whole. Indeed there are several books of the Bible thought to be written after Revelation.
@@skypangolin8576 such as? I assume this must include a claim that those books are pseudepigraphic, like Hebrews or Peter's epistles not being from Paul and Peter?
Nah, I'm good. At least until an unbiased biblical scholar - and not a religious apologist such as yourself - explains it.
@@Noneya5555 I understand your hesitation, but as followers of Christ, it is our duty to seek the truth and understand His teachings. In John 14:6, Jesus says, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." This means that the ultimate truth can only be found through a relationship with Jesus. As for unbiased scholars, we must remember that even they are fallible and can be influenced by personal beliefs. It is important to seek guidance from the Holy Spirit and study the Bible for ourselves to truly understand God's word.
@@skypangolin8576 I can provide you with three Bible commentaries from scholars that discuss the warning in Revelation 22.
The first is from the Expositor's Bible Commentary by G. K. Beale, which states, "The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is a warning against tampering with the book of Revelation specifically, but it also serves as a general warning against adding or subtracting from any part of Scripture."
The second is from the New International Commentary on the New Testament by Robert H. Mounce, which says, "The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is a solemn admonition against tampering with the words of the prophecy of this book, but it also serves as a warning against tampering with the words of any part of Scripture."
The third is from the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries by Leon Morris, which states, "The warning in Revelation 22:18-19 is a warning against tampering with the words of this prophecy, but it also serves as a general warning against tampering with the words of any part of Scripture." These commentaries all agree that the warning in Revelation 22 applies to the entire Bible, not just the book of Revelation.