Which is the right bible?

Since there is little hope of knowing the original writings of the apostles, to find the best translation, is virtually impossible while the Roman Catholic Church continues to keep hidden original texts. This does not mean to go out and buy any old bible you feel like as there are poor translations about, but rather research their origins and history, that may give insight to authenticity of each book. Many are traditionally following a bible that may be misleading, so it may turn out to be a salvation issue if you have the wrong one. Personally I follow the promise of Jesus that His law will be put on the hearts of TRUE believers, so I merely use the bible as a guide to God's teaching. Heb 8:10 For this is the agreement which I will make with the people of Israel after those days: I will put my laws into their minds, writing them in their hearts: and I will be their God, and they will be my people: And even more important is the reason for this law on our hearts Ro 3:15 Because the work of the law is seen in their hearts, their sense of right and wrong giving witness to it, while their minds are at one time judging them and at another giving them approval; The letter can kill, but the Spirit gives life. 2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

The most common bibles used today in the western world would have to be the KJV, NIV, and NASB, and to a slightly lessor degree the BBE and the GNB. It is terrifying to me that the most corrupted bibles are the most commonly used, and that is the King James and the New International Version. Now before you get off your bike, please at least take the time to read some of the following, and THEN, if you find me to be in error, email me and I will stand corrected. Finding out the truth about the King James bible is like getting news that a dear friend has died, I know, as I was once in that position of swearing by the KJV.

Lets start with the:

Beloved holy King James Bible.

Bible differences Who was King James? Brief history of King James Mistakes in the KJV bible More on Easter

The fact that
It is well known historically that King James was not a good man. His mother Queen Mary of Scotland was a floozy who loved men. He was a lover of men also. and I don't mean the way Jesus said to love. King James who was king of Scotland became the next of kin to Queen Elizabeth1 as she had no children to take the throne. This allowed James to take the throne. James wanted to suck up to the English because he was not popular with the common people, and knowing full well at that time that England was predominantly Protestant, did all in his power to cut links with the over bearing Roman Catholic church. This he did by promoting the protestant church and commissioning to have the KJV bible translated. James was not really a believer in God, but did these things to win favour of the people as he was on shaky ground with them to begin with as the English were not lovers of the Scots. If anyone wants to be serious about the KJV bible, first they should research him.
Now, put yourself in God's Holy Will for a moment. Would God want to preserve His words in a book named after a homosexual king who did not really believe in Him? James ulterior motive was to make a new bible that would do away with the side notes that the currant translation of the Geneva bible had in it. These side notes were there to explain the translations to the common people, but also was against King James belief in the succession of kings. By doing away with the side notes of the Geneva gave him more solid ground as king of England.
The fact that the KJV bible has the word "Easter" in it should be a warning to all that God's word has been tampered with. To associate a pagan worship time with God's time is an abomination to Him. As it happened, the pagan festival of Eastre occurred at the same time of year as the Christian observance of the Resurrection of Christ. It made sense, therefore, to alter the festival itself, to make it a Christian celebration as converts were slowly won over. The early name, Eastre, was eventually changed to its modern spelling, Easter.
King James1 was a mason and homosexual and portrayed Jesus as a homosexual also. Click here http://www.truth777.netfirms.com/Christianity/Bible/Mr%20KJV.htm for full story.
Two of the translators where Satanists. <<<< insert link here >>>>
The KJV translation has many mistakes, and some crucial to salvation.

Bible differences Who was King James? Brief history of King James Mistakes in the KJV bible More on Easter

Difference in Bible Translations top

Rev 22:16

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. ( KJV)

"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." ( NIV)

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. ( Peshitta)

Notice here that in all versions Jesus Christ says that he is the Bright and Morning Star.

Now check this out...

Isa. 14:12

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (KJV)

How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! (NIV)

How are you fallen from heaven! howl in the morning! for you have fallen down to the ground, O reveller of the nations (Peshitta)
Lucifer is mentioned in the KJV bible only once, he is not found in the NIV at all. Instead the NIV has replaced Lucifer with the "morning star", which according to the previous scripture is the Lord Jesus Christ. !? Confused. The Mormons use this verse to prove that the Lord Jesus and Lucifer are the same person. The KJV contains the name 'Lucifer', which is a LATIN name, meaning light-bearer! We see here the Roman Catholic influence in a Bible that is supposedly translated from the Greek. Both the KJV and NIV equates Satan with the morning, which Revelations equates with Jesus. The PESHITTA does not do this. Instead, the Peshitta calls Satan only the reviler of the nations. This fits with the Semitic meaning of 'Satan', which is 'slanderer'.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (KJV)

"For there are three that testify:" (NIV)

And there are three to bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one. (Peshitta)

We see here that the non-Peshitta versions have been tampered with, as this verse is in the Peshitta
1 John 5:8 as 1John 5:7, And the Spirit testifies that that very Spirit is the truth, is left out in both KJV and NIV

top

Who Was King James? top

Some more info on King James from another source
For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today, Protestants labouring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the new Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups, until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland. William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.
Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quoted the Geneva Bible in his own writings. As a Professor Eadie reported it:

"...his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and
version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself
and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favour with his English
churchmen."

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people: his sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common
people.
The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication. First, King James I of England was a devout believer in the "divine right of kings," a philosophy
ingrained in him by his mother, Mary Stuart. Mary Stuart may have been having an affair with her Italian secretary, David Rizzio, at the time she conceived James. There is a better than even
chance that James was the product of adultery. Apparently, enough evidence of such conduct on
the part of Mary Stuart and David Rizzio existed to cause various Scot nobles, including Mary's own husband, King Henry, to drag David Rizzio from Mary's supper table and execute him. The Scot nobles hacked and slashed at the screaming Rizzio with knives and swords, and then threw him off a balcony to the courtyard below where he landed with a sickening smack. In the phrase of that day, he had been scotched.
Mary did have affairs with other men, such as the Earl of Bothwell. She later tried to execute her husband in a gunpowder explosion that shook all of Edinburgh. King Henry survived the explosion only to be suffocated later that same night. The murderers were never discovered. Mary was eventually beheaded at the order of her cousin, Elizabeth I of England.
To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.
This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere ditherings of dissidents.
First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James.
Second, religion in James' time was not what it is today. In that era religion was controlled by the government. If someone lived in Spain at the time, he had three religious "choices:"

1.Roman Catholicism
2.Silence
3.The Inquisition

The third "option" was reserved for "heretics," or people who didn't think the way the government wanted them to. To governments of that era heresy and treason were synonymous.
England wasn't much different. From the time of Henry VIII on, an Englishman had three choices:

1.The Anglican Church
2.Silence
3.The rack, burning at the stake, being drawn and quartered, or some other form of
persuasion.

The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim.
Henry VIII, once he had appointed himself head of all the English churches, kept the Roman Catholic system of bishops, deacons and the like for a very good reason. That system allowed him a "chain of command" necessary for any bureaucracy to function. This system passed intact to his heirs.
This system became a little confusing for English citizens when Bloody Mary ascended to the throne. Mary wanted everyone to switch back to Roman Catholicism. Those who proved intransigent and wanted to remain Protestant she burned at the stake — about 300 people in all. She intended to burn a lot more, but the rest of her intended victims escaped by leaving the country. A tremendous number of those intended victims settled in Geneva. Religious refugees from other countries in Western Europe, including the French theologian Jean Chauvin, better known as John Calvin, also settled there.
Mary died and was succeeded in the throne by her Protestant cousin, Elizabeth. The Anglican bureaucracy returned, less a few notables such as Archbishop Cranmer and Hugh Latimer (both having been burned at the stake by Bloody Mary). In Scotland, John Knox led the Reformation. The Reformation prospered in Geneva. Many of those who had fled Bloody Mary started a congregation there. Their greatest effort and contribution to the Reformation was the first Geneva Bible.
More marginal notes were added to later editions. By the end of the 16th century, the Geneva Bible had about all the marginal notes there was space available to put them in.
Geneva was an anomaly in 16th century Europe. In the days of absolute despotism and constant warfare, Geneva achieved her independence primarily by constant negotiation, playing off one stronger power against another. While other governments allowed lawyers to drag out cases and took months and years to get rid of corrupt officials, the City of Geneva dispatched most civil and criminal cases within a month and threw corrupt officials into jail the day after they were found out. The academy that John Calvin founded there in 1559 later became the University of Geneva. Religious wars wracked Europe. The Spanish fought to restore Roman Catholicism to Western Europe. The Dutch fought for the Reformation and religious freedom. England, a small country with only 4-1/2 million people, managed to stay aloof because of the natural advantage of the English Channel.
The Dutch declared religious freedom for everybody. Amsterdam became an open city. English Puritans arrived by the boatload. The 1599 Edition of the Geneva Bible was printed in Amsterdam and London in large quantities until well into the 17th century.
King James, before he became James I of England, made it plain that he had no use for the "Dutch rebels" who had rebelled against their Spanish King. Another irony left to us from the 16th century is that the freedom of religion and freedom of the press did not originate in England, as many people commonly assume today. Those freedoms were first given to Protestants by the Dutch, as the records of that era plainly show. England today does not have freedom of the press the way we understand it. (There are things in England such as the Official Secrets Act that often land journalists in jail.)
England was relatively peaceful in the time of Elizabeth I. There was the problem of the Spanish Armada, but that was brief. Elizabeth later became known as "Good Queen Bess," not because she was so good, but because her successor was so bad. Elizabeth died in 1603 and her cousin, James Stuart, son of Mary Stuart, who up until that time had been King James VI of Scotland ascended the throne and became known as King James I of England. James ascended the throne of England with the "divine right of kings" firmly embedded in his mind. Unfortunately, that wasn't his only mental problem.
King James I, among his many other faults, preferred young boys to adult women. He was a flaming homosexual. His activities in that regard have been recorded in numerous books and public records; so much so, that there is no room for debate on the subject. The King was queer.
The very people who use the King James Bible today would be the first ones to throw such a deviant out of the congregations.
The depravity of King James I didn't end with sodomy. James enjoyed killing animals. He called it "hunting." Once he killed an animal, he would literally roll about in its blood. Some believe that he practiced bestiality while the animal lay dying.
James was a sadist as well as a sodomite: he enjoyed torturing people. While King of Scotland in 1591, he personally supervised the torture of poor wretches caught up in the witchcraft trials of Scotland. James would even suggest new tortures to the examiners. One "witch," Barbara Napier, was acquitted. That event so angered James that he wrote personally to the court on May 10, 1551, ordering a sentence of death, and had the jury called into custody. To make sure they understood their particular offence, the King himself presided at a new hearing — and was gracious enough to release them without punishment when they reversed their verdict.
History has it that James was also a great coward. On January 7, 1591, the king was in Edinburgh and emerged from the toll booth. A retinue followed that included the Duke of Lennox and Lord Hume. They fell into an argument with the laird of Logie and pulled their swords. James looked behind, saw the steel flashing, and fled into the nearest refuge which turned out to be a skinner's booth. There to his shame, he "fouled his breeches in fear."
In short, King James I was the kind of despicable creature honourable men loathed, Christians would not associate with, and the Bible itself orders to be put to death (Leviticus 20:13). Knowing what King James was we can easily discern his motives.
James ascended the English throne in 1603. He wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible. That James I wasn't going to have any marginal notes to annoy him and lead English citizens away from what he wanted them to think is a matter of public record. In an account corrected with his own hand dated February 10, 1604, he ordained:
That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek, and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service. James then set up rules that made it impossible for anyone involved in the project to make an honest translation, some of which follow:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishop's Bible to be followed and as
little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

Or, since the common people preferred the Geneva Bible to the existing government publication,
let's see if we can slip a superseding government publication onto their bookshelves, altered as
little as possible.

3. The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word "church" not to be translated
"congregation," etc.

That is, if a word should be translated a certain way, let's deliberately mistranslate it to make the
people think God still belongs to the Anglican Church — exclusively.

6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words,
which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
All excerpts from Global Insights.

***For verification of King James homosexuality, I got my info from Global Insights. You can also find more info at Otto Scott's "James I: The Fool As King" (Ross House: 1976), pp. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382; King James-VI of Scotland/I of England by Antonia Fraser (Alfred A. Knopf, New York 1975)pp. 36, 37, 38; King James VI and I by David Harris Wilson, pp.36, 99; James I by his Contemporaries by Robert Ashton, p114; and A History of England by Samuel Rawson Gardiner, Vol. 4, p.112. Check also A LITERARY HISTORY OF THE BIBLE by Geddes Macgregor who has devoted a whole chapter entitled "QUEEN" JAMES.
In the Beginning, by Alistair McGrath, pp. 170-71
The Mammoth Book of Private Lives by Jon E. Lewis, pp. 62,65,66
James White also makes mention of it in his book, THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY.
See also King James and the History of Homosexuality by Michael B. Young
and King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire by David Moore Bergeron, both available on amazon.com
For those people who feel that the above is a result of the attack on King James by the 17th century tobacco industry are ignorant of the fact that his behaviour and personal life were quite well known to his contemporaries. " He disdained women and fawned unconscionably on his favourite men." ENCYCLOPAEDIA AMERICANA-pp. 674,675

"And shall I then like bird or beast forget
For any storms that threatening heaven can send
The object sweet, where on my heart is set
Whom for to serve my senses all I bend?..."
A poem written by King James to his homosexual love interest (pictured above, Esme Stuart). King James-VI of Scotland/I of England, by Antonia Fraser, New York 1975

top

A Brief History of the King James Bible top

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft for

an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible: "An act for the reducing of

diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar

translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have

eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivalled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever

became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was

succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James

was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He

was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court

Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things

pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen,

and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the

Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of

Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a

new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of

Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the

truth of the Original."

The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that

of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform

translation, which should be done by he best learned men in both Universities,

then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by

the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."

Accordingly, a resolution came forth:

"That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the

original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any

marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine

service."

The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work.

In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain

learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible."

These men were the best biblical scholars and linguists of their day. In the preface

to their completed work it is further stated that "there were many chosen, that

were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather

than their own praise. Again, they came or were thought to come to the work,

learned, not to learn." Other men were sought out, according to James, "so that

our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our

principal learned men within this our kingdom."

Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have

taken part in the work of translation. The translators were organized into six

groups, and met respectively at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Ten at

Westminster were assigned Genesis through 2 Kings; seven had Romans through

Jude. At Cambridge, eight worked on 1 Chronicles through Ecclesiastes, while

seven others handled the Apocrypha. Oxford employed seven to translate Isaiah

through Malachi; eight occupied themselves with the Gospels, Acts, and

Revelation.

Fifteen general rules were advanced for the guidance of the translators:

1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to

be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the

Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be

translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most

commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the

Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may

be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the

Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly

and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit

Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters,

and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh

good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts

what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall

send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is

very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon

any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the

Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the

general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end

of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by

Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a

Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing

them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the

Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations

to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster, and Chester

for that Place; and the King's Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either

University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the

Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient

and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to

be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads,

to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better

observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

The work began to take shape in 1604 and progressed steadily. The translators

expressed their early thoughts in their preface as:

"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, or out of many good ones, one principal

good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavour."

They had at their disposal all the previous English translations to which they did

not disdain:

"We are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travailed before us in

this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King

Edward's...or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge

them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church,

and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting

remembrance."

And, as the translators themselves also acknowledged, they had a multitude of

sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the

Translators or Commentators, CHaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor

the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus,

Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the COmplutensian and

Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Termellius, and Beza.

Four years were spent on the preliminary translation by the six groups. The

translators were exacting and particular in their work, as related in their preface:

Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the

anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were

needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition,

we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the

work to that pass that you see.

The conferences of each of the six being ended, nine months were spent at

Stationers' Hall in London for review and revision of the work by two men each

from the Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford companies. The final revision was

then completed by Myles Smith and Thomas Bilson, with a preface supplied by

Smith.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:

"THE HOLY BIBLE, Containing the Old Testament, and the New: Newly

Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently

compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be

read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings

most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."

The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

"THE NEW Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly

Translated out of the Original Greek: and with the former Translations

diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties special Commandment.

IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent

Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio."

The King James Bible was, in its first editions, even larger than the Great Bible. It

was printed in black letter with small italicized Roman type to represent those

words not in the original languages.

A dedicatory epistle to King James, which also enhanced the completed work,

recalled the King's desire that "there should be one more exact Translation of the

Holy Scriptures into the English tongue." The translators expressed that they were

"poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known"

while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the

people "in ignorance and darkness."

The Authorized Version, as it came to be called, went through several editions

and revisions. Two notable editions were that of 1629, the first ever printed at

Cambridge, and that of 1638, also at Cambridge, which was assisted by John Bois

and Samuel Ward, two of the original translators. In 1657, the Parliament

considered another revision, but it came to naught. The most important editions

were those of the 1762 Cambridge revision by Thomas Paris, and the 1769

Oxford revision by Benjamin Blayney. One of the earliest concordances was A

Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, by John Down-ham, affixed to a

printing of 1632.

The Authorized Version eclipsed all previous versions of the Bible. The Geneva

Bible was last printed in 1644, but the notes continued to be published with the

King James text. Subsequent versions of the Bible were likewise eclipsed, for the

Authorized Version was the Bible until the advent of the Revised Version and

ensuing modern translations. It is still accepted as such by its defenders, and

recognized as so by its detractors. Alexander Geddes (d. 1802), a Roman Catholic

priest, who in 1792 issued the first column of his own translation of the Bible,

accordingly paid tribute to the Bible of his time:

"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First,

both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and

the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the

qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be

accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every

letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and

expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision."

As to whether the Authorized Version was ever officially "authorized," Brooke

Westcott, one of the members of the committee that produced the Revised

Version, and the editor, with Fenton Hort, of an edition of the Greek New

Testament, stated that:

From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the

acknowledged Bible of the English-speaking nations throughout the world simply

because it is the best. A revision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a

century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian

people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never

have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers.

This article was taken from the book A Brief History of English Bible

Translations by Dr. Laurence M. Vance.

Here we have seen the reason of the KJV Bible was to

1) demolish a good true version of the Word (The Geneva Bible)

2) get a uniform Anglican Bible to be read in all the churches

3) give a wrong idea of congregation, which now should be called Church

4) it was translated from the Bishops Bible, which was translated from the Latin

Vulgate.

5) do away with side notes (that would incriminate James as successive king)

top

More on Easter top

The Traditions of Easter
As with almost all "Christian" holidays, Easter has been secularised and commercialised. The dichotomous nature of Easter and its symbols, however, is not necessarily a modern fabrication.

Since its conception as a holy celebration in the second century, Easter has had its non-religious side. In fact, Easter was originally a pagan festival.

The ancient Saxons celebrated the return of spring with an uproarious festival commemorating their goddess of offspring and of springtime, Eastre. When the second-century Christian missionaries encountered the tribes of the north with their pagan celebrations, they attempted to convert them to Christianity. They did so, however, in a clandestine manner.

It would have been suicide for the very early Christian converts to celebrate their holy days with observances that did not coincide with celebrations that already existed. To save lives, the missionaries cleverly decided to spread their religious message slowly throughout the populations by allowing them to continue to celebrate pagan feasts, but to do so in a Christian manner.

As it happened, the pagan festival of Eastre occurred at the same time of year as the Christian observance of the Resurrection of Christ. It made sense, therefore, to alter the festival itself, to make it a Christian celebration as converts were slowly won over. The early name, Eastre, was eventually changed to its modern spelling, Easter.

The Date of Easter

Prior to A.D. 325, Easter was variously celebrated on different days of the week, including Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. In that year, the Council of Nicaea was convened by emperor Constantine. It issued the Easter Rule which states that Easter shall be celebrated on the first Sunday that occurs after the first full moon on or after the vernal equinox. However, a caveat must be introduced here. The "full moon" in the rule is the ecclesiastical full moon, which is defined as the fourteenth day of a tabular lunation, where day 1 corresponds to the ecclesiastical New Moon. It does not always occur on the same date as the astronomical full moon. The ecclesiastical "vernal equinox" is always on March 21. Therefore, Easter must be celebrated on a Sunday between the dates of March 22 and April 25.

The Lenten Season

Lent is the forty-six day period just prior to Easter Sunday. It begins on Ash Wednesday. Mardi Gras (French for "Fat Tuesday") is a celebration, sometimes called "Carnival," practiced around the world, on the Tuesday prior to Ash Wednesday. It was designed as a way to "get it all out" before the sacrifices of Lent began. New Orleans is the focal point of Mardi Gras celebrations in the U.S. Read about the religious meanings of the Lenten Season.

The Cross

The Cross is the symbol of the Crucifixion, as opposed to the Resurrection. However, at the Council of Nicaea, in A.D. 325, Constantine decreed that the Cross was the official symbol of Christianity. The Cross is not only a symbol of Easter, but it is more widely used, especially by the Catholic Church, as a year-round symbol of their faith.

The Easter Bunny

The Easter Bunny is not a modern invention. The symbol originated with the pagan festival of Eastre. The goddess, Eastre, was worshipped by the Anglo-Saxons through her earthly symbol, the rabbit.

The Germans brought the symbol of the Easter rabbit to America. It was widely ignored by other Christians until shortly after the Civil War. In fact, Easter itself was not widely celebrated in America until after that time.

The Easter Egg

As with the Easter Bunny and the holiday itself, the Easter Egg predates the Christian holiday of Easter. The exchange of eggs in the springtime is a custom that was centuries old when Easter was first celebrated by Christians.

From the earliest times, the egg was a symbol of rebirth in most cultures. Eggs were often wrapped in gold leaf or, if you were a peasant, coloured brightly by boiling them with the leaves or petals of certain flowers.

Today, children hunt coloured eggs and place them in Easter baskets along with the modern version of real Easter eggs -- those made of plastic or chocolate candy.
top

KJV translation mistakes top

Daniel
8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

"Days" here is inaccurate. The Hebrew here uses the words ereb (evening) and boqer (morning). The RSV renders this better: "And he said to him, 'For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.'"

"Evening and morning" is a Hebrew idiom for a day, but it is not a literal translation to collapse these, and it has unfortunate con sequences, as some have built elaborate eschatological theories (such as William Miller and Ellen G. White, the founding prophetess of Seventh-Day Adventism) on the existence of the word "day" here. They have supposed that they can make each day here correspond to a year and thus they infer a period of 2300 years here. In reality, the word "day" is not in the text, and unlike the word for day (yom, which can denote longer periods of time just as "day" can in English, e.g., "In my day..."), the expression "evening and morning" is much more concrete and less able to be read as a year.

Mark
6:20 For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

The word here rendered "observed" is suntereo and it means "to protect"--something the KJV translators elsewhere acknowledge as the other three times it appears in the New Testament they render it "protect" (twice) or "keep" (once).

9:18 And wheresoever he [the demon] taketh him [my boy], he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not.

The word here translated "pineth away" is xeraino and it means "to become dry" or "to wither" (as with a withered, stiff body part). The RSV has it much better: "and wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able." Pining away is something completely different (the boy did not forlornly long whenever the demon seized him).

Acts
12:4 And when he [Herod] had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

This verse discusses a time right after Herod had arrested and execute the Apostle James. This pleased the Jews, and so he decided to do it to another apostle--Peter. Jewish sensibilities, however, did not favour the execution of people during holy days, and so Herod planned to execute Peter after Passover. The word in the Greek text is pascha, and it an Aramaic loan-word for the Jewish holiday of Passover. Easter was not a distinct holiday at the time, much less did it have a distinct name (pascha simply meant "Passover"), much less would it have been a holiday the non-Christian Jews cared about. For some strange reason the KJV translators chose to render it "Easter" here, even though every other time the word pascha appears in the New Testament, they translated it "Passover."

17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

This verse contains two mistranslations:

First, "Mars' hill" should be translated "the Aeropagus." This was a discussion forum that was named after Mars Hill, where it originally met. In Paul's day, however, it met elsewhere. The KJV wrongly implies that it was meeting at its original location.

Second, the word here translated "too superstitious" is deisidaimonesteros. It can mean superstitious, but it also just means religious, pious, and reverent. These are clearly the case here, as Paul is beginning his speech to the Greeks (as was the custom of the time) by saying something nice about the audience to win a favourable hearing. He thus acknowledges their religious nature and then goes on to build a case for Christianity. The KJV translators, however, could not conceive of Paul doing anything but criticizing the idolatrous Greeks, and this determined their rendering of the verse. In reality, he was being polite in order to get them to give him a hearing (read the rest of the speech; he even quotes their own poets--equivalent to the Hebrew prophets--positively when they say something good).
Romans
15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

The Greek word here rendered "ministering" is hierourgeo and it means "to work as a priest." The KJV translators, however, have suppressed this in order to avoid giving credence to the idea that ministers of Jesus Christ have any priestly duties (something that would undermine the Protestant idea of eliminating the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Christian age). The RSV renders the verse much better: "to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit."

Now all you KJV only people who label it holy bible, DON'T take my word for it, but rather, RESEARCH it yourself if you are serious about your love of God.

Home