KingJamesVersionAndOthers Bible-Translations and Bible-Translators and their employers and directives.
(1) Many Bible versions may seem to say that
elders had or wielded "authority" over others. That is mostly a
matter of misleading translations, but all of those passages cannot be
discussed here. Bible translations are for the most part produced by churchmen,
for churches. Translators add and choose words, and twist things, according
their own bias, goals and purposes - or according to the bias, goals and
purposes of their employer.
Another note: There is a cult around the
KJ version. It is important to understand that the production of the KJ version
was ordered and controlled by James I of England (who reportedly was a
Knight-Templar, about the same as Freemason). He had certain things written
into the bible-translation he had ordered. One of those things was support for
"church hierarchy"; he needed such a thing in order to keep people
under control, so that his own power-position would not be threatened.
The essay bible03c.htm has more on the translation which James
I ordered and controlled.
Regarding
"interlinear bibles": Many people have been caused to think that they
would somehow be more reliable and objective than translations that do not
contain a Greek text. But, all those interlinears are, of course, a work of men,
where the translators have included their bias and (through a shrewd choice of
words) even church dogmas and so on. In other words: Interlinear bibles are
just as biased and slanted as other translations.
The above is only a
small quote from bible03c.htm &
biblepages /bible01d.htm
Also see TheSoCalledDivineRightOfKings.htm
(2) King James plus KJ Newer
Versions
There were instructions given to the translators that
were intended to limit
the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop
of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva
Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he
found the marginal notes offensive:[19] Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had
commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and
also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticised King Asa
for not having executed his idolatrous mother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King
gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version
would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church
of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a
manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old
ecclesiastical words such as the word 'church' were to be retained and not to
be translated as 'congregation'. The new translation would reflect the episcopal
structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about an ordained
clergy.
The King's instructions included several
requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and
reader. The Text of the Bishops'
Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the
familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops'
Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were
permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale
Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's
Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. In
addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized
Version from the translations of Taverner's
Bible and the New Testament of the Douai-Rheims Bible.[20] It is for this reason that the flyleaves of most
printings of the Authorized Version observe that the text had been
"translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations
diligently compared and revised (by His Majesty's special command.)"
The task of translation was undertaken by
47 scholars, although 54 were originally approved.[21] All were members of the Church of England and except
Sir Henry Savile were ordained priests.[22] The scholars worked in six committees, two based in
each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster.
The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as High
Churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops'
Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee
could be recorded in the margins.[23] The committees worked on certain parts separately, and
then the drafts produced by each committee were compared and revised for
harmony with each other.[24] The scholars were not paid directly for their
translation work, instead a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them
to consider the translators for appointment to well paid livings as
these fell vacant.[25] Several were supported by the various colleges at
Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted to bishoprics, deaneries and
prebends
through royal patronage.
The committees started
work towards the end of 1604.
King James I of England, on
"Right trusty and
well beloved, we greet you well. Whereas we have appointed certain learned men, to the number of 4 and 50, for the
translating of the Bible, and in this number, divers of them have either no
ecclesiastical preferment at all, or else so very small, as the same is far
unmeet for men of their deserts and yet we in ourself in any convenient time
cannot well remedy it, therefor we do hereby require you, that presently you
write in our name as well to the Archbishop of York, as to the rest of the
bishops of the province of Cant.(erbury) signifying unto them, that we do well,
and straitly charge everyone of them... that (all excuses set apart) when we
prebend or parsonage... shall next upon any occasion happen to be void... we
may commend for the same some such of the learned men, as we shall think fit to
be preferred unto it... Given unto our signet at out palace of West.(minister)
on the 2 and 20th of July, in the 2nd year of our reign of England, France, and
of Ireland, and of Scotland xxxvii." [26]
They all had completed their sections by
1608: the Apocrypha committee finishing first.[27] From January 1609, a General Committee of Review met at
Stationers' Hall,
London to review the completed marked texts from each of the six companies.
The committee included John Bois, Andrew Downes, John
Harmar, and others known only by their initials, including
"AL" (who may be Arthur Lake) and were paid
for their attendance by the Stationers' Company. John Bois prepared a note of
their deliberations (in Latin) - which has partly survived in a later
transcript.[28] Also surviving are a bound-together set of marked-up
corrections to one of the forty Bishops' Bibles - covering the Old
Testament and Gospels,[29] and also a manuscript translation of the text of the Epistles,
excepting those verses where no change was being recommended to the readings in
the Bishops' Bible.[30] Archbishop Bancroft
insisted on having a final say, making fourteen changes; of which one was the
term "bishoprick" at Acts 1:20.[31]
From Wikipedia.org/KJVersion#Authorized_Version
Open Wikipedia.org/KJVersion#Authorized_Version
for the full article.
(3)
KJV
Cult-Bible-Version-Not-a-Translation
The cult around the KJ version, 'KJV only'.
Some churches in the USA,
especially a number of Freemason-influenced ones in the South, have produced an
idolatrous cult around the KJ version, claiming it to be the most accurate
translation, "inspired by God" and even "better than the
original". That is plain deception.
The group of men who were
involved in producing KJ version, had a heavy bias. Also, they were under
orders regarding how to translate. The KJ version was produced at a time
when the Catholic Church had ruled Europe for a thousand years. Also: It seems
that James, the king who ordered and controlled that translation, was a
Knight-Templar (about the same as a Freemason) and it is said that at least
some of the translators may also have been that.
A note: It is not really
known who edited the final product that was given to the printers. The essay bible03b.htm
has more on the KJ version and the men involved in producing it. That essay has
also some notes on the so-called "Received Text" or "Textus
Receptus" (the "Erasmian" Greek NT text, the one the Catholic
priest Gerrit Gerritszoon alias "Erasmus" compiled for a certain book
printer).
It is worth noting that
virtually all English versions that have been produced in later times, have
been heavily influenced by the KJV (and also by the Vulgate version). Because
of that, it is good to have proper study tools so that one can try to find out
what the Hebrew and Greek texts really were saying.
From Bible03c.htm
A computer bible can revolutionise one's bible study.
An extensive computer bible
is a great and really, "compulsory" tool and help to have, for
studying the Bible in a serious manner. A computer bible has many functions
that one cannot even dream about if one only uses printed books. And, on top of
many other things, a modern computer bible can help one to view and interpret
or translate the Hebrew and Greek texts.
If you have a less advanced
computer bible, or an older version, you should acquire a more extensive and recent
one. An example: The Online Bible computer bible suite has today some twenty
different English translations and a great number in other languages, including
several in Greek, Hebrew and Latin, even a Syriac (Aramaic) NT and a Greek OT
(the LXX), and more. Plus, it has lots of lexicons, dictionaries, commentaries,
topics or books, and other such works. If you have never used a comprehensive
and fresh version of some of the modern multi-module computer bibles, then you
may not know what you are missing. Used in a proper way, a decent computer
bible can add totally new dimensions to one's bible study. Right now, this
writer feels that there really are only two alternatives worth considering: The
Online Bible suite which is extensive but not expensive, and then the
BibleWorks suite.
The page bible02b.htm
has more on computer bibles.