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 July 22, 1604 sent a letter to Archbishop Bancroft that asks for him to contact all English churchmen, and he requested that they make donations to his project.

"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 Open for the full article.


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.