What exactly did King James change in the Bible?

Question

So Im sure everyone knows that King James edited the bible (thus the name King James version), but does anyone know exactly what kinds of changes he made? What are some differences in other versions?

Please dont answer by saying that the bible has never been changed, that doesnt answer the question

Answer 1

Its all just a matter of symantics... translation.



It says the same thing.



2+2=4 no matter what symbols are used, or what language it is in.



Pick your favorite translation of the bible, and roll with it.



Anything else is just splitting hairs to try to find insignificant inconsistancies.



God bless you.

Answer 2

King James Changed The Bible

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.



RE:

What exactly did King James change in the Bible?

So Im sure everyone knows that King James edited the bible (thus the name King James version), but does anyone know exactly what kinds of changes he made? What are some differences in other versions?



Please dont answer by saying that the bible has never been changed, that doesnt answer the...

Answer 4

I grew up reading the King James Version and I have the New King James Version (along with 20 other versions) in my library. My general observation on many of the new Bible versions that attempt to revise the King James Version -- the New King James Version, the New Revised Version, the New American Standard Version, the Revised English Bible, etc. -- is that their chief characteristic is removing God's own Name from his own Book. I haven't really found much of significance in the versions mentioned above, except for that: the removal of God's Name. And then I have to ask, If God put it there, by what authority does man remove it? Thankfully, not all Bibles have removed the Name. But you have to go beyond the popular ones, or at least the ones pushed by religious bookstores, to find a really good Bible.

Answer 5

Although King James didn t change the Bible himself, people of religious belief -- normal people (ie., not the strict word of a mighty God) -- made changes to please King James, such as "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Now although there is much wisdom in the bible, some of these "minor" changes make a big difference; they direct people to believe for example that pagans worship the devil etc. What people often forget is that whilst in Scotland James was a very enthusiastic witch hunter, involved in punishment, trials and executions of people ACCUSED of witchcraft, whose only guilt was that of heresay or a mole, or a wart or a scar. James even produced a book of great authority about how to identify witches: Daemonologie. Therefore, when people quote the bible against the so-called evil pagans, maybe they should consider the small changes in the bible by humans who had their own agenda in favour of themselves and against paganism.

Answer 6

King James, to the best of my knowledge, only sponsored a group of scholars to make a new translation of the Bible in the English of his time. He did not do any translating or editing himself.



Also, from what I understand, previous English translations of the Bible were based on the Latin translation made by Saint Jerome (known as the Vulgate).



The scholars who produced the King James version had available some older manuscripts that were considered to be a more reliable version of the original texts, which are now lost (the oldest extant texts are quite a few generations removed from the original texts, which are unavailable to us).



Harleigh Kyson Jr.

Answer 7

King James did not actually edit the Bible himself. He commissioned the very best scholars and theologians of his time in his kingdom to create an English translation of the bible that would be the standard English version.



He did this because there was no good English version of the Bible at that time. More and more English people were learning how to read and they wanted to read the Bible for them selves. Several very poor and sloppy unofficial versions were out but they were contradictory and inaccurate.



The English people were starting to divide up unto different religious churches and James thought one official authorized definitive version would help unify the people. It worked, but only to a point.

.

Answer 8

The translators he sponsored replaced the very divine name of God, tetragrammation YHWH/Iehovah/Jehovah with the Lord in thousands of verses except 4 which is the main reason why the majority of people don't use the name today and/or are confused about the name. That is one of the main unfortunate changes of the KJV bible.

Answer 9

Why did the KJV remove tyrant from our English Bibles?



Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”



Concerning Genesis 10:8-9, Ovid Need wrote: “Both the text wording and the notes of the Geneva speak harshly against oppressors and tyrants, such as we have today. As I have used the Geneva and compared it with the KJV, I understand why King James wanted to rid Christians of the Geneva” (Biblical Examiner, January, 2007, p. 2). Ovid Need added: “An example is found in Matthew 2:6, KJV says a governor, where the Geneva says, the governor. The strong wording that demands that only one Sovereign, Jehovah God in the form of Jesus Christ was removed from the KJV” (Ibid.).



It is interesting that those Bishops that heard King James complain about the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible did not mention that the Bishops’ Bible had some similar marginal notes. The Bishops’ Bible had some marginal notes that condemned tyrants or tyranny. The marginal note at Exodus 1:15 in the 1595 edition of the Bishops’ was the following: “Tyrants try divers ways to oppress the Church.“ At Exodus 1:17, the Bishops’ note stated: “It was better to obey God than man.”



Is it possible that King James I did not want believers to read how strongly God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did King James think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? Alexander McClure referred to King James as "the tyrant" (KJV Translators, p. 50). Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the English Bible? According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded this change? Is it possible that the KJV translators agreed with the view of civil government held by King James? Did the translators avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James or were they perhaps instructed to remove it? What was wrong with the use of the word “tryant” in the English Bible? William Pierce asserted: “Tyrannical rulers have ever found support from prelates” (Historical Introduction, p. 36). Samuel Rutherford maintained that “tyranny, being a work of Satan, is not from God” (Lex, Rex, p. 34). Edwin Bissell commented: “Whatever else James I might tolerate he would not allow any weakening of the doctrine of the supremacy of kings. And no other version of the English Bible betrayed such definite leanings toward that tenet as the one made under his own direction” (Historic Origin, p. 78).



The 1611 KJV’s contents chapter heading at Ecclesiastes 10 for verse 20 is “Men’s thoughts of kings ought to be reverend.“ That comment was still found in a KJV edition printed at Cambridge in 1769 although it has one spelling change of “reverend” to “reverent.“ The same form of this comment as found in the 1769 Cambridge was still found in editions of the KJV printed at Cambridge in 1872 and 1887 and at Oxford in 1868, 1876, and 1885. In the dedication to King James in the 1611, Thomas Bilson referred to him as “the Most High and Mighty Prince.“ Jonathan Stonis asserted: “We completely and fully reject the blasphemy of referring to King James as “The Most High” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 130). Stonis asked: “Can you imagine the public outcry if a modern version had such a dedication?“

Answer 10

When you take a language that say, has 4 words for something in English only has one, you change the implicated meaning. Examle: It is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven (as understood). The eye of the needle in the original text is the walking gate into a city. It is hard for a camel to kneel down, but hardly as impossible as the eye of a sewing needle. When i tell you ausgesheiznet! You see it as a litteral translation of German for outstanding. With the incorrect spelling it means you are an idiot. Context is everything

Answer 11

King James didn't edit it, it was written into English and they asked for his seal of approval. He didn't even know they were doing it until they presented it to him finished and praised him to get approval. They never called it the King James version during his lifetime it was just called the Authorized version. It just has some interpolations that when 31 Bible scholars backed by 50 denominations revised the Bible they felt there were grave defects in it, that didn't match the oldest manuscripts. They made the Revised Standard version, but then those denominations didn't like some of the stuff being taken out so the scholars put some things back in, like the ascension of Jesus in Mark. also they took the word begotten out of John 3:16 and left it out. And they changed the part in 1John 5:7 that used to be used to back up the trinity in king James it said "Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, and these three are one" now it says in the revised versions "blood, Spirit and water and these three agree" These are some of the major things that King James readers like to quote

Answer 12

Most people have never seen a copy of the KJB of 1611. Instead, they use a present-day edition of the King James Bible because it is far easier to read. They appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. They do not like the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; they do not want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it. Thus improvement, when needed, is appreciated, even by those who say they object to any changing of the King James translation.

Answer 13

King James commissioned the best scholars in the land they translated from the Textus Receptus to English.

This took them 7 years to do.

The Textus Receptus was translated from the original Greek by Erasmus (1466-1536).

The new age versions have been changed but the AKJV is pure.

King James wanted a bible for the common man that is why he commissioned these great scholars.



Psalm 12:6-7..The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.

AKJV



The Lord promised to preserve His Word forever.

Would this be too hard for the Lord God Almighty to do?

Changes in the AKJV.................NONE.

One of the changes is John 3:16....the NIV omits the word ""begotten""it means born of God.

Denying the deity of Jesus Christ.

NIV has about 6 thousand changes.



IN AWE OF THY WORD O LORD.

Answer 14

How about replacing Jacob with his name James in new testament?

Answer 15

one of the biggest changes was that he renamed the disciple "james" that is not the original name. look around at some commentaries and you will come up with the original name. king james had to have his name in there somehow. this changes nothing of the meaning though

Answer 16

King James didn't edit it himself, of course. He sanctioned a new translation.



There truly are few differences between the KJV and earlier English language translations. Most of the differences are matters of interpretation, chosen to emphasize to authority of the Church of England: choosing the word "priests" instead of "elders" or "church" instead of "congregation", for example.

Answer 17

KJV italics added for interpolation of greek text. not for emphasis. a very big deal. Jesus said I am a son of God not "the" son of God. and the rest is too long to go into here but if you care to find out "seek and you shall find" you will really know the truth that sets you free and your cup will runneth over. we are all Images, children, expressions of God. too much for some to discover for themselves. sadly. unconditional love is for all to embody. not just to know about. but to know. if you ask, knock and seek free of your conditioned egoic self, be ready for as much wisdom and love as you can handle. so yes you will find that the Catholic church gave us the bible. and we find Christ and heaven within us now like Jesus taught. happy inward, fearless journey...for those who have ears to hear...as Jesus very much liked to say...probably with a wink....peace

Answer 18

He simply ordered a translation. The translators used newer Greek manuscripts than we have today, thus they were more corrupted. They also used an archaic form of English, even old for the time they were in.

Answer 19

they didnt mention the color of the jewish ppl other ppl in the bible, who are black, they change that or left it out

Answer 20

King James was just another language translation. Thee and thou no literal text was changed.

Answer 21

Nothing was changes. If you are going to say it was changed, please give an example. It was translated more efficiently.