/  2
 
King James Version Translation or TransliterationThere are many teachers and ministries that Claim that the “KJV” orthe “KJV 1611” is the “ONLY” true translation. As a Bible teacher andstudent for over 25 years and also a translator I cannot agree withtheir claim as even though the KJV is a good transliteration it is not atranslation.The King James “Authorized” Version was a compilation of thefollowing manuscripts. This information is of public record and readilyavailable from many sources.Here is a list of the manuscripts used in compiling the KJV. Hebrew Old TestamentGreek New Testament1568 Bishop’s Bible1557-1560 Geneva Bible1556 Beza’s Latin New Testament1539 Great Bible1537 Matthew’s Bible1535 Coverdale’s Bible1528 Pagninus’ Latin Bible1526-1530 Tyndale’s New Testament, Pentateuch1522-1534 Luther’s German Bible1582-1610 Rheims-Douai Bible As you can see it is not really a translation but a transliteration.The Various versions of the Bible aroused so many arguments thatJames I, after the Hampton Court conference, appointed 54 scholars tomake a new version. It took about seven years to complete the work,a monument to the critical scholarship of the time. Despite the greatvariety of the men who worked on it, the transliteration washarmonious in style and beauty. It was first published in 1611, andsoon became the most popular English Bible.So even though many consider it the “REAL” version it is stilltranslated by man. So one must rely on the Holy Spirit to guide us.As a translator from Greek and Hebrew to English for verificationon scriptures in my own teaching I often will refer to the Hebrewmeaning and sentence structure. I do prefer to teach from the KJV as

KJV Translation or Transliteration

Download this Document for FreePrint
This is a private document.

Info and Rating

MRavMac

Share & Embed

More from this user

Add a Comment

Characters: ...

MRavMacleft a comment

Actually TimmyJohnBoy, your statement "Also, at least the KJ translators were clear enough to put added or "changed" words in italics so we would know which they were." is incorrect, as I have a copy of the 1611 and the italics you mention were not added until much later. If one had to read a "direct" translation from Hebrew or Greek, they would not be able to understand the Bible. The translators from the beginning have taken license with their work. If we approach Scripture prayerfully, remembering that man put it in the different languages we can begin to understand and grow. But if we accept the "translations, and transliterations" as fact then we begin to fall into deception. Such is the case of the NIV and others. Thank you for your comment.
07 / 27 / 2008
Reply

timmyjohnboyleft a comment

Good overall document. Great thoughts and interesting conclusions. I, too, prefer to read from the KJV but I do not see the benefits of cross referencing many of the other versions out there. I'd question the texts they were translated from AND the methods used in their translation. I appreciate the KJV because of the great care taken with God's words. One would have to concede to a certain amount of "dynamic equivelence" used in translating the KJV however it is barely comparable to the loose translations being reproduced today. Also, at least the KJ translators were clear enough to put added or "changed" words in italics so we would know which they were. It is clear in Scripture that God is very concerned about preserving His words so why wouldn't we take as much care in translating them into our language? I'd also add to your last paragraph. No man's beliefs are correct ACCEPT as they line up with scripture (not just what they WANT scripture to say!). I enjoyed the reading and God bless!
07 / 09 / 2008
Reply