Skip to comments.King James Bible anniversary marked by Queen
Posted on 11/17/2011 7:03:02 AM PST by US Navy Vet
Queen Elizabeth II attended a ceremony at London's Westminster Abbey Wednesday to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, often considered the most influential book ever printed in the English language.
It came about when King James I summoned a conference at Hampton Court Palace near London in 1604, hoping to thrash out differences between Church of England bishops and Puritans. Failing to make progress on other issues, Puritan leader John Reynolds proposed a new translation which emerged in 1611
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Wait a minute: This is in Musland? Formerly England? And Muslims and the ruling Sharia courts approve of the Queen doing this?
Even one of my Torot (pl Torah) has an acknowledgement that The King James Version is a translational source.
I'd like to use it on a daily basis, but I don't want to if they made any changes. Does anyone know if the Mormons tampered with the KJV?
I would put it on a shelf and go to a GOOD Baptist BookStore and buy one that you KNOW hasn’t been “tampered” with.
I don't think all the passages were Jesus said, "Vote for Mitt Romney in 2012" were in the original KJV... ;)
Probably the best choice is to go get a new one, but I was just curious . . . I don't know what the Mormons might have done to the KJV.
I just found this on a GOOGLE:
Joseph Smith could not read ancient Greek or Hebrew, and did not even have access to ancient manuscripts. So he accomplished his translation through "direct revelation from God". Instead of actually translating he added to and subtracted from the King James Version based on what he called "divine inspiration." Thousands of changes were introduced into the Bible, including a new verse in Genesis 50 that predicted Joseph Smith's own coming.
I'm going to go to Genesis 50 and see if there's anything about him in their KJV.
The Bible they give out for free is a standard copy of the text, but the fact is that Joseph Smith did make changes to the KJB. These changes are held to as true by the “enlightened” Mormon.
This link will provide you with information . . .
***Does anyone know if the Mormons tampered with the KJV?***
Most likely it is a copy printed in Nashville by a well known non mormon printing house. Later they began to print their own in Salt Lake.
It is used as a “bait and switch” for people not aware of what they teach.
You call them for their free offer of a KJV, They send you one. Then a few weeks later they call you and want to give you another “testament” the Book of mormon. Then they begin to tell you how the KJV is not properly translated and wish to send some missionaries to your home.
I found their phone representatives to be so ingorant on the bible that they don’t know what Galatians is or what it says.
Interesting that they would send out a book (KJV) that they do not consider properly translated. NO Christian group would ever do that!
Muslims make up approx 3% of the population of Britain. There are as many Baptists. There are twice as many Methodists and four times as many Catholics. There are twenty times as many Anglicans and at least six times as many atheists.
There are NO ruling Sharia courts. Anyone who tells you otherwise is troublemaking and rumourmongering.
***Still the World’s Number 1 Best Seller!****
People today prefer modern versions because they do not understand the language of the 1611 KJV. If you start with Genesis by the time you finish a few chapters it will become clear what is being said.
Tthe language is considered by many to be a religious language and many people who read modern versions will automaticly switch to KJV english to pray.
The 1966 movie THE BIBLE (filmed in Rome) uses KJV english, and if you watch LAWRENCE OF ARABIA the imman talking to the King of Arabia is quoting koranic verses in 16th century English.
***Still the World’s Number 1 Best Seller! ****
Walmart has a reproduction in the OLD ENGLISH lettering for $5.00.
You can see why the Geneva was still in competition for years because of it’s easier to read lettering.
Thomas Jefferson did not believe in the miracles described in the KJV so he re-wrote the NT with no miracles and it was no longer the KJV but the Jefferson Bible.
The King Jim Version was a re-make of the Geneva Bible 1599 w/out all of the Marginal notes. It(KJV) was HEAVY into the concept of the “devine right of Kings”.
The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
“THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall 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 NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio.”
to make understandable translations of the Bible for the masses to read and understand was important to the nation’s clerical and secular leadership - highly unusual for that time in history.
I hope you are being sarcastic.
I believe the KJV is currently in the public domain. Therefore, it’s the cheapest English language translation of the Bible to print.
That is SO not true! I was touring England last year and to me it seemed like it was 80% Muslim. Every place I went I was stopped by Muslims asking if I were a Jew and when my wife talked they told me to shut up my dog and to keep her “properly covered” as it is the law. When is the last time YOU were in England? Or should I say “Musland”?
Where did you go, out of interest?
I’m in England two or three times a year, most recently at the time of the Royal Wedding. The fact is, the vast majority of England is a mostly white, at least nominally Christian nation.
There are some areas of London (Tower Hamlets, Hackney, and Bradford, for example) and a few other cities (Birmingham or Blackburn, again, as two examples) where there are a lot of Muslims but those places are not typical. Judging England as being an Islamic nation based on them would make about as much sense as deciding America was a Jewish nation by observing what you saw if wandering around parts of Brooklyn or Manhattan in New York.
Tourists often stick to London and a few other cities, especially on tours, when they just drive through England between cities as fast as they can. They don’t get to see most of England. Unfortunately.
The muslim population tends to be concentrated in certain areas. Often the more touristy bits too. If you go to those places, then obviously you will see them. If I did a touring holiday of Pennsylvania I might very well conclude that 80% of Americans were Amish. If I visited salt lake city I might conclude 80% were mormon. If I visited Atlanta Georgia (which I have) I might think 80% were black.
Rest assured, the vast majority of the population of England is very much white anglo-saxon.
Reads like it was written by Shakespeare—a work of pure stand alone literary art regardless of the subject.
Old English was the language of conversion when true believers broke the Catholic yoke—it still conveys best the original feelings of our Christian ancestors.
Oddly enough, even tho the KJV I got from the Mormons was recently published, it was NOT altered. I went to a comparative website that mentioned a big list of scripture changes that Joseph Smith, Jr. made, and NONE of them are in the version I got from them. So, they evidently didn't change my version, but I understand that they do have their own version available.
A lot of the language and terms they used in the KJV Bible were already archaic when it was written. They (the translators) wanted to make it sound like it was full of ancient wisdom.
Personally, though, I can see the flaws in translating something from latin and/or greek that had already been translated from the original hebrew/aramaic...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.