King James Bible

From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???

So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???

From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state.

You read reports and you chose to believe them..

That is totally false and misleading. Wikipedia is not to be trusted.

Since the time of Henry VIII the monarch of England was also considered to be "the Defender of the Faith" hence the "head" of the Church of England. But the real reason for the King James Bible (or more appropriately "the Authorized Version appointed to be read in churches") was that the Puritans (fundamentalists) within the Church of England were not totally satisfied with the Bishops' Bible (then in use) and the other Anglicans were not too happy with the Calvinistic Geneva Bible. The primary objective therefore was to make a new English translation -- directly out of the Hebrew and Greek -- which would surpass all the others (and it did). The KJB became the sole English translation in use for over 300 years, and God blessed it mightily. It was regarded as the written Word of God by conservative Christians and scholars during all that time. All the commentators during that time accepted this Bible without question.

But the 47 translators of the KJB were not solely Puritans, and included many Anglican scholars. The most significant thing was the outstanding scholarship and piety of these learned men, who were also very humble. While they favored William Tyndale's translation, they had access to all the other translations, printed texts, and manuscripts available at that time. And all Reformation bibles were based solely upon the Hebrew and Greek traditional or "received" texts (which represent the bulk of manuscripts).

The only reason that the name of James I is associated with this Bible is that he was the royal patron of this translation project at that time, and did not want conflict within the Church of England. But he would not have been allowed to tamper with the translation at all regardless of his status as king. The translators had too much reverence for the Word of God. and because there were so many of them, it ensured that no personal biases would be allowed to remain.

Are you concerned about some doctrinal error introduced in some way? Please elaborate.

From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???

The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"

Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.

And we here in the U.S. think democracy is "supreme". How about this 1 Samuel 15:23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

From the little history of 16th and 17th century England which I've read and mostly on Wikipedia it seems that the KJV was the outcome of the desire for the English king to put himself in charge of church and state. So I've read somewhere the divine right of kings was of primary importance in the making of this translation?????? So if we use the KJV we need to know that it is biased that way???

Which the new King James Bible does use, and corrects the errors and biases of the old KJV

The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?"

Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.

Can you give an example of an error? I'll give you a minute while you search a website.

Btw, God used this KJV to pave the way for the largest worldwide revival in human history. The "new versions" have brought about the Laodicean like church.

When most of his word was written by judges and prophets not kings and none of his disciples were kings and yet wrote the entirety of the New Testament. And God actually forbid Kings to do priestly duties.

What revival would that be?