Tell me more ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote -3 down vote favorite

To the best of my knowledge, the KJV bible is the only translation to be translated from the original languages, then to a "middle" language (latin) and then into english. This seems to me like it would make this translation highly unreliable.

share|improve this question
4  
Sorry to do this, but I voted to close. To me, this doesn't seem a real question but rather a call for a fight. To my knowledge, KJV was translated from Greek and Hebrew (eg. Wikipedia also states this), and you provide no sources to back the contrary. – dancek Aug 29 '11 at 5:08
2  
This is not a question, but a comment based on users's understanding. As dancek points out, user does not cite a source as well. I also vote this to close. If needed user can reframe the question and post it again. – Jamess Aug 29 '11 at 6:10
1  
why should a question contain references? If the person is asking experts for an answer isn't it safe to assume the asker doesn't know what they are talking about? – Tyler Gillies Aug 29 '11 at 8:44
2  
The KJV was based mostly on the Textus Receptus, a Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic edition organized by Erasmus. The Textus Receptus itself was based on mostly ancient sources, with a little bit of reconstruction here and there from the Vulgate. Modern translations (e.g. NIV, RSV, NRSV) are also based on ancient sources. In all cases the translators strove to preserve the literal meaning of the ancient texts. If you're concerned about the translational accuracy, read the translators' prefaces and their footnotes: most controversies are shown there. – user116 Aug 29 '11 at 10:52
3  
@Tyler - if you make a claim you should show that its substantiated. That's why people are looking for a reference of some kind. – wax eagle♦ Aug 29 '11 at 11:18
show 4 more comments

closed as not a real question by dancek, Jamess, Software Monkey, Arbiter, Caleb♦ Aug 29 '11 at 7:49

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, see the FAQ.

2 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

No, actually you're mistaken, the King James version was translated much closer to being literal than most translations today(which tend to try to impart the meaning more than the literal word for word). It's not a literal Word for Word, but it's closer than most. It was translated from Greek and Hebrew, but the Latin Vulgate was consulted. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version) The previous Wycliff translation was done from the latin vulgate.

Words that were added for clarity are italicized to indicate they are not apart of the original languages. The new testament KJV used what is known as the Textus Reciptus which in English is the 'Received Text' in which there are 5000 Greek manuscripts that all agree on the content (although some have name spelling variations).

share|improve this answer
up vote 1 down vote

I think this is a perfectly valid question- but the answer is no. While there is a danger of the "Chinese Whispers" scenario about the way the KJV (and NKJV) made their way into English (though whether you could still call the old KJV's language English is perhaps another discussion), the meaning imparted in most if not all KJV passages is fully consistent with the other versions. Some other versions are written more for ease of reading than for accuracy but again this doesn't render them redundant.

What I would always say is that if you're studying a passage in depth or struggling to understand its meaning, don't rely on any one version but look at several, and read around the subject using other trustworthy sources.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.