Ask a Question
or
Create a Poll
  1. Home /
  2. Questions /
  3. Social Sciences
  4. / History
  5. / Biblical History
  6. / More Biblical History

by DUKDWNBCC on November 17th, 2004

DUKDWNBCC

Question

Help answer this question below.

Who was King James, and is there any evidence that he edited the Bible to meet his own beliefs?

  • Like
  • Report
Share:
Other

Answers. Showing one answer.

  • by Eric Henry on December 16th, 2004

    Eric Henry

    My own personal favorite here is where it appears that the translators working for King James failed to actually translate some words into English since such literal translation would conflict with church doctrine.

    An example is the word "baptism". The word "baptizo" in Greek is literally translated "dip", "plunge", or "immerse". Since the Church of England sprinkles, it was necessary to transliterate the word and create a new word "baptize" to keep the meaning vague to English readers.

    Churches have suffered from this interesting decision ever since.

    Another example as requested: 1 Timothy 3:11 - KJV translates this passage as "Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things"

    This passage is discussing the qualifications of deacons/servants/ministers of the church. The implication in the King James is that verse 11 is discussing their wives. However, the word "their" is not in the Greek. The Greek word "gune" can mean "wife" or "woman". However, the KJV translators inserted this possessive pronoun seemingly to not allow for the possibility that some deacons (like Phoebe in Romans 16) could be women. Without the pronoun, this passage takes on a little different meaning (see NASB, ESV, NIV, ASV, etc... for a more accurate translation). Of course verse 12 discusses deacons being husbands of one wife, so this must be dealt with as well in terms of the gender question. However, verse 11 cannot be used to make the argument.

    It's also interesting to note that the word "deacon" in this chapter of 1 Timothy is not an English word but another transliteration. This has caused many problems in churches that have turned this position of "special servant" into a church office akin to that of a "junior elder". Deacons/servants were a distinct group performing tasks assigned them by elders (and had to have certain character traits, per this passage), but this hierarchical structure is not supported in scripture. The transliteration supports church hierarchy that is popular among many orthodox religions (including the Church of England of this time) but is contrary to the way the New Testament writers describe "diakonos" throughout scripture.

    Comments

    • WOW .... TELL ME MORE ..... THIS IS INTERESTING

      DUKDWNBCC

      by DUKDWNBCC on December 21st, 2004

    • How about some more examples?

      jwmbiz

      by jwmbiz on January 22nd, 2005

    • YES!!! to baptize is by full emersion. Right on bro.

      Moodles

      by Moodles on January 31st, 2005

    • The question was not "What is the true meaning of baptism?" You didn't answer the question.

      puatry

      by puatry on February 16th, 2005

    • The KJV includes "For thine is the kingdom..." in the Lord's Prayer yet that is not in the original. It's from the Didache.

      Ignatius

      by Ignatius on March 25th, 2005

    • while baptizo means to immerse, I disagree with your notion that KJ was misleading everyone. that's purely subjhective

      Answers101

      by Answers101 on March 10th, 2006

    • Like
    • Report

    6 comments | Post one | Permalink

Want to attach an image to your answer? Click here.

Did this answer your question? If not, then ask a new question or create a poll.

More Questions. Additional questions in this category.

You're reading Who was King James, and is there any evidence that he edited the Bible to meet his own beliefs?

Follow us on Facebook!

Related Ads

Related Questions

Professionally Researched

Answerbag

a Demand Media company