Was the King James Bible interpreted right in your opinion?
by 
Payton Parker
ANSWERS: 11
-
no.
-
define "right" I think it was translated to the best of their ability at the time, but it was itself a translation of a translation. Originally it went from aramaic / greek (depending on the book) to Latin, then the KJV was the english translation of the Latin. To many oportunities for error.
-
No. It was written with a political agenda in mind.
-
It was the best interpretation that could be given for that time. It is not the "best" interpretation possible given that we know a great deal more about the original languages and have access to documents that are closer to the original date of authorship. Any interpretation is just that, an interpretation, and is subject to human prejudice and error.
-
The vast majority of scholars would agree that Luther's German translation was a superior translation, but most English-speakers couldn't read German so it didn't matter. However, the King James Version was a monumental effort, tremendously accurate and a masterpiece of the English language. What we need to understand is that language is like a moving airport slidewalk. You can't stay still on it. If you keep walking in the opposite direction, you'll stay in one place. We have to keep changing our translation, like about every three generations, to retain the same meaning.
-
I just read that Chaldeans speak (or spoke) Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. First of all, I thought this was a dead language because of Mel Gibson's movie done in Aramaic. Second, couldn't the Chaldeans interpret the Aramaic Bible?
-
Have a look at this site, it may be helpful to you. http://www.allabouttruth.org/best-bible-translation-faq.htm
-
To have an informed opinion on that I'd have to have seen the original documents in the original languages, understand those languages and have read the KJV very carefully. I havent', don't and haven't - so really any opinion given is an uninformed one and not worth much...
-
I believe the KJV comes closest to the original scripts, because it was done word for word. The thing about the new translations is that the one who did the translations put what they themselves believed the scriptures said, instead of what was written. They even added words that were not in the original scripts and even took away words. I have studied the KJV along with the new versions, and have found the new versions very confusing, they do not even mean the same. I always study and read the KJV. About 15 years ago we had a visiter from Jerusalem and he said the KJV came closest to their meaning of the scriptures. So since then I have always studied it.
-
Whose comments could be more reliable than those of a group (not one individual) of Doctors of Divinity (not unqualified laymen) who reviewed the KJV (not just said things from the top of their heads) and presented conclusions made from a searching study of the KJV. Well here's what they said "Yet the King James Version HAS GRAVE DEFECTS." and "these DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision of the English translation." (words capitalised for emphasis)
-
If by "right" you mean "accurate" or "correct", no. Absolutely not. The Hebrew word in Isaiah, "almah," that is translated in the King James Version of the Bible as "virgin", actually simply means "young woman". (The Hebrew word for virgin is "bethulah".) The Hebrew name given for Yahweh in Exodus is "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh", which is translated as "I am that I am", but is best translated as "I will be who you will come to know me to be.", as it is future tense. Anyway, there are many mistranslations in the KJV of the Bible. http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/429668 http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/427204
RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC