When it comes to versions or translations, we know that the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts (in printed form) were used by the King James translators (who had access to a huge number of other versions and translations). Textual scholars in the 19th century compared and collated manuscripts and determined that the Authorized Version was indeed a faithful and reliable translation (keeping in mind that words in italics were added to help clarify verses and may be ignored if necessary). It became the basis of all conservative Christian commentaries, and no one questioned either the inspiration or the inerrancy of the Bible until the 20th century.
Consider the background.
Henry VIII was originally a staunch Catholic, and Catholicism was accordingly England’s official religion until 1527 when Henry sought to establish what was to become known as ‘The Church of England’ (with himself as its head) so that he could personally authorise the annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry Anne Boleyn (which Pope Clement VII had refused to authorise).
Accordingly Henry instructed Archbishop Thomas Cranmer to organise the constitution of the new Church, which Cranmer began to do by authoring its 42 Articles of Faith (later to be consolidated into 39 Articles) during which time Henry died in 1547 leaving his son Edward VI to continue with the task.
That is the extraordinary and questionable background and motivation that gave rise to the emergence of the ‘Church of England’.
Fast forward two decades and King James had succeeded to the throne, and had determined by 1604 to oversee the translation of the Catholic Bible from Latin into English, and appointed 42 scholars to carry out the work under his instruction that the translation should conform with the Anglican Church’s established 39 Articles of Faith.
Such work, to become known as the ‘KJV’ Bible, was completed by 1611 and, as you say, became the foundational work on which so many subsequent alternative ‘versions’ were based.
But is it really worthy of being accorded ‘plenary verbal inspiration?
I will give you one glaring example of why and how the translation work of those 42 scholars ought perhaps to not be considered sufficiently worthy to be accorded such authority.
And that involves their lax adoption of the word ‘Hell’ in each and every one of its 23 mentions throughout the New Testament.
On 12 occasions it is the original Greek word ‘Gehenna’ that they translated as ‘Hell’.
On 10 occasions it the original Greek word ‘Hades’ that they translated as ‘Hell’.
And on the one remaining occasion it is the original Greek word ‘Tartarus’ that they translated as ‘Hell’.
In reality
‘Gehenna’ is simply the valley outside of the walls of Jerusalem where dead bodies and refuse were dumped (and where superstition has it that children were sacrificed to the god of Molec).
‘Hades’ is simply ‘the burial graves of the clinically dead’.
And ‘Tartarus’ describes the superstition that there was a gate leading down into the depths of the inevitable intense spontaneous combustion beneath the smouldering pile of waste in the Gehenna Valley.
Dr Robert Youngs’ literal translation is one of the few that do not repeat such lax translation ….. but what led the King James’ 42 scholars to be so lax?
It’s only my opinion but I suggest that the KJV translators were so preoccupied with trying to ensure that their translation conformed with Cranmer’s work in establishing the ‘Church of England that they failed to give due cognisance to the fact that the pagan originated word ‘Hell’ didn’t even exist at the time when the KJV manuscripts were penned.
) in order to make themselves look smarter than others...And you are right Mike, we are all at different stages and for the life of me, I don't get why others want us to be exactly where they are??! That is a job for The Holy Spirit and it should be our pleasure to seek Him.
