What did King James omit from the interpretation of the King James bible?

Answer 1

The "King James" version of The Bible is named after King James simply because he authorized it, not because he altered or interpreted it to mean what he wanted it to say. One version of the Bible is not exactly the same as a different version: if they were the same then there would be no need for yet another one. All translations differ in some way because there are two opposite schools of thought in how scholars should interpret the original-language Greek or Hebrew texts of the Bible into, say, English. These two extremes are formal equivalence (or literal translation - What God actually said ) and functional or dynamic equivalence ( or meaning-based translation - What God actually meant) on the other. The "King James" version of the Bible is a very literal translation and not a meaning-based paraphrase.

Explaining this, Henry Neufeld said :

..formal equivalence refers to translating by finding reasonably equivalent words and phrases while following the forms of the source language as closely as possible. It is often referred to as "literal translation". functional equivalence, sometimes called dynamic equivalence ormeaning based translation, is a translation method in which the translator attempts to reflect the thought of the writer in the source language [that is, Greek or Hebrew] rather than the words and forms. The translator will read a sentence or other unit of thought, try to understand it as well as possible, and then write that thought in the target language . [for example English]

(From article "Comparing Versions - Formal and Functional Equivalence" by Henry Neufeld at http://www.participatorystudyseries.com/versioncomp.php )

He furthur said:-

...[F]ormal-equivalency ... a word-for-word translation. Since it is impossible to translate every word and form with a single word and form in English, ...[I]t is likely that if we lost the Greek New Testament it could be reproduced by translating the NASB back into Greek.

(From article "Bible Versions Overview " by Henry Neufeld at http://energion.com/books/bibles/version_notes.shtml )

The translators of the King James Bible were as accurate as they possibly could because they all fervently believed that as they were translating the actual words of God, every single word therefore had to be absolutely correct, and so it was translated word-for-word. They would never have eventhought of putting their own personal interpretation on it because they were dealing with God's actual words, and any meaning that was obscure or peculiar would therefore be explained by God's Holy Spirit. It is definitely a literal translation.

The Dedicatory Preface of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible dedicating it to King James is 2 pages long and is at http://thechristianity.wordpress.com/2008/11/16/the-translators-of-the-bible-wish-grace-mercy-and-peace-through-jesus-christ-our-lord/, while their attitude towards, reverance, and awe of God and how they viewed Him, and thus their translation, is detailed in their "Translators' Preface" -all 21 pages of it- at www.jesus-is-lord.com/pref1611.htm .

Just as the translators dared not interpret the Bible, neither did King James, (unlike some previous sovereigns). He was a new king and to avoid civil war he needed a completely impartial Bible translation to unite the various factions in the country and he therefore couldn't have even a whiff of a suspicion of his adding any interpretation of any kind to it whatsoever. (He also valued his head.) Apart from the initial authorization, progress reports, and his acceptance of a Dedication after the translation was completed, King James had nothing to do with the Bible named after him.