Why did KJV bible change all the time?

Part of the reason may be that the KJV (having been written in 1611) is now in the public domain. That is, it has no copyright protection. That means that anyone can copy, print, and sell the "King James Version" of the Bible.

Additionally, anyone can make changes to his "version" of the KJV. This is commonly done by disingenuous translators. One such example is 1 John 5:7-8 where someone added "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" in order to support the Trinity belief.

The Bible is clear that adding to and taking away from the Bible is a bad thing. Those who do such things do them at their peril.

This is an issue with many versions/translations of the Bible in addition to the KJV. For example, the "New World Translation" (NWT) published by the Watchtower/Jehovah's Witness organization has several such sectarian modifications.

For example, the NWT adds the divine Name (Jehovah) to the New Testament 237 times when there are ZERO existing New Testament manuscripts containing the Name.

Now, Witnesses bend over backwards to try to explain away this absence, resorting to cherry-picking a few secular scholars who postulate about the possibility of the Name having been in the NT at one time.

But, the Witnesses are forced to admit in their own reference work that "the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form." (See Insight on the Scriptures, vol. 2, p. 9).

How to they reconcile the COMPLETE ABSENCE of the Name from ANY New Testament manuscripts? They say that apostates corrupted the manuscripts. If that's the case, that was quite a conspiracy? I wonder what else those apostates corrupted?

1) Why did KJV bible change all the time?

Well, initially this was due primarily to the freedom publishers excercised with editing the bibles that they published. Thus, the King James Version (KJV) underwent literally hundreds of revisions in its first 2 centuries - practically a different revision with every printing. The so-called "Standard Text", based on the Oxford Revision of 1769, has remained extremely stable over the last 240 years, generally suffering only abridgment and rarely revision (examples of revision: Webster's Bible, Joseph Smith Translation)

2) Why did KJV bible change from old KJV to new KJV?

Well, it didn't. The New King James Version (NKJV) is a modern translation of source texts very similar to those used by the translators of the KJV. Also, the KJV was used as a reference version. SO, the NKJV is no more the KJV than the KJV is the Bishops' Bible (the primary reference used by the translators of the KJV). It *is* very similar, but it is most *definitely* a new translation.

3) I have read old KJV in Psalms 83:18 That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, You alone are the Most High over all the earth. But the new KJV has removed it.

You are using the term "removed" - but what the NKJV does that was *not* done in the KJV is *consistently* render the tetragrammaton as "the Lord" (small caps). The KJV did this rather haphazardly, and as a result actually implies a distinction between "Jehovah" in Psa 83 and "the Lord" in the remainder of the Old Testament that does not actually exist. In other words, the KJV translators, in this particular matter, produced a less consistent (and therefore less precise) translation than did the translators of the NKJV.

To put it another way: the NKJV does not **remove** the word "Jehovah". Rather, the translators of the KJV oddly used it in this location but not in hundreds of others where the very same original language word is used in the very same way. The NKJV translators, on the other hand, always render that particular original language word the same way - which is as it should be. It would be *nice* if they had chosen to use a transliteration in all cases instead of using "the Lord" - but the KJV translators likewise did not use a transliteration except in 4 or 5 cases. For a modern, scholarly translation that *does* make use of a transliteration in all instances, look at the very excellent New Jerusalem Bible here

http://www.catholic.org/bible/

4) About Act 5:30 and "cross" vs. "tree"

I checked 2 KJV editions plus the NKJV

tree . . 1611 KJV (original)

tree . . Standard Text

tree . . New King James Version

I can't speak for all King James Version editions - but these, the most popular 2 and the "new" KJV, all use "tree"

5) KJV "changing"

First, understand the difference between

a) the King James Version - that is, the original translation

b) scholarly revisions of the King James Version - that is, versions that modernize the spelling and "correct" a few verses but otherwise make no attempt at re-translation. Among these are the "Standard Text" (Oxford Revision of 1769), Cambridge Paragraph Bible and New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Word changes are almost non-existent in these scholarly revisions.

c) altered King James Versions - using the KJV as the base of the text but making major alterations (such as the "sacred name" bibles)

d) The New King James Version and similar new translations that make use of the title "King James Version" but actually are entirely new translations.

This may help clarify the issue

http://www.bible-reviews.com/selector_kjv.html

Jim

The only "later version" I can find which is different is the NIV. All the others I have checked keep the same basic form as the KJV. While it is strange wording in English, do remember that it was NOT originally written in English, and in Classical Hebrew the wording would not have seemed nearly as odd. The NIV is what is know as a "Dynamic Translation". That means it tried to capture the dynamic meaning .. the English equivalent PHRASING ... of a passage rather than a "word-for-word" type translation. The KJV, and to an even greater extent the NASB, are "Literal Translations", which means the translators when for a word-for-word translation rather than a "Dynamic Translation". That is why the NIV gives what is obviously the meaning of the passage, while the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, Young's Literal, and many others keep the wording which seems far more awkward in English than it would have in Classical Hebrew.

It all has to do with translators and what they think is the best way of translating from Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

The best way to find out what the original word is is to look in a Bible Concordance. I use the on-line one from a website called Blue Letter Bible.

You type in the verse you are interested in, it comes on the screen then there are buttons at the side of each verse. Press the one marked 'C' and it will give you the original language and the meaning of the word plus its uses.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=8...

The NKJ version is different from the AKJ version..

It was advertised as being the same Bible just changing the language to make it more modern. That is not true. The translators of the NKJ version used their belief to subtly change the wording to fit their way of thinking.

The word cross and tree are interchangeable as the cross was wood and therefore made out of a tree. That is just a different way to say the same thing.

I recently read- that "Jehovea" was a poor translation originally. Jews might have pointed this out, since they wrote the Old Testament.

My web-search explains that "Jehovea" was never used in the new testament either, except by Mormons... hmm interesting.

it says, in 1954, the "New world translation" was officially denied as being accurate by The WatchTower Corporation of New York, who translated it poorly.

This was proven in a case called....the Walsh Trial in Scottland.

So thats probably why the word Jehovea was dropped.

Its amazing how much I can learn with a google search!

Peace.

Don't stress it. Compare several different Bible translations; cross reference. there are many many many different translations out there, if you cross reference with several other Bibles, the truth will stand like a steady ribbon through them all and you'll know what the verse is really saying.

We know Jesus died on a cross because that was tradition back then.

The "old" KJV is the ORIGINAL King James Version as translated in 1611

The "new" KJV is a new translation and bears NO relation to the OLD KJV.

The 'old' KJV is the ONLY accurate English translation and has not changed !

<><

Only one reason. Language changes with time and usage. As the definitions of words evolve and change from generation to generation Bible versions must be adjusted to portrait the same meaning that was meant when it was originally written.

No such thing as a capital J ? now you are changing it!

If you don't like the changes then here is the same ol' king james as it was in 1611

http://members.localnet.com/~the1stkjv/

Pfalmes 83:18 That men may knowe, that thou, whose name alone is IEHOVAH: art the most High ouer all the earth.