Was the King James bible translated in favor of political reasons?

The translators of the King James Version translated the word "ekklēsia" to the word "church" in nearly every occurrence in the Bible. The problem is that this word doesn't mean "church" as in a place of worship, ekklēsia means “an assembly”.

This is the only deliberate 'mistake' that I am aware the translators made and it was made by request of King James. All but four versions (that I am aware of) copy this same mistake.

Aside from that the translators were given all the time they needed, all the resources they needed and near complete autonomy, however they were not bound to any political agenda. There are a handful of errors in the King James Version but most other versions have ten times that amount.

There was nothing added or taken away from scripture as translated in the King James Version, it is the most complete and the most accurately translated English version of the Bible. I think I've established that it's not perfect but you're not going to find anything much better, not to mention it is widely accepted and respected in most Christian (even some non-Christian) circles.

All the translations are different for different reasons.

Some reasons for the differences are political, like the Old Testament account where (either Saul or David) cut and chopped up inhabitants of conquered villages with axes and harrows, or they weren't massacred but only "put to work with axes and harrows." One version is horrible, the other is a work program.

I'm sure they all have their relative strengths and weaknesses. Particularly objectionable, IMHO, is the Living Bible paraphrase for its dependable inaccuracy, and the NIV because it's worded to appease bloodthirsty Fundamentalists.

The best New Testament I've seen was the Phillips from about 40 years ago. The individual verses were not numbered, because the original texts were not numbered. The translation seemed pretty accurate, but I don't recall why since I lost my only copy about 30 years ago.

Since I'm too lazy to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek (Hebrew IS Greek to me anyway), I stick with the revised Standard Version, and allow plenty of wiggle-room for mistakes.

You might consider the effects of the effort to standardize the official Canon. If ever there was anything political in Christian history, that was it. Check it out. A bunch of political people with political agendas voted on which books were false and which were bona fide writings. So what we have now may or may not be the entire work, or it might have a false book or two in it, and it might be missing some important revelations.

He did no longer write the bible yet he surely replaced into area of the King James version translation group and left his mark in Psalms 40 six. in case you study the king James version, Psalms 40 six, count form 40 six words from the commencing up of the verse and you get the be conscious shake. count form 40 six words from the top of the verse and you get the be conscious spear. Shakespear replaced into 40 six years old whilst he took area in translating the King James version.

The translators did their best. Unfortunately the translators appointed by King James were not expert in the ancient languages, and it shows, on almost every page. The KJV is the poorest English translation still in common use, with more than 3,500 translational errors. Many of the errors are minor - verb tenses, incorrect punctuation, etc. - but some of them are really absurd - like translating the Hebrew phrase for "horned beasts" as "unicorns" instead of the correct translation found in every other version of the bible - "oxen" or "cattle".

And any Protestant version you buy is going to be incomplete, since Luther trashed 7 books of God's Holy Word. He fully intended to throw out 3 New Testament books as well, but his followers were on the point of rebellion over trashing the writings of the apostles themselves, so he backed down on those three books. If he had his way, Protestants would have an incomplete Bible of 63 books instead of the incomplete Bible of 66 books they use.

The romans wouldn't do that! Would they? Sarcasm, obviously....

Do some research on the time periods. It's interesting. It's also interesting to read when certain books of the bible were written (according to christians and secularist science alike) makes it easy to take the b.s. out of it. I'd go ahead and suggest buying thomas jeffersons edit of the bible. You can find it online or at most big bookstores. It's very good.

It has a reputation for being poorly translated and omitting several books . Sorry but the closer you get to the original trascripts the more accurate it should be.

http://www.kencollins.com/bible/bible-t2.htm.

Here is a list of Bible and true advantages and weak points.

the kjv was made because king james of england and scotland and ireland requested that the bible be updated .... The kjv is the best translation of the bible i only use the kjv

God showed me the Bible is true. I was reading the KJV at the time.