Anyone know why the King James Version bible isn't called a "translation"?

Just like all the other aspects of the modern Christian religion, politics such as the niceen creed with Constentine is a large promoter of the religion.

If you have an official government recognized version of the bible, that is translated to keep the protestants happy, you will have less likely chance of uprising. It also removes the theocractic hold the Catholic church had on monoply of the Latin vulgate.

The King James Version is what it is; the King James Version of the Bible for the Church of England. If I remember correctly this version was also modified to keep up with the times, but I'm not 100% sure.

I wouldn't actually really call a translation, but a revision.

It is. That's why its called a "version", meaning translation. Same difference. They are all translations. Every one of them. As a matter of fact, the KJV was revised numerous times after it was first printed to correct awkward phrases, grammar, etc., as each bore the printing year. They were largely discontinued and England went with the last version we have today. It was retranslated recently as the New KJV or NKJV, without all those pesky thees, thous, and divers places.

THe KJV is the most difficult bible to read and understand. Reason why most cults love insisting on using it. Easier to manipulate the fancy wordage. No wonder the mormons' 1832 book was styled after Elizabethan English.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't "translations" done by lone individuals, while "versions" are done by groups of biblical scholars and expert linguists? Case in point: Joseph Smith "Translation" (JST). Nobody trusts it. Not even the mormons use it. Their church prefers the KJV. Easier to manipulate, generally accepted, sounds almost exactly like their book of mormon, and is definitely not highly embarrassing.

The King James bible is 400 years old now.

when it was first produced, it was given a royal commission and was the very first English Translation of the bible of its kind.

In those times you didn't have to say which translation you were using, there was Only the King James bible. After 400 years though, language has dramatically changed, as new ideas, inventions and lifestyle evolves and new words come into being that can be better used in a translation that didn't exist before and so on, the Bible needed to be updated every now and then to reflect the new English evolved for each period of time.

for example, King James uses the common English of the time - "Dost thou knowest ?"

In modern times now, we would say - "Did you know?" - You see, exactly the same meaning but updated into English we speak today.

In another 100 years, another update would be needed. So today, when quoting from the bible you state which translation you are quoting from.

In the beginning there was only the ONE translation, no one needed to know which translation of English Bible you used then.

Because it is another version of the Bible.

Just like all other translations.

LeBron James wrote the bible? Wow.

Well, everyone knows it IS a translation.

However, if you WANT to understand the Bible, read the HEBREW original.

You also do not study Mark Twain in Suaheli, do you?

Why does it make a difference? It is obviously a translation as the original texts were in Hebrew, Greek etc. So why does it make a difference what it's known as?

Because if you tell 90% of Xtians that it wasn't written in English, they'd all have a stroke.

Sure, because when you are the KING, you make the rules.

The Golden Rule.........He who controls the Gold, makes the rules-