[MrB]

"The King James Bible, published in 1611, was England's authorized version of the Bible translated from the original Hebrew and Greek languages into English at the request of King James I of England. "

http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm

[RJS1950]

Even if you discount the historical facts about the political influences on the rewriters of the bible under King James, what proves that the men who did the interpretations and translations did it correctly or did not add their own beliefs or those they were instructed to put in by the crown. Those original translations came down primarily from the collected results of the efforts of Constantine's bishops who made a decision on what books and translations were true or not true. That is also discounting the fact that languages and the meanings of words that make up languages change dramatically through the millenia. The translations of existing ancient biblical or related texts have been debated for centuries and still are. Add to that the little detail that some of those texts did not survive in a complete form or that different interpretations of the same texts from the same periods can be readily found. Sorry, it is still a work interpreted by mortal man and therefore will be flawed. Should that detract from belief in God or Christ's teachings or in the lessons that can be derived from the bible? Certainly not, but we have to remember that it is the personal faith and belief in God that is important and not the denomination you follow or the version of the bible you believe in. It's about God, not the book or the church.