The King James Bible is holy and inspired blah blah blah.

While surfing randomly today, I came across a dozen sites that vehemently support the King James Bible. They lambaste other English language versions, calling them perversions of the Word of God. What's more, these people actually know how to type, so stop the stereotype first.

Being the non-verbose iconoclast that I am, I'd like to criticize the King James Bible as well. Indeed, the King James Bible stands on shaky grounds, its authors, editors, and sponsors being of dubious backgrounds.

1) King James I of England was the prime proponent of the Divine Right of Kings.

James I wrote in his Works (1609),

The state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself are called gods.

...

Kings are justly called gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power upon earth: for if you will consider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king. God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake, at his pleasure, to give life or send death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none; to raise low things and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to God are both souls and body due. And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their subjects, they have power of raising and casting down, of life and of death, judges over all their subjects and in all causes and yet accountable to none but God only.

I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity, That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy ...

I think this passage speaks for itself. Can proponents of the King James Bible honestly say they still consider a Bible translation commissioned by this king holy and inspired?

2) Tyndale was much more qualified than King James' committee.

William Tyndale was a priest from an earlier period, and he was one of the early pioneers who attempted to translate the Bible into the local vernacular. Many later translations are also based on Tyndale's effort, the King James Bible included.

His most visible contributions include the introduction of new words into English: words and expressions such as atonement, scapegoat, and so on.

Tyndale was burnt at the stake for translating the Bible, unlike the committee of King James I who had the support of a king that considered himself divine. Hmm, why does no King James Bible proponent mention Tyndale?

3) The committee -- who were they?

It needs to be said that no one has any idea what the translators' qualifications were or even who they were. This fact is recognized by King James Bible proponents. We know nothing at all about their understanding of Ancient Hebrew. Can anyone say what their names were, just to name a random question? Remember, it was a committee, commissioned by King James I. Anyone with an axe to grind could mess up the entire thing, and the king obviously already did.

Too much blind faith and too little evidence here.

4) Early Modern English -- can you read it?

If it's just Shakespeare, then fine, because it's not something everyone gets excited about. But this is a Bible translation, and thus to be read as the Word of God for most Christians. It doesn't matter how many people say it's easy to understand, because it isn't. It was written in an English dialect that was even archaic-sounding for King James' time. How often do people mix up words like "thou", "thee", "thy", "thine", "ye", "you", and so on?

Do people realize why "thou" was used? To make it sound formal and stern? No!

"Thou" was the familiar second-person pronoun, similar to the French "tu". It was used so the people would find God less intimidating and more familiar. Do people know that nuance? Probably not. Can people feel the feeling behind it now? No. How many more nuances are there? Countless. Look at the next example.

Another example is the phrase "help meet", which is now taken (or corrupted) to mean "helpmate" or "wife". But do you know what "help meet" means in Early Modern English? The answer is it doesn't mean anything by itself. The full phrase in Genesis was "an help meet for him [Adam]"; that is, "a helper suitable for him"! It's not a "ye olde Englishe" spelling at all.

People who claim the King James Bible is easy to understand either underestimate their own advanced reading abilities, have already misunderstood the Bible without knowing it, or simply haven't read it very carefully or at all.

5) You are reading a revised version already.

The "King James Bible" you are holding in your hand is a Satanic product of lies and has already been perverted by revisionists! Don't believe it? Here is the inspired Holy Word Of God Who Speaketh English and English Only:

THE EPISTLE OF PAVL
the Apoſtle to the Hebrewes.

CHAP. I.

1 Chriſt in theſe laſt times comming to vs from the Father ...

What? Still too much revised? Okay, let me show you an original page then from the only inspired edition. Ahem, I mean... Be thov readie to receiue vponne thine altere the Word of God euen here.




"But that looks nothing like English!"

Too bad! Early 17th writing and speech would both be largely incomprehensible to modern English-speakers without artificial editing, even though the Great Vowel Shift was coming to an end.

Some more food for thought: Defects of the King James Version.