Here we go again... The King James Bible, or, officially, the Authorized Version, is one of the worst translations of a lot-it was, given the circumstances, still quite an accomplishment-especially for the purely poetic quality of its prose. It's beautiful. It's also completely and dreadfully wrong, in several key places in the New Testament. These are chiefly due to the Oxford Company (the committee responsible for translation of the Gospels, Acts and Book of Revelation) being dependent upon two earlier English translations, the Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, along with the terms of the commission by James VI, and having truly execrable Greek, no Hebrew and no Aramaic knowledge. 1) The Gospels repeatedly speak of Jesus as being "of Nazareth," or "from Nazareth." Archaeologically speaking, it's unlikely-Nazareth was not only a place of no particular account at the time of the Gospels, it was, at that time, a necropolis-the home of a funerary cult of pagan origins. Such a place would be unclean to Hebrews at the time, and it's likely that no Jews lived there until after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. If one remembers, though, that the Gospel writers were Hellenized Hebrews, and looks to the Koine Greek of the time, each time the phrase mistranslated as "Jesus of Nazareth" appears, it really reads "Jesus the Nazarene," or Nazarite. Rather than a person from Nazareth-a place which essentially did not exist in the Hebrew world at that time-a Nazarite was a member of a Hebrew sect who voluntarily took the vows described in Numbers 6:1-21, essentially, to not become ritually defiled by contact with the dead, to refrain from grapes, wine and vinegar, and to not cut one's hair. After following these vows, they would make several sacrifices in the Temple, including cutting off their hair and burning it. I won't get into the specific exegesis, but it's likely that, in addition to being a Pharisee, Paul took a Nazirite vow. Jesus was almost certainly a Nazir himself. 2) Very little Aramaic remained in the New Testament-it was likely originally written in Greek, though some argue that it was translated to Greek from Aramaic-but what Aramaic does remain is kind of important: Jesus repeatedly refers to the Creator as Abba, including in the Lord's Prayer. Unfortunately, rather than translating it properly, the committee translated it as Our father. What abba really means, though, is daddy, which is simply beautiful: Jesus refers to the Creator not as "my Father," or "our Father," but in very familiar and intimate terms, and encourages His followers to do the same. Jesus also cries out on the cross, Eli,Eli, lama sabacthani, commonly translated as My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? In addition to meaning "forsaken," though, the Aramaic verb form shabacthani also means several other things in addition to forsake or divorce, including bequeath , bestow, forgive, and, most especially for our purposes here, entrust-the translation used in the Syriac and Coptic Bibles. Lest we remain thoroughly Eurocentric, the Syriac and Coptic Bibles are the oldest extant translations in continuous use of ANY translation of the Bible, and Syriac is, essentially, Aramaic-at least, its relationship to Aramaic is analogous to modern Greek's relationship to Koine Greek. In any case, I put it to you: which makes more sense? That a man-who is more than simply a man-on a mission from God-should cry out at the fulfillment of that mission, My God, my God! Why hast thou forsaken me? In seemingly utter despair? Or, a cry of triumph, My God. My God! This is WHY I was FORSWORN!! I actually could go on....and on...and on.....but I think all get the point: as full of beauty and truth as it is, the King James Bible kinda sucks-especially as a translation, full of fabrications and errors.