Now, this is very interesting as there were many Translations of the KJV Bible compared to the newer "corrected" translations. But of course as you can see, there were many contradicted statements and verses that won't correlate with each other (So, does the newer translations have better benefit than the KVJ version at all?). I remember a video on Youtube called "KJV Bible: God's perfect Word", and how the narrator detailed some history on the Bibles being "conducted" by the Catholic Jesuits, "prior" to the KJV version coming forth. It was as if there was a battle of translations of the Bibles, and whose more authentic than the other.
Now, if you read in the beginning of the Preface states: "TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTIE PRINCE, JAMES BY THE GRACE OF GOD KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through JESUS CHRIST, our Lord. GREAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen ELIZABETH of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of your Majesty, as the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title...."
The term "Occidental" means this in the Etymology: "c. 1400, "to, of, or in the west (of the sky or the earth)," from Old French occidental (14c.) and directly from Latin occidentalis "western," from occidentem (see occident). Meaning "of, pertaining to, or characteristic of the western regions of the earth (especially Western Europe and its derivative civilizations in the western hemisphere" (opposed to oriental), 1550s. As a capitalized noun meaning "a Western person" (opposed to Oriental) it is attested from 1823. Related: Occidentalism; occidentalist. Those who inhabit (to us) the western regions of the world, and to express whom the English language wants a word, the opposite of Orientals; though word-coining be much condemned, I will venture to employ Occidentalsas substantive and say, (etc.) ["The Bee," 1823]".
You should know that this is the opposite of "Oriental", which states this: "late 14c., "of the orient; from the east," from Old French oriental "eastern, from the east" (12c.) and directly from Latin orientalis "of or belonging to the east," from orientem (see orient (n.)). Originally in reference to the sky, geographical sense, often with a capital O-, is attested from late 15c.; oriental carpet is recorded by 1828. Of gems or stones, "of superior quality," late 14c."
Then there is the "Orient": "ate 14c., "the direction east; the part of the horizon where the sun first appears," also (now with capital O-) "the eastern regions of the world, eastern countries" (originally vaguely meaning the region east and south of Europe, what is now called the Middle East but also sometimes Egypt and India), from Old French orient "east" (11c.), from Latin orientem (nominative oriens) "the rising sun, the east, part of the sky where the sun rises," originally "rising" (adj.), present participle of oriri "to rise" (see origin)."
"Meaning "a pearl of the first water" is by 1831, short for pearl of the Orient (late 14c.) originally meaning one from the Indian seas. Hence also the meaning "a delicate iridescence, the peculiar luster of a fine pearl" (1755). The Orient Express was a train that ran from Paris to Istanbul via Vienna 1883-1961, from the start it was associated with espionage and intrigue."
Now, it is interesting as the term "Occident" is based on the West, and "Orient" is based on the East, as they would determine either "Egypt" or "India" (Of course you know Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" based on famous Inspector "Hercule Poirot"). And how Queen Elizabeth was considered the "Occidental Star", and Prince James was the "KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, &c. THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE".
Now, when I was in an Islamic Sufi sect (based on an Ancient order), my teacher would detail some interesting things based on the Prophet Muhammed, and would speak highly about his life as if He was Jesus Christ Himself. The true Islam was based on the "Path of Love" and learning about youself and your Creator (which is what the first and second Commandments are based). He would state somethings like "Allah had sent Muhammed as a mercy to mankind", and "everything was created through him", and knowing my Christian understanding of the Bible, it's as if he was talking about Jesus. And most of the Leaders of the Muslim world would know the current Queen Elizabeth the 2nd's lineage, how she is a descendant of the Prophet Muhammed. Prince Charles is highly respected by the House of Saudi for this reason as told by my teacher. Then if that is so, then Queen Elizabeth's lineage is really based on the "Orient".
So, since I have started this blog, I began to piece everything together and seeing how the Bible is not about the Middle East, but is about the People going towards India and China, then from there comes the question: Where did the Bible really come from? Now, I have seen many people trying to piece together the locations of the Bible within the Middle Eastern stand point, in which I find it to be highly inaccurate to this day.