Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How the King James Bible changed the world
baylor.edu ^

Posted on 09/09/2014 7:52:23 AM PDT by RoosterRedux

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last
To: OriginalChristian
The message was proclaimed around the world every day at mass throughout the world to the faithful in the pews that couldn’t read. Even today, if you attend daily and Sunday mass every day for three years, you will hear read, virtually the entire canon of scripture. Everybody conveniently forgets that literacy is a fairly recent achievement, and it is not yet universal.

And since no ones memory is that good, and most people don't go to daily Mass, it would behoove people to buy a bible to take home and read and study for themselves...

41 posted on 09/09/2014 11:10:30 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: southernmann
If the King James version came out after the Catholic version, and it is not the same, doesn’t that mean that the King James version must be incomplete and thus inaccurate?

The books of the Apocrypha are excluded in the KJB, but that doesn't mean it is incomplete or incorrect.

There is nothing to prevent one from reading the books of the Apocrypha or the Pseudepigrapha.

I have a two volume set of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha on my bedside table and study the Book of Enoch regularly.

Fascinating stuff.

42 posted on 09/09/2014 11:25:35 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I have wondered if both sides talked with each other.

The DR had some revisions that post date the KJV. I have older translations of both, and they are different in places but very similar in others.

Also remember the old KJV had the Apocrypha in it (or at least the version I have did). The similarities are not as close, but still made me wonder if they hadn’t been talking.


43 posted on 09/09/2014 12:56:14 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Anyone who does a translation “changes” what they translate. That is why no translation should be unquestioningly accepted. However, Luther’s translation was faithful in trying to convey the meaning into German. Tyndale’s translation was faithful in trying to convey the meaning into English, and the KJV owes a great deal to Tyndale.

And since the D-R Bible is essentially a KJV with Roman Catholic theology inserted (regardless of the Greek or Hebrew), the most famous Catholic English translation owes a lot to the KJV and thus Tyndale as well!


44 posted on 09/09/2014 1:03:55 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

“The earlier Catholic Bible in English, the Douay-Rheims, was published in 1589 (NT) and 1611 (OT).”

That version ceased printing around 1635. The KJV owes far more to the Tyndale and Coverdale translations from the mid 1500s. The DR Bible used today is the one largely based off the KJV, with Catholic theology added (1750).

“But in the Middle Ages, Europeans who could read, read Latin.”

Yet there was a huge demand for Bibles in English and German. How could that be, if folks only read Latin?


45 posted on 09/09/2014 1:06:38 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Luther’s translation made the German language into what it is today.

Same with the KJV.

They set the language for the people.


46 posted on 09/09/2014 1:09:22 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; RegulatorCountry; afraidfortherepublic; Salvation

“The committees explicitly states that former translations are used.”

“Scholars tell us that around 90% of the King James Version is from Tyndale’s works with as much as one third of the text being word for word Tyndale. Many of the popular phrases and Bible verses that people quote today are mainly in the language of Tyndale. An example of which is Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers.” The importance of the Tyndale Bible in shaping and influencing the English language is paramount. According to one scholar Tyndale is “the man who more than Shakespeare even or Bunyan has moulded and enriched our language.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible

Not all were used equally, and none of the translations consulted overruled the Greek or Hebrew texts.


47 posted on 09/09/2014 1:13:17 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

If you were educated, you have to learn Latin. Trouble is by that time it was a “dead” language.

Dante’s Divine Comedy was very controversial because he wrote in what was called “His own Romance” which later became Italian. It was viewed as vulgar since giving literature to the masses (read, middle class artisans and merchants) was not considered good by the nobles.

That is part of the reason for the instance of using all Latin by many Catholics. What is funny is that if you read about why Jerome did what he did, he was attempting to translate the Bible into a language that most people in the Empire spoke. Vulgar (common) Latin.

He did ok, but even early on people pointed out his errors. Augustine and Jerome didn’t like each other, and Augustine had a very dim view of the Vulgate and preferred other texts. Their letters back and forth make me wonder what their FReeper names would have been.


48 posted on 09/09/2014 1:14:06 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

I would say Luther and Tyndale (and the later versions, most importantly the KJV) solidified the language...caused it to jell, so to speak. Luther, Tyndale and others had to choose between phrases and terms that differed in various locations, and the choices they made then became the standard everywhere.


49 posted on 09/09/2014 1:16:00 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

http://www.bible-researcher.com/vulgate2.html

I can not vouch for anything else on this site, but here are a few of the letter between Augustine and Jerome.


50 posted on 09/09/2014 1:16:46 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

The commoners knew enough to have a hunger for the Bible in their own vernacular. That is why Wycliffe’s awkward translation was circulated at great risk. That is why Tyndale’s translation sold as fast as they could be printed. That is why Luther’s translation flooded the country - there WAS an unmet demand for good vernacular translations.

I’ll admit to regarding Jerome much higher than Augustine. It would be fascinating to have them as Freepers, however!


51 posted on 09/09/2014 1:18:58 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

The letters were awesome. The first time I read them years ago I had to laugh as they reminded me so much of discussions here.

It wasn’t just the Bible. Until the Reformation, the idea that you should even HAVE a language outside of Greek or Latin was very suspicious for many nobles. The local languages were viewed with contempt, much like we view local slang. So translating the Bible to a population that should be speaking “correctly” was considered wrong.

The issue was that in the germanic groups, Latin had never been the language. Same with the slavonic areas. So they had no attachment to Latin. The Slavonic groups did have to Greek, but still had a unique outlook.

Even the Council of Trent had some rather odd statements. The Catholic church has many rites in local languages, most dating to prior to Trent. This caused all kinds of confusion when Latin prelates demanded that Greek Catholics ditch their rite in the 19th century USA.


52 posted on 09/09/2014 1:26:48 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers
“The earlier Catholic Bible in English, the Douay-Rheims, was published in 1589 (NT) and 1611 (OT).”

That version ceased printing around 1635.

That's funny. I have one. Yes, it was made from one of the old copies. Keep in mind that possession of the Catholic version would be potentially considered treasonous (which is why it was the Douay-Rheims, and not the Oxford-Cambridge or somesuch), and the project was pretty expensive, which is why it took an extra 20 years to finish the Old Testament. That combination doomed widespread availability.

Yet there was a huge demand for Bibles in English and German. How could that be, if folks only read Latin?

I don't know how "huge" the demand was. In England, the Crown ordered purchases of it (which decreased the price to publish). In the very early years of printing, a large book like a Bible would cost so much to typeset that only the very rich could afford it, which is why they were often encrusted with jewels. One of the first items printed by the German Catholic Gutenberg was the Gutenberg Bible (in Latin, of course), in 1455 or so. Before that he warmed up his presses letting people know of the plenary indulgence offered for repelling the Turks in Cyprus.

We still have trouble coming up with decent translations of Holy Scripture, and it is not something to be undertaken lightly.I had heard about an Eskimo language that has no word for "lamb", so the rendering was "small white creature that looks like a caribou". That's problematic. English, even with its huge vocabulary, does not have all of the constructions that either Greek or Latin have. The lack of the Greek "Middle Voice" is evident when any English Bible describes the resurrection ("raised himself from the dead", "is raised from the dead" etc.) The septuagint traditionally required 70 scholars to do it right. The Crown bankrolled a serious operation to do a serious job and largely succeeded (though there are problems for a modern English reader who doesn't know the KJV meanings of words like "prevent " in KJV English.) The ancient Russians actually made symbols to represent words that did not have an exact match, to avoid error.

It is more important to get the language right than to publish in every possible language.
53 posted on 09/09/2014 1:36:08 PM PDT by Dr. Sivana ("If you're litigating against nuns, you've probably done something wrong."-Ted Cruz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

but the vocal Catholic proselytizers on FR

...and they, of course, would be distinct from the vocal Protestant proselytizers on FR...


54 posted on 09/09/2014 1:36:38 PM PDT by IrishBrigade (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: IrishBrigade

Of course.


55 posted on 09/09/2014 1:42:40 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Years ago I had a chance to purchase a Lollard bible/ 90%, for short money around 12k but the seller could not guarantee the providence,

A lot of the language was very similar to KJV.

56 posted on 09/09/2014 1:56:50 PM PDT by Little Bill (EVICT Queen Jean)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

The Douay-Rheims was NOT consulted when the KJV was created. No corrupted Catholic manuscripts were consulted.


57 posted on 09/09/2014 2:20:45 PM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Name one. It was never contrary to church law for a lay person to possess or use an approved translation, except for about 50 years in southern France during the Albigensian heresy (13th century).

Oh please, have you ever read Fox's Book of Martyrs? The list is endless! And don't you dare label what the Albigense's did "heresy." Since when is it heresy to try to worship and love God as the scriptures call for?

58 posted on 09/09/2014 2:26:50 PM PDT by ducttape45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Sivana

“I don’t know how “huge” the demand was. In England, the Crown ordered purchases of it...”

That did not apply to Tyndale’s translation, nor to Wycliffe or Coverdale.

In the 1200s, the price of a full Wycliffe’s bible would have taken the average person 15 years to earn - IF that person had no other expenses of any sort! By Tyndale’s time, the price of a complete New Testament was down more than 200-fold.

“It is more important to get the language right than to publish in every possible language.”

By that theory, none of us would own vernacular translations, since no translation is perfect. Indeed, there are disputes about readings in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, so perhaps we all ought to ignore the Word of God!

Thankfully, men like Tyndale and Luther disagreed.

From Tyndale’s 1525 translation of John, with original spelling:

“And as Moses lifte vp the serpent in the wyldernes even so must the sonne of man be lifte vp 15 that none that beleveth in him perisshe: but have eternall lyfe. 16 For God so loveth the worlde yt he hath geven his only sonne that none that beleve in him shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe. 17 For God sent not his sonne into the worlde to condepne the worlde: but that the worlde through him might be saved. 18 He that beleveth on him shall not be condepned. But he that beleveth not is condempned all redy be cause he beleveth not in the name of the only sonne of God.”

I’d rather have nothing but Tyndale’s 1525 translation in 2014 than none at all!

“But God which is rich in mercy thorow his greate love wherwith he loved vs 5 even when we were deed by synne hath quickened vs together in Christ (for by grace are ye saved) 6 and hath raysed vs vp together and made vs sitte together in hevenly thynges thorow Christ Iesus 7 for to shewe in tymes to come the excedynge ryches of his grace in kyndnes to vs warde in Christ Iesu. 8 For by grace are ye made safe thorowe fayth and that not of youre selves. For it is the gyfte of God 9 and commeth not of workes lest eny man shuld bost him silfe. 10 For we are his worckmanshippe created in Christ Iesu vnto good workes vnto the which god ordeyned vs before that we shuld walke in them. ...”


59 posted on 09/09/2014 3:19:06 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ducttape45; Campion

BIBLE READING BY THE LAITY, RESTRICTIONS ON:

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc02/htm/iv.v.lxi.htm


60 posted on 09/09/2014 3:23:30 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-127 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson