English phrases and sayings that derive from the Bible

The King James Version of the Bible has been enormously influential in the development of the English language. It ranks with the complete works of Shakespeare and the Oxford English Dictionary as one of the cornerstones of the recorded language. After Shakespeare, the King James, or Authorized, Version of the Bible is the most common source of phrases in English. The King James in question was James I of England and James VI of Scotland. He didn't write the text of course, he merely authorized it, hence the name that the book is best known in the UK (King James Version, or KJV, being more commonly used in the USA).

The King James Version was translated by 47 biblical scholars, working in six committees. It was first printed in 1611 and was by no means the earliest English translation of the Bible. It was pre-dated by several other partial or complete translations, notably John Wyclif's translation in 1382 and William Tyndale's in 1528 - the latter forming the basis of a large proportion of the KJV.

What raises that version above other versions of the Bible in terms of its linguistic impact is the fact that the language used has persisted into the present-day. Many of the phrases includeded are still commonplace. Here are some of the many phrases that originated in the Bible (most, but not all from the King James Version):

I have to say, yours is about the most ignorant rant on this subject I've heard in a long (long) time. Where in the world did you go to school??? (or did you?)

doesn't Readers Digest have condensed veersions of various novels???they can get two or three in a 2 inch thick book. The basic story is there, but many of the pertinant details are left out. That's what the KJV did to the Catholic bible (in use by all for over 1,500 years).

The bible is a collection of books, and "Protestant Bibles" have NO 'CONDENSED' versions any books....the same books, the same texts, in translation, as Catholic bibles with a tiny exception: Certain low-quality short Jewish books--which the Jews themselves never included in their canon, were formally included in the canon, demanded by the Council of Trent of the 1560s (that's the same council which "authoritatively" condemned all Protestants to Hell). This was after--and in response to--Luther and other Protestants agreeing with the Jews on their canon.

Saint Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate (THE bible of the Middle Ages) named a certain small collection of Jewish writings--which the Jews of Jesus day and before did NOT include in their cannon--the "Apocrypha" because he did not consider them canonical--that is part of the bible. He reluctantly included them with his translation--due to pressure from other churchmen. In no way, shape or form did the Church Fathers--or medieval Catholic scholars--uniformly agree that the Apocrypha belonged in the Bible.

The protestants of the time decided that they were more qualified to design a bible than were the fathers of the church. They decided to eliminate those books which might show evidence of some of the teachings that they wished to ignore (like praying for the dead) only necessary if there is a purgatory!!!

There was no arbitrary elimination of offensive books...rather, Luther, and other scholars of the day, sided, in the ongoing CATHOLIC scholarly debate, with the Jews, in believing that these Jewish books were not inspired cannon.

Throughout the Middle Ages, many Roman Catholic authorities, in between times of expelling Jews from England, Rome, Spain, and various other European countries and cities...naturally didn't trust the Jewish list of Old Testament books, for some reason or another.

The evidence is though, that the Bible of Jesus and the 12 Apostles, that is the Old Testament--also did NOT include the Apocrypha. The problem was that the formalization of the list by the Jews of the Tanak (the Old Testament) comes in the AD, around AD 100...therefore some Christians didn't trust the Jews--to have gotten THEIR canon right. More scholarly ones (like Jerome) did, however.

You know the story of the revolution, certain people who couldn't handle Catholicism decided to invent their own version of Christianity (how's it working for you??) When you make your own rules, you can condemn abortion, contraception, birth control, etc as true evils for hundreds of years and then, in the 20th century, decide they they are now O.K.....amazing!!!!!

Only as certain mainline protestants have gotten away from recognizing the the Bible as God's Word, and alone as the final authority, have they drifted into arbitrary ethics. Arbitrary ethics can also come from looking for authority in the Bible PLUS, AN ARBITRARY, UNDEFINED, LIST OF TRADITION...AS DETERMINED BY THE CURRENT CHURCH LEADERSHIP.... Those of us traditional, conservative evangelical Protestants have never condoned abortion or other ethical evils--condemned in the Bible--as we have a solid unchanging rule, the written Word of God.

Rome has changed too you know. The supposedly fully authoritative Council of Trent clearly declared all Protestants are condemned to Hell...yet Vatican II says we--and even possibly atheists...are (now?) not condemned to Hell. Your church utterly condemns Capitol Punishment today--but, before (and during) WWII it did not. The Roman Church has changed her mind on things numerous times...and the idea unchanging consistency in a human-ruled body....is really laughable, and must twist or deny the facts of history.

This is a good treatise on the history of Biblical translations. Only some versions have left out the Apocryphal books and the current NKJV includes them.
Within the article there are many good links. This is a site which sells original manuscripts if you can afford them. http://greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html
Consider the following textual comparison of the earliest English translations of John 3:16, as shown in the English Hexapla Parallel New Testament:

1st Ed. King James (1611): “For God so loued the world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”
Rheims (1582): “For so God loued the vvorld, that he gaue his only-begotten sonne: that euery one that beleeueth in him, perish not, but may haue life euerlasting”
Geneva (1560): “For God so loueth the world, that he hath geuen his only begotten Sonne: that none that beleue in him, should peryshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe.”
Great Bible (1539): “For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in him, shulde not perisshe, but haue euerlasting lyfe.”
Tyndale (1534): “For God so loveth the worlde, that he hath geven his only sonne, that none that beleve in him, shuld perisshe: but shuld have everlastinge lyfe.”
Wycliff (1380): “for god loued so the world; that he gaf his oon bigetun sone, that eche man that bileueth in him perisch not: but haue euerlastynge liif,”
Anglo-Saxon Proto-English Manuscripts (995 AD): “God lufode middan-eard swa, dat he seade his an-cennedan sunu, dat nan ne forweorde de on hine gely ac habbe dat ece lif.”

A wonderful thread!

Probably the best statement on the Apocrypha—of its helpful but not fully authoritative nature, is found in the 16th Century Anglican 39 Articles of Religion (”Hierome” is an arcaic spelling of Jerome by the way...):

“And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras.
The Fourth Book of Esdras.
The Book of Tobias.
The Book of Judith.
The rest of the Book of Esther.
The Book of Wisdom.
Jesus the Son of Sirach.
Baruch the Prophet.
The Song of the Three Children.
The Story of Susanna.
Of Bel and the Dragon.
The Prayer of Manasses.
The First Book of Maccabees.
The Second Book of Maccabees.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would emphasize again the shortness of these books (less than 5% of the space in the Old Testament)...and the ridiculous nature of some too (Tobit, for example is clearly written as a tall-tale, a legend. Great example of Jewish fiction though.... Others are very insulting to women...)

Your church utterly condemns Capitol Punishment today--but, before (and during) WWII it did not.

It is not a 'teaching' of the Catholic Church that Capital Punishment is condemned. The Church teaches that Capital Punishment is the purview of the 'state', and that for the protection of the innocent, it CAN be carried out. For example, if there is a murderer on death row who is still ordering murders from prison, it is not wrong to put that person to death, in order to save a potential victim.

The reason the Church isn't enamored of the death penalty is because putting someone to death denies that person the opportunity to repent of their sins. My thought is that if they haven't repented before getting the needle, it ain't gonna happen. But it is not a doctrine of the Church that supporting, ordering, or carrying out the death penalty is a sin.

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.