Posted on 11/27/2010 7:12:53 AM PST by re_tail20
A new poll taken for the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible reveals that a majority of those under 35 in the United Kingdom don't even know about the work, which has been described as a significant part of the estimated 100 million Bible sales annually, making it the best best-seller, ever.
"Yet this is a work which was far more influential than Shakespeare in the development and spread of English," a spokesman for the King James Bible Trust told the Christian Institute in a recent report.
The Christian Institute's report said the translation, which will celebrate its 400th anniversary next year, was the subject of a poll commissioned by the Bible Trust, and a spokesman said it was clear "there has been a dramatic drop in knowledge in a generation."
The results revealed that 51 percent of those under 35 never have heard of the King James Bible, compared to 28 percent of those over the age of 35.
The institute reported that Labour Member of Parliament Frank Field said, "It is not possible to comprehend fully Britain's historical, linguistic or religious development without an understanding of this great translation."
According to officials who are working on a series of events marking the 400th year of the King James Bible, work on the translation into English of God's Word started in 1604 at the request of King James I. Work continued on the project until 1611, when the team of 47 of the top Bible scholars of the time finished their work.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
You wrote:
“Well, then, I suppose their detesting Martin Luther was rather inexplicable, then.”
Nope. Protestants hated each other and often still do. Look at how Calvin and Luther bitterly hated one another and their doctrines. Those who indulge in heresy and schism often hate other heretics and schismatics intensely.
“You don’t define your own beliefs very well. Work on that before you start shufflling history around to suit your partisan wants.”
Actually what I say is usually plain as day. The problem apparently lies with you, not me.
“Speaking of defining, the State Church of so many colonies redefining itself after a genuinely Protestant revolution that resulted in the disestablishment of same is unsurprising.”
Whether you consider it unsurprising or not is irrelevant. All that was relevant was that you made a false claim that the Anglican Church was not Protestant and didn’t consider itself such. I showed that you were wrong on both counts and that American Anglicans knew this as well and put it in their very name. You denied reality. I refuse to do so.
“Ask a member of the Church of England, in England, if they’re Protestant. Have you ever met one? I don’t think you have.”
Oh, I have. Recently I talked to a former Anglican who is now a Catholic priest. The only Anglicans I have met who have a problem admitting their Protestant roots are the same ones who believe in the 19th century “branch” theory. They are in the distinct minority. It also doesn’t matter what their views are. There is reality. And then there is what Protestants invent.
Yep, them bobble-totin' snake shakers gon' git all het up.
Do you ever tire of stereotypes?
You wrote:
“Do you ever tire of stereotypes?”
That’s rich coming from an anti-Catholic.
Do you ever tire of looking hypocritical?
“From 1521 to 1523 he acted as tutor to the children of Sir John and Lady Anne Walsh at Little Sodbury Manor. His duties in teaching the Walsh children would not occupy all of his time and he would be free to pursue other studies. Some are convinced that at Little Sodbury Manor, Tyndale determined to translate and print the Scriptures in the English language.
While at the Walsh home, Tyndale soon acquired a reputation as an excellent preacher and student of the Word of God. This became apparent when he was able to refute the friars when they taught contrary to Scripture. As a result the Walsh family declined to invite the neighboring clergy to their home for banquets and theological discussions. Foxe relates that one of the ecclesiastical officials was so angry with Tyndale for this loss of entertainment and good food that he attempted to bring charges of heresy against him!”
http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0004.html
Guess the charge didn’t stick...later:
“However, it was impossible to translate and print the Bible while at Little Sodbury Manor so Tyndale departed for London. He secured an interview with Cuthbert Tunstall, the Bishop of London, whose sponsorship he hoped to attain. The interview was inconclusive as Tunstall explained that, at that time, he had more scholars living in his house than he could accommodate. He counseled Tyndale to seek a place where he could preach and assured him that he would eventually come by some means of support.”
You write, “And, actually, the common man knew scripture - long before Tyndale or Luther...”
Odd, isn’t it, that they knew so much scripture, yet risked their lives to buy unapproved scriptures translated by Luther and Tyndale, while the Catholic Church failed to provide a common language Bible that had been ‘correctly translated’.
Odd too, that the Catholic New American Bible and even the Douay-Rheims follows Tyndale’s horrible translation. Of course, the KJV had already substituted church for congregation and bishop for elder, so all that remained was to replace repent with do penance and the Catholic Church was back to a suitably inaccurate translation.
Regardless, this does not infer some giant chasm between the early COE and Rome. "Protestant" is not a mantle that has ever rested lightly upon the shoulders of Anglicans because it's not accurate.
Tyndale’s translation of John 3 with only changes to modernize spelling and punctuation reads:
“God so loved the world that he gave his only son for the intent that none that believe in him should perish, but should have everlasting life. For God sent not his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved. He that believes on him shall not be condemned, but he that believes not is condemned already because he believes not in the name of the only son of God.”
By comparison, a recent translation (ESV) has it:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.”
Tyndale is hardly unintelligible. The pictures I posted show that it is the typeset that is almost unreadable to modern eyes, not the English.
I’ve got numerous friends and business associates who are Catholic, Jewish and even irreligious. It has no bearing unless the subject is broached. Your cute attempt to imply bigotry doesn’t fly. I disagree with your church, and do so profoundly in a number of areas as a Christian. I know several fine Christians who are themselves Greek Orthodox, and even Roman Catholic. That they’ve managed to be so is in spite of the Byzantine maze of hurdles and distractions, not because of it.
The wholesale rewriting of history into some sort of cockeyed-optimist Catholic fantasy that gets put forth by you hardcore partisans on FR is also quite bothersome. Are you guys still trying to claim that the Founders were influenced by the Vatican? Or are you bashing them as Masons? Pardon me, but I just can’t keep up with the wacky spin.
*** Rome never concerned itself with vernacular translations since the fourth century when it developed its own. Different peoples and hierarchies are responsible for their own translations.***
From the Translators to the reader 1611 KJV
THE UNWILLINGNESS OF OUR CHIEF ADVERSARIES, THAT THE SCRIPTURES
SHOULD BE DIVULGED IN THE MOTHER TONGUE, ETC.
Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: [Sophecles] they must first get a licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition.
Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth. [See the observation (set forth by Clemen. his authority) upon the 4. rule of Pius the 4. his making in the index, lib. prohib. pag. 15. ver. 5.]
So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people’s understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills....
But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us:...
But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus’ Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnine to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the work? [Sixtus Senens.] Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that if the former Law and Testament had been sufficient, there had been no need of the latter: ...
Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.]
Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican?
Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, published another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means.
I ought to admit the KJV was a step back in readability...but I was amazed to read Tyndale’s 1526 translation and see it was such plain English, although published 85 years before the KJV!
Tyndale actually sought to make it as readable and accessible as possible, the literal vernacular, while the King James was from the outset intended to be more of a literary work, fit for a king, the King’s English. Odd that it was James who set it into motion, but God does work in mysterious ways.
Tyndale’s story is very poignant, and his Bible deserves a rightful place, for his sacrifice to bring it into the world as well as those who suffered for possessing it, if nothing else. This does not detract at all in my opinion from the King James of close to a century later, which drew in large part from Tyndale.
***Two problems with the King James version:
1. It’s a bad translation.
2. It’s redacted.***
MORE From the Translators to the Reader 1611 KJV
Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.
Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.
Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.
You wrote:
“Odd, isn’t it, that they knew so much scripture, yet risked their lives to buy unapproved scriptures translated by Luther and Tyndale, while the Catholic Church failed to provide a common language Bible that had been ‘correctly translated’.”
Nope. There were 14 German translations of the Bible BEFORE Luther’s. Those, by the way, were the printed Bibles. No one knows how man handwritten Bibles there were before Luther’s. Protestant scholars in fact did a good job of ignoring the existence of these pre-Lutheran Bibles until about 50 years ago: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3723092
Some say there were 19 before Luther’s: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30B10FD3B5A12738DDDA90A94D9405B868CF1D3
These Bibles were printed again and again. Mentelin’s famous German Bibles was printed 13 times before 1518 (in other words before Luther even thought about his translation).
“Odd too, that the Catholic New American Bible and even the Douay-Rheims follows Tyndale’s horrible translation. Of course, the KJV had already substituted church for congregation and bishop for elder, so all that remained was to replace repent with do penance and the Catholic Church was back to a suitably inaccurate translation.”
Tyndale was a heretic so everything he touched was considered suspect in any case.
Like I said, it’s a lousy translation. Better to get a good one, and a complete one. Better for the soul.
You wrote:
“The bishops and priests who became Church of England under Henry VIII became Catholic again under Mary, vladimir998.”
False. Those truly Catholic bishops from Henry’s reign, like Bonner, Tunstall, and Gardiner, were restored to their sees by Mary. That means they had been deprived of their sees by Henry or Edward. Those bishops who were not truly Catholic like Ridley, Coverdale, and Hooper, were removed - as was proper. Can’t you get anything right? Seriously now. You make error after error after error and blithely go on as if you didn’t make them. WHY DON’T PROTESTANTS KNOW THEIR OWN HISTORY?!!!
“An awful lot of jumping back and forth for political reasons, wouldn’t you say?”
Some - but that’s what Protestants are like. So when I read that Cranmer went back and forth it doesn’t surprise me at all.
“Especially for people who no longer existed, according to you.”
False. I never said they didn’t exist. I said their numbers were small by the 1640s. What you’re talking about is the 1550s. That’s 90 years difference. Once again, it has to be asked, WHY DON’T PROTESTANTS KNOW THEIR OWN HISTORY?!!!
How can Protestants be so poorly educated that they can’t even tell one century from the other? It’s incredible.
“Regardless, this does not infer some giant chasm between the early COE and Rome.”
Yes, it does. When the “COE” is willing to cheer on the execution of loyal Catholic bishops and priests it most certainly highlights a HUGE CHASM between the two.
“”Protestant” is not a mantle that has ever rested lightly upon the shoulders of Anglicans because it’s not accurate.”
Yes, it is accurate and it rested very easily upon them for several centuries - that’s why they called themselves Protestant Episcopal Church both here and in the British Isles. Deny reality all you like. I won’t.
Ah, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy rears it's ugly head, lol.
“Nope. There were 14 German translations of the Bible BEFORE Luther’s.”
Not into the common German. Those were high german, and unreadable by the common man. That is why Luther’s excellent translation sold in incredible numbers.
Of course, the Catholic Church, with access to good scholars and ample money, COULD have made a good translation and put it into the hands of the common man, but they did not - because they didn’t WANT to. 100,000 copies in 40 years opened the Bible to millions.
“Tyndale was a heretic so everything he touched was considered suspect in any case.”
Had More cared about the truth, he would have admitted what he KNEW: Tyndale’s translation was excellent. Tyndale’s translation survived largely intact in the KJV, except where the KJV degraded accuracy for King Jame’s politics.
When the DR was revised to make it readable, it took the KJV and revised it for Catholic theology - so much of Tyndale slid into the DR. Again, the DR was a step down, since it was more concerned with promoting Catholic theology than being an accurate translation.
***and a complete one. Better for the soul.****
I’ve read the Apocrypha. They are just pious tales on a par with THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS.
I guess my reading and understanding is just on a higher level.
You wrote:
“Not into the common German. Those were high german, and unreadable by the common man.”
False. First, There were Bibles in Low German. The article I linked to talked about exactly that: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3723092 Once again, you are wrong. Second, in my day I could read both High German and Low German. An educated German could probably read both in the 15th and 16th centuries. What they couldn’t do so easily is speak both. Third without the slightest difficulty. I bet you are under the mistaken belief that High and Low are about education or culture as in High Brow and Low Brow. Wrong. They are regional dialects and have nothing to do with education in themselves in the early modern period.
“That is why Luther’s excellent translation sold in incredible numbers.”
No, actually it isn’t.
“Of course, the Catholic Church, with access to good scholars and ample money, COULD have made a good translation and put it into the hands of the common man, but they did not - because they didn’t WANT to. 100,000 copies in 40 years opened the Bible to millions.”
No. National hierarchies and individuals are responsible for translations. Many had been made and all were sold and sold and sold, then reprinted and sold, sold, sold. As fast as Catholic could make them they were sold. It was not the responsibility of the Catholic Church to translate Bibles into the various dialects of German. Germans did that and were quite good at it - long before Luther came along.
“Had More cared about the truth, he would have admitted what he KNEW: Tyndale’s translation was excellent.”
Prove he knw it. When you fail, what will that tell us about someone who makes such a claim?
“Tyndale’s translation survived largely intact in the KJV, except where the KJV degraded accuracy for King Jame’s politics.”
The KJV is not accounted as the most accurate translation so you’re not helping your case with that.
“When the DR was revised to make it readable,”
It was always readable. I have a facsimile reprint of the original edition and have no difficulty in reading it. There are only two or three sentences which are difficult. The same could be said of the 1611 KJV.
“it took the KJV and revised it for Catholic theology - so much of Tyndale slid into the DR.”
Nope. The Douay and Tyndale largely agreed to begin with. Quite frankly almost all English Bibles do except for dated vocabularly.
“Again, the DR was a step down, since it was more concerned with promoting Catholic theology than being an accurate translation.”
False. It was a very accurate translation - of St. Jerome’s Vulgate. That’s not a step down. It’s just a difference. It’s a translation of a translation.
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.