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:
“Ah, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy rears it’s ugly head, lol.”
In any case you were wrong. Some bishops were restored. Some were ousted. Thus, your claim was false. The fallacy is all yours. How many outright errors have you made in this thread so far?
"Some" does not equate to all, vlad. Therein lies your fallacy.
The very existence of Bloody Mary alone negates much of what you've so adamantly maintained.
You'er zealous, I'll grant you that much. Not much else, but there's always that.
****Nope. The Douay and Tyndale largely agreed to begin with. Quite frankly almost all English Bibles do except for dated vocabularly.****
Then what is this discussion about if both Protestant bibles and DR agree?
You wrote:
“”Some” does not equate to all, vlad. Therein lies your fallacy.”
False. 1) I never said ALL. 2) You suggested it. You wrote (or have you forgotten already):
“The bishops and priests who became Church of England under Henry VIII became Catholic again under Mary, vladimir998.”
The bishops, you said. The seems to suggest ALL bishops. I never said ALL. I never suggested ALL. I remember exactly what I said. You apparently have forgotten. Those who are ignorant or deceptive often do.
“The very existence of Bloody Mary alone negates much of what you’ve so adamantly maintained.”
No, it does not. She was no more “bloody” than Henry or Elizabeth.
“You’er zealous, I’ll grant you that much. Not much else, but there’s always that.”
No, what I am is right. Just as you screwed up and forgot that YOU suggested something about ALL the bishops, and I was right both times, you have made error after error in this thread.
Remember, you claimed, “The bishops and priests who became Church of England under Henry VIII became Catholic again under Mary, vladimir998.” I showed that at least six bishops were restored or removed: Bonner, Tunstall, and Gardiner, were restored while Ridley, Coverdale, and Hooper, were removed. You were wrong. I was right.
You wrote:
“Then what is this discussion about if both Protestant bibles and DR agree?”
Tyndale was a heretic. None of the Catholic translators were. Tyndale included heretical notes. None of the Catholic translators did. That’s enough to chew on even if there were no problems with the Tyndale translation itself.
You can read ANY KJB just fine.
Amen!
And the KJB didn't 'copy' the Douay-Rheim's, it rejected the corrupt manuscripts that translation was based on.
“And you keep failing in post after post.”
Your memory is selective. Again, a lesson from the bureaucracy of Rome. History does not agree with you.
Even Geneva began printing KJB's with Geneva Bible notes in it.
No, a pure text, the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation.
You’ve parsed and qualified after the fact here, vlad. I’ve not.
I have read the Bible through yearly since the late 90’s. Have read the NKJV, NIV, NLT, NASB, Holman, The Message and NCV. I am just finishing the KJV for the first time - thought I would hate it but I am really enjoying it, may read it agian next year.
Each of these translations built in the work of the other and are in the same line.
***Tyndale included heretical notes. None of the Catholic translators did. That’s enough to chew on even if there were no problems with the Tyndale translation itself.***
The KJV has no notes except in some so-called “study bibles”.
“From the Translators to the reader 1611 KJV”
I appreciate your bringing facts to the discussion.
Amen and amen!
So, the clergy was going to decide what Bible the People could read.
Clearly, the People wanted to read Wyclif and Tyndale.
You wrote:
“Your memory is selective.”
Nope. My memory is quite good.
“Again, a lesson from the bureaucracy of Rome. History does not agree with you.”
Actually history agrees with me. I have a PhD in history (Church History was my focus) and know it quite well. Even my Protestant professors would be quick to admit that. I guess you’ve reached the Protestant version of Godwin’s rule at this point. You have repeatedly failed in your posts to prove your claims so now you apparently just resort to vague statements about “Again, a lesson from the bureaucracy of Rome.”
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.