Poll: Most under 35 never heard of King James Bible

World Net Daily ^ | Nov. 26, 2010 | Bob Unrah

[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.

[fortheDeclaration]

The only changes in the editions of the KJB were correcting printing errors and updating spelling etc.

All of them are God's perfect words in English.

The Apocrypha wasn't considered canonical so it was removed due to printing costs.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You’ve parsed and qualified after the fact here, vlad. I’ve not.”

No, I just got the facts straight from the beginning. You, on the other hand, made false claims and then were shown to be wrong when I presented proof against those claims.

[RegulatorCountry]

Well, no.

Continuing the conversation is pointless as ever, vlad.

Have a good evening.

[fortheDeclaration]

And you should read the Gospels and how the Lord stated very clearly the Hebrew Canon as being the Books of Moses, the Psalms and the prophets,(Lk.24:45) not the phony LXX!

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“The KJV has no notes except in some so-called “study bibles”.”

Are you now claiming Tyndale wrote the KJV? Also, anyone who has ever actually read an original edition of the KJV knows there are in fact textual variant or translation notes. Minor notes indeed, but notes nonetheless. Thus, you are wrong in any case. See a few examples here: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv-heb.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjv-heb.html&usg=__LSjl3YthdYJ2eNdvVi2k3-J_zE4=&h=928&w=600&sz=198&hl=en&start=3&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=smTRQxIIw76zkM:&tbnh=147&tbnw=95&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dking%2Bjames%2Bversion%2B1611%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26rlz%3D1T4ADBF_enUS238US242%26tbs%3Disch:1

[RFEngineer]

“I have a PhD in history “

Then you are simply a credentialed fool. You argue like a child, not an educated man.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“So, the clergy was going to decide what Bible the People could read.”

It was a Church matter and the clergy lead the Church.

“Clearly, the People wanted to read Wyclif and Tyndale.”

Some did. Some didn’t. Who among those was interested in being loyal to Christ’s Church? Clearly those who chose to avoid heresy and heretical works. In other words, not the Lollards or Protestants.

[fortheDeclaration]

If the KJB is unintelligible to those people who speak ‘modern’ English, so is the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Well, no. Continuing the conversation is pointless as ever, vlad. Have a good evening.”

The conversation is pointless for you since you are clearly not presenting facts or evidence. Have a good evening.

[fortheDeclaration]

No, the KJB actually was meant to read slower for meditation purposes than the Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops.

It was not meant to be glossed over like the morning newspaper.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Then you are simply a credentialed fool.”

In your opinion, but you’ve shown what your opinion’s worth.

“You argue like a child, not an educated man.”

I present facts and evidence. If you consider that arguing like a child, then, again, we see what your opinion is worth.

[fortheDeclaration]

And anyone reading Ruy Dias de Bivar's comment would know he was discussing theological notes, since you had commented that Tyndale had 'heretical notes'.

Everyone knows that the 'original 1611' had notes regarding certain Hebrew and Gr. words.

[RFEngineer]

“I present facts and evidence. If you consider that arguing like a child, then, again, we see what your opinion is worth.”

You present your words, which apparently are supposed to hold weight, given your “PhD in History”, yet history being what it is, disagrees with you. Yes, you are a credentialed fool, but you do get more amusing as the thread goes on.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

From the Translators to the reader 1611 KJV”

***I appreciate your bringing facts to the discussion.***

Well here is a little more from the same source.

Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while?

***

Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it?

Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabula. We will answer them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Jerome, “Damnamus veteres? Mineme, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod possums laboramus.” [S. Jerome. Apolog. advers. Ruffin.] That is, “Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.” As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned men that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty, to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profitable in any measure to God’s Church, lest I should seem to laboured in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men, (although ancient,) above that which was in them. Thus S. Jerome may be thought to speak.

[fortheDeclaration]

Well, I disagree it was a 'church' matter.

And the real 'church' are those who are truely saved in Christ, not any organized body that claims that IT is the church.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Only translation I use. Only translation I’ll ever use.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Are you now claiming Tyndale wrote the KJV? Also, anyone who has ever actually read an original edition of the KJV knows there are in fact textual variant or translation notes.***

Did not Tyndale use Eurasmus’ Greek text?

Well we can dispense with this real quick! BACK TO THE TRANSLATORS!

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, “whatsoever things are necessary are manifest,” as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, “In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity.” [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.]

Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.]

[The Theophilus]

Two problems with the King James version:

If it was good enough for Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other Disciples, then it is good enough for me !
;)

[big'ol_freeper]

Um...I hope this is not too big a shock to you, but there was no KJV when Jesus, Peter, Paul and the other Disciples were walking the Earth.

[MalPearce]

Thanks, but I was kidding... there's a very good Bible shop not far from me, and when I grew up there was one in the High Street. And yes, I do have the Apocrypha. In my misspent youth I checked out a very early Bible only to find it was in the Middle English hand.

My wife's an expert in the York Mystery Plays, and has a few pictures of them. Since most people have never actually seen Middle English handwritten manuscript, it does look a bit like something Tolkien might've doodled:

Spoken out loud, it's a beautiful and perfectly comprehensible language. Written in the original hand, you need to be an expert.

The point I was trying to make, is that y'all are reading this story as if the statistics were remotely plausible. They are not.

When I was at school we had a bunch of journalists come round and ask our class if we knew about the Battle of Hastings... slow news day, so let's invent one about how crap history education is. So, we all said, "What battle? Where's Hastings?" and sure enough the local paper was condemning the woeful lack of knowledge in history, much to the fury of our headmaster.

I didn't even do history at secondary school but even so, I still knew that the battle was actually not in Hastings, it was on Senlac Hill near a village called Battle, a few miles east of Hastings, and the Normans won it thanks to a strategic error by Harold, not by having an arrow in his eye. See, even if you DON'T study history over here, you still know the basics. The question from the journalist was dumb, therefore it deserved the dumbest answer possible.

I went to a normal normal grammar school from ages 13 to 18, and over the school year we had American evangelicals, Irish evangelicals, Baptist ministers, Methodist ministers, Catholic priests, Rabbis, Sikhs and Hindus come into the school as guest speakers, every Wednesday, for the religious assemblies (never saw an Imam though!).

My old form tutor left teaching to join a seminary and he's now a practising minister.

My kids go to a C of E school in the York Diocese and our village vicar is a former headmaster.

So, put the "how ignorant are you about the Bible" question in context. Such questions are so utterly derisory that people just answer the question as stupidly as possible - deliberately - thereby ensuring that whoever takes them at face value makes themselves look like asses. It's almost a national sport.

Over here, we have a saying: "If it's in The Sun (a newspaper) then it must be true". This is because Sun journalists ask dumb-ass questions a lot, and, quite rightly, get dumb-assed answers in response.

In the last census, people were asked what religion they were. On the basis that they thought it was none of the Labour Goverment's business, thousands of people said they were Jedis... enough for the government to have to consider declaring Jedi an official religion!