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 ...
The popular Jesse Jackson, Sr., used to chant, “Hey, Ho, Hey, Ho, Western Civilization’s Got To Go.” And he won the battle by losing though he lost an election or two.
What a wacky view of world history. What “Protestant Revolution” is this, of which you speak? The English Civil War? Has to be, otherwise we’d be dealing with languages other than English.
Unless, that is, you actually mean the American Revolution, known abroad as the “Presbyterian War,” but it led directly to no English translation of the Bible that I’m aware.
Really, you should try looking to other sources outside the Catholic Encyclopedia sometime.
***I still can’t find a version of the Bible that contains Maccabees 1 and 2, Enoch and all the other books that should be in it but aren’t, AND is not dumbed down into some kind of Valley Speak.***
Go to your Bible bookstore and look for a copy of the KJV Apocrypha. If they don’t have one in stock they can order it.
***Which King Jimmy 1611 version? The one that contained the Cuetrocanicals in there proper place, the one that put them in the middle section between the testaments, or the one that completley removed it. ***
If book placement is important to you then you should go back to the HEBREW texts and see that many of the OT books are in a different placment compared to all Christian bibles.
And there are no Apocrypha “C”utrocanicals in the Hebrew texts that I know of.
As for the DR, there is no proof that the translators stole from it as they said they had not seen the complete work (DR) yet. They did compare their translation with the Hebrew, Caldee, Greek and Latin texts as they say on the opening page.
You wrote:
“What a wacky view of world history.”
No, actually my view is completely historical.
“What “Protestant Revolution” is this, of which you speak?”
How many do you know of other than that of the 16th century? We can always break it down by region or country, but there is still only one.
“The English Civil War?”
Nope. Both sides were Protestant so how could that have been a Protestant Revolution? You went to public school, didn’t you?
“Has to be, otherwise we’d be dealing with languages other than English.”
I have no idea what you’re even trying to say.
“Unless, that is, you actually mean the American Revolution, known abroad as the “Presbyterian War,” but it led directly to no English translation of the Bible that I’m aware.”
Stay with us now.
“Really, you should try looking to other sources outside the Catholic Encyclopedia sometime.”
I do. The issue is not what sources I look at, but that fact that you can’t find any to prove your point. As I said, and this is irrefutable, the DRV is more popular now than it was 40 years ago. That is born out by sales and printings. No one was printing the DRV 40 years ago and now there are several publishers and they are all selling well.
***Are other (modern) translations poor, bad, or even (linguisticaly) corrupt, yes, but it all started with King Jimmy. ***
Then my Geneva Bible gets a pass?
Thomas More was a liar. If the Catholic Church had encouraged commoners to see scripture, then why did many thousands risk death to buy Tyndale’s work?
“The clergy keep no Bibles from the laity”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are many who don’t realize that the Golden Rule contains the words of Christ. Or as in the case of our President, don’t even know what the Golden Rule is.
LOL, Catholics were Royalists, Puritans were Roundheads. It was repeated on smaller scale in the Palatinate Of Maryland in the mid 1640's.
No one was printing the DRV 40 years ago and now there are several publishers and they are all selling we
Well bless your heart. That's nice. Wonder why that was? Compare that to the best selling book of all time, the KJV.
“You couldn’t read an actual original one today, too much of the language has changed.”
I have a reproduction of a 1611 KJV and it’s eminently readable.
“Most people under 35 can’t tell you what brand of blender is on their counter, either. I am hoping to get a commemorative 1611 next year, with original fonts and spelling.
Are those being sold anywhere yet?z’
Christian book stores. If they don’t have any they can order them.
“They did not react to it. Rome had nothing to say about vernacular translations.”
No, of course Rome did not react - that would be an acknowledgment of fault, and you know better than I that will never happen - no matter how wrong they happen to be. It was purely coincidental that they provided/approved their own English translation only after the Protestant Reformation.
That’s fine. It matters little which English Translation you use - better to read one than none. The KJV was and is an incredibly successful endeavor in spreading The Word. Some folks won’t acknowledge anything Protestants do, even when it defined their present Reformed non-Protestant faith.
One word "Septuagint." You are of course trying to refer to the text/ canon that the Rabbinical school at Jamnia created with out any authority 40+ years AFTER the death of Christ. Jesus and the Apostles referred to the Septuagint almost almost exclusively. And there are no Apocrypha “C”utrocanicals in the Hebrew texts that I know of.
Yeah I am good speller but a lousy typist. See the above comment about he supposed Hebrew text. BTW you might also look into the Ethiopian Jews and find out which text they still use to this day. Unless you want to ignore the facts. As for the DR, there is no proof that the translators stole from it as they said they had not seen the complete work (DR) yet. They did compare their translation with the Hebrew, Caldee, Greek and Latin texts as they say on the opening page.
I suggest you do a little more research and don't bother with prot or Catholic sources, there are a host of Secular sources that will verify everything I am saying. They are a lot more unbiased than either we would choose.
Yes and no, linguisticaly it is more accurate than King Jimmy, but there are textual/translational errors. And of course the missing/ abbreviated books.
You wrote:
“Thomas More was a liar.”
The translators in the KJV say the exact same thing More did. They’re all liars too, right? Gee, that would be fitting for Protestantism wouldn’t it? All the translators were just liars. Yep. The KJV was made by a pack of Protestant liars. Yeah, sure.
“If the Catholic Church had encouraged commoners to see scripture, then why did many thousands risk death to buy Tyndale’s work?”
Give me all the names of those so executed for buying or owning Tyndale’s translation.
“BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Ah, written like a man with no evidence for his claims.
Once again we see your incredible lack of knowledge:
“LOL, Catholics were Royalists, Puritans were Roundheads.”
The English Civil War happened about 110 years after the beginning of the Protestant Revolution in England. How many Catholics do you think there were? There were very, very few. The Royalists were overwhelmingly Anglicans. That’s why the Anglicans often listed King Charles and William Laud as martyrs. I can’t believe how ignorant Protestant are about their own history.
“It was repeated on smaller scale in the Palatinate Of Maryland in the mid 1640’s.”
Maybe so. Still it was an inter-Protestant civil war. Both sides were led by Protestants, staffed overwhelmingly by Protestants, supported overwhelmingly by Protestants, etc.
“Well bless your heart. That’s nice. Wonder why that was?”
The translation used in the Mass changed - wait for it - in 1970, that is, 40 years ago. When that happened Catholics bought the translations used in the Mass. In America, that meant the NAB.
“Compare that to the best selling book of all time, the KJV.”
Just a fluke of culture really. At one point in time ownership of the KJV was mandatory for Anglican parishes. Since that is all people were allowed to hear at church on Sundays in much of Protestant England for several centuries it should not be a surprise that it would become standard and held up as a cultural gem. The same happened, on a smaller scale for the DRV because Catholics were far fewer in the Protestant English speaking world. There are also cult like Protestant sects which push a bizarre KJV-Only belief that is completely out of touch with reality. Peter Ruckman comes to mind immediately.
More claimed Tyndale erred in translating using love, repent, congregation and elder. More also knew enough Greek to know that Tyndale was right. Thus, More lied.
The KJV is flawed, because King James had the translators support church structure over the truth, noting, “No bishop, no king”. Like More, King James cared more for power than truth.
“In 1408 the English clergy, meeting at Oxford under the direction of Archbishop Thomas Arundel, passed what are known as the “Constitutions of Oxford.” These laws outlawed the reading and translation of the Scriptures into the English vernacular without the permission of the bishop. The laws declared the English translation of the Bible to be illegal. Those who were discovered with copies could be charged with heresy. The Constitutions of Oxford remained in effect for nearly one hundred and thirty years until King Henry VIII licensed the Matthews Bible to circulate in 1537.”
http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0006.html
“Lets be aware of one important facts the “translators can say what ever they like, but it has been documented that significant portions of the King Jimmy have been lifted directly from the D/R. “
You have it backwards...
You wrote:
“No, of course Rome did not react - that would be an acknowledgment of fault, and you know better than I that will never happen - no matter how wrong they happen to be.”
What fault? 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. That’s the way it always was, and that’s the way it still is. What fault? You make these vague accusations. How about actually saying something concrete? Probably too much to ask.
“It was purely coincidental that they provided/approved their own English translation only after the Protestant Reformation.”
They who? There had always been English translations of scriptures. I had to read books of the Bible in Old English (aka Anglo-Saxon) in grad school. The Douay-Rheims was made by the Jesuits of Douay College. Rome had nothing to do with it. It is up to the people of a nation and its own hierarchy to publish translations. It is not up to the Bishop of Rome. The Jesuits wanted to publish a translation. They did so. It wasn’t the last one they were responsible for either. They also helped the Russians publish translations of the Bible!
“That’s fine. It matters little which English Translation you use - better to read one than none. The KJV was and is an incredibly successful endeavor in spreading The Word.”
I agree. It is interesting that that is so because of an enforcement of the law in England and an abandonment of English law in America. In England, the KJV was forced on parishes by law. They had no choice. In America, we ignored the English copyright and printed the KJV freely. Since no one got their deserved copyright money, the KJV was cheap and could be given away in the millions.
“Some folks won’t acknowledge anything Protestants do, even when it defined their present Reformed non-Protestant faith.”
I acknowledge what’s true. It is true that the KJV was a decent translation (with some problems), was better produced after the 1769 revision, was spread everywhere by force of law in England and by ignoring English copyright laws in the USA. Strange, but true.
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.