Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GingisK

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!


110 posted on 11/27/2010 4:59:46 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]


To: Mr Rogers

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.


111 posted on 11/27/2010 5:28:00 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

To: Mr Rogers
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.

150 posted on 11/27/2010 8:08:02 PM PST by fortheDeclaration (When the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn (Pr.29:2))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson