Posted on 11/18/2011 9:49:29 PM PST by hiho hiho
For centuries, people of all walks of life have carried around with them echoes of the King James Version. So to throw it out as the church hierarchy has done amounts to a savage act of deprivation and, as this deprivation is of the Word of God in English, it is vicious iconoclasm. Sidelining the King James Version especially deprives our children and is therefore a notable case of child abuse.
There is no such thing as noble truth expressed in ignoble words. The choice of words determines what is being said. Therefore, we should choose the best.
“Strips of cloth” is no substitute for “swaddling clothes”. And Mary was “with child” – we think of the Madonna and Child – and she had not “fallen pregnant” as it says in one of the modern versions. You cannot satisfactorily replace “through a glass darkly” with the crass literalism “puzzling reflections in a mirror” or “sounding brass and tinkling cymbal” with “noisy gong and clanging cymbal”. The King James Bible was designed to be read aloud in churches. All the modern versions sound as if they have been written by tone-deaf people with tin ears and no rhythm.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Weren’t you saying that the Trinity was NOT in the Bible?
Now, again, just what is your point?
Don't be coy ---
‘TrinitarianBibleSociety’ is an oxymoron. there is no Trinity in the Bible. it’s not there. It is a syncretic fabrication...an attempt to explain a sublime Mystery to unlearned pagan converts; a part of the great drift away from Torah as the message moved further into The Roman-Hellenic milieu. As God told Abraham, “Go, Go for yourself!” Return to Torah; You’ll be glad you did.
Oops! I made a mistake — my post #82 just above was meant for you. But I messed up and sent it to myself. And now I see that Torahman has reposted his original. Sorry —
Links to Jack Chick websites are not permitted in the Religion Forum.
What complete and utter nonsense!
Your only concern is "how can you trust it". The real question is how can ye all trust the traditions of men and the Pope who is a fallible 'man' - not a god - how you you trust the Pope OVER God Almighty and Christ Jesus?
Isaiah 55:8 and all the Bible - I will gladly keep my faith In Christ and God's Words over and above any fallible 'man'. Praise God for His Words above men's utterances... I will gladly follow the epistles of Paul for us Gentiles today over and above the fallible traditions of men which Jesus Christ warned sternly against following...but who's listening to Him regarding these warnings...who cares...just keep on following the traditions of men...
Jesus Christ's own Words convict the followers of such traditions of men as SIN; where it was the Pharisees then or people today. Repent ye therefore, and believe in Christ who died for ALL sins past, present and future at Christ's time on the cross redeemed for ALL sins past, present and future; it is God alone who forgives us of sin, not men.
Believe on these Words of the Gospel preached by Paul for the Gentiles today:
“The King James Bible is one of the greatest accomplishments of the British empire.”
Actually, in 1611 there really wasn’t a British Empire yet—even the American colony was barely surviving at Jamestown, Virginia.
I’ve read that around 90% of the King James Version wording is that of WILLIAM TYNDALE, an English scholar executed under warrants from Henry VIII in Europe in 1536.
Tyndale was a real hero (and a brilliant linguist and wordsmith)—who did most of his translation work in continental Europe (probably in Wittenberg, Germany—under Martin Luther’s guidance, no one really knows—but the wording in English is often in the same pattern as in Luther’s German bible...)and smuggled copies of his bible back into England—where the Bible was strictly forbidden at the time...
Tyndale was betrayed by a friend, into the hands of the Catholic Belgian authorities.
While he was being burned at the stake, Tyndale’s last words were “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes!”
Literally within a few months, in 1537, the “Matthew (Coverdale)” bible was printed in England with Royal permission. It was actually William Tyndale’s translation...
Subsequent English translations, including the KJV bible, were all primarily revisions of Tyndale’s original translation.
But the KJV is wrong about Joseph’s coat of many colors.
Actually, the words “God” “Jesus” and “Holy Spirit” and even “Holy Bible” are not in the Bible either...as they are TRANSLATIONS INTO ENGLISH FROM the original languages of Hebrew and Greek.
There’s nothing wrong with taking words and even CONCEPTS in the Bible, and upon careful scholarship and reflection, coining new words to describe those concepts. You do this and we all do this, as it is a normal part of thinking. Such is the case with the word “Trinity.”
“Biblical scholarship” is a phrase for example....not found, even in translation...in the Bible, but which never-the-less is a concept the bible teaches us is important.
Similarly Jesus calling the God His Father—Jesus sending the Holy Spirit as God, to the disciples, and Jesus accepting direct worship—are all very direct evidences that, God is the Father, God is the Son, God is the Holy Spirit—and God is one Being....but relates to us three Persons, in Holy Scripture.
Followers of Jesus have ALWAYS believed this (and 99.9% of Jesus’ followers still do....), in as much as the bible has been read and studied..... and it is absurd, intellectually arrogant, and a really cheap shot to pretend the concept of the Holy Trinity is a simply a “syncratic fabrication” made for “pagan converts.”
If you want to think that somehow the God left the Church in like AD 100....and His light and life only came back, just recently with your anti-trinitarian insight, and the rest of Jesus followers now are a bunch of blind idiots too—than you don’t worship the same God I, and other followers of Jesus do...
Good stuff here. I’m currently reading John Foxe’s Book of Martyrs with that info. Also in many specials of KJV.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReoIXojq_xw
Yet, King James did pull off in getting an excellent translation. We still hear it - especially during Christmas and Easter - and Handel’s Messiah is performed.
And the empire was in its fledging stages, but as the empire grew, they took the Word with them and it had an impact.
Well, it wasn't actually a matter of "insisting on a correct English grammar," it's simply the traditional practice in English to address God using the familiar form of the second person singular pronoun. (Thee/thou/thy is actually the familiar or informal version of the pronoun, though it sounds formal to our ears.)
The Douay-Rheims does the same thing.
No, it was a complete and utter butchery! William Tyndale is exhibit A in that he was burned at the stake by the Catholic Church for distributing a bible translation other than the Vulgate. He was motivated to translate scripture into English, in par,t after learning that several families in England had been executed for teaching their children to recite the Lord's Prayer in English. Not a pretty time.
Tyndale was killed by secular authorities in the Low Countries (Netherlands) for the crime of getting on the wrong side of Henry VIII. As was the secular law he was strangled while tied to a stake and his body then burned. In defense of the secular authorities, it was far more humane than most capital punishments of the day.
As for you claim of families being executed for translating the Bible into English....it simply did not happen. There is NO HISTORICAL RECORD, although the excesses of Henry VIII and his successors with respect to the Catholic populations of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland are well documented.
There was no conspiracy to prevent the publication of a Bible into English simply because there was no actual common English language, no appreciable population literate in the dielects, and no means to affordably produce Bibles for their consumption. There were, however, many attempts to produce translations unimpeded by the Church.
The Lindisfarne Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were translated into Old English by a monk named Eadfrith (Aldred), who became Bishop of Lindisfarne in 698. These "Glosses" were done by inserting a line of vernacular between the lines of Latin. He is also credited with translating the Durham Rituals into Northumbrian. These provide clear evidence that 900 years before Tyndale and 300 years before the Wessex Gospels produced in 990 without the interlinear Latin, the Church was not "hiding" Scripture from anyone.
In the 12th century a monk named Orm produced a work of biblical exegesis called the Ormulum, consisting of about 19,000 lines of early Middle English vernacular verse to assist priests in explaining the Gospels and the Liturgy to the illiterate natives.
In the 13th century Catholic mystic St. Richard Rolle produced a Psalter in Middle English and is credited with many other vernacular publications, few of which survive intact largely due to the purges of Henry VIII and the enlightenment of the Reformation.
Wycliffe's problems were more political than theological, but his main point was a strong belief in predestination that enabled him to declare an “invisible church of the elect", made up of those predestined to be saved, rather than in the “visible” Catholic Church. He advocated that Church property be "secularized" and much of it be given to him. He believed himself to be elect and wrote a bible translation to prove it and this clashed with the Rule by Divine Right claimed by the monarchy.
Tyndale wrote about it so there is certainly a historical record. It was in a letter where he had no motive to lie. He was there, you weren't so I'll take his word.
His bill of indictment is available in translation on the Internet. "Distributing a Bible translation other than the Vulgate" is not one of the listed offenses. He was tried for heresy and executed in Belgium anyway; they didn't speak English and didn't care about English Bible translations one way or the other.
Henry VIII had broken from the Pope by this time, and strange as it may seem, one of his main objections to Tyndale was that Tyndale agreed with the Pope in rejecting Henry's marriage to Ann Boleyn.
And the only heresy ever alleged against himn was distributing a bible translation other than the Vulgate.
There was no such letter.
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.