|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: Why the King James Bible?
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
But then, of course, the KJV only "debate" is not about logic or truth...
Not neccessarily. If you believe that God is protecting and guiding the Church then it is not illogical to believe that the version of the Scriptures that happens to be the most common one is in fact the correct one. Its God's providence. So the recieved text beats the odd old manuscripts. On this the AV-only people agree with the Orthodox.
And from there its not inherently illogical to imagine that the Holy Spirit might not arrange for a correct translation specially for English (or any other language)
Nor is the idea that English translation is special inherently contradictory. It is after all by far the most widely understood language there has ever been in history. OK, that's an after-affect of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution, a bit of contingent history which we suppose could easily have come out different. But if you think that God steers history for God's own ends, maybe that was part of the Plan.
Grace is always particular - these people, this time, this place. Jesus Christ was God incarnate in one place and one time - as one of a people prepared by God for centuries for that very purpose. The Bible talks of God providentially arranging for the Persian Empire to liberate the Jews and allow the return from exile. The early Church is often said to have been assisted in its spread by the Roman Empire which supposedly made it easier for missionaries to get around. If God can work through the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire he can work through the British one, or the American.
So God could have done it that way.
Its a different idea of inspiration from the normal fundamentalist Protestant one because it implies that the Spirit inspired not just the original authors but also the copyists and later the translators - so there is an ongoing tradition of inspiration of the scriptures through the traditions of the Church rather than just one act of divine dictation. But its not inherently illogical. Its very plausible if you believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Nicely said Ken! Thanks.
It is surely not just by chance that the Bible is the most widely published and read manuscript in history. Approximately 7.5 billion have been printed and distributed since 1816, according to the Bible Society of the United Kingdom. There is not even a close competitor.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Somewhere, I read about the folks who wrote the KJV. The idea was that the translation would come from the Greek, and not the tainted Latin of the Vulgate. Unfortunately, no one could find an original enough Greek version of the Revelation. So, one of their number was sent off to translate the Vulgate Revelation into Greek so the committee could translate it into the KJV from the Greek.
That's not true either! They did have Greek texts. [/QB]
The Wikipedia entry on Erasmus asserts (with reference) that there were parts of his Greek NT which were translated into Greek from the Vulgate. I believe that his Greek NT was the basis for most of the vernacular translations at around that time. That is, they did not go back to the variety of early source documents.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
* sigh*
Having railed against the KJV earlier, I now learn (to my dismay - YMMV) that Father has decreed that the Lessons at our (fairly trad) Service of Carols and Lessons shall all be taken from the said KJV.
Oh, well - I suppose we could argue that it's our way of acknowledging the 400th anniversary of the KJV, but I'd prefer the congregation of once-a-year peeps to hear something less archaic....
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The AV was an updating of previous English versions, not a complete original translation. Most of its NT preserves the exact wording of the Bishop's Bible, or Tyndale, or Wycliffe. Where it doesn't they seem to have used the Vulgate and Erasmus for reference, but their main Greek text was probably Beza's.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
* sigh*
Having railed against the KJV earlier, I now learn (to my dismay - YMMV) that Father has decreed that the Lessons at our (fairly trad) Service of Carols and Lessons shall all be taken from the said KJV.
I'm sure you know that the Christmas Eve service of Carols and Lessons broadcast from Kings College, Cambridge is world famous and heard by millions world-wide all across the English speaking world.
I have heard many people say that the sound of the KJV read in that service, in the distinctive voice of the peoples of the UK, makes shivers of joy run up and down their spines. Is any other translation ever used in that service? Would the world end if it were?
Yet in our own small service of the same type, attended by only a few hundred with perhaps a few hundred more watching online, we read the NKJV. But we all read with American accents, so what does it matter anyway?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Well said, Freddy!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
It may well be that, despite my personal misgiving, the Holy Spirit will indeed speak to our little congregation through the words of Scripture, in whatever translation they are presented.......
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Gallica officinalis
Shipmate
# 3886
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
It may well be that, despite my personal misgiving, the Holy Spirit will indeed speak to our little congregation through the words of Scripture, in whatever translation they are presented.......
I'm hoping that too, but am tempted to use a different translation for each reading just to help Her along. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Come for tea, come for tea, my people.
Posts: 874 | From: The Hemlock Hideout | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On what basis do you assume they were there originally and dropped out, rather than were added later? particularly given the dates of the manuscripts they do and do not appear in?
I think that continuity of usage is a more compelling argument than date of manuscript.
I would think that the view that LXX is the proper OT scripture for Christians would be a better place to make that argument, as the Orthodoxen do. If you are happy to abandon that position, the rest is just blowing smoke over a personal preference AFAICS.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Oh, well - I suppose we could argue that it's our way of acknowledging the 400th anniversary of the KJV, but I'd prefer the congregation of once-a-year peeps to hear something less archaic....
Ian J.
In case it's encouraging, my experience is that the less churched the congregation, the more they want things to be traditional, possibly as it plays to their early memories of church. For example, when there's a big congregation of non-church people in, we always have to use the traditional words of the Lord's Prayer (i.e. starting "Our Father, which art in heaven") as only regular church attenders know the modern language version. I dare say anything other than the KJV opening to John's Gospel at a carol service will sound alien in non-church going ears.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
[qb]
Grace is always particular - these people, this time, this place. Jesus Christ was God incarnate in one place and one time - as one of a people prepared by God for centuries for that very purpose. The Bible talks of God providentially arranging for the Persian Empire to liberate the Jews and allow the return from exile. The early Church is often said to have been assisted in its spread by the Roman Empire which supposedly made it easier for missionaries to get around. If God can work through the Persian Empire and the Roman Empire he can work through the British one, or the American.
Though for people taking this view the story of Nehushtan would be a salutory warning against valuing the thing as it is in itself, rather than the grace the thing points to. Additionally, God may well have used the Roman Empire, but that doesn't mean that furthering the cause of the Roman Empire was necessarily to do God's work for him.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
[QUOTE] when there's a big congregation of non-church people in, we always have to use the traditional words of the Lord's Prayer (i.e. starting "Our Father, which art in heaven") as only regular church attenders know the modern language version.
Did anyone notice that in "Master and Commander", in other respects a very good film of a naval chase and battle in about 1800, at the funeral ceremony of an officer who had been killed in the battle the Captain (Russell Crowe) said the Lord's Prayer in the modern version (Our Father WHO art in heaven etc)? It jarred horribly to me! But perhaps the script writer knew neither version and had to look it up, and used a modern prayer book to do so. Such ignorance is all too wide spread to-day.
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I would think that the view that LXX is the proper OT scripture for Christians would be a better place to make that argument, as the Orthodoxen do.
Indeed, the argument that the LXX was good enough for Saint Paul so it should be good enough for you does actually work in this case ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
In case it's encouraging, my experience is that the less churched the congregation, the more they want things to be traditional, possibly as it plays to their early memories of church.
There's an interesting debate here: is it helpful to play to people's nostalgia by evoking happy memories, or are we better to break through that comfort blanket which may occlude the message? I don't think there's a simple answer, but it's a question that needs to be thought about. I think this is especially the case as we've been playing the nostalgia card for many years and its effectiveness doesn't seem self apparent IMHO; on the whole we don't see a lot of people transforming their nostalgia fix into serious engagement with the church. And to play to that nostalgia is to alienate those for whom that's not a memory or an approach that's helpful to them. THERE IS A COST TO THAT APPROACH.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grammatica
Shipmate
# 13248
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Grammatica:
The age of the oldest available manuscript is not the most relevant factor. As Green puts it, the oldest and best preserved manuscripts were those that were unused and discarded because they were faulty.
How do you know that's why they were discarded?
Point of information: That's Freddy's conclusion as to manuscripts, not mine. Actually, I'm on the other side of the debate.
Posts: 1058 | From: where the lemon trees blosson | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Can I point out that what a lot of people think is AV or KJV is in fact ERV (English Revised Version). This came out in the 1880s but was widely adopted and tends to be very literal.
It is not the original King James Version. It may even be that that the pastor is recommending.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
At a one-big-bash-a-year service, I think one could draw them in with nostalgia and beautiful music and liturgy, then nail down the message with a damned good sermon. Otherwise, archaic or modern, it's all out of context to the unchurched.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Anything has got to be better than the minimalist line-drawings of the 'Good News Bible'.
For evocative language, it's got to be the KJV. But for clear, modern, scholarly text, you can't do much better than the NRSV.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DangerousDeacon:
[qb]
Nor is the idea that English translation is special inherently contradictory. It is after all by far the most widely understood language there has ever been in history. OK, that's an after-affect of the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution, a bit of contingent history which we suppose could easily have come out different. But if you think that God steers history for God's own ends, maybe that was part of the Plan.
Actually, thinking about it a little bit, there are two ways in which this can be read.
The first is that God orders and uses history, which is a fairly uncontroversial position to take.
The second is that God orders this particular bit of history in a way in which we can both distinguish and in such a way that we can no longer evaluate it in the way in which we'd evaluate other common grace institutions and/or historical contingencies (after all, the logical extension of this view would see to oppose the British Empire/Industrial Revolution etc would be to oppose the very will of God). It's this sense that the KJVonlyites drive at (and which a few people have alluded to in this thread).
At that level I see no reason to regard it as any more accurate than the claims of Brother Billy Bob just down the road that the Powah of the Spirit caused gold dust to form on his hands.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
I struggled with the KJV as a child in the 1960s. Then when I was 12 in 1972 I got an RSV and found it a breath of fresh air for its clarity. In 1979 my university friends thought it was time I grew out of the RSV and gave me a copy of the NIV. That's the version I've been reading ever since. The KJV seems like some dim and distant archaic relic of my childhood.
I've realised recently that it's the KJV we have to thank for the translation of 'Jacob' as 'James' in the New Testament, to ensure King James was listed among the disciples. Presumably the translators thought the king would appreciate that and it would give him more authority!
My Kiswahili Bible of course is more faithful to the original text and refers to James as 'Yacob'.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by egg:
...at the funeral ceremony of an officer who had been killed in the battle the Captain (Russell Crowe) said the Lord's Prayer in the modern version (Our Father WHO art in heaven etc)? It jarred horribly to me! But perhaps the script writer knew neither version and had to look it up, and used a modern prayer book to do so. Such ignorance is all too wide spread to-day.
The TEC prayer book has used 'who' at least since 1928.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bran Stark
Shipmate
# 15252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Janine:
quote:
Originally posted by Bran Stark:
... With the plethora of modern versions, we have lost the sense of specific words and phrases immediately hearkening the mind back to the biblical text... even someone ... familiar with "the Bible"... might not recognize a given allusion, because it's not from the version he tends to read...
That all depends. Does he tend to read for understanding, or does he tend to read because he likes to memorize the pretty words?
Well you can tend to do both. But that depends on the person...
I think either text is equally "understandable". My point is that the "pretty words" of the KJV have value beyond either comprehension or prettiness.
--------------------
IN SOVIET ЯUSSIA, SIGNATUЯE ЯEAD YOU!
Posts: 304 | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I've realised recently that it's the KJV we have to thank for the translation of 'Jacob' as 'James' in the New Testament, to ensure King James was listed among the disciples. Presumably the translators thought the king would appreciate that and it would give him more authority!
Ha-ha-ha-ha: ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
The English name "James" comes from Italian "Giacomo", a variant of "Giacobo" derived from Iacobus (Jacob) in Latin, itself from the Greek Ἰάκωβος. In French, Jacob is translated "Jacques". In eastern Spain, Jacobus became "Jacome" or "Jaime"; in Catalunya, it became Jaume, in western Iberia it became "Iago", from Hebrew Ya'akov, which when prefixed with "Sant" became "Santiago" in Portugal and Galicia; "Tiago" is also spelled "Diego". Wikipedia
But since "Jacob" is also an English name I guess that they did have a choice to make.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Je'
Apprentice
# 16799
|
Posted
Inform your pastor that King James was gay. It's quite true and easily confirmed. He should leave you alone about the KJV after that.
--------------------
Je' Czaja
Posts: 1 | From: Deepsouth, GA, USA | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Indeed - the failure to use the same name to translate Old and New testament names that are the same is a shame; certainly Greek has Jacob rather than 'James' - the issue is whether it's a Latin change. On the other hand the same failure is applicable to Jesus, which in the Old Testament is Joshua, I believe, though is different in Greek.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
Upthread Chorister mentions KJV as a source of evocative language. Although I have been reading the NRSV for years, and before that the Jerusalem Bible, it is the KJV I remember at times like Christmas and Easter. I still have my KJV which was given to me on my reception into the Church of England in Canada when I was 8 months old.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
I am presently reading Tim Grass's just-published biography of F.F. Bruce, in which Bruce is quoted as stating that those who criticise the language of the AV "lack the literary equipment to appreciate it".
As Bruce was evangelical and Brethren, and therefore so close to infallible that it doesn't matter, yar boo sucks to all those who have made snide, supercilious remarks about the KJV's Jacobean / archaic Elizabethan mode of expression.
In his autobiography, In Retrospect, Bruce reminisces about a Brethren worthy from his childhood who was a devotee of the 1881 Revised New Testament, and used to thunder (rather alarmingly, given the era and context) that "it is impossible to know the mind of God if you depend on the Authorised Version!".
He also recalls assuming, as a child, that Mrs Potiphar's words in the KJV "Come lie with me" constituted an invitation to Joseph to collaborate in perpetrating a falsehood.
Whether the NIV's "Come to bed with me" would have been any more enlightening to him is hard to say.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am presently reading Tim Grass's just-published biography of F.F. Bruce, in which Bruce is quoted as stating that those who criticise the language of the AV "lack the literary equipment to appreciate it".
As Bruce was evangelical and Brethren, and therefore so close to infallible that it doesn't matter, yar boo sucks to all those who have made snide, supercilious remarks about the KJV's Jacobean / archaic Elizabethan mode of expression.
Growing up in the Open Brethren I was relieved to find that scholarship and Brethrenism/Evangelicalism were not antithetical. In fact FF Bruce was in some way a saint.
Concerning Buce's view on the Bible I have found this link containing quote:
F. F. Bruce surmises, it is unlikely that autographs ever existed for many biblical books. For example, Bruce speculates that there was probably no signed copy of Romans; rather, Paul's scribe probably prepared several copies for distribution--each with its own peculiar scribal errors. The Bible itself does not make any distinction between autographs, copies, and translations. Furthermore, the New Testament writers' loose use of the Septuagint, Targum paraphrases, and their own translations demonstrates that inerrancy was simply not on their minds.
And it is not surprising that many English speakers "do not have the literary equipment to deal with it"; a statement that could be used as a simple statement of fact rather than snobbishly.
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I am presently reading Tim Grass's just-published biography of F.F. Bruce, in which Bruce is quoted as stating that those who criticise the language of the AV "lack the literary equipment to appreciate it".
The vast majority of English-speakers now alive lack the literary equipment to appreciate it. Stick a fork in it. It's a historical document to anybody but the literary elite.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Latchkey Kid
Shipmate
# 12444
|
Posted
Part of in interview with FF Bruce
W&LG: In North American there has been a lot of debate concerning the ‘inerrancy’ of the Bible, and ‘inerrancy’ has often been viewed as a touchstone of evangelical orthodoxy. What do you think about this concept?
FFB: Happily, from my point of view, that is a North American phenomenon which one does not find very much in Britain. The term that has been traditionally used to describe a high view of the authority of scripture in this country is 'infallibility.’
W&LG: What is the difference between the two terms?
FFB: When one looks at the words themselves, there is no difference! ‘Inerrancy’ means ‘not going wrong’ and ‘infallibility’ means ‘incapable of going wrong’ or ‘incapable of leading astray.’
But the infallibility of scripture as traditionally defined relates to its function as ‘the rule of faith and practice.’ Inerrancy seems to imply more than this.
W&LG: What term would you prefer to use in describing the Bible?
FFB: Truth. What’s wrong with that word? The truth of scripture is what we’re talking about. Or, if one says that the scripture is the Word of God, why bother about terms like ‘infallibility’ or ‘inerrancy’?
--------------------
'You must never give way for an answer. An answer is always the stretch of road that's behind you. Only a question can point the way forward.'
Mika; in Hello? Is Anybody There?, Jostein Gaardner
Posts: 2592 | From: The wizardest little town in Oz | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Stick a fork in it.
I Samuel 13:21 contains the only reference to forks in the whole of the KJV, and the context doesn't appear relevant to this discussion.
Are you sure you're not confusing the KJV with Blackadder ("Well, bugger me with a fishfork!")?
If you're not Brethren you probably don't know your Bible very well, so it would be easy to do.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Je':
Inform your pastor that King James was gay. It's quite true and easily confirmed.
I'm not interested in the DH issue but I am intrigued about this since Ken mentioned it too.
I though that King James' sexuality was disputed. He may well have been gay but I thought it was massively overstating to say "... it's quite true and easily confirmed."
Or were you just joking? I can't tell.
As I say, I'm interested from a historical POV. It seems a common argument today to do things like this in order to pull the rug out from under one position or another. However, IME, it is often resting on very weak foundations.
So, were you just joking or do you have overwhelming evidence? (I'm no expert in this period of history so you may well be right.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Whether or not King James was gay is totally irrelevant to any argument about his role in causing the KJV to be created or about its status. It's fundamental to Christian theology that your sinfulness doesn't affect the ability of God to make use of your contribution; this is because we are ALL sinful to some extent.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
There is no consensus amongst historians as to the precise nature of James's relationships with his favourites, and as ES says, it's irrelevant anyway.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whether or not King James was gay is totally irrelevant to any argument about his role in causing the KJV to be created or about its status.
I know it is completely irrelevant, I'm just interested in the history behind it since at least two posters have made the comment. I'm definitely not seeking to derail the thread with a discussion of the late King's sex life. All I'm after is whether it was a serious comment, justified with plenty of evidence.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454
|
Posted
You can aruge that the AVis useful to be familiar to the occasional visitors at CHristmas.
However that only applies to those who attended church in the past to hear the AV.
Many of today's occasionals will have never heard it before and we may be in danger of merely re-inforcing their belief that the church is an arcane institution. One they can use for nostalgia at times like Christmas but which has no relevance to their 'real lives'.
Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
egg
Shipmate
# 3982
|
Posted
On a point of detail, how many people read the first chapter of St John's Gospel as it was, I believe, originally written? Vesrses 6 to 8 appear to have become misplaced, probably at some very early copying stage, and should come after verse 18. (This is not an original view: there was a learned article on the point in "Theology" a few years ago.)
We in my parish church are having as the gospel for Advent 3 John 1.6-8, 19-24, which makes sense. The corollary would be that the reading for Christmas Day should be John 1.1-5, 9-18. Does anyone read the christmas Day gospel in this way, omitting verses 6-8?
--------------------
egg
Posts: 110 | From: London UK | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pasco
Shipmate
# 388
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wasn't saying that people in Tyndale's time, or even Wycliffe's time, could have used and understood the Anglo-Saxon translations, of course they couldn't. All I was saying was that the RC Church wasn't against the idea of vernacular translations in principle - provided they weren't deemed heretical. Although I suspect they set the bar pretty highly on this one.
Before the advent of the printing press, when paper was handmade and unaffordable and with only a handful of the 10 per cent or so literate, it would not have been economical to make a “version” of the bible in the vernacular, nor was it officially encouraged. In Romania and the East, as you rightly say Gamaliel, it was not an issue as the official tongue was widely spoken. For your average person, for whom affording the bible was out of question, relied on gaining knowledge through attendance of official and oft compulsory services (in the West at any rate).
Until the advent of the plague in the West, there were portions of ‘authorised’ texts outside of Latin circulated in the vernacular, never a full(er) version though, until that is Wycliffe. For their translation work principally, were Wycliffe and Tyndale deemed heretics - it had nothing to do with their standard of translation in the eyes of the inquisitors, it had the potential for posing a threat to their authority and to the state of Holy Roman Empire, which it most certainly did as later history was to prove, once the printing presses started to roll.
Posts: 997 | From: Domiciling 'ere, living locally. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As I say, I'm interested from a historical POV. It seems a common argument today to do things like this in order to pull the rug out from under one position or another. However, IME, it is often resting on very weak foundations.
I'm afraid that all I was doing was unfairly mocking certain of my evangelical brethren who seem to have got the strange idea from somewhere that having gay people involved in translating the Bible invalidates that translation. (If you want to have an unpleasant time reading fundamentalists making themselves look stupid and nasty, do a Google search for "Virginia Mollenkott" and "Marten Woudstra" - 9 out of 10 of the results will be some KJV-only types rabbiting on about how come having sodomites involved in the translation means the NIV is corrupted)
But, to be serious, "gay" or even "homosexual" is a social construction they didn't have then so the word can't be strictly applied to James VI&I. As to whether he was sexually aroused by men, who can tell and after four hundred years who really cares?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But, to be serious, "gay" or even "homosexual" is a social construction they didn't have then so the word can't be strictly applied to James VI&I. As to whether he was sexually aroused by men, who can tell and after four hundred years who really cares?
Thanks Ken, that was what I assumed from your original post but it was just when J said the same thing I wondered if I was missing something.
As you say, you don't need to make stuff up to parody some of the KJV debate.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I though that King James' sexuality was disputed. He may well have been gay but I thought it was massively overstating to say "... it's quite true and easily confirmed."
On the one hand, James I and VI did do his royal duty as regards procreation. On the other I'm not aware of any claims that he had any bastards. He also had a number of friendships with handsome young men. An account of James' coronation as King of England by the Venetian ambassador tells how various notables knelt before the King and kissed his hand or his crown.
quote:
The Earl of Pembroke, a handsome youth, who is always with the King and always joking with him, actually kissed his Majesty's face, whereupon the King laughed and gave a little cuff.
Kissing a man on the face may have been a more ambiguous gesture then, it is true. But outside the court, in Puritan circles, they were taken as evidence of courtly decadence. Short of an eyewitness account of someone walking in on the King and Pembroke or Buckingham and finding them in flagrante, I think the evidence is as strong as it could be.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
The KJV was never 'authorised'. The 1662 BCP uses Coverdale for the Psalms and HC readings.
KJV 'took over' as other Bibles were no longer published.
It has a bias against puritans and republicans - insisting on 'church' rather than 'congregation'; 'bishop' rather than 'overseer'; 'princes are good so the rebellion against pharaoh is treated carefully.
KJV is riddled with errors e.g. Genesis 1:2 KJV "And the earth was without form, and void; . . . " should be: "And the earth became without form, and void; . . . " The word translated "was" is hayah (Hebrew: היה, Strong's Concordance Number #H1961) and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
Leviticus 16:8 has 'scapegoat' (denoting an innocent victim) instead of Azazel (Satan - not innocent)
Matthew 27:49 omits mention of a spear piercing Jesus's side.
Acts 12:4 has 'Easter' instead of πάσχα 'Passover'.
1Timothy 6:10 KJV: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." Better "For the love of money is a root of all evil
John 8:28 adds 'he' to 'I AM', thus obscuring the allusion to the divine name.
Romans 1:7 'called saints' (ie now - KJV adds 'to be' - as if in the future only.
1John 2:23 KJV: "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) - not in the Gk., but added from the Latin =he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. "
Other KJV bits from latin buty NOT in Greek:
Matthew 27:35: "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots."
Acts 9:5-6 "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him . . . ."
Acts 10:6 "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do"
Acts 10:21 "which were sent unto him from Cornelius"
Acts 21:8 "that were of Paul's company"
Romans 13:9 "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
Revelation 1:11 "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and . . . which are in Asia"
Acts 17:22 Ye men of Athens ...ye are too superstitious. - should be 'religious'
1 Corinthians 1:22 For the Jews require a sign - aiteo means ASK, not require.
1 Corinthians 11:29 KJV: For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily - krima better trans. 'in an unworthy manner'
1 Timothy 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions (should be 'cause disputes'
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I used to think the Brethren knew their Bibles better than anyone else. Until I discovered that the Brethren were all wrong because of their warped Schofield Dispensationalism ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Whether or not King James was gay is totally irrelevant to any argument about his role in causing the KJV to be created or about its status. It's fundamental to Christian theology that your sinfulness doesn't affect the ability of God to make use of your contribution; this is because we are ALL sinful to some extent.
I think you may be suffering a bit from irony deficiency.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Great list Leo. Thanks!
As to why it is called the "Authorized Version", this is what it says in Wikipedia:
quote:
In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible – for Epistle and Gospel readings – and as such was authorized by Act of Parliament.
And here I thought it was authorized by Royal Decree. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A little late, maybe, but the consensus amongst the Hosts is that this thread is probably best suited to Kerygmania. That's where it is now going
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I used to think the Brethren knew their Bibles better than anyone else. Until I discovered that the Brethren were all wrong because of their warped Schofield Dispensationalism ...
C'mon Mr G, you know as well as I do that the Brethren were never all dispensationalist, and today, in my church at least, you can (almost literally) count on one hand the number of members who have even heard the term.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
And Scofield was never Brethren. Raised Episcopalian, ordained from a Congregational church, later worked as a Presbyterian minister.
Darby, on the other hand...
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If you're not Brethren you probably don't know your Bible very well, so it would be easy to do.
Actually I gained the better part of my Bible knowledge through Intervarsity, which I am told had a good deal of Brethren influence in its origin, and retains (or did at the time) a measurable amount of Brethren emphasis in its practice. Also I was told that their hymnal Hymns III contains a lot of Brethren-specific or Brethren-originated hymns.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by redderfreak:
I've realised recently that it's the KJV we have to thank for the translation of 'Jacob' as 'James' in the New Testament, to ensure King James was listed among the disciples. Presumably the translators thought the king would appreciate that and it would give him more authority!
Ha-ha-ha-ha:
quote:
The English name "James" comes from Italian "Giacomo", a variant of "Giacobo" derived from Iacobus (Jacob) in Latin, itself from the Greek Ἰάκωβος. In French, Jacob is translated "Jacques". In eastern Spain, Jacobus became "Jacome" or "Jaime"; in Catalunya, it became Jaume, in western Iberia it became "Iago", from Hebrew Ya'akov, which when prefixed with "Sant" became "Santiago" in Portugal and Galicia; "Tiago" is also spelled "Diego". Wikipedia
But since "Jacob" is also an English name I guess that they did have a choice to make.
I think that theory about Jacob and James being the same name is actually untrue and was propaganda invented by the English authorities to justify the translation of Jacob as James in the KJV. It's like when we sang 'Frere Jacques' as children and an English adult told me it meant 'Brother James'. I was mystified by that as a kid and still am. I think it's just wishful thinking.
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Probly true!
Still, names are hard to convert from culture to culture. It's hilarious how names sound when pronounced in different languages. "George" is a good one, for example. I doubt that most of us would even recognize biblical names pronounced by native speakers, much less be able to reproduce the sound.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
