-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
King James Version - Simple question.
- Thread starter e.r.m.
- Start date
One reason the King James has been such a big deal (at least in the US) has to do with German Biblical scholarship, I hear. During the 1800s, the German philologists (especially) significantly improved our knowledge of languages, such as ancient Greek. As a consequence, they began discovering flaws in the then standard translations of the Bible. Their changes upset some people who were fond of the old translations. Among those upset were many in the fundamentalist movement that was just about then getting underway in the US. And those fundamentalists insisted the King James version was the most accurate translation of the Bible -- as opposed to the philologist's corrections. Or so I've been told.
It's also beautifully rendered. It is not for nothing that folks such as Alter hold it in such high esteem.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
That makes sense. Thank you. Historical causes often apply when people don't know themselves why they holds certain convictions. The KJV conviction seems to have survived the German philological corrections.
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
That makes sense too. Thank you.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I really don't know how the KJV came to be so popular, especially among US Evangelicals, because the Puritans detested the Church of England's version.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
By no means. The Wycliffe NT is the oldest
e.r.m.
Church of Christ
What I cannot understand is why people came to believe that the KJV is God's authorized version.
Archaic doesn't automatically mean beautiful. The translation errors rather makes it less beautiful.
Was there a reason for distorting my comment or was it inadvertant?
Given what I see above, I'm not particularly impressed with your ability to understand and appreciate what you've read. Forgive me if I find Alter to be more credible.
Bob Dixon
>implying
1. No, it doesn't.
2. No, they don't.
Yes, there are errors, but the language is still beautiful.
greentwiga
Active Member
There seems to be a process where the scriptures that you are used to become the only scriptures. Notice how the Latin Scriptures were thought to be the only holy writing. Long after people couldn't understand Latin, the words were thought to be magical. This happens with other holy writings also (Egyptian, Sanskrit, etc.)
The EnglishTranslation was fought by the Catholic Church with many books burned. There were many translations before the KJV. Wycliffe was the first, but not that good. There was one called the Great Bible, possibly the best before the KJV.
One thing to remember was that the KJV was written in the common tongue - of the 1600s. It is no longer easy to read for an American who didn't grow up with the version. If you are used to it, no problem, but only the original Greek and Hebrew are inspired by God. I use the New American Standard, considered the most accurate by many scholars, but I frequently look to the Greek and Hebrew because all translations miss some details.
The EnglishTranslation was fought by the Catholic Church with many books burned. There were many translations before the KJV. Wycliffe was the first, but not that good. There was one called the Great Bible, possibly the best before the KJV.
One thing to remember was that the KJV was written in the common tongue - of the 1600s. It is no longer easy to read for an American who didn't grow up with the version. If you are used to it, no problem, but only the original Greek and Hebrew are inspired by God. I use the New American Standard, considered the most accurate by many scholars, but I frequently look to the Greek and Hebrew because all translations miss some details.
Shermana
Heretic
And that's why the KJV-only movement is so persistent. It's basically the reaction against scholarship and manuscript study critical examination of the traditional beliefs. By sticking to the KJV, one can just dig their head happily in the sand and pretend that the foundations of the historical doctrines aren't being shaken.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
I rather like the RSV myself, but yes Shermana is correct. There is a very willful agenda behind KJV Onlyism.
Rainbow Mage
Lib Democrat/Agnostic/Epicurean-ish/Buddhist-ish
English versions prior to the KJV. I'm going off memory here so not a complete list.
Wycliffe NT
Tyndale
Coverdale
Bishop's Bible
Geneva
Douay Rhiems- 1609
King James- 1611
Wycliffe NT
Tyndale
Coverdale
Bishop's Bible
Geneva
Douay Rhiems- 1609
King James- 1611
Rocky S
Christian Goth
Which all are similar and don't have whole versus taken out like the NIV,NASB,ESV,NLT, thanks a lot Westcott and Hort. Now I used to be for these translation and was very adversarial towards the KJV. Matter fact I have read and studied out of these newer translations,versions for about the past 5 years. It took a lot of study now I am very KJV bias.