Politics mixed with religion always seems to equal a poisonous brew.
I thought the KJV came from the Stephens text?
WG
It did. The article makes some good points but I hear the grinding of an ax in mine ears.
90% of the KJV comes straight from Tyndale, my personal favorite Reformation here and the most independent of them all. It is a more neutal version thn the Geneva, the latter being a reflection of Calvinist thought of the day.
A better read would be on the lives of the scholars chosen to produce the KJV.
To such individuals as James and his mother, Mary, the "divine right of kings" meant that since a king's power came from God, the king then had to answer to no one but God. This lack of responsibility extended to evil kings. The reasoning was that if a king was evil, that was a punishment sent from God. The citizens should then suffer in silence. If a king was good, that was a blessing sent from God.
This is why the Geneva Bible annoyed King James I. The Geneva Bible had marginal notes that simply didn't conform to that point of view. Those marginal notes had been, to a great extent, placed in the Geneva Bible by the leaders of the Reformation, including John Knox and John Calvin. Knox and Calvin could not and cannot be dismissed lightly or their opinions passed off to the public as the mere ditherings of dissidents.
First, notes such as, "When tyrants cannot prevail by craft they burst forth into open rage" (Note i, Exodus 1:22) really bothered King James.
...
Extracted from the above article.
This has an awfully familiar ring to it. Who else do you know who had/has to answer to no-one; and produced their own version of what the Bible says (by way of "literals according to usage"). Who else do you know who suffered from "open rage"?
Now back to the regularly scheduled topic: the peasants probably couldn't read or right very well or even at all, and reading books would be an activity for the better-educated middle and upper classes, scholars and people connected with the church. But of course they would be the very people you wouldn't want to read "subversive" material.
It's a decent article, but it is highly colored by the authors personal bias.
The personal life of King James is common knowledge, that he was a coward and a sadist is not suprising most tyrants are both at heart.
I personally have used the KJV so much in the past simply because for many years all of the concordances and lexicons were keyed to it and no other translations. It is becoming simpler now to use other versions and I have found that using more than one translation helps me to see the depth and flavor of the scriptures better.
Recommended Posts
Watered Garden
Politics mixed with religion always seems to equal a poisonous brew.
I thought the KJV came from the Stephens text?
WG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
It did. The article makes some good points but I hear the grinding of an ax in mine ears.
90% of the KJV comes straight from Tyndale, my personal favorite Reformation here and the most independent of them all. It is a more neutal version thn the Geneva, the latter being a reflection of Calvinist thought of the day.
A better read would be on the lives of the scholars chosen to produce the KJV.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Extracted from the above article.
This has an awfully familiar ring to it. Who else do you know who had/has to answer to no-one; and produced their own version of what the Bible says (by way of "literals according to usage"). Who else do you know who suffered from "open rage"?
Now back to the regularly scheduled topic: the peasants probably couldn't read or right very well or even at all, and reading books would be an activity for the better-educated middle and upper classes, scholars and people connected with the church. But of course they would be the very people you wouldn't want to read "subversive" material.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
It's a decent article, but it is highly colored by the authors personal bias.
The personal life of King James is common knowledge, that he was a coward and a sadist is not suprising most tyrants are both at heart.
I personally have used the KJV so much in the past simply because for many years all of the concordances and lexicons were keyed to it and no other translations. It is becoming simpler now to use other versions and I have found that using more than one translation helps me to see the depth and flavor of the scriptures better.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
"No translation, no translation, and I want you to listen
very carefully; for no translation, and by the way that's
all we have today at best are translations. No translation
may properly be called The Word Of God... ..no translation!"
"Now I said that no translation, no translation, let alone
a version, no translation may properly be called The Word
Of God..."
"And in this class on Power For Abundant Living, when I
refer to The Word Of God I may hold the King James Version
or I may hold some other version and point to it; I do not
mean that version. I mean that Word of God which was
originally given when holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Spirit."
All three quotes are from the end of Session Three, Segment 16.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
b-b-b-but what about the ancient bullsheeta texts?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
I saw them in the original...they're in Atlantis and since I'm a shark...well...I snuck a peek into the library without a proper card.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.