[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bible Study Title: The Origins of the King James Bible A handwritten draft of the world's most famous bible has been discovered in EnglandWhen an archive yields an unexpected discovery, it's usually cause for celebration. But when that discovery involves the world's most famous bible, scholarly excitement mounts to ecstastic levels. The earliest known draft of the King James Bible has been unearthed at the University of Cambridge, writes Jennifer Schuessler for The New York Times, and it’s being lauded as a critical find for historians. The draft was discovered by Jeffrey Alan Miller, an American scholar conduct in the Cambridge archives. It contains the handwriting of dozens of authors, dating from 1604 to 1608. That handwriting is a crucial find, Schuessler writes, because it reveals how they translated and assembled the text. "There's a strong desire to see the King James Bible as a uniform object, and a belief that it's great because of its collaborative nature," Miller tells Schuessler. "It was incredibly collaborative, but it was done in a much more complicated, nuanced, and at times individualistic way than we've ever really had good evidence to believe." Forty-seven translators and scholars produced the King James Bible, which was first published in 1611. The project dates back to 1604, when King James I decided a new version could help consolidate political power, writes NPR's Barbara Bradley Hagartay. A popular Puritan bible had downplayed the divine right of kings — greatly offending James — and James manipulated different Christian sects until they agreed to produce a different translation. The result became an incredible, long-lasting success. The King James Bible has influenced language, literature and culture for more than 400 years. In the Times Literary Supplement, Miller writes that his discovery suggests that the text may be "far more a patchwork of individual translations — the product of individual translators and individual companies working in individual ways — than has ever been properly recognized." Perhaps there is always more to discover after all. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 27. God translated the KJV as promised.
#10. To: A K A Stone (#9) (Edited) God translated the KJV as promised. You're a KJV-Onlyist? This is why I use the KJV for discussion purposes. I've never heard of an NIV-Onlyist, or an ESV-Onlyist, but KJV-Onlyism, KJV- inspired-translationism, is a thing. When you say "God translated the KJV", do you mean by that that the KJV-English is itself inspired, such that it, in the English, has the full authority of God behind it, that it is the "real" text of Scripture, in English, as inspired by God? There are KJV-Onlyists who are "inspired translationists" who believe that the KJV itself, is a direct revelation of the Scripture in God-inspired English. That among the manuscripts, God chose the TRUE manuscript, and that God inspired the translators to write the English that perfectly says in English the true inspired textual meaning of God. This is the strongest form of KJV-Onlyism, because it would mean that when one finds an ancient manuscript in Greek, one can compare that Greek manuscript to the English of the KJV and realize if that Greek manuscript is true Scripture or is a copy that was damaged in some uninspired way. Pure, full-strength KJV-Onlyism is my favorite kind, because it means that all of the various manuscripts in various languages that preceded it, with all of the gaps and confusion, were completely settled by God, for God provided a new, complete, perfect, inspired set of Scriptures, in English, in the age of the printing press, to REPLACE the confusion from the welter of ancient sources and languages. Inspired-KJVism means that one need not study Latin or Greek, or engage in any archaeology, to know PRECISELY what God intended Scripture to be, for he revealed the entirety of Scripture in English at the beginning of the 17th Century, in the age of the printing press. So, to fully know God's inspired Scripture, one must learn English, for the best, the most accurate and the most complete revelation of Scripture occurred in English, in 1611, with the publication of the KJV. The editorial choices of the KJV translators and publishers were all inspired by God, making the KJV 1611 version perfect - THE revealed word of God. Presumably you would accept an updating of spelling as acceptable, but not punctuation, because punctuation adds or subtracts meaning, so God conveyed the perfect punctuation. I do not believe KJV-Only Inspired-translationism myself, but I certainly prefer it as a basis for discussion, for it cuts through all of the fog and eliminates consultation of any other text. There was no standard dictionary of English in 1611, so a little bit of knowledge of archaic forms is necessary (thou vs. you vs. ye, for example, or "suffer the little children..."), but that's easily handled. KJV-Onlyism has the virtue of reductionist clarity. It establishes a set of rules, and a limitative text. It takes Hebrew, Greek and Latin off the table: the English was directly inspired by God. It takes all discussions about ancient manuscripts off the table: the English was inspired by God, so therefore ancient manuscripts can be compared to the English of the KJV to determine whether or not the ancient manuscripts are accurate or in error. It removes modern pedantism, because there was no dictionary in 1611, so the words mean what they meant in common usage then, not esoteric meanings that came later. There are no footnotes, which means that nothing was added. But there was versification, which means that God established the versification as part of the inspired scripture. Moreover, there are names to the books, so the NAMES are also inspired - by calling a Gospel "Mark" in the KJV, God has revealed that Mark was the author. Therefore, there is no need to waste time debating who wrote it: God revealed that with the KJV. Likewise, the canon was definitively revealed by God with the 1611 translation: the revealed texts, plus the apocrypha. Would you consider the original translators notes to be inspired also? What is the limit of inspiration? Is it everything that is within the cover of the original publication, first printing? I like that best of all, because now we have an authoritative set of texts, limited by direct divine inspiration, with specific words, punctuation and spelling. How far does your KJV-Onlyism go? As far as you go, I am eager to go farther. In its highest, best form, KJV-Onlyism gives us the only text certain to be complete and point perfect, right down to the period. The original printing of 1611 IS God's revealed word in the most perfect incarnation of KJV-Onlyism. And that means that all discussion shifts away from archaeology, manuscripts and translation to the literal words themselves, exactly as they appear on the page. This approach appeals very much to my lawyer's mind, because it closes the canon and gives a definitive text. And that takes away everybody's wiggle room, just like with the Constitution.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#10) Getting ready head out. So I will keep it short and simple. God said he would have his word translated. I'm paraphrasing.
#12. To: A K A Stone (#11) God said he would have his word translated. Yes, what I'm asking you is this: Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. Put differently, does the KJV have greater authority than an ancient manuscript such as the Codex Vaticanus or the Massoretic Text, does it have the same authority, or does it have lesser authority? Your answer determines the degree to which I need to limit myself to the KJV EXCLUSIVELY when having discussions with you.
#19. To: Vicomte13 (#12) Do you think that the KJV translation itself is Scripture, inspired by God. I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. I think that the Holy Spirit worked behind the scenes as God promised and no matter what the King wanted Gods word came out. As it did in other languages for other people. If someone says that they are intrepreting the Bible from the ancient texts such as Codex Vaticanus or whatever. If they say the King James is wrong and their intrepretation is correct. I'll go with the King James and not some other fellow telling me something contrary.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#19) I don't think the KJV is of greater authority than the text on which it was based. I think they would be equal. Ok. "Equal" here means that you think that the KJV has the same authority as the particular ancient manuscripts upon which it was based. And because you think that the KJV translation was itself inspired, you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. Others will debate you on this, but I won't, because the debate will be fruitless. I'm fine using the KJV, alone. The original KJV translation included the Apocrypha, so I assume that you accept that the Apocrypha are good for reading and instruction, but that no new doctrine should be asserted from those books, yes? In effect, this means that for our discussions, we don't refer to the Apocrypha. That's fine by me, for discussion purposes. I see that you will not accept any argument that contradicts the KJV language if it is based on a different translation of the texts, so the KJV English text is definitive. Ok. This narrows the field to a single text we all can use. I can accept that for discussion purposes. My acceptance doesn't mean that I believe the things I accept them - it means that for our discussions I will only use the KJV as Scripture, I won't use the so-called "Apocrypha", and I won't resort to Greek or Latin or Hebrew. We've narrowed the field to one text, in English. This is why I like KJV-Onlyism: it greatly simplifies discussion.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#22) you think it has greater authority than any other English translation. I never said that. I would say it has greater authority then the NIV. I can't speak for all translations.
Replies to Comment # 27. I never said that. OK. I will stick to the KJV when writing to you.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 27. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|