Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Salty, Oct 27, 2009.
If you were born in 1550, what would be your version of choice.
This chart may be of assistance
I am surporised that not even one person has answered this OP. I supposed the question :BangHead: is way to hard.??
I think its a great question. I am curious how the KJV only crowd will respond.
Born where? Where I live now?
This would have been my choice.:tongue3:
I would have had to deny the KJV as some sort of modern heresy!!:smilewinkgrin:
Just trying to stay as close to the original as possible!!:thumbs:
(Tongue-in-cheek post; just in case anybody gets their shorts/panties in a wad!)
[Administrative note - we allow the word "heresy" in this post since it is in jest and not in reality attacking anything. Normally, the word "heresy" is not allowed in genteel conversation on the BB]
What difference does that make - but to satisify you -
Born in an English speaking country
Geneva. At the age of 10, I'd be ready for the Bible :thumbsup:
If I had the means I would have a Great Bible, if not I would settle for a 1526 Tyndale New Testament.
In English, it would be the 1560 Geneva Bible.
Thought I would bump this up, because in another thread, Harold said "THE ONLY REASON TO REPLACE THE KJV IS TO PROMOTE ANOTHER MAN'S WORK" (post 38) . So Harold, in 1550, which version would you have read?
To the best of my knowledge it was a group of some 70 men who "re-wrote" what became know as the KJV in the 1600's. I did check out "History of the KJV"
ps, I once heard that Shakespear was on that committe. Does anyone have info to back up or refute that info?
Probably the Great Bible, but might have switched to the Geneva eventually.
So, HORRORS(!), there were about SIX English versions at that time. I don't suppose any were printed for the purposes of making money, and it must have been confusing for a person using the BB to go visit a church that was GBO.:tongue3:
Either the Coverdale Bible or the Geneva Bible. I like them both. :thumbs:
The Vulgate, of course. What else is there?
There is a myth that William Shakespeare translated part of Psalms, but there is no historical evidence to support this idea.
While I love the Geneva, I am enough of a purist that I would probably be for the Latin Vulgate.
But watching over the shoulder of Stephens and his 1550 blending of Greek manuscripts into a cogent text. That shift to looking back to the original Greek was a milestone in church history imho.
That is still the Greek text I use as a base, only emending it with later discoveries of more ancient and accurate manuscripts.