Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by 10usNE1, Feb 25, 2003.
Is Shakespeare's name in the bible? Did he help translate the Bible?
It's in there - sort of. 8o)
No and No
Come on, tell us about the Psalms legend. I forget which one now. You know, the one that has his name spelled acrostically in it.
Here it is, Psalms 46.
Supposedly Shakespeare was one of the translators of the King James Version and he wanted to leave his mark on the Bible. He was 46 years old at the time (1611-his 47th birthday had not passed yet), so this is what he did; 46 words from the beginning, he put "shake" and 46 words from the end he put "spear" so that his name would be immortalized.
Did you know that Lincoln also wrote the KJV? Just look at...uh...
Deacon, why do you dismiss this so easily? Is it really that unbelievable? You have to admit, it is an amazing coincidence.
[ February 25, 2003, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: 10usNE1 ]
Is it really that unbelievable? You have to admit, it is an amazing coincidence.
Nonetheless, it is unbelievable. There is no evidence that Shakespeare was ever a part of the translation committee. In fact, there are good reasons to believe he was not.
Shakespeare was baptized on April 27, 1564. (His birthday is not recorded for posterity but is generally assumed to be April 23.) So he would have been 47 in 1611, not 46.</font>
Furthermore, remember that the KJV was started in 1604, and so it is quite possible the translation of Psalm 46 was done several years earlier. How could they have known it would be published in time for William Shakespeare's 46th birthday?</font>
He was not a churchman, but an actor/playwright. It is a fallacy to assume that Shakespeare had the same reputation in his day as he has today, that of a literary legend. He was popular enough. But in his day, drama was considered vulgar and lowbrow entertainment, and the authorities frequently closed the theatres on the excuse that they helped spread the plague. However, that was just a smokescreen for the real reason: playhouses were considered immoral. There were laws against actors and playhouses in London, which is why all the great theatres were outside the town limits and therefore in neighbourhoods of poor repute.</font>
He was not educated. He was the son of the mayor of Stratford, and so he had a grammar school education that was a notch above that of most common children, but it was certainly significantly less than the scholarship of the Bible translators. Shakespeare was famously dismissed in 1592 as an "upstart crow" by a playwright named Robert Greene, who had MAs from Oxford and Cambridge. It was professional jealousy; an uneducated man had no business encroaching on his territory, after all.</font>
What is true:
Toward the end of his career, Shakespeare and his troupe were called the "King's Men," because they were sponsored by James I himself.</font>
It is a nice story and an interesting coincidence.</font>
And perhaps it may not even be worth mentioning that if it were true, we'd be eating crow with all our talk of Scriptural integrity and the dedication of the translators to be accurate in transcribing God's word. I'm just sayin' . . . .
Why in the world would we have to "eat crow"? What is your comfort zone when you think about the MEN who TRANSLATED the bible??
Shakespeare has long been acclaimed among ifb'ers (seeking culture) when Christians of old eschewed the theater.
Since all actors were male, many dressed in women's clothing and spoke falsetto. This attracted the sodomite crowd, so much so that the term "theater people" was synonymous with queer.
This was probably a Puritan reaction to the content and costume, but I wonder when Shakespeare became "acceptable" again.
I wonder what name priests are synonymous with these days?
Dr. Bob Griffin said:
Since all actors were male, many dressed in women's clothing and spoke falsetto.
Actually, it was the young boys who played the women, up to the point where their voices changed. This is likely the reason that so many comedies feature cross-dressing - it gave the boys playing girls a chance to play boys, as well.
it is interesting that in "the new world" across the atlantic there appears to be the tradition (according to these posts) about William Shakespears involvement in the kjv. Here in the uk, home of this same person, I have never heard of it. Are we saying that "a prophet has no honour in his own country"?
This is the first time I've heard anything like this too Jon and I don't believe a word of it.
Originally posted by Dr.Bob (Shakespeare has long been acclaimed among ifb'ers (seeking culture) when Christians of old eschewed the theater.)
Not this IFB Dr.Bob!