Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Rufus_1611 said:
I read a few titles, I won't be visiting that site again
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
King James The Man
- Thread starter Rufus_1611
- Start date
I read a few titles, I won't be visiting that site again
Rufus_1611
New Member
Wow, you read the whole titles of a few articles? Sounds like you gave him a thorough review.Ed Edwards said:I read a few titles, I won't be visiting that site again
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Rufus_1611 said:
It is not necessary to dig into dog stuff - the smell gives it away.
Rufus_1611 said:
==Sadly he does not seem like a unbiased historian.
I use the term "unbiased" there very losely since there is no such thing as someone who is totally unbiased. However historians should strive to be as unbiased as possible. Those who are driven by agendas often over-look facts that don't agree with their agenda.
Rufus_1611
New Member
You are correct that there is no such thing as someone who is totally unbiased. I do not believe he has advertised himself to be an unbiased historian and everyone that has uttered words from their mouth or put pen to paper has an agenda.Martin said:
I think the reason that the monarchy is the head of the church of England is because the CoE proclaimed them to be so. It has long been thus. When the CoE was Catholic, the monarch was the head.mcdirector said:
And what on earth does the character of King James have to do with the qualities of the Bible translation that accidentally bears his name? Let's solve this problem by ceasing to call it "The King James version" and start calling "The Authorized version" as the British do. Now we don't have to fret over King James anymore, right?
Last edited by a moderator:
T
TaterTot
Guest
Either way, King James was no friend to Evangelicals in his day. Yet we have deified him.
He himself used the Geneva Bible, not even the translation he is known for. He did not allow translators notes even though he had them in his Geneva Bible. He was afraid the Bible in the hands of the common people, esp any study notes to help them understand it, might cause a revolution. Remember this wasnt long after the Peasnats War in Germany, so it was a precendent.
If his 1611 version (and 1769 reprint) were so perfect and inspired and they contained the Apocrypha, then why dont we still use it? (ducking and running....)
He himself used the Geneva Bible, not even the translation he is known for. He did not allow translators notes even though he had them in his Geneva Bible. He was afraid the Bible in the hands of the common people, esp any study notes to help them understand it, might cause a revolution. Remember this wasnt long after the Peasnats War in Germany, so it was a precendent.
If his 1611 version (and 1769 reprint) were so perfect and inspired and they contained the Apocrypha, then why dont we still use it? (ducking and running....)
Rufus_1611
New Member
TaterTot said:
"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other." - King James VI & I
T
TaterTot
Guest
That doesnt prove he didnt use it. Do your research and you will see that he did.
From my readings of the Stuart monarchy in England (James I, Charles I, Charles II, & James II) [1603 - 1688], I'm not particularly impressed with the spirituality or wisdom of any of them.
Much like many of the politicians of this day and age, I tend to believe that most of their statements regarding God probably had more to do with their desire to promote a favorable public image of themselves rather than a testimony of their salvation experience.
Was KJ I/VI saved? I couldn't say with any absolute certainty whether or not he was any more than I could do the same with any of my BB friends. I have my doubts that he was, but I couldn't prove that he was or was not a saved person.
Tater Tot's suggestion that we stop calling the version of the Bible that was translated in 1611 the "King James" version and, instead, call it the "Authorized" version has a lot of merit. I've come across many articles that would lead readers to believe that KJ I/VI himself either translated the entire Authorized Version of the Bible or was rather deeply involved on an almost day-to-day basis with its translation process--neither of which is true.
Much like many of the politicians of this day and age, I tend to believe that most of their statements regarding God probably had more to do with their desire to promote a favorable public image of themselves rather than a testimony of their salvation experience.
Was KJ I/VI saved? I couldn't say with any absolute certainty whether or not he was any more than I could do the same with any of my BB friends. I have my doubts that he was, but I couldn't prove that he was or was not a saved person.
Tater Tot's suggestion that we stop calling the version of the Bible that was translated in 1611 the "King James" version and, instead, call it the "Authorized" version has a lot of merit. I've come across many articles that would lead readers to believe that KJ I/VI himself either translated the entire Authorized Version of the Bible or was rather deeply involved on an almost day-to-day basis with its translation process--neither of which is true.
T
TaterTot
Guest
ktn4eg said:
Thanks for the affirmation, but that wasnt my suggestion. :saint:
mcdirector
Active Member
amity said:
I could go for calling it the Authorized version. AND I do think the Book stands apart from the man regardless of his goals in its authorization/commission.
It was my suggestion. In England if you use the term "King James version" they will correct you! I don't know where the misnomer came from anyway, but it is a modern American thing. He was indeed not a very admirable man IMO. I am a staunch admirer of the puritans myself. So why do we keep calling an otherwise very good translation of the Bible after him?
I am pretty sure King James would have read what was called "The Bishop's Bible" (also called the "treacle Bible") which was the earlier version in use by the CoE, translated under the rule of Elizabeth I. it has the reputation of not being very good, and not reading very well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops'_Bible
And here lately I have been reading a bit from the Geneva Bible (also called the "breeches Bible") and it is every bit as good as the King James version to me, and possibly better. It is also easier for people who find the language of the KJV difficult to read. Even though it was translated earlier, the language is simpler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible
Here is the Geneva Bible online:
http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html
I am pretty sure King James would have read what was called "The Bishop's Bible" (also called the "treacle Bible") which was the earlier version in use by the CoE, translated under the rule of Elizabeth I. it has the reputation of not being very good, and not reading very well:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops'_Bible
And here lately I have been reading a bit from the Geneva Bible (also called the "breeches Bible") and it is every bit as good as the King James version to me, and possibly better. It is also easier for people who find the language of the KJV difficult to read. Even though it was translated earlier, the language is simpler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible
Here is the Geneva Bible online:
http://www.genevabible.org/Geneva.html
Last edited by a moderator:
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
amity said:
This may have been true at one time - but KJV is a well known term on these islands. In fact there are some KJV churches.
King James
I remember reading somewhere that King James did indeed have his demons. But he came to a point in his life where he began wrestling with his demons over the existence of God. And so to settle the matter once and for all he comissioned the translation to be done. I also remember reading that he became a believer because of it.
To say he didn't have much to do with the translation itself is accurate but his role as overseer seems to have escaped notice here. He did after all enlist a system that assured the integrity and confidence of the translation.
I could be wrong because I have also read that That every King and Queen Of England (past and present) are direct descendents of King David. Can anybody verify this?
I remember reading somewhere that King James did indeed have his demons. But he came to a point in his life where he began wrestling with his demons over the existence of God. And so to settle the matter once and for all he comissioned the translation to be done. I also remember reading that he became a believer because of it.
To say he didn't have much to do with the translation itself is accurate but his role as overseer seems to have escaped notice here. He did after all enlist a system that assured the integrity and confidence of the translation.
I could be wrong because I have also read that That every King and Queen Of England (past and present) are direct descendents of King David. Can anybody verify this?
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
GLL said:
This is fabricated history - no truth at all.
As far as I know, King James did not even have oversight. He was not qualified to do so. His role was to decriminalize the project, and I think that is about it. Can anyone provide more specifics?GLL said:
I have been corrected for using the term King James version by Britons more than once! It had to be explained to me at first, but of course now I understand the reasons. It is an inaccurate and misleading term.
Maybe we should call it the "aprons Bible" or the "balm Bible."
Last edited by a moderator:
I prefer "Authorised Version". I guess King James financed the project hence his namesake. You will hear all kinds of attacks against King James by those who hate the AV like the allegation of his homosexuality etc in order to denigrate the bible itself. These are red herrings.
I don't think so. Previously it had been a crime to translate the Bible, unless by authorization of the CoE. King James "authorized" it, saying in effect that a Bible translated within certain guidelines would not be prosecuted. King James was not a Biblical scholar. He knew what the issues were having to do with the older translations that existed, and tried to reconcile the questions raised. This is from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#The_Project
I have read a better article that went into much more detail than this Wikipedia one, but can't find it now. But once the scholars were assembled I don't think KJ had oversight, no. Nor did he fund it. The scholars were required to support themselves during the project. Those that needed it had help from the colleges (Oxford, Cambridge).
In the interests of full disclosure I should say that although I do go to a church which uses the King James version pretty much exclusively, I wouldn't say I thought it was the only worthwhile translation. There are other good ones, but maybe none lately. Other good Bible translations are just not as widely available today, though. Personally I don't really think there is anything special about the KJV. I don't think a translation is "inspired." I have toyed with that notion, but finally rejected it. If someone wants to try to persuade me, go right ahead. I am listening.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible#The_Project
King James' instructions included requirements that:
So take these as KJ's terms under which an English Bible translation would not be prosecuted. - The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit....
- The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.
- When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith....
- No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
- Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit references of one scripture to another....
- These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, viz. Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew Bible, Whitchurch, Geneva.
I have read a better article that went into much more detail than this Wikipedia one, but can't find it now. But once the scholars were assembled I don't think KJ had oversight, no. Nor did he fund it. The scholars were required to support themselves during the project. Those that needed it had help from the colleges (Oxford, Cambridge).
In the interests of full disclosure I should say that although I do go to a church which uses the King James version pretty much exclusively, I wouldn't say I thought it was the only worthwhile translation. There are other good ones, but maybe none lately. Other good Bible translations are just not as widely available today, though. Personally I don't really think there is anything special about the KJV. I don't think a translation is "inspired." I have toyed with that notion, but finally rejected it. If someone wants to try to persuade me, go right ahead. I am listening.
Last edited by a moderator: