Oldest Draft of King James Bible Discovered, Historian Says

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Oct 16, 2015 2:07 AM GMT
    Oldest Draft of King James Bible Discovered, Historian Says


    http://www.livescience.com/52493-oldest-draft-of-king-james-bible-discovered.html
  • FitBlackCuddl...

    Posts: 802

    Oct 16, 2015 7:49 PM GMT
    metta saidOldest Draft of King James Bible Discovered, Historian Says


    http://www.livescience.com/52493-oldest-draft-of-king-james-bible-discovered.html


    UNTIL they find the NEXT one...
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Oct 16, 2015 7:51 PM GMT
    The article was deficient.

    It failed even to mention the preface to the KJV. The preface stated that new translations would be required as the English language change (which it certainly has) and as more accurate original language documents were discovered. If more people were aware of that preface, there would be fewer people who practically worship the KJV.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4863

    Oct 16, 2015 8:06 PM GMT
    Here is a link to an article about the consequences of omitting the original preface from the KJV:

    http://watch.pair.com/thesis-preface.html

    Here are quotations therefrom:

    "The result of this [failure to include the original preface] upon the hosts of ignorant and untrained people who use the version is disastrous in the extreme. My own correspondence abounds in letters from well-meaning people who have been led into the strangest misconceptions by its absence. It is indeed long, controversial, and pedantic, but this very fact is significant. And with all its faults, it says some things about the version and its makers and their aims that still greatly need to be said, indeed, that must be said, if the readers of the version are to be given the protection and guidance that they deserve and that its makers provided for them."

    "First of all must come the widespread belief that the King James Bible is "the original." This is probably the prevailing impression of those who use it, but it has been most definitely and repeatedly expressed by a distinguished journalist in his paper, the North China Daily News. In an article published in the News in 1926 the editor steadily refers to the King James Version as "the original." We cannot doubt that this cultivated Englishmen actually believes the King James Version to be the original English Bible. For him the illustrious services of Bible translators and revisers from William Tyndale to Matthew Parker simply do not exist. That these men produced 19/20ths of what now stands in the King James Version has no force for him. Indeed, he definitely denies them and all their words when he steadily and publicly, in print, in an editorial article in his own newspaper, describes the King James Version over and over again as the "original."

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2015 2:12 AM GMT
    FRE0 said
    "First of all must come the widespread belief that the King James Bible is "the original." This is probably the prevailing impression of those who use it, but it has been most definitely and repeatedly expressed by a distinguished journalist in his paper, the North China Daily News. In an article published in the News in 1926 the editor steadily refers to the King James Version as "the original." We cannot doubt that this cultivated Englishmen actually believes the King James Version to be the original English Bible. For him the illustrious services of Bible translators and revisers from William Tyndale to Matthew Parker simply do not exist. That these men produced 19/20ths of what now stands in the King James Version has no force for him. Indeed, he definitely denies them and all their words when he steadily and publicly, in print, in an editorial article in his own newspaper, describes the King James Version over and over again as the "original."



    Sadly, I know lots of people that believe the KJV to be the ORIGINAL ORIGINAL Bible. The revealed word of God. They just hate the fact "liberal" theologians read the Greek version and tell them the KJV isn't accurate and change their judgy version into something more inclusive. So, the Greek version is not the original bible, but the KJV is. Because all the other bibles are liberal, and hence by definition the devil's work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2015 2:45 AM GMT
    ^ Pffft: they must be Protestants. No Catholic would ever consider the KJV as anything but a Protestant spin on the source materials! icon_biggrin.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Oct 19, 2015 3:26 AM GMT
    Oldest known Bible


    http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html?iref=topnews
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2015 3:29 AM GMT
    YVRguy said ^ Pffft: they must be Protestants. No Catholic would ever consider the KJV as anything but a Protestant spin on the source materials! icon_biggrin.gif

    Oddly, I knew some Jesuit scholars who admired the KJV for being a monumental work of literary art, if not theologically approved by the Roman Catholic Church.

    It was the product, along with its antecedents going back to Tyndale, of that most glorious flowering of English literature, that of course also produced the secular works of Shakespeare, Marlowe, and other greats. The KJV is still worth reading just for its literary beauty, if not for its Biblical accuracy or for revealing the Word of God.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 19, 2015 5:34 AM GMT
    You're absolutely right, Art. The KJV had an incredible impact on English literature, no question. I was merely making a cheeky comment. I used to work in a library that had some pretty old books and regardless of the content I was fascinated by them and treated them with the respect they deserved.

    :-)