tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post115630422524593734..comments2024-03-10T10:54:59.776-07:00Comments on Ben Witherington: The Origins of the English BibleBen Witheringtonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-23619628992694819662008-07-14T15:11:00.000-07:002008-07-14T15:11:00.000-07:00There is a typo in the paragraph that begins, "Rul...There is a typo in the paragraph that begins, "Rule One reads:" In the sentence that begins, "Notice that this rule..." the word "there" should be "their".<BR/><BR/>Brought to you by the Florin High Proofreader's Association.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530711053805014963noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-60415012237230868392007-11-28T22:49:00.000-08:002007-11-28T22:49:00.000-08:00What I have to say will grate on some people's sen...What I have to say will grate on some people's sensitivities, and I don't mean it to. The truth is that ever since God befuddled out languages at the tower of Babel, there have been language problems. And there will continue to be. The KJV was never meant to be the be all end all bible translation. In fact the 1613 translation was a correction of many errors and the "modern" KJV that most ppl buy today is a fifth generation copy from the original 1611 KJV. I will say that I don't think the NKJV is a good translation, mostly because many of the acient texts were not followed in favor of more "accurate" passages from the KJV. <BR/>Also, the discovery of the dead sea scrolls led many to realize that there may have been errors introduced in the many copies and people wanted to correct them as best they could.<BR/>Additionally, no professor worth his salt relies on "old" text books but rather uses the latest printing or "version" available most of the time. <BR/>The best thing to do is read and study the most accurate version you can find, which for me is not the KJV or the NKJV. I like the NIV, WEB, God's Word, etc.<BR/><BR/>It is as Paul said... "Php 1:18 What then? only that in every way, falsely or truly, the preaching of Christ goes on; and in this I am glad, and will be glad." WEBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-49906437347346829252007-05-03T08:08:00.000-07:002007-05-03T08:08:00.000-07:00"The most reliable early manuscript and other anci..."The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."<BR/>http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:9-20;&version=31;أحمدhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00644159991668213758noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1160161237747069142006-10-06T12:00:00.000-07:002006-10-06T12:00:00.000-07:00The Bible is under attack from all sides. Satan kn...The Bible is under attack from all sides. Satan knows it tells the truth about him, the victory that Jesus had at the cross, and what will happen in the future. As such, Satan has and still is making every attempt to destroy the Word of God. What better way to do this, than to change the meaning of the Bible over time with different bible versions; each version as it comes along claiming it is the truth and the most accurate of all the versions up until that point.<BR/>The line must be drawn where we say, "If the King James Bible was good enough for 400 years, then it is still good enough for me." For by it men and women have been saved and the knowledge of God imparted unto them. When new bible versions come along, they always take something away that is never replaced, only to be lost forever. If you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, then stand up for it. Take a stand and speak out against these new bible versions. An objection often raised against the "King James Only Crowd" is that people learn something from the other (modern) versions, too, and that some even get saved: but I dare say that this occurs in spite of these errant versions, not because of them!<BR/>The Authorized Version of 1611, or, in other words, the King James Bible, stands alone in its uniqueness, integrity, and fidelity to the truthfulness of God’s Word. Among reasons why this writer holds this conviction is because of the great harm done not only to the Word of God, but the detriment wrought in the local church in its public worship, and, of course, because of the confusion created in countless group and individual Bible studies. After all, it could be said: How do you think your professor would think or feel if all of his students used different textbooks in his class?! In our case, God is our Great Professor! He alone is the one true God, who has walked among us upon this earth and left us the living and enduring legacy of His Word and His Spirit. Until He comes, Amen.Bible Discernmenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17640765496585789101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1157315756472643772006-09-03T13:35:00.000-07:002006-09-03T13:35:00.000-07:00Wasn't the Douay Bible available in English before...Wasn't the Douay Bible available in English before the KJV?<BR/><BR/>Also, weren't there several German translations of the Bible before Luther's?Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06992217665437521336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156612820932053882006-08-26T10:20:00.000-07:002006-08-26T10:20:00.000-07:00Interesting read! I had no idea that there were th...Interesting read! I had no idea that there were that many translations/revisions in between Wycliffe, Tyndale and the KJV.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12173127176645061185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156428644765504232006-08-24T07:10:00.000-07:002006-08-24T07:10:00.000-07:00A little typo, I believe. I think it was more like...A little typo, I believe. I think it was more likely THOMAS Cromwell (rather than OLIVER)who was associated with Richard Grafton.Richard Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04787755397416393855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156396572259377662006-08-23T22:16:00.000-07:002006-08-23T22:16:00.000-07:00Indeed, it does say "Angelic" as I correctly quote...Indeed, it does say "Angelic" as I correctly quoted above. My point is that by translating it as "Anglic" -- not "English" -- one completely loses the original sense of Lumby's sharp words. <BR/><BR/>I would have thought you would refer to the original Latin text, which is conveniently available in an edition by Lumby. May I suggest you look this up? It should be in your library.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471792031082544671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156388206491069812006-08-23T19:56:00.000-07:002006-08-23T19:56:00.000-07:00Hi Anonymous. I suggest you check Alistair McGrath...Hi Anonymous. I suggest you check Alistair McGrath's book-- it clearly says angelic....<BR/><BR/>Blessings,<BR/><BR/>BenBen Witheringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06017701050859255865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156379300258704992006-08-23T17:28:00.000-07:002006-08-23T17:28:00.000-07:00I should mention further that Tyndale translated a...I should mention further that Tyndale translated according to Professor David Daniell, Tyndale made two translations of Genesis (see the differences in the editions of 1530 and 1534) and the New Testament, and the text of Matthew's Bible, including Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel I&II, Kings I&II, and Chronicles I&II are all Tyndale's (see pages xxv and xxvi of his edition of <I>Tyndale's Old Testament</I> for a summary of his arguments.) Also, Tyndale published in 1531 Jonah.<BR/><BR/>I did not understand the reference to "poor moving" in your article.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471792031082544671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156378240844185622006-08-23T17:10:00.000-07:002006-08-23T17:10:00.000-07:00Several comments: first, your post mangled Henry ...Several comments: first, your post mangled Henry Knighton's famous quote: in particular the pun on "Anglic" and "Angelic":<BR/><BR/><I>This Master John Wyclif translated into the Anglic-not Angelic-tongue, the Gospel that Christ gave to the clergy and the doctors of the Church, that they might minister it gently to laymen and weaker persons, according to the exigence of their time, their personal wants, and the hunger of their minds; whence it is made vulgar by him, and more open to the reading of laymen and women than it usually is to the knowledge of lettered and intelligent clergy; and thus the pearl of the Gospel is cast forth and trodden under the feet of swine.</I><BR/><BR/>The Hendrickson edition is not a facsimile of the 1611 edition -- it has the text of the 1611 edition, but retyped and reset in modern characters. Facsimiles of the original are available, for example, here is a <A HREF="http://www.greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html" REL="nofollow">retailer</A> of one.<BR/><BR/>The <I>New Cambridge Paragraph Bible</I> is a critically edited version of the original 1611 text, together with translator notes.anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00471792031082544671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156360943867519302006-08-23T12:22:00.000-07:002006-08-23T12:22:00.000-07:00Ben, thanks for this overview. I have linked to it...Ben, thanks for this overview. I have linked to it at the BBB.Wayne Lemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024771201561767893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156352153298998332006-08-23T09:55:00.000-07:002006-08-23T09:55:00.000-07:00Wow, you are a fast writer! What a beautiful summa...Wow, you are a fast writer! What a beautiful summary of the origins of the KJV. You know, I just finished scanning and surfing through ALister McGrath's book on the making of the KJV. It is a very interesting little book (with little print to match).<BR/><BR/>Those who believe that the KJV is the only inspired Bible translation must wrestle with the reality that the 1611 KJV had translation mistakes and that it included the Apocrypha. How could God allow Satan to corrupt the only written Word of God? <BR/><BR/>So a question for the KJV only community, which King James version is the one that was good enough for the apostle Paul? Surely not the 1611 version!<BR/><BR/>BTW, I believe Hendrickson publishes a reasonable facsimilie of the 1611 version, complete with Apocrypha and early 17th century phoenetics. I bought my wife a copy to show her British Literature students.<BR/><BR/>Just celebrated my 10th ordination anniversary and 10 years at Peace Church this past weekend. Yahoo!!<BR/><BR/>MarcMarc Axelrodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04364703655694001236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156349610264071692006-08-23T09:13:00.000-07:002006-08-23T09:13:00.000-07:00If you notice, many older believers when they go i...If you notice, many older believers when they go into "prayer mode" will pray in a King James English tongue. For some, this is just a matter of habit, as their preferences still reside with what they grew up with, which is understandable and fine (so long as they don’t impose their preference on everybody else). Others, however, speak this way because they see the King James English as inherently more holy and reverent, and therefore more spiritual. Older is always better and newer is always more “liberal.”<BR/><BR/>As to the King James Only movement, here's a typical representation of their "scholarship" and demeanor:<BR/><BR/>http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.htmlBill Barnwellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519140832310178588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156348894830466832006-08-23T09:01:00.000-07:002006-08-23T09:01:00.000-07:00Ben,I just finished reading Alister McGrath's IN T...Ben,<BR/>I just finished reading Alister McGrath's IN THE BEGINNING. The King James Bible is such a source of controversy and debate these days! I fear that we've lost sight of just how much of an earth-shattering accomplishment it was 400 years ago and what a tremendous debt of gratitude we owe to the brave men and women who literally gave their lives to preserve the Scriptures as faithfully as they could.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for squeezing a ton of great information into this post.john alan turnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03065084395340701275noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156343646982116792006-08-23T07:34:00.000-07:002006-08-23T07:34:00.000-07:00Excellent - need to read it again later! :)If it's...Excellent - need to read it again later! :)<BR/><BR/>If it's alright, I would like to link to something I wrote/compiled a few years back regarding what the translators of the 1611 intended their translation to be:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://cwhisonant.gotdns.com/documents/docs/1611intent.html" REL="nofollow">Allowing the Intent of the Translators to Be Heard Today</A>Chris Whisonanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10880112709247835926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156335623668165992006-08-23T05:20:00.000-07:002006-08-23T05:20:00.000-07:00One of the most interesting (and most deconstructi...One of the most interesting (and most deconstructive) tidbits about the King James only debate is the fact that the KJV in current use is actually the fifth revision to update the language and dates from the late 1700's. So by using this fifth update of the 1611 version, a person implicitly acknowledges the validity of updating the language over time... which of course deconstructs the KJV only argument in its most virulent form.<BR/><BR/>Somewhat of a side note, but it seemed an undercurrent...Ken Schenckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09745548537303356655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156334502487484432006-08-23T05:01:00.000-07:002006-08-23T05:01:00.000-07:00Ben,Thank you for your ability to squeeze so much ...Ben,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for your ability to squeeze so much into so little. I stand always amazed when I refresh myself in how I got the only Bible I can read.<BR/><BR/>Have a gracious day. With that, I am...<BR/><BR/>Peterpeter lumpkinshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00515936082186368659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11840313.post-1156331871090224892006-08-23T04:17:00.000-07:002006-08-23T04:17:00.000-07:00Ben, thanks for this summary. Much appreciated.Ben, thanks for this summary. Much appreciated.byron smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17938334606675769903noreply@blogger.com