Who’s Don?
There are several reasons for this, but the basic reason is that such groups hold to a very strict “verbal” view of Biblical inspiration, and it seems important to them to know that every word in the Bible as they have it is divinely inspired and inerrant. The mainstream conservative Protestant view that Scripture is “inerrant in the original autographs” seems inadequate to them, because we don’t have the original autographs.
You don’t sound like a dweeb at allThiis is a great topic,but I’m hesitant to post after the perfesser and sound like a dweeb, but here goes.
First a bit of historical background. The reason for the KJV was not because the king or COE wanted a new bible. They were satisfied with the Bishop’s Bible, but it was the opposition, mainly the puritans, who wanted it. They didn’t like the slant of the old versions and they argued that a new version would bring more unity. The Throne would never have listened except that there was now (very providentially) a new king from Scotland who was used to dealing with Presbyterians. So, in the interest of unity, he allowed it and also allowed Puritans in the translation companys. So right here these two groups became a check on each other. The result is that the KJV is faithful to the meaning of the words without trying to translate the meaning for you. The reason for the words in italics is to show that they were added and are not from a specific original word. I don’t want someone else to supply the meaning for me which is what the NIV tends to do all to often. For me, it is a develish version and i never recommend it.
Part 2 will be about old texts.
. In fact your post was more scholarly than mine.
)Yep. The Puritan side of the CoE had high hopes for King James, presenting him with the Millinery Petition, on his way to assume the throne, and then petitioning for changes, discussed at the Hampton Court Conference, which resulted in the commissioning of the KJV.You don’t sound like a dweeb at all
One nitpick, though–the Puritans actually had their own Bible already as well–the Geneva Bible. But I believe you’re right that it was a compromise intended to create an authorized version that would bring unity. (Given that civil war broke out 30 years later, arguably it didn’t do such a good job of that
Linguists and translators would point out that any translation involves interpretation–any time you translate words from one language to another, you have a new set of words. There are no exact equivalences.
That being said, while I wouldn’t call the NIV “devilish,” I do have a lot of problems with the way it takes license at times to slant the translation in directions the translators desire (both in terms of ironing out possible contradictions in the Biblical text and making the text conform to a conservative evangelical theology).
Edwin
I wouldn’t say that all Pentecostals hold on to the KJV. Many that I know use the a variety of versions, even the NIV. I actually prefer the ESV, even though it has an obvious Reform bent, because the language is far more beautiful and flowing than other more recent translations I’ve read.
Not serious at all. I had to do a double take when I read “Another attack came when the Roman Emperor Constantine (the first pope)” and “Note: This dangerous law is still in effect and will be used in any future inquisition”! Shameless and unnecessary.
And this is why I think that if KJV were to be published with its Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha, in Vulgate or “sandwiched” order, it could stand for approval by the Catholic Church for Catholic devotional purposes, without changing a single word.
You can find this on Amazon.com.
It’s not that hard to find them, in the OP market. Mine is the OU Press edition of 1997. I’m the lector for the Mass today, Lesson is from Wisdom.
Was wondering who would spot that little gem.Yep, they wanted everyone to wear those very plain puritan hats, whereas James liked a bit of decoration on his.
It is one of the more amusing Chick efforts. Some enterprising fundamentalist left one inside a book in the stacks of the Duke Divinity School library, where my wife (then working in the library as a grad student) found it. I almost kept it for the amusement value, but Chick tracts are so vile I couldn’t stomach keeping the thing around.
I have no pretensions that it will, sadly. I believe though that it can stand the “no errors in faith and morals” test and theoretically be granted an Nihil Obstat without a single change.
I’m sending you a bill for the lost brain cells I will never recover.
