Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 65231

[Re King James Bible. Shadow Girl: I can barely read that version. Plus my grandmother told me that it was written by King James because he wanted a divorce from his wife but the Pope wouldn't grant it.]


You're thinking about the NKJV. This is the one that was commissioned by the king that wanted a divorce I believe. I think it was one of the King Henry's. Crazy kook either got the divorces he wanted or arranged the death and/or imprisonment of his wives so he could re-marry at will. The KJV is the original copy written and translated by Shakespeare, from the ancient greek and hebrew manuscripts. If not this, he may have translated it from an even earlier english translation (which was then translated from the original greek and hebrew) when english barely resembled what it is today. It's one of these two events. This is why it's considered the most accurate, a direct english translation from the originals and the standard for today despite being a relic from the 1300-1500's where fancy poetic language was the common english of those times.

At least, this is my understanding of where that notion came from. I might be wrong.

TimothyK, RR 90 Comments [8/28/2009 7:26:04 PM]
Fundie Index: 42
Submitted By: Grigori Yefimovich
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3 4
katie5000

The "King that wanted a divorce" was King Henry VIII, who reigned BEFORE King James I (and so did his daughter Elizabeth). His desire for a divorce was what got the Church of England started.

As for the King James Bible...oh, I'm gonna take a guess and assume it was written during the reign of King James I, which didn't even start until 1603 after the death of Elizabeth I. Ergo, any King James bible was probably first written/compiled in the 1600's.

Now, who actually wrote the thing is anyone's guess. Maybe it was one guy, maybe it was a group of people. I don't think Shakespeare had anything to do with it, though.

I'm not sure what the first English translation of the Bible was; was it the KJV?

8/29/2009 1:33:45 AM

katie5000

m'eh, double post. Sorry.

8/29/2009 1:34:12 AM

Clown

So, reading translation of translation (of translation) is somehow more accurate than reading translation of the original, or reading original itself? Good to know.

8/29/2009 1:49:10 AM

Eden

Well, if it were the most accurate translation from the greek (septuagint) it would have "Hades" instead of "Hell" (very important distinction, as Hades doesn´t mean torture for eternity, but just the realm where the souls of dead people spend their time after death ;) )

Modern translations of the bible therefore de facto use "Hades" (or sometimes "Death") if it is written thisn way in the greek originals (and are much truer to the original text than any version of the KJV ;)

Oh and your knowledge about the history of the KJV seems to be non existent ;)

8/29/2009 2:26:51 AM

Mr Blur

"translated by Shakespeare"?

Fuck off.

8/29/2009 2:37:09 AM

xplicit_UK

Holy shit!! Least Informed About His Own Religion's History Award? In fact, least informed about history. Period.

No wonder they think we live in the end times. For them there are only two periods in history: 1) "Things that happened since I was born." 2) Everything else. And as the world didn't end then, it has to end now.

Sure, let's throw in some names... Henry VIII, James I, Shakespeare, and hey why not for good measure Napoleon and Robespierre. They all lived "back then" didn't they? And yeah, one guy wanted to get a divorce, and then there was something with an apple falling from a tree, and someone wrote the Declaration of Independence, and someone else dissolved the monasteries, and some blue painted Mel Gibson lookalike shouted "they can't take away our freedom". In RR's mind it sort of all happened at the same time and history before their birth is just a very short period, hardly worth the bother learning about.

Bloody hell...

8/29/2009 2:37:55 AM

CJ

Um, Poe? Please? Because that's the biggest pile of fail I've seen in a long time, and it would kill my faith in humanity (not that I've much left) to think someone was actually that stupid.

8/29/2009 2:41:14 AM

aaa

Homeschooling at it's best.

8/29/2009 3:08:10 AM

Richard T

King James VI and I set up a commission to make a new translation of the Bible from scatch for use in both England and Scotland. It worked pretty well and I think published in 1612. The language used was pretty much in line with standard english then - read Shakespeare and Jonson. James himself was a pretty good writer and one of the first campaigners against tobacco. The Authorised version and the book of Common Prayer are pretty good works on English literature in their own right - if you dissregard the contents of course.

8/29/2009 3:15:36 AM

Nathan the Wise

@ katie5000:

Parts of the Bible were translated into (Old) English by Alfred the Great back in the 9th century. The first full translation into Emglish vernacular was in the 14th century by followers of John Wycliffe, who are commonly known as Lollards. After the Reformation there were translations by Tyndale (1526) and Coverdale (1535), there was the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible, among others. The last was the most popular with Puritans, and had a number of sidenotes not complimentary to the idea of monarchy. It was this that caused King James to commission a 'new' translation (although it leant very heavily on Tyndale's work). How and why it became the favoured text of modern fundies, spiritual descendants of the Puritans, is one of life's little mysteries.

8/29/2009 3:16:06 AM

WMDKitty

History FAIL. But at least he admits that he "might be wrong."

8/29/2009 3:50:27 AM

Richard T

I'm guessing now but I assume that the versions of the Bible used by Fundies and rapturists miss out large chunks of the New Testament. You know the bits I mean - love thine enemy, forgive sins, turn the other cheek, blessed are the peacemakers etc...

8/29/2009 4:06:17 AM

Thundersqueaks

Pfft! Shakespeare, my arse! Everyone knows it was Robin Hood who wrote the NKJV, after he captured the original Hebrew/Greek texts from the Nazis.

8/29/2009 4:12:04 AM

solomongrundy

Are we sure this isn't a Poe? I mean, it must be nearly impossible to stuff so much wrong into one short paragraph unless you're trying to...

8/29/2009 4:48:01 AM

szena

That last sentence is the understatement of the year.

8/29/2009 4:54:51 AM

maxedout

Come on guys - this has to be a troll of true genius. Reminds me of "1066 And All That".

Any bets on how long before fundies start repeating it as truth?

8/29/2009 5:06:21 AM



Richard t, I thought it was blessed are the cheesemakers

8/29/2009 6:11:45 AM

jsonitsac

Henry VIII wanted those divorces and that's what started the Church of England. He actually used the Tyndale Bible translation (which he had previously banned as "heretical"). It was King James, who wanted to put the tumult of the reformation behind him that commissioned his version of the bible's translation. While Shakespeare himself probably didn't write it, he was certainly in influence in the sense that he was such a titanic influence on the English language that very few modern works of English literature are untouched by him.

8/29/2009 6:23:24 AM



God damn you are stupid.

8/29/2009 7:32:42 AM

John

The stupid leading the stupid.

The KJV was translated by three teams of scholars at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster, using a combination of Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts and the previous work of people like Tyndale. Strangely, I believe the actual copies of the source texts they used are lost. The KJV was done by some of the best people they could find, using the best sources they had at the time. All the "thees" and "thous" weren't intended to be poetic. They wanted to reflect the Greek and Hebrew distinction between the singular "thou" and plural "you", even though "thou" was well on its way to disappearing from English by 1611. Since the KJV, we've found a lot more manuscripts and learned more about the ancient languages and the practices of the scribes who copied them. The meanings of a lot of English words have changed since then, too.

An interesting document is the KJV's "Translator's Preface", which is left out of most modern copies of the KJV. I suspect most KJV worshipers have never read it.

8/29/2009 8:10:31 AM

Nowonmai

You are so full of shit, your eyes have to be brown by now.

8/29/2009 8:33:38 AM

Siberia

I'm South American and I know more about British history than you, who are closer both physically and culturally to it.

If Mr. Will wrote something in that Bible, it had to be the Song of Songs. Of course, he didn't, so...

8/29/2009 8:38:40 AM

Xotan

You're thinking about the NKJV. This is the one that was commissioned by the king that wanted a divorce I believe.

=== Believe away. It makes not a whit of difference to your ignorance of the matter.

I think it was one of the King Henry's.

=== NO. This comes in from nowhere, but it's wrong. Under King Henry VIII reading the Bible in English, or even having a copy of it, would land you up to your balls in brushwood that was burning.

Crazy kook either got the divorces he wanted or arranged the death and/or imprisonment of his wives so he could re-marry at will.

=== A gross simplification of the relio-politico situation during Henry's reign. Until his death, Henry was a Catholic, albeit in schism with Rome. Note: on the morning of her execution, Anne Boleyn attended Mass.

The KJV is the original copy written and translated by Shakespeare,

=== Untrue, It was composed by a committee under King James (I of England)(VI of Scotland).


from the ancient greek and hebrew manuscripts.

=== True enough. Only it was a job badly done as there are lots of mistakes and mistranslations.

If not this, he may have translated it from an even earlier english translation (which was then translated from the original greek and hebrew)

=== This is closer to the truth. Congratualtions. It was a re-hash of the Tyndale translation in some measure.


when english barely resembled what it is today.

=== Not much different from Shakespear's English, which is perfectly intelligible to an educated person.

It's one of these two events. This is why it's considered the most accurate,

===Wrong, wrong wrong! It is not considered accurate. Anything but!

a direct english translation from the originals and the standard for today despite being a relic from the 1300-1500's where fancy poetic language was the common english of those times.

=== KJV is not a direct translation as it re-hashed the work of others.

At least, this is my understanding of where that notion came from. I might be wrong.

=== In the main you are wrong. Glad you at least included the caveat.

8/29/2009 8:46:19 AM

ConCat

Wrong, the KJV was written by God himself, in English.

8/29/2009 9:02:15 AM

WMTimothy

You're very wrong.

8/29/2009 9:32:10 AM
1 2 3 4