tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post1031465163783286593..comments2024-03-27T18:18:11.525-06:00Comments on American Creation: The KJV at 400Brad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69757777075617259322011-07-15T01:56:43.951-06:002011-07-15T01:56:43.951-06:00I thought He wrote it in Latin.I thought He wrote it in Latin.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-71513630475964497102011-07-13T16:20:14.288-06:002011-07-13T16:20:14.288-06:00.
God wrote the Bible in English, the way it's....<br /><i>God wrote the Bible in English, the way it's supposed to be. </i><br />.<br />You mean that you just recently discovered that?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-29596336866038808632011-07-13T15:21:23.300-06:002011-07-13T15:21:23.300-06:00Heh heh, SS. Indeed, one can dispense with critic...Heh heh, SS. Indeed, one can dispense with critical biblical scholarship and exegesis just by claiming the KJV itself is inspired by the Holy Spirit. [And some do.]<br /><br />What a labor-saving device! Who needs learning all that boring Greek and Hebrew? God wrote the Bible in English, the way it's supposed to be.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65851437695962353242011-07-13T05:33:12.777-06:002011-07-13T05:33:12.777-06:00And don't forget the self attesting evidence o...And don't forget the self attesting evidence of numerology in the KJV. Nine is the numerical symbol of fruitfulness: Abraham was ninety and nine when he received the promise of the covenant child Isaac. There are nine fruits of the holy spirit, listed in Galatians, the ninth book of the New Test. <br />And how many letters are there in "holy bible?"--nine. How many letters are there in "KIng James?"--nine. When did the KJV makes its debute? 1611. 1+6+1+1=9. So if you want spiritual fruit in your lives, use the true Word of God--the kKJVsecularsquarehttp://secularsquare.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-48013491378562635682011-07-13T05:26:15.109-06:002011-07-13T05:26:15.109-06:00.
The Devil wrote this thing.
.
..There ya go.......<br /><i>The Devil wrote this thing.</i><br /><br /><br />.<br />..There ya go....<br />.<br />.<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-42836096918368477802011-07-13T05:12:17.906-06:002011-07-13T05:12:17.906-06:00The catholic-protestant quarrel continues in certa...The catholic-protestant quarrel continues in certain fundamentalist circles. Most modern bibles are based upon Nestle's critical text. In preparing this text, he used among others the Vaticanus B manuscript. Therefore, some fundies claim all nonKJV bibles are really Roman Catholic bibles in disguise. They prefer the the Greek critical text of Erasmus as revised by Beza. (nevermind that Erasmus was Catholic.) Also, some fundies use the KJV translation as the standard to assess the newer translations as here:<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVmHudyGoC4&feature=relatedsecularsquarehttp://secularsquare.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-49160512816491511552011-07-12T15:52:36.237-06:002011-07-12T15:52:36.237-06:00Phil, I'll give the Wittgenstein some thought....Phil, I'll give the Wittgenstein some thought. But thse tall weeds are unnecessary.<br /><br />I've often heard the classic Protestant argument that "Peter" as rock doesn't mean "rock" as in the papacy, "the chair of St. Peter."<br /><br /><br />Didn't know it originated with Tyndale! No wonder he was such a big deal and enemy of the church. The core Protestantism vs. the papacy argument is here:<br /><br /><i> The issue is whether or not those verses indicate that Christ instituted the church as authority rather than scripture, and this point More’s argument succeeds in making. Next, More quotes a pronouncement of the Jerusalem Counsel in Acts 15:28: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us . . ." Here, More argues, is scriptural evidence that the church in apostolic times understood the Holy Spirit as guiding it in an unwritten way. Again, Tyndale does not respond. <br /><br />Finally, More refers to Matt. 16:18: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." More cites this verse as scriptural evidence that Christ’s church was founded upon a person rather than a text, and that that person was the first of the papal succession. <br /><br />Tyndale interprets the rock to mean Peter’s faith (Tyndale 31), but this interpretation is strained since the Greek word for Peter and rock are the same. Tyndale also contests that several early fathers did not interpret Matt. 16 in terms of the papacy (Tyndale 132), but More replies reasonably that the Greek church did not officially and collectively recognize the primacy of the Roman see for several centuries (More 8:132). <br /><br />When More claimed in his Dialogue that Protestants ought to accept the unwritten word as well as the written word from the Church, Tyndale replies that "when I have read the scripture, and find not their doctrine there, nor depend thereof, I do not give so great credence unto their other doctrine, as unto scripture" (Tyndale 137). However, More demonstrates that scripture does contain the Catholic doctrine of church authority, and does indicate that there are unwritten matters outside scripture which are necessary to believe."</i><br /><br />There it is, <i>sola scriptura</i> vs. the "magisterium."Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-21160101379620316252011-07-12T09:10:56.370-06:002011-07-12T09:10:56.370-06:00To address Mr. Kramer's two comments:
1. I do...To address Mr. Kramer's two comments:<br /><br />1. I don't doubt what you say about the status of Elizabethan English in the eyes of many at the time, but I took Dr. Norton to mean the Man In The Street, and not authors and other elites who would have had a wider perspective.<br /><br />2. You are right on as regard Thomas More. That actually was said by one of the lecturers, and it's in my illegible notes. I omitted it from my post because I failed to recognize its significance.<br /><br />Interestingly, it was the film that was screened that suggested perhaps James I would have omitted Presbyter to avoid the appearance of favoring his Scottish background.<br /><br />But thank you all for the encouragement, and all the comments.<br /><br />Cordially,<br />JayMagpie Masonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01390264410632162085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-11470623582230459282011-07-12T07:27:31.438-06:002011-07-12T07:27:31.438-06:00.
I cannot speak thereof and thus must be silent?
....<br /><i>I cannot speak thereof and thus must be silent?</i><br />.<br />heh heh<br />.<br />Not at all.<br />.<br />It's just that Wittgenstein is seen as somewhat of the twentieth century standout on language and its usage. <br />.<br />I'm wondering what Ludwig would have to say.<br />.<br />????<br />.<br />Tom?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-69780227468729719952011-07-12T07:10:16.097-06:002011-07-12T07:10:16.097-06:00Phil: is that a roundabout way of suggesting that ...Phil: is that a roundabout way of suggesting that I cannot speak thereof and thus must be silent? :-)<br /><br />Jeffrey KramerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-12307350983947115742011-07-12T05:36:07.917-06:002011-07-12T05:36:07.917-06:00.
Hey, Jeff!
.
Are you familiar with a guy named L....<br />Hey, Jeff!<br />.<br />Are you familiar with a guy named Luwdig Wittgenstein?<br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-83158997626299641752011-07-12T05:36:04.913-06:002011-07-12T05:36:04.913-06:00Adam Nicolson's book -- God's Secretaries:...Adam Nicolson's book -- <i>God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible</i> -- stresses how much the translation project began as a way of protecting the established church and keeping the Puritans in their place. For example, in the More vs Tyndale list discussed above by Tom and Daniel, it seems the KJB almost always took More's side and used the "Catholic" term (e.g., "priest" rather than "presbyter").<br /><br />Jeffrey KramerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-59484058213139844122011-07-12T05:06:22.787-06:002011-07-12T05:06:22.787-06:00A somewhat secondary point within Magpie's fin...A somewhat secondary point within Magpie's fine report, but this struck me as wrong:<br /><br /><i>The people of the English-speaking world c. 1600 would have laughed at the notion that their mother tongue could in any way comprise an art form. The term "English literature" would have been considered an oxymoron, Norton said....</i><br /><br />Certainly many Elizabethans were fiercely insistent that their language could produce literature as great as that of the Continent, or of the classical world. For example, Francis Meres wrote "Wits Treasury" in 1598 as "A Comparative Discourse of our English Poets, with the Greek, Latin, and Italian Poets." (It's most famous for being the earliest reference to many of Shakespeare's plays, and Shakespeare himself is compared to Ovid, Seneca and Plautus.)<br /><br />Jeffrey KramerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-64080591247705355242011-07-11T19:38:13.712-06:002011-07-11T19:38:13.712-06:00Very interesting link, Tom.Very interesting link, Tom.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12165084874363214919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-8054721385905171822011-07-11T16:57:22.611-06:002011-07-11T16:57:22.611-06:00This is fascinating [at least to me]. The Roman Ch...This is fascinating [at least to me]. The Roman Church commissioned Thomas More to write rebuttals to Tyndale in English [the "vulgate"], very rare indeed.<br /><br />And Tyndale replied in kind. The battle wasn't just over translating the Bible, but of Catholicism vs. Protestantism itself, Tyndale defending <i>sola scriptura</i>, More saying [and quoting the Bible itself] to allege it's impossible.<br /><br />http://beutel.narod.ru/write/more.htm<br /><br />As the author says,<br /><br /><i>At any rate, both Tyndale and More were scholarly apologists for their respective beliefs and finally martyrs for these beliefs, so it is hard to imagine two better candidates for a Protestant-Catholic theological disputation.</i><br /><br />The stakes were much higher than mere translation!Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-65599952464351176312011-07-11T16:51:19.405-06:002011-07-11T16:51:19.405-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37493269269913453182011-07-11T15:35:49.275-06:002011-07-11T15:35:49.275-06:00Well, that's all I was saying, Daniel. For ex...Well, that's all I was saying, Daniel. For example the Roman Church's rule in heresy trials---which were conducted under civil authority, not ecclesiastical authority---was to determine that the person actually was guilty of heresy and not just railroaded by the civil authorities for political reasons. <br /><br />This was actually the case in the Spanish Inquisition, where King Ferdinand was seizing the property of the <i>conversos</i> [converted Jews]. In fact, "inquisitions" had operated for centuries, with the Church responsible for seeing they were carried out fairly. It's difficult to imagine that the Church's role in the Spanish Inquisition was to moderate it, but recent studies indicate just that.<br /><br />According to this source<br /><br />http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/spaninq.txt<br /><br /><i>"In Britain, 30,000 went to the stake for witchcraft; in Protestant Germany, the figure was 100,000"</i><br /><br />I don't believe the numbers under Catholicism nearly approach that. The 1994 BBC special "Myth of the Spanish inquisition" says that<br /><br /><i>As the program documents, the 3,000 to 5,000 documented executions of the Inquisition pale in comparison to the 150,000 documented witch burnings elsewhere in Europe over the same centuries.</i><br /><br />It's difficult to imagine "The Inquisition" as a good thing. But there were worse things, like the civil authorities using religion as a political weapon, or civil authority being unable to constrain mass hysteria [which is the modern reading of the Salem Witch Trials].<br /><br />As for trying to get into their heads back then, Catholics and battling sects of Protestantism alike all believed that the Bible was the Word of God, and that messing with it was more than exercise of religious conscience or a difference of opinion; it was messing with God and His Word itself.<br /><br />And since society itself was based on Christianity being true---Catholic France or Protestant Geneva [and certainly the Church of England!]---heresy was also an offense against society and/or the state, very serious business and why the civil authorities were involved as well.<br /><br />I don't fight your reading of Thomas More, but as we see, Henry VIII and his C of E staff didn't like the Tyndale either. I would think there's more to the charge of "2000 errors" than lightly touched on here.<br /><br />[Sorry I got off on a tangent, but I hit the books after reading the throwaway line on Tyndale, and it brought back the entire "Black Legend" bit. And since the readers of this blog tend to buy into it, I thought a more fleshed-out objection here was a propos, the Tyndale story being typical of such "common knowledge" about the sins of the Roman Church.]Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-3287210060432571422011-07-11T15:01:50.464-06:002011-07-11T15:01:50.464-06:00Tom, some of those "errors" that you cit...Tom, some of those "errors" that you cite are legitimate choices of a translator. Certainly "martyr" means witness and "evangelist" means bearer of good news, and "heresy" means to choose for oneself. Words like bishop, overseer, priest, deacon, are highly contextual. And the same Greek word does mean spirit, wind, and breath, although the context within the writing should make the meaning obvious in most cases.<br /><br />I would say that Thomas Moore's complaints about translation errors are more about ideology than exact translation. That said, your larger point that we tend to get an over-simplified version of events is very true. Tyndale was a bit more than just a translator.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12165084874363214919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-19856600423111385822011-07-11T14:08:07.367-06:002011-07-11T14:08:07.367-06:00Several times The Anglicans themselves burned Copi...<i>Several times The Anglicans themselves burned Copies of the King James Version, a example of this was the 1631 printing somtimes know as the "Wicked Bible" because of a error made by the Printer Robert Barker. The word "not" was left out of the 7th commandment say it said "Thou shalt commit adultery". </i><br /><br />Heh heh. More here.<br /><br />http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/charge.htm<br /><br />There's much more to all these stories. Tyndale had made himself an enemy of Henry VIII for opposing his divorce. Tyndale was executed by the <i>civil</i> authority of the [German] Holy Roman Empire, which is reputed to have been neither Holy, Roman, or an empire.<br /><br />He was indeed found guilty by <i>Catholic</i> authorities for heresy. Among his heresies:<br /><br /><i> St. Thomas More commented that searching for errors in the Tyndale Bible was similar to searching for water in the sea. Tyndale translated the term baptism into "washing;" Scripture into "writing;" Holy Ghost into "Holy Wind," Bishop into "Overseer," Priest into "Elder," Deacon into "Minister;" heresy into "choice;" martyr into "witness;" evangelist into "bearer of good news;" etc., etc. Many of his footnotes were vicious. For instance, Tyndale referred to the occupant of the Chair of Peter, as "that great idol, the whore of Babylon, the anti-Christ of Rome."<br /><br />Even King Henry VIII in 1531 condemned the Tyndale Bible as a corruption of Scripture. In the words of King Henry's advisors: "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people, and not be suffered to go abroad among his subjects." Protestant Bishop Tunstall of London declared that there were upwards of 2,000 errors in Tyndale's Bible.</i><br /><br />[Henry VIII had already quit the Roman church by this time.]<br /><br />It's quite true that all involved did not taking messing with the Holy Scriptures lightly. The linked Catholic apologetic above chronicles also the many such fights among Protestants on translating the scriptures.<br /><br />The facile notion that Tyndale was executed by Roman Catholic Church for daring to translate the Bible into English isn't exactly how it all went down. As with most of these things, it's more complicated than that.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-31043706407883093612011-07-11T10:53:24.968-06:002011-07-11T10:53:24.968-06:00.
Nice paper, Magpie.
.
I'd give you an A - .
....<br />Nice paper, Magpie.<br />.<br />I'd give you an A - .<br /><br />.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06756814849309388483noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-37633110950686283562011-07-10T21:50:10.898-06:002011-07-10T21:50:10.898-06:00Thx for this, Mr. Magpie.
In the Geneva Bible...Thx for this, Mr. Magpie.<br /><br /><i> In the Geneva Bible's John 1 there were notes opining opposition to monarchial rule. </i><br /><br />This is the part that jumped out at me, and most germane to our discussions of Calvinist resistance theory! Anyone? Bueller?Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.com