King James Version
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-06-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: King James Version
(16-06-2014 10:23 AM)John Wrote:  ... Here's a nice overview of the history of how the Bible got translated into English, with special interest in the KJV ...

Very instructive presentation, John, thanks.

It makes plain that any attempt to comprehend the KJV without substantial accompanying annotation is impossible. I suppose such annotated editions exist, but they are most definitely NOT the editions found in the pew racks.

That such annotation is necessary is de facto proof the KJV was not the product of any divine guidance; certainly not divine intent to furnish useable and ageless operating instructions anyone could understand at any time. Even the most fanatic evangelicals that hang out in this forum explicitly state the KJV requires "correct" interpretation, so recognition that the KJV is an incomplete (at best) users manual is universal.

The presentation (perhaps unintentionally) winds up demolishing an entire estate of evangelical effort: quoting scripture. ANY quoted verse that is not accompanied by necessary annotation, even just to say that the verse doesn't need any, CANNOT be properly comprehended.

That's a major problem.

I think an HONEST evangelical would do this, albeit it requires knowledge and extra effort, and has the unfortunate side effect of undermining the authoritativeness of the KJV and elevating the authoritativeness of the outside works that are the source of the annotation, but in the cause of HONESTY these obstacles should not be burdensome.

Mention this the next time scripture gets thrown around naked. It's indecent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 08:35 AM
RE: King James Version
(17-06-2014 08:28 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  ...any attempt to comprehend the KJV without substantial accompanying annotation is impossible. I suppose such annotated editions exist, but they are most definitely NOT the editions found in the pew racks.

There are annotated KJVs out there. I particularly like the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (available on the internet as well as in a printed volume), and the Norton Critical Edition in two volumes (I think they title it The English Bible). Both of these are the KJV, thoroughly annotated. The annotations in the Norton edition are fairly neutral; the Skeptic's edition is outright atheist in its view. I have and enjoy both.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 11:18 AM
RE: King James Version
http://www.powells.com/review/2007_07_14

Quote:Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
by Bart D. Ehrman

A Review:

Those who call the King James Version of the Bible the unerring word of God have a slight problem. The New Testament of the KJV (as the King James Version is usually referred) was translated into English from a version of the Greek New Testament that had been collected from twelfth-century copies by Erasmus. Where Erasmus couldn't find Greek manuscripts, he translated to Greek from the Latin Vulgate (which itself had been translated from Greek back in the fourth century). Here the problem splits into two problems. First, Jesus spoke Aramaic --- his actual words, never recorded, were only rendered in Greek in the original gospels. Thus, the KJV consists of Jesus' words twice refracted through the prism of translation. Second, Erasmus's Greek New Testament was based on handwritten copies of copies of copies of copies, etc., going back over a millennium, and today is considered one of the poorer Greek New Testaments. It is this second problem that Ehrman spends most time on in Misquoting Jesus, a fascinating account of New Testament textual criticism.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: