Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Eldarion Lathria · 05-23-2009, 04:35 PM

Here is the original translator's preface to the 1611 version. Note they make no claims to perfection.

Quote:

For the very Historicall trueth is, that vpon the importunate petitions of the Puritanes, at his Maiesties comming to this Crowne, the Conference at Hampton Court hauing bene appointed for hearing their complaints : when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion booke, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was iudged to be but a very poore and emptie shift; yet euen hereupon did his Maiestie beginne to bethinke himselfe of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gaue order for this Translation which is now presented vnto thee. Thus much to satisfie our scrupulous Brethren.

Now to the later we answere: that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee haue seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Translator with the like grace, nor peraduenture so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sense, euery where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verum vbi multi nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counter a vertuous man, though hee haue made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and louely, though hee haue some warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but also skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what euer was perfect vnder the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priuiledged with the priuiledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?

The sight I got it from is this..

http://www.featherlessbiped.com/6696...11/kjv1611.htm

Thanks to Joe Bethancourt for finding and posting it on his web site. But the 1611 version contains deliberate archaisms, for example the word 'usward' which went out of use in 1400, and the phrase 'for his name's sake' which originally men 'for the sake of his good name' but by 1600 meant 'for the sake of brag'.

Eldarion Lathria.

johno · 05-24-2009, 12:33 AM

I thought that the only reason (choosing the word carefully) to prefer the King James Bible was the literary quality of the English. Every sane person recognizes that scholarship has progressed since the time of King James, and that errors in translation have been corrected since the version he authorized was published, but some believe that the quality English prose has sadly declined since then.

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2009, 01:44 AM

http://www.librarything.com/work/333439

Quote:

The English Bible and the Seventeenth-Century Revolution (or via: amazon.co.uk)

by Christopher Hill

Except that regicide is arguably also a direct result.

Quote:

"What caused the English civil war? What brought Charles I to the scaffold? Answer to both questions: the Bible. To sustain this provocative thesis, Christopher Hill's new book maps English intellectual history from the Reformation to 1660, showing how scripture dominated every department of thought from sexual relations to political theory."

Doug Shaver · 05-24-2009, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johno

I thought that the only reason (choosing the word carefully) to prefer the King James Bible was the literary quality of the English.

It's the only logically defensible reason. For some apologists, that sort of reason is neither sufficient nor necessary.

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2009, 07:36 AM

Is it just me but if you are standing behind a Bible might you be using it to cover rude bits?

dimbulb · 05-24-2009, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Who died on the cross?

http://www.ruckmanism.org/sites/defa...onthecross.jpg

Thanks for that.

I had never heard of Ruckman though I had long since decided that Christians, in general, have little faith in their god but rather worship his supposedly inspired writings. They enjoy nothing more than wallowing in the prose and pondering the placement of punctuation.

While actually expecting the Big G to do something inevitably leads to disappointment, reading a book that you can hold in your hand is so much more substantial. So they drag out their security blanket and read a few pages and feel better.

Now it's the Bible on a Cross. Why not? That's where their faith lies.

Buck Laser · 05-24-2009, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Joey

I agree with skeptics in one area and this is that modern Bible versions are PERVERTED.
Bill

You're JOKING, right?

Clivedurdle · 05-24-2009, 11:07 AM

Sadly, he isn't, but it is a very rare species so we must be careful not to scare it. It is definetely worth studying though!

Quote:

Thanks for that.

I had never heard of Ruckman though I had long since decided that Christians, in general, have little faith in their god but rather worship his supposedly inspired writings. They enjoy nothing more than wallowing in the prose and pondering the placement of punctuation.

While actually expecting the Big G to do something inevitably leads to disappointment, reading a book that you can hold in your hand is so much more substantial. So they drag out their security blanket and read a few pages and feel better.

Now it's the Bible on a Cross. Why not? That's where their faith lies.

A book worshipping cult as well as a food cult with strange sexual beliefs. Fascinating. If it had been discovered in a jungle.....

Zenaphobe · 05-24-2009, 11:07 AM

I stood behind the King James Bible once

and I still lost at hide 'n seek.

I remember when I was a believer I had a friend who was a strong KJV 1611 advocate and one of the reasons he believed modern translations as worthless was because the Sinaticus text was found in a trash can. :facepalm:

Baalazel · 05-25-2009, 12:29 PM

Ruckman used to keep a tumbler of white vinegar on his podium and would drink from it while preaching. He was once a drummer and I heard him give a long talk on the "music of the Negro" complete with drumming so we could experience the "African Beat."

Just to be clear, Ruckman did not use the word "Negro", ever. He used the other word often and effusively during sermons and everyday speech.

He was an idol of mine before I went to Bible college. His idol was the AVKJ 1611.

Baal

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-24-2009, 12:33 AM	#72
johno Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,549	I thought that the only reason (choosing the word carefully) to prefer the King James Bible was the literary quality of the English. Every sane person recognizes that scholarship has progressed since the time of King James, and that errors in translation have been corrected since the version he authorized was published, but some believe that the quality English prose has sadly declined since then.

05-24-2009, 07:36 AM	#75
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Is it just me but if you are standing behind a Bible might you be using it to cover rude bits?

05-24-2009, 11:07 AM	#79
Zenaphobe Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: In the NC trailer park Posts: 6,631	I stood behind the King James Bible once and I still lost at hide 'n seek. I remember when I was a believer I had a friend who was a strong KJV 1611 advocate and one of the reasons he believed modern translations as worthless was because the Sinaticus text was found in a trash can. :facepalm:

05-25-2009, 12:29 PM	#80
Baalazel Senior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: South Alabama Posts: 649	Ruckman used to keep a tumbler of white vinegar on his podium and would drink from it while preaching. He was once a drummer and I heard him give a long talk on the "music of the Negro" complete with drumming so we could experience the "African Beat." Just to be clear, Ruckman did not use the word "Negro", ever. He used the other word often and effusively during sermons and everyday speech. He was an idol of mine before I went to Bible college. His idol was the AVKJ 1611. Baal

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.