Roman church, and the King appointed his own Arch Bishop, in order to receive
absolution for his divorce, which at the time the Roman church refused. The
Calvinist translation (known as the KJV) is somewhat a different issue, although
still a controversy for those scholars who are studying the history and origins
of the bible.
The Hebrew language contains no vowels, and therefore is extremely difficult to
translate into English. As a result it was done via "committee, that was
appointed by the King, and thereafter has been termed the "Inspired Word of God"
Many of the more conservative Christians (I call them radical) insist that the
KJR is the "Literal Word of God," which, of course is completely false.
======================================
Stop spam on your domain, Anti-spam solutions
http://www.clickdoug.com/mailfilter.cfm
For hosting solutions http://www.clickdoug.com
======================================
Aspire to Inspire before you Retire or Expire!
----- Original Message -----
From: Candace Cottrell
To: CF-Community
Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: KJ Version
Thanks. I was bothered by the fact that the king may have altered things to
fit his own agenda. And there were some folks here criticizing me and making me
feel like an idiot.
I brought up the subject of divorce. Wasn't it true that in the original
texts, divorce was never permissable, but in the KJV it was altered so that
James could divorce his current wife? I believe I heard this in a history class
in college.
Candace K. Cottrell, Web Developer
The Children's Medical Center
One Children's Plaza
Dayton, OH 45404
937-641-4293
http://www.childrensdayton.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"There is no right price for the wrong product, even if it is inexpensive and
delivered on time."
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2/26/2004 4:21:24 PM >>>
In a roundabout way of answering the question, I'll point to something
discussing the various historical revisions the bible.
http://www.atheists.org/church/realbible.html
I'll acknowledge that it's a biased source, but it still provides some
historical background.
One quote:
"We may note one other oddity concerning the "received text" used to produce
the King James Bible: Because the Book of Revelation was never popular in
the Greek Orthodox Church, it was hard for Erasmus to find Greek MSS of the
book. Indeed, he could not find a single MS that contained the last six
verses. Consequently, he had to make up his own Greek - translating the last
six verses into Greek from the Latin Vulgate! To this day no Greek text has
ever been found that reproduces Erasmus' version of the last six verses of
me Bible, yet it is the source of the King James rendering. "
Another quote:
"The Greek version reflects a Hebrew text more than a thousand years older
than the Hebrew text used as the standard for the King James."
Even if you disregard the political decisions of which books and chapters to
include in the bible, there are still fundamental problems with translation.
Concepts in one language don't always translate easily to another language.
Anyone who knows another language can attest to that. For instance, there is
a German word "Schadenfreude" that roughly means "taking pleasure in the
discomfort of others". But there's no word in English to really express the
subtle nuances of it. Sadism is a common mistranslation.
I'm sure Mike can speak to this, but Scholars have debated for centuries
over the interpretations of passages in the Hebrew, and trying to bring that
over to yet another language is inevitably going to introduce vagaries.
-Kevin
> Can someone tell me why the King James version of the bible is said to be
altered to fit his own agendas?
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
