View Single Post
Old 09-10-2015, 03:29 AM   #284
GtrsRGr8
Grand Sorcerer
GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.GtrsRGr8 ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,334
Karma: 27815322
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Southeastern U.S., ya'll
Device: Kindle; Kindle (10.1.1) for PC; Kindle Cloud Reader
Quote:
Originally Posted by Difflugia View Post
I browse The Bible Hunter every so often to see if anything new pops up.
. . . .
Was glad to know about the free Geneva Bible. I downloaded it. But, boy, was I glad that I upgraded my Internet service and wi-fi a while back--that's a big book! I was probably as glad to learn of the Bible Hunter website/blog as to learn of the free Bible. I put the website in my browser bookmark folder labelled "Check Frequently."

Your comments about the connection (or lack thereof) of the Geneva Bible with the creation of the King James Bible jogged my memory. The Puritans were none too happy about King James (the king) commissioning a new version--they felt that their beloved Geneva Bible was just fine. That was just one more grievance added to the long list that they already had against the Church of England, etc., etc. Maybe it's not too much of a stretch to say that the King James Bible helped lead to the beginning of America, because all of those grievances led to some of the Puritans getting on a ship called the Mayflower a decade or so later.

I was glad that you shared the information about the changes in spelling in the KJB over the years. There may not be any Mobilereaders who believe this way, but I have run across and read writings of people who held the "King James Only" position. I think that I am correct in saying that they believe that people should use only the King James of 1611. But the KJB being published today has gone through many revisions since 1611, and not just in spelling. The Bible that they have is not (unless it is an extremely unusual circumstance) the same as the one of 1611. In a sense, they have a modern version!

A quick comment on your view that there is a "recent movement to recast US history in terms of evangelical Christianity" . . . . I have the opposite perception, at least concerning part of American history. It seems to me that people more and more are refuting the idea that evangelicals have that America was founded by believers in God. A side point: sometimes I think that all American historians--representing both sides--are pushing agendas and we're not getting the whole truth from any of them.

Thanks for your thought-provoking post.
GtrsRGr8 is offline