Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
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."
|
There's sometimes quite a wait between updates, but I find nearly all of his posts interesting (even if I don't get a new Bible out of the deal).
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
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 hadn't thought about that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
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!
|
The "King James Only" thing is a huge can of worms. What started the KJO movement wasn't so much an affirmative statement that the King James version was perfect or inspired, but dismay that all subsequent English translations were based on Greek texts that were the result of textual criticism. The argument against textual criticism is that, as a reflection of many originals, the critical texts are, in effect, newly created texts that don't match any specific originals.
From that sprang a number of theological positions, ranging from the softer, "the King James isn't necessarily perfect, but everything later is worse" view to "the King James is itself inspired". The latter, most extreme view has led to discussions about which version is the correct one with the main consensus being the version published in 1769 (standardized spelling and some typographical changes, but otherwise more-or-less the same as the 1611 version).
This guy has become influential with the movement by nailing down what he thinks is the best of editions, one published by Cambridge around 1900. He calls it the "Pure Cambridge Edition".
It's interesting to note that almost as soon as the Revised Version was published in the 1880s, there were already objections to the relatively minor changes made then. You can find
several discussions of this by browsing Google.Books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
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.
|
To avoid taking the discussion to "Politics and Religion" territory, I'll just say "fair enough".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
Thanks for your thought-provoking post.
|
You're welcome. If it isn't obvious, this is one of my favorite topics.