Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

neh.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 245 posts

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#41

Post by joegahona »

RandomTisk wrote: post #39
amerine wrote: post #3

Do religious groups in the US, specifically, Christians, talk about the history of the King James Bible? Why is it, uh, trusted by so many, when stuff like this hints at a storied construction?

There is a small but very convinced group that believes that the King James Bible is "perfect", preserved by God to be the only true scripture for Christians. This is just my opinion, after many hours of researching this phenomenon myself: They mean well, but they're very wrong. The translators of the King James Bible themselves, specifically and without ambiguity stated in the introduction to the KJV that it's impor…

What was the verse?

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#42

Post by dragonwriter »

elihu wrote: post #29
amerine wrote: post #3

Do religious groups in the US, specifically, Christians, talk about the history of the King James Bible? Why is it, uh, trusted by so many, when stuff like this hints at a storied construction?

I think for some the issue is that if you consider the Bible to be absolute and without error, then the logical conclusion is that the first available translation is the right one and you can't have others that conflict. If, say, NIV conflicts with KJV in some way, then if said that the NIV was right it means the KJV is wrong, and for some people that's yanking out a key pillar of their epistemology. Another aspect o…

> I think for some the issue is that if you consider the Bible to be absolute and without error, then the logical conclusion is that the first available translation is the right one and you can't have others that conflict.

If you considered that the Bible as originally revealed was absolute and without error, that would absolutely not demand the conclusion that the first translation into your language from intermediate texts was therefore “the right one”. In fact, it would (given the inherent act of interpretation in translation) lead to suspicion of any translation from the original (see Islam and translations of the Quran.)

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#43

Post by __s »

schoen wrote: post #11
xfour wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great point. There's some much arguing about what different passages in the bible mean, and what get's lost in those conversations that the passages in question are already a derivative source. The thinking must go something along the lines that everyone involved in each step must have been tasked by god himself with the wisdom to faithfully transcribe his wishes... or something of that sort.

I had a fellow student in a Latin course whose church taught that the KJV translators were divinely inspired in the same way as the original authors (the original inspiration of the Bible being a very common Christian doctrine). However, that's not a common view among English-speaking Christians, nor even necessarily a majority view among people who prefer the KJV. Apparently there are at least five reasons that peop…

Then you have the crazy end of things, accusing NIV of being satanic: http://www.av1611.org/niv.html

https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_j... (this site is also a good example of how the old internet isn't dead. It's just that the internet we think of today has grown to around it, dwarfing it in size)

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#44

Post by freedomben »

elihu wrote: post #29
amerine wrote: post #3

Do religious groups in the US, specifically, Christians, talk about the history of the King James Bible? Why is it, uh, trusted by so many, when stuff like this hints at a storied construction?

I think for some the issue is that if you consider the Bible to be absolute and without error, then the logical conclusion is that the first available translation is the right one and you can't have others that conflict. If, say, NIV conflicts with KJV in some way, then if said that the NIV was right it means the KJV is wrong, and for some people that's yanking out a key pillar of their epistemology. Another aspect o…

Most of the serious Christian apologists these days don't have that kind of faith in the KJV, but rather on the originals as first written by the authors. In fact they don't consider the KJV to be anywhere near the best since much earlier manuscripts have been found since the KJV was translated. William Lane Craig writes about a lot of this in his books. I highly recommend his book "reasonable faith" for a look at the most scholarly philosophical apologetics (from a Christian view). Just don't accept his explanations of atheist thought because it's a giant straw man.

For atheist thought go with David Kyle Johnson for philosophy, Bart Ehrman for biblical history, and Richard Dawkins for science. Sam harris does a ton of philosophy too which is good, just not my favorite.

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#45

Post by RandomTisk »

joegahona wrote: post #41
RandomTisk wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a small but very convinced group that believes that the King James Bible is "perfect", preserved by God to be the only true scripture for Christians. This is just my opinion, after many hours of researching this phenomenon myself: They mean well, but they're very wrong. The translators of the King James Bible themselves, specifically and without ambiguity stated in the introduction to the KJV that it's impor…

What was the verse?

I wish I could remember it, or even just the word, but it was several years ago. It might have been the word 'prevent' which 400 years ago meant to precede, but I really don't know.

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#46

Post by schoen »

RandomTisk wrote: post #39
amerine wrote: post #3

Do religious groups in the US, specifically, Christians, talk about the history of the King James Bible? Why is it, uh, trusted by so many, when stuff like this hints at a storied construction?

There is a small but very convinced group that believes that the King James Bible is "perfect", preserved by God to be the only true scripture for Christians. This is just my opinion, after many hours of researching this phenomenon myself: They mean well, but they're very wrong. The translators of the King James Bible themselves, specifically and without ambiguity stated in the introduction to the KJV that it's impor…

> The translators of the King James Bible themselves, specifically and without ambiguity stated in the introduction to the KJV that it's important for scholars to update the texts from time to time to allow current culture to understand what ancient writers meant.

Wow, I don't think I had seen this before. I think you're probably referring to this section:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C...

Or maybe even further

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C...

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C...

> Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.

(I didn't realize that the Preface had so much discussion of the history of Bible translation!)

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#47

Post by schoen »

lsc wrote: post #38
ekianjo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Vatican probably?

so, uh, I thought the kjv was... not recognized as valid by the catholic church? Like, the KJV was authorized by the church of England, a, uh, rather different body from the Vatican. I thought a lot of what made the KJV important was that it was early in that split. I mean, i suppose that the Vatican would probably still have a pretty interesting opinion on it.

Another commenter elsewhere in this thread just mentioned the Preface to the KJV, which includes some specific criticism of the Catholic Church (referred to as "our chief adversaries") for (at the time) disapproving of vernacular language editions of the Bible.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(King_James)/Preface#%C....

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#48

Post by sysbin »

xamuel wrote: post #27

It's a pity so few people realize that beside all the usual stuff (love or hate it) that society associates with the Bible, the Gospels contain discourses of Jesus which are genuinely brilliant purely in their own right as philosophical works. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of me…

The brilliance exists. Indeed, anyone can witness the psychological nature of influence upon people "born into low social status" and who become docile & obedient from the "word" while disregarding their birth status because just wait until death. :)

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#49

Post by MRPockets »

joegahona wrote: post #41
RandomTisk wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a small but very convinced group that believes that the King James Bible is "perfect", preserved by God to be the only true scripture for Christians. This is just my opinion, after many hours of researching this phenomenon myself: They mean well, but they're very wrong. The translators of the King James Bible themselves, specifically and without ambiguity stated in the introduction to the KJV that it's impor…

What was the verse?

Not OP but Psalm 37:8b[0] is my go to verse for this. I grew up reading, hearing, & memorizing out of the KJV and kind of prided myself in being able to understand that style of English. Even knowing various words & phrases have changed,I still have no idea what they verse would have meant to the original readers. I can look at a modern translation & see what it "should" say,but wow, I just can't get there from the KJV languagefret not thyself in any wise to do evil.

[0] "fret not thyself in any wise to do evil."

Re: Earliest known draft of the King James Bible discovered

#50

Post by Nition »

xamuel wrote: post #27

It's a pity so few people realize that beside all the usual stuff (love or hate it) that society associates with the Bible, the Gospels contain discourses of Jesus which are genuinely brilliant purely in their own right as philosophical works. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of me…

Over in the Old Testament, Ecclesiastes has a strong Greek philosophy feel to it. It's quite different from the books around it.
Post reply on HN