Quantcast

Comments about ‘As the King James Version of the Bible celebrates 400 years, scholars hope for a renaissance’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Jan. 23 2011 12:05 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Schwa
South Jordan, UT

The greatest novel in the history of humanity.

Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

The Bible is thousands of years old. The King James Version or translation of the Bible is 400 years old.

Also, the Bible is not a novel. It is NOT fiction. It is a very great book--not a great novel.

mecr
Bountiful, UT

I am grateful for the one who translated the Bible so everybody could read of it. I am also grateful to those inventors who made the Bible accessible to us from generation to generation.

Schwa
South Jordan, UT

It is very much a novel. It is absolutely fiction.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

re: Cats
Somehow the KJV of the bible, only being 400 years old, made it into a book that is alledgedly 2600 years old.

Serenity
Manti, UT

The Bible is a history book which tells of mankind. From the creation in Genesis until the prophecies of the end of time in Revelation, it tells of people coming to as well as falling away from God. It was written by men, true enough, but it is inspired by God. It sets rules and commandments which we need to follow if we desire eternal life. One of the first signs of total corruption in a nation is people deny God. Others are free sexuality and immorality. When people no longer listen to the word of God and call it fiction, God will no longer be present in the lives of man. When God is absent, there is only darkness, ciaos, incivility, and cruelty of one man to another. There is no promise of eternal life and all that matters is "now" and what can I get for myself. Anarchy and tyranny rule in nations without God and there can never be peace. The Bible teaches these things. Its truthfulness can be proved by archeology and other writings. It hasn't only been around for 400 years, but ever since Moses wrote the Book of Genesis.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

Mr. Bass,
Your understanding of the translation process is flawed. The Lord speaks to man in his own language. At the time and place of Joseph Smith the KJV was the standard, so use of the KJV text where it was in line with the Book of Mormon text worked.

there is so much evidence against Joseph Smith having had a copy of the KJV on him, that your attempt to claim this is just ludicrous. Beyond this, you are ignoring the fact that there are many significant alterations of the text of passages quoted in the Book of Mormon. This is especially true of the Isaiah passages in 2nd Nephi.

The process of the translation of the Book of Mormon is not fully understood, but your generally snide remark about it has no relevance to the matter.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

On a different note I would encorage more reading of this elegant book. I have heard modern translations and they usually just do not measure up.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

The claim that perishioners relied on preachers to interpet the ancient texts of various languages does not apply to med-eval England. There the one standardly used Bible was the Vulgate, the Latin Translation by Jerome.

On the other hand, the printing of Bibles in English pre-dated the publications of the the KJV by well over 50 years. The Bible was widely available in English before the KJV was published, and the KJV relied heavily on the work of previous translators such as William Tyndale. On the other hand it is true that the scholars who compiled the KJV did seek to use Greek and Hebrew texts in their translation.

It is only a small minority of modern scholars who would argue that any of our modern Bible had ancestral texts in Aramaic. Jesus probably spoke Aramaic, but it is generally believed that most if not all the New Testament was first written in Greek.

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

"Sir John Cheke taught England and Prince Edward Greek". John Cheke was a Greek scholar active in England in the 1530s and 1540s. One of his pupils was King Edward VI. Before this virtually no one in England had known Greek.

This is just a piece of eviidence showing that preachers were not conveying the Bilbe message as they had learned it in Greek or Hebrew. They were conveying it as they learned it in Latin, specifically the vulgate.

The first wave of Protestants were as interested in getting to the early, source language texts of the Bible as they were in printing it in languages other than Latin. the Catholic Church disliked the polyglot Bible more for disregarding the Vulgate text and incorporating Greek and Hebrew in printing, than for its printing passages in languages such as German.

the whole presentation of pre-1530 religion in England in this article is just plain incorrect.

Vanka
Provo, UT

John Pack Lambert,

As brevity is the sould of wit, I must say, like Polonius, you strike me as a bit of a "chatterbox".

amst
plano, tx

Actually as to the bible being fiction that depends. If you are going by history there are some things in it that give good historical accounts. It talks about the Assyrian empire, Babylonian Empire, and other ancient cultures and civilizations some of which historians doubted until they started doing more digging and found evidence of it. Can you prove the spiritual things in the bible no not really those are matters of faith but to say that the whole thing is fiction is fiction there really are some historical accounts in there.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments