View Single Post
Old 18-11-2011, 10:11 PM   #2
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Inactive
Posts: 36,483
Likes: 237 (190 Posts)
Lightbulb 1611

King James's Bible is used as the name for the 1611 translation (on a par with the "Genevan Bible" or the "Rhemish Testament") in Charles Butler's Horae Biblicae (first published 1797).[ Other works from the early 19th century confirm the widespread use of this name on both sides of the Atlantic: it is found both in a "Historical sketch of the English translations of the Bible" published in Massachusetts in 1815, and in an English publication from 1818, which explicitly states that the 1611 version is "generally known by the name of King James's Bible".This name was also found as King James' Bible (without the final "s"): for example in a book review from 1811. The phrase "King James's Bible" is used as far back as 1715, although in this case it is not clear whether this is a name or merely a description...

The followers of John Wycliffe undertook the first complete English translations of the Christian scriptures in the 15th century. These translations were banned in 1409 due to their association with the Lollards. The Wycliffe Bible pre-dated the printing press but was circulated very widely in manuscript form, often inscribed with a date earlier than 1409 to avoid the legal ban. As the text translated in the various versions of the Wycliffe Bible was the Latin Vulgate, and as it contained no heterodox readings, there was in practice no way by which the ecclesiastical authorities could distinguish the banned version; consequently many Catholic commentators of the 15th and 16th centuries (such as Thomas More) took these manuscript English Bibles to represent an anonymous earlier orthodox translation...

The newly crowned King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604. That gathering proposed a new English version in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Three examples of problems the Puritans perceived with the Bishops' and Great Bibles were:

First, Galatians iv. 25 (from the Bishops' Bible). The Greek word susoichei is not well translated as now it is, bordereth neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostle's sense, nor the situation of the place. Secondly, psalm cv. 28 (from the Great Bible), ‘They were not obedient;’ the original being, ‘They were not disobedient.’ Thirdly, psalm cvi. 30 (also from the Great Bible), ‘Then stood up Phinees and prayed,’ the Hebrew hath, ‘executed judgment.’[41]

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible).King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive: Exodus 1:19, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation".The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy...

Originally Posted by Rosy View Post
Subject: Was Martin Luther a Jesuit/Rosicrucian?


Through one of the links you sent out, I discovered (what I consider to be) a very interesting person, namely Alan Watt ... He has been a regular guest on Jackie Patru’s “Sweet Liberty”, and on 011805 the following conversation took place:

JP: How do the Jesuits figure into this? When you mentioned Venice, I read quite a long thing about their control of trade and commerce in Venice.

AW: Well, the Jesuits, they have their PR segment that started out to fight this new thing created by one of their members, Martin Luther, this protestant sect…

JP: Was he a Jesuit?

AW: He definitely was a Rosicrucian, in fact, that’s on his coat of arms, his family crest, the rose and cross…

JP: Martin Luther? [Laughs]

AW: Uh-huh, and, of course, the Catholic Church at that time was burning everybody who it didn’t like. All it did with Martin Luther was call him in for a few questions and let him go. So why did they let him go? That was because it was the right time to create an opposition for the upcoming industrial age in creating the protestant sect with the protestant work ethic. That was important… [At this point, Alan Watt gets disconnected and the line goes dead]
Likes: (1)
lightgiver is offline   Reply With Quote