It actually makes my point --- the Greeks used two different writing styles --- Koine and Classical --- to write two different lines of Scripture.
The King James follows the Koine line (God's choice), whereas the newer versions today follow the Classical line (Satan's choice).
36 comments
(Nowonmai)
Then there's the fact that the editor-in-chief of "God's choice", King Jimmy Boy, was actually a flaming queen. Hmm, I thought God hated homosexuality.
Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean of the era. Latin, iirc, didn't gain prominence until later.
Awfuggit, why bother? AV1611....
Well, let's see. I've been trained in biblical Greek, and I've studied classical Greek. And, according to all known scholarship on the subject, this is officially declared bullshit. I could go into, but even if AVVET were to see this, he's just piss it away anyway.
Some of you might want to bone up on your history, too ... King James wasn't the divorcing one.
What is interesting is that he ordered a new translation as a counter to the Geneva bible, which was the one popular with the fundies of his day. If our modern fundies were consistent, they would reject the AV as an Anglican tract, and cleave only to the Calvinist purity of the Geneva version.
To #898668
I had night daily writing the bible.
first from one of our own:
"King Jimmy Boy had the bible edited for content so he could get a divorce."
Bullshit pure and simple! You're thinking of Henry the Eigth - your history is as bad as a fundie's!!! Is this the basis for your objection? Cos that's almost as scarey as the fundies!!! And where did King James have any bits edited?? Citation!!
Bloody hell - are we fighting ignorance with ignorance now - or is this an example of anti-fundie fundie??
@ freedom bound:
There's idiots on all sides, y'know. As for his Scots majesty having bits edited, he certainly wasn't having any of the anti-monarchist footnotes found in the Geneva version. Also, he issued explicit instructions that in the event of varying interpretations, the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The 47 scholars did indeed work from (for the NT) the manuscripts, written in Koine Greek, known as the Textus Receptus, but these were hardly original or even very ancient, having been compiled in 1516 by Erasmus, based on late Byzantine texts. Modern scholars don't think much of Erasmus' version. The KJV scholars used the Masoretic Hebrew text for the OT and at least one book of the Apocrypha (yes, the Apocrypha were in the original 1611 KJV) was taken from the Latin Vulgate. Despite all that, they did a poor job, simply lifting most of it from Tyndale (who also translated from Erasmus).
This was true of Greek... in the 19th and 20th centuries, till 1976 (it was an attempt to purge the language of Turkish influences). But then I guess I'm amazed that AV1611VET has even heard of the Katharevousa/Dhimotiki divide to begin with, so the fact that he's about 1800 years off is probably within his standard deviation.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
