So if you guys are all so freaking clever how cum none of you realized that the KJV is from the 1300s not 1610 as suggested above.
There are no real arguments here just nattering over details.
Your submissions beg the granting of innumerable premise' however you collectively grant none to those who are outside your ... uhhh.... mindset.
What I view here is akin to a group of scientologists or nazis doing the support group thing.
38 comments
From Wikipedia, because you obviously have no clue about your own bible.
The King James Version of the Bible, or Authorized Version, first published in 1611, has had a profound impact on English literature. The works of famous authors such as John Bunyan, John Milton, Herman Melville, John Dryden, and William Wordsworth are replete with inspiration derived from the King James Version. The term King James Version (KJV) is more commonly used in the USA, whilst the term Authorized Version (AV) is more commonly used in the UK, although both terms are generally understood to mean the same thing.
The New Testament of the King James Version was translated from the Received Text (Textus Receptus), called so because most extant texts of the time were in agreement with it. The Old Testament of the King James Version is translated from the Masoretic Hebrew Text.
Modern English Bibles such as the New American Standard Bible and the English Standard Version derive their authority from a completely different set of New Testament manuscripts (earlier Egyptian Minority Texts as opposed to the later Byzantine Majority Texts).
Although it is often referred to as the King James Version, the only active part King James took in the translation was lifting the criminal (death) penalty attached to its translation and setting very reasonable guidelines for the translation process (such as prohibiting partisan scholarship and footnotes.)
Canadian Malcontent, if YOU are so freaking clever, how come (note the spelling of the non-obscene version of the word) you are so oblivious to the actual history of the book you evidently worship?
All it would have taken you is a grand total of perhaps half a minute to look things up online and discover that you were wrong in thinking that it was created in the 1300s. This would have had two beneficial effects:
(1) You would have learned something, correcting faulty knowledge you had somehow acquired.
(2) You would have not made a fool of yourself like this to the entire world.
~David D.G.
Aaaaaaaaah, fundy debating 101. When presented with facts, deny them categorically and invent your own - and call everyone who knew the facts, stupid.
When everyone writes you off as retarded beyond help and leaves you alone, pretend you've won and go to your room to beat off!
So if you guys are all so freaking clever how cum none of you realized that the KJV is from the 1300s not 1610 as suggested above.
How about the fact that King James wasn't around in the 1300s?
How about the fact that the printing press which enabled mass printings of translated Bibles wasn't around (at least, not in Europe) until the 1500s at least?
Your submissions beg the granting of innumerable premise' however you collectively grant none to those who are outside your ... uhhh.... mindset.
Our premises tend to have evidence for them. Yours do not.
Chaucer wrote the Canterbury Tales in the last couple decades of the 1300s. I'm sure every 12th-grade English reading book has at least the first few lines of the prologue printed in the original language.
Compare that to the KJV. I'm sure the spelling has been standardized in the last 500 years, though, just like Shakespeare (who died in 1616, and was an active playwright into the early years of James I's reign).
Oh ... wait ... Is Canadian Malcontent homeschooled or public schooled?
Here's 1300 English:
Lauerd me steres, noght wante sal me:
In stede of fode þare me louked he.
He fed me ouer watre ofe fode,
Mi saule he tornes in to gode.
He led me ouer sties of rightwisenes,
For his name, swa hali es.
For, and ife I ga in mid schadw ofe dede,
For þou wiþ me erte iuel sal i noght drede ...
Sound like the KJV? I didn't think so, either. Hint: "For, and ife I ga in mid schadw ofe dede," = KJV "yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death ..."
anevilmeme: Canada must have a South too!
The most southerly part of Canada, southern Ontario lies further south than some of northern California. However, the folks who live there are not particularly Bible thumping fundies. We have our own Bible belt. It is Alberta. To get there, go to Utah and head north.
Coincidence? I think not!
"So if you guys are all so freaking clever how cum none of you realized that the KJV is from the 1300s not 1610 as suggested above."
Well, we are so clever as to realize that King James was no alive in the 1300s. Also, we are so clever as to have noticed the official date of the KJV is 1611, not 1610.
"There are no real arguments here just nattering over details."
I agree, you have no real agrument to present. Now shut up and go home.
"Your submissions beg the granting of innumerable premise' however you collectively grant none to those who are outside your ... uhhh.... mindset."
It's true, our premises require evidence and logic. We are happy to consider all of your arguments which are based on evidence and logic. Fair is fair. However, if your agrument is based on ancient fairy tales, wishful thinking and theological dogma, I don't think we'll have much interest in it.
"What I view here is akin to a group of scientologists or nazis doing the support group thing."
Well, then your view is mistaken. Stupid, thoughtless and mistaken.
Nothing screams group support for ridiculous positions louder than church services and Bible study groups.
#103950
John
Here's 1300 English:
Lauerd me steres, noght wante sal me:
In stede of fode þare me louked he.
He fed me ouer watre ofe fode,
Mi saule he tornes in to gode.
He led me ouer sties of rightwisenes,
For his name, swa hali es.
For, and ife I ga in mid schadw ofe dede,
For þou wiþ me erte iuel sal i noght drede ...
Sound like the KJV? I didn't think so, either. Hint: \"For, and ife I ga in mid schadw ofe dede,\" = KJV \"yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death ...\"
^This. If it had been translated in the 1300s, you would have an even harder time understanding it than you, you know, do anyway.
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.