Monday, July 02, 2012

King James And His Translators

I just read something (shown above) quite interesting to me about the King James Version of the New Testament. Here's what it says (in bold, and my reactions in italic:

The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.

Really? So the king had little or nothing to do with the actual job of translation?

There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. The oldest manscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after last apostle died. There are over 8,000 of these manuscripts, with no two alike.

8,000? And who wrote all these?   What were their motives and backgrounds?And why were they not consistent?

The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliment would approve.

Can this be true? That King James did not translate a single historical document? That it was left up to 8 church members? Members that translated none of the original documents, but only  altered earlier versions to create something they believed would be acceptable to the king?

So, 21st Century Christians believe the "Word of God" is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8,000 contradictory copies of 4th century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century. 

That's not faith. That's insanity.

Wowzers, that's a mouthful. I certainly would not call it "insanity", but I have to conclude that - if all the above is factual - that nothing but blind faith could accept all that as truth

I've heard comments similiar to these before. Perhaps that's why I am an agnostic... The connection  from the Word of God  to today's Christian beliefs using the New Testament has - to me - has always been quite tenuous.

There's the reference shown in small print at the bottom of the post. Maybe I'll look it up.


W.LindsayWheeler said...

Yes, you should be concerned.

Have you heard of the Septuagint? It is the Bible that the Early Christians used throughout!

Here is a nice link that demonstrates the superiority of the Septuagint over the Masoretic text:

Septuagint vs Masoretic

It ought to explain all to you. Christians should only use the Septuagint. I like Bartlett's translation.

Galt-in-Da-Box said...

Considering the place you most likely got that (the little old lady in TX who worships the earth & thinks Comrade-0 walks on water) you have to atleast consider the possibility there's an axe to grind involved.
Just saying.

Bob said...

Well of course. Galt...

It's still interesting tho.

YDG and I disagree on almost everything, except she promised not to use foul language on my blog.

texlahoma said...

I like to think farther back, before Jesus or any other religious leaders or writings.

Like a caveman, looking up into a starry night sky, simply knowing. Knowing that there is a big power that is good, out there somewhere.

That feeling and the wonderful genius of nature is all I really need.
So the bible stuff is interesting, but no big deal to me.

I started talking about that stuff to some Jehovah witnesses one time and they just left. I guess I either blew their minds or they thought I was a lost cause.

Galt-in-Da-Box said...

Evolution cannot explain creation.
Religion cannot explain God.
"Henry could explain the Ford, but the Ford can never explain Henry!"

Bob said...

I'm not debating the creation of the universe or the existance of God here, I'm commenting about the accuracy of a book whose content has such a huge amount of unprovable and untestable variables that one cannot be confident that any part of it is accurate.

Polish interpreter said...

Only God knows what's right what isn't!