Skip to comments.Poll: Most under 35 never heard of King James Bible
Posted on 11/27/2010 7:12:53 AM PST by re_tail20
A new poll taken for the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible reveals that a majority of those under 35 in the United Kingdom don't even know about the work, which has been described as a significant part of the estimated 100 million Bible sales annually, making it the best best-seller, ever.
"Yet this is a work which was far more influential than Shakespeare in the development and spread of English," a spokesman for the King James Bible Trust told the Christian Institute in a recent report.
The Christian Institute's report said the translation, which will celebrate its 400th anniversary next year, was the subject of a poll commissioned by the Bible Trust, and a spokesman said it was clear "there has been a dramatic drop in knowledge in a generation."
The results revealed that 51 percent of those under 35 never have heard of the King James Bible, compared to 28 percent of those over the age of 35.
The institute reported that Labour Member of Parliament Frank Field said, "It is not possible to comprehend fully Britain's historical, linguistic or religious development without an understanding of this great translation."
According to officials who are working on a series of events marking the 400th year of the King James Bible, work on the translation into English of God's Word started in 1604 at the request of King James I. Work continued on the project until 1611, when the team of 47 of the top Bible scholars of the time finished their work.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
As Disraeli said, when you give people education without also giving them religion, you only make them into more clever devils.
“...when the team of 47 of the top Bible scholars of the time finished their work.”
A point in its favor. Most modern editions are the translation of one person, meaning that personal preferences can’t be avoided.
I pray for the day that the only place you see this travesty is in a museum.
Well, since many churches don’t use King James in favor of other bibles, I would say this poll is worthless.
Remember that the KJV that is common now was the revised version from the 19th century. You couldn’t read an actual original one today, too much of the language has changed.
Pretty prescient of Disraeli
Most people under 35 can’t tell you what brand of blender is on their counter, either.
I am hoping to get a commemorative 1611 next year, with original fonts and spelling.
Doesn’t say if they normalized the data to account for the fact that there’s a lot more young muslims in the UK than there used to be.
Which ones? Your statement certainly does not apply to the NIV.
Nor have they heard of Samson and Delilah, or the Witch of Endor, or David and Goliath, or ‘the still,small voice’, or trampling out the grapes of wrath, or ships that go down to the sea, or ‘let my people go’ or ‘feed my sheep’ or any of the other thousands of references that inhabit our daily discourse, which all come from the Bible.
Or if they have heard them they don’t know where they come from. they have been robbed of a great literary tradition as well as a spiritual one.
>>Well, since many churches dont use King James in favor of other bibles, I would say this poll is worthless.
I don’t use the KJV, but I know its historical and cultural significance as any English-speaking Christian should. Oh, this was in the UK....never mind.
But they know everything about Paris Hilton, Lyndsey Lohan, and so forth.
There are modern translations more nearly worthy of your “Travsty” award. But four centuries of English-speaking souls have been shepherded into God’s kingdom in hearing the Gospel as preached from the pages of the KJV. I would hesitate to call that travesty.
I thought that Travesty was more polite than "Bastardization."
What would you call a book that was literally plagarized from the Douay Rheims Bible and is missing seven Books and parts of two others?
Somebody could do a facebook page for the King James bible, then they would hear of it.
I'm an atheist and I know its historical and cultural significance. It would be interesting to conduct such a poll here in the States; I suspect it would have similar results.
Take Psalm 46 — count 46 words from the beginning, count 46 words from the end. The answer is —
It was in World Net Daily that I first learned of the Geneva Bible, which was the whole reason for the King James Version in the first place.
King James ordered the King James Translation to be undertaken so as to supplant the Geneva Bible, which he hated, as it had lots of side notes and annotations and was written for the people to free them as opposed to the establishment to keep them in power.
The Geneva Bible is not sold in any stores, whereas you can see whole shelves of King James Bibles in any store. This is the biggest tragedy of Bible translations.
A corrupt text.
Was it not mostly the Tyndall translation given a new cover and preface
Maybe in about 30 years. Right now, most Americans have enough familiarity with Christianity to know about the KJV.
Multi-culturalism and the liberal version of tolerance will “fix” that in the future.
This is sad on so many levels. It’s not really a religious question. The King James Bible is as significant a literary/cultural work in the history of Western Civilization as any book. Whether or not one reads it or believes it one should certainly be familiar with it and its significance to be called educated by any stretch of the term.
But then again since schools no longer teach Western Civilization this should not be surprising.
There are lots of online sources for Biblical Greek...if anybody’s interested...?
Britain is full of immigrants from the Middle East.
None of those Muslims would have heard of anything but the Koran.
“Most modern editions are the translation of one person, meaning that personal preferences cant be avoided.”
Actually most of the bigger selling translations are done by teams of translators and editors. Very few one-man Bible translations ever make it to the big leagues. None have done so in at least 50 years. Moffat, Phillips and Knox were probably the last ones. NIV, NAB, NASB, REB, ESV, etc. were all made by teams of scholars.
What she failed to realize is that there was a spanish language translation of the scriptures years before the KJV. This is what happens when we are "western focused" rather than "mission focused".
I thought King James was one of the basketball players on the Miami Heat?
**You couldnt read an actual original one today, too much of the language has changed.***
Actually you can read it well. It is slower going for a few chapters then it becomes almost as easy as the modern KJV.
The problem is the Gothic alphabet in the reproduction. In the original old one it is the Olde English font alphabet.
“...supplant the Geneva Bible, which he hated, as it had lots of side notes and annotations and was written for the people to free them as opposed to the establishment to keep them in power.”
Many Christians don’t buy that Calvinism is about freedom.
"Educate people without religion and you make them but clever devils."
-- Benjamin Disraeli
“Many Christians dont buy that Calvinism is about freedom.”
Reading the Bible in your own language isn’t a bad thing for freedom. That’s why Rome (at the time) “preferred” it in Latin.
Once the common man could read it in whatever language he was capable, freedom from those who would tell you what it meant and that you couldn’t possibly be allowed to read it for yourself was a good thing - and people got used to it.
You need to get together with the guy from post 16.
And the most popular name for newborn males starts with the letter M. And it ain’t Moses.
In KJV, it is Shake Spear if you dont count Selah.
Which manuscript is more true, an older inaccurate parchment or the next oldest manuscript accurately corresponding to many more parallel parchments?
The translators say in their preface that they had not seen all of the Catholic bible. Besides, anyone who has read Bible history knows that the KJV was based on Tyndale's GREEK tests from Eurasmus and not the LATIN based Douai Rhemes.
From the Translators to the Reader 1611 KJV
Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.
As for the “missing “ books, the original KJV had them in it. Many considered them irrelivant and they were removed about the time the Americans started printing bibles.
Here is a list of the translators and you can see there was a committee to translate the Apocrypha.
KING JAMES VERSION TRANSLATORS
I. The First Westminister Company—translated the historical books, beginning with Genesis and ending with the Second Book of Kings.
Dr. Lancelot Andrews
Dr. John Overall
Dr. Hadrian Saravia
Dr. Richard Clarke, Dr. John Laifield, Dr. Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffry King, Richard Thompson
Dr. William Bedwell
II. The Cambridge Company—translated Chronicles to the end of the Song of Songs.
Edward Lively, Dr. John Richardson, Dr. Lawrence Chaderton
Francis Dillingham, Dr. Roger Andrews, Thomas Harrison, Dr. Robert Spaulding, Dr. Andrew Bing
III. The Oxford Company—translated beginning of Isaiah to the end of the Old Testament.
Dr. John Harding, Dr. John Reynolds
Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr. Richard Kilby
Dr. Miles Smith, Dr. Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough
IV. The Second Oxford Company—translated the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine.
Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dr. George Abbot
Dr. Richard Eedes, Dr. Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile
Dr. John Peryn, Dr. Ralph Ravens, Dr. John Harmar
V. The Fifth Company of Translators at Westminster—translated all of the Epistles of the New Testament
Dr. William Barlow, Dr. John Spencer, Dr. Roger Fenton, Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, [Thomas(?)] Sanderson
VI. The Sixth Company of Translators at Cambridge translated the apocryphal books.
Dr. John Duport, Dr. William Brainthwaite, Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe
Dr. Samuel Ward
Dr. Andrew Downes, John Bois
Dr. John Ward, Dr. John Aglionby, Dr. Leonard Hutten
Dr. Thomas Bilson, Dr. Richard Bancroft
The King James translators did not consider Apocrypha scripture—
**The Geneva Bible is not sold in any stores, whereas you can see whole shelves of King James Bibles in any store. This is the biggest tragedy of Bible translations.***
The Geneva Bible is still available but you have to hunt for it. I have one I ordered over the Internet, and a Geneva NT I found in a used book store.
Bible bumper´s ping
***Which manuscript is more true, an older inaccurate parchment or the next oldest manuscript accurately corresponding to many more parallel parchments?***
Which manuscript is more true? Several high dollar Alexandrian manuscripts set on a self for 1700 years and because of errors in them not used much (which is why they survived), or an older, mor accurate Byzantine text used and copied and passed down over the centuries?
“Reading the Bible in your own language isnt a bad thing for freedom. Thats why Rome (at the time) preferred it in Latin.”
Rome had nothing to say about it. There were always translations in the vernacular - as the translators of the KJV mention in their preface. Apparently you don’t know as much as you think you know.
“Once the common man could read it in whatever language he was capable, freedom from those who would tell you what it meant and that you couldnt possibly be allowed to read it for yourself was a good thing - and people got used to it.”
Literate people were already used to reading and hearing the scriptures in their own vernacular language. If anything held them up from doing so it was the following: the enormous cost of making Bibles, the difficulty of picking WHICH vernacular to use and the low literacy rates. Rome had nothing to do with it. Rome never prohibited the translation of scriptures. Rome preferred the use of Latin because that was the language that united all Catholics everywhere and still does. That preference had nothing to do with what individual diocese or hierarchies or even individual Catholics chose to do.
I still can't find a version of the Bible that contains Maccabees 1 and 2, Enoch and all the other books that should be in it but aren't, AND is not dumbed down into some kind of Valley Speak.
Joking aside, the KJ Bible isn't hard to read, at all, if you're English and can cope with regional accents. Nor, for that matter, is the Wycliffe Bible - if you can read Chaucer you can read Wycliffe.
There'll be a Gideon Bible in my hotel tomorrow, and Good News Bibles are easy to get hold of.
I think this story's being overplayed. America has dozens of different versions of the Bible in common use but there's only about three versions in mainstream circulation in the UK. You can get hold of more obscure ones if you want, or regional translations, but there's a bit of a "pub quiz" element to knowing the differences between the NKJV and the AKJV. By that I mean it's more likely to come up in a pub quiz than anywhere else.
Bible development should definitely be covered in the curriculum because of its historical importance, but then again, I also think the Wycliffe version in particular should be covered alongside the King James and Douay-Rheims versions, since it predates them both and is therefore - arguably - of greater significance as a historical marker.
Are those being sold anywhere yet?
Whereas most who read and treasure the King James Bible think the Douay-Rheims is already gathering dust a museum, if they think about it at all.
“Remember that the KJV that is common now was the revised version from the 19th century. You couldnt read an actual original one today, too much of the language has changed.”
Not true. The text was standardized in 1769 to remove corruptions and standardize with more modern spelling. The 1611 version reads thus: “Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.”
A bit awkward, but hardly unreadable.
“What would you call a book that was literally plagarized from the Douay Rheims Bible and is missing seven Books and parts of two others?”
I dunno, but certainly not the KJV! Most of it follows the Tyndale Bible - up to 90% of the New Testament. If anything, you have it backwards, verga:
“Much of the text of the 1582/1610 bible, however, employed a densely latinate vocabulary, to the extent of being in places unreadable; and consequently this translation was replaced by a revision undertaken by bishop Richard Challoner; the New Testament in three editions 1749, 1750, and 1752; the Old Testament (minus the Vulgate apocrypha), in 1750. Although retaining the title DouayRheims Bible, the Challoner revision was in fact a new version, tending to take as its base text the King James Bible rigorously checked and extensively adjusted for improved readability and consistency with the Clementine edition of the Vulgate.”
If you check Thomas More and others, you'll find a big part of their objection was to commoners getting hold of scripture...
"They will say haply, the scripture requireth a pure mind and a quiet mind; and therefore the lay-man, because he is altogether cumbered with worldly business, cannot understand them. If that be the cause, then it is a plain case that our prelates understand not the scriptures themselves: for no layman is so tangled with worldly business as they are. The great things of the world are ministered by them; neither do the lay-people any great thing, but at their assignment. If the scripture were in the mother tongue, they will say, then would the lay-people understand it, every man after his own ways. Wherefore serveth the curate, but to teach him the right way? Wherefore were the holy days made, but that the people should come and learn? Are ye not abominable schoolmasters, in that ye take so great wages, if ye will not teach? If ye would teach, how could ye do it so well, and with so great profit, as when the lay-people have the scripture before them in their mother tongue? For then should they see, by the order of the text, whether thou jugglest or not: and then would they believe it, because it is the scripture of God, though thy living be never so abominable. Where now, because your living and your preaching are so contrary, and because they grope out in every sermon your open and manifest lies, and smell your unsatiable covetousness, they believe you not when you preach truth. But, alas! the curates themselves (for the most part) wot no more what the new or old Testament meaneth, than do the Turks: neither know they of any more than that they read at mass, matins, and evensong, which yet they understand not: neither care they, but even to mumble up so much every day, as the pie and popinjay speak, they wot not what, to fill their bellies withal. If they will not let the lay-man have the word of God in his mother tongue, yet let the priests have it; which for a great part of them do understand no Latin at all, but sing, and say, and patter all day, with the lips only, that which the heart understandeth not." - THE OBEDIENCE OF A CHRISTIAN MAN