The king of the bibles

The Telegraph ^ | November 14, 2011 | Peter Mullen

[DarkSavant]

And the only heresy ever alleged against himn was distributing a bible translation other than the Vulgate.

You've already been shown wrong. You think expounding the lie again will bolster your case?

[circlecity]

"You've already been shown wrong."

I haven't been shown anything. Just a lot of denials by Catholics who are so ashamed of their Church's history they want to rewrite it. In 100 years the same people will be saying there is no historical record that any Catholic priest ever molested any child.

[DarkSavant]

Do you deny it was agents of Henry VIII that killed Tyndale, not the Church?

Do you deny Bible Translation was not under the list of Heresies he was executed for?

Do you deny that there were English translations of the Bible by Catholics far before Tyndale?

Five minutes of research would show these are all true. I'm sorry you were lied to by whomever warped the facts of history for his own gain.

[Natural Law]

"I'm sorry you were lied to by whomever warped the facts of history for his own gain."

Unfortunately, the Reformation had a very active propaganda arm and much of the history of the Reformation available in English and in the US today remains in its shadow.

The really sad thing is that there are those who are all to willing to believe the worst about the Church that they fail to educate themselves. I'm afraid that 100 years from now there will still be those who believe that pedophilia is exclusively a Catholic problem.

[imardmd1]

imardmd1 (me) had said:
It is because one of the great gifts of the KJV translators was to insist on a correct English grammar, so that in the translation one may know whether the subject referred to is second person singular or plural.

Campion replied:
Well, it wasn't actually a matter of "insisting on a correct English grammar," it's simply the traditional practice in English to address God using the familiar form of the second person singular pronoun. (Thee/thou/thy is actually the familiar or informal version of the pronoun, though it sounds formal to our ears.)

Your comment illustrates the problem of trusting your own opinion as your sole authority. You have flat out contradicted that what I presented correctly was fact, and which was not merely personal opinion. Thus your error is compounded by seemingly intimating that I am ignorant or a liar, and that the KJV translators were not following a strict grammar protocol. (If your opinion had been well founded, I might have been offended.)

Let me suggest that your education in this matter can be expanded and benefitted by reading through the summary "HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE - THE KING JAMES BIBLE" as found on the "Way of Life Literature" site, whose link and a couple of pertinent excerpts are as follows:

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/historyenglishbiblekjv.html

**********

“...the English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. IT IS BIBLICAL ENGLISH, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H. Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W.A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport. The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th-century English--which was very different--but to its faithful translation of the original. ITS STYLE IS THAT OF THE HEBREW AND OF THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation” (Edward Hills, The King James Version Defended, p. 218).

*****

Many criticize the use of “thee, thou, thy, and thine” in the King James Bible.They say that this is antiquated and difficult to understand. The fact is that these are used to distinguish between the second person singular and plural of pronouns. THEE, THOU, and THINE are always singular. YOU, YE, and YOUR are always plural. This follows the usage of the Hebrew and Greek, which make such a distinction. In modern English, this distinction has been dropped, and YOU can be either plural or singular. Following are some examples of how important this is:

Exodus 4:15. “THOU shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth; and I will be with THY mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach YOU what YE shall do.”
THOU and THY refer to Moses, but YOU refers to the nation which would be instructed by the spokesman Aaron.

Matthew 26:64. “Jesus saith unto him, THOU hast said: nevertheless I say unto YOU, Hereafter shall YE see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
THOU refers to the high priest, but YOU refers to the nation Israel as a whole and to all who will see Him in the day of His glory (Revelation 1:7).

John 3:7. “Marvel not that I said unto THEE, YE must be born again.”
The message was spoken to an individual, Nicodemus [THEE], but it applies to all men [YE].

These important distinctions are lost in modern English versions.

(The above bolded emphases originate with the author of the article, the underlined is mine.)

***********

If you wish, you can find a great deal more on the facts and other faults of modern English translations on the "Way of Life"site. Also, a wider web search on the translation model employed for the KJV will give you better instruction on how a literal equivalency translation is accomplished. For instance, in this matter, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version

Style and criticism
"The pronouns thou/thee and you are consistently used as singular and plural respectively, even though by this time you often found as the singular in general English usage, especially when addressing a social superior (as is evidenced, for example, in Shakespeare)."

What this is saying is that where in the original language the second person singular occurs, it is translated in the KJV as the English second person singular in each and every instance, and without exception. When in the original the second person plural occurs, its translation in the KJV is likewise the second person plural, so as to be precise and faithful to the grammar of the original. It is not a matter of tone, of intimacy, or of religiosity. They restored the proper English grammar that had fallen out of use. It was a matter of precisely carrying over the construction of declension, conjugation, gender, case, and number etc. from the source language to the target language.

Capisce?

Respectfully ---

[tommix2]

You’re missing them because they are published every day by annalex on the Daily Readings threads. Stop by someday and read them.Tonight I stopped by the thread I think you are referring to,and spent some time reading. I see it will take me some time to become familiar with this. It is all new to me and will take time. Thank you for the referral. And thank you for the hard work you have done posting all this material.

I may have the wrong thread as I don't see the name annalex, so I'll keep watching for "Daily Readings"threads.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Straw man argument. Read my post carefully. And you act like Gutenberg acted by papal authority in printing the Bible. He did actually do some printing under the papal authority but only in the respect of printing indulgences for the Catholic church.

Nice try in an attempt to change the subject though.

[ColdSteelTalon]

And all of those are corrupt references.

[ColdSteelTalon]

But it is incomplete — how can you trust it?

Says who? The Catholic Church? An organization that has a history of murdering people it thought were heretics? That "Church" has been at the forefront of religious repression since Constantine founded/legalized it.

[Salvation]

**Says who?**

Says Luther.

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther

"We are compelled to concede to the Papists
that they have the Word of God,
that we received it from them,
and that without them
we should have no knowledge of it at all."

~ Martin Luther