Results 1 - 7 of 7
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was "James" used prior to KJV ? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 70791 | ||
Justme Okay then we have two Bibles that used James. Bishop's Bible and Geneva Bible which I’m almost certain used the James. I think it was also used in the Great Bible and Matthew's Bible both english bibles that preceded KJV. Your also right about the KJV. Most don’t know this but the Geneva bible is the Bible the Pilgrims carried on the Mayflower and may have been the first English Bible in America. Thanks for you information!!! EdB |
||||||
2 | Was "James" used prior to KJV ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 70910 | ||
What about the Tyndale Bible, where does it fit in? | ||||||
3 | Was "James" used prior to KJV ? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 70912 | ||
Norrie Hi Tyndale's Bible was just the New Testament and the Pentateuch. He was killed (martyred) before he got the rest of the Old Testament done. Many suppose the material he left behind was used to in the Matthew's Bible. By the way Tyndale was an excellent translator that had full command of Greek. His work would have been very interesting had it been completed and better preserved. EdB |
||||||
4 | Was "James" used prior to KJV ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 70953 | ||
I read an historical novel before that had Tyndale in it. It hit on how he had to go into hiding and them smugging the Bibles back into England, it was a really good book, by Gilbert Morris, the Winslow series. They (church) sure didn't want to get the Word out, did they? | ||||||
5 | Was "James" used prior to KJV ? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 70954 | ||
Norrie I agree writers of a new Bibles had their problems. There are those today that would surpress all new Bibles. I imagine they think they are just as right as the others did hundreds of years ago. EdB |
||||||
6 | Was "James" used prior to KJV ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 70959 | ||
You're right, but back then, they didn't want anybody to read the Bible. That was back when only priests were allowed access, not common man. Tyndale was endeavoring to get the Word to the common man. Now we have man perverting the Word, which is worse? | ||||||
7 | Was "James" used prior to KJV ? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 70976 | ||
Norrie Which is worst? I don't think either is worst they are both equally evil. The problem is neither started out to accomplish what they stand accused of. The early church wasn't so interested in keeping the common man from reading the Bible as they were concerned who was going to pay to translate it and once translated pay to put it in the common man’s hand. We hear of the chained bible, it wasn’t chained to keep man from it was chained to keep it in one place. I will agree that while common man had no access to the Bible the church could interpret as they desired. However we must remember for 1500 years we had 1 church today we have 1500 denominations and each claiming they are the truth and the way. Which is right and which is better? Today we have man again concerned with money not how to pay for the cost of translating and printing but rather how to make more. Therefore we see the Bible printed in various forms in an effort to increase sales. Unfortunately anything that makes money attracts interest and secular companies have bought most Bible publishing houses. Their only concern is to make money and not alienate one part of their customer base to much in attempting to sell to another. So we see the church in an effort to preserve the word and protect it from misinterpretation became entangled in things that actually concealed it from man. Today we see Bible publishing companies trying to insure ready access to the Bible has become entangled with schemes to make more money at the cost of the truth. Interesting! EdB |
||||||