Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Geniva Bible and the KJV | Bible general | justme | 240455 | ||
The Geniva Bible was widly used by those who first came to America, and it stayed that way for many years. Can someone tell me when and why the KJV became to be the more popular version? | ||||||
2 | Geniva Bible and the KJV | Bible general | DocTrinsograce | 240456 | ||
Dear justme, There are historic clues to the answer your question. The very names names of these translations reveal those particulars. Here is my simplistic rendering of the story: During the persecution of protestants in the reign of the Roman Catholic Queen Mary I, English scholars fled to Geneva, Switzerland. There was an enormous evangelical work of God taking place in Geneva at the time. The Christians there were sympathetic to the preaching and efforts of men like John Huss, John Wycliffe, Martin Luther, and William Tyndale. These men asserted that the Word of God should be made available to the people in their common tongue, wherever that might be. Thus, the scholars in exile, completed this effort for the English speaking peoples in the late 16th century. Meanwhile, Mary I was deposed, and the throne was assumed by Queen Elizabeth I. Elizabeth was decidedly protestant, as her claim to the throne was dependent on her legitimacy as a child of King Henry VII. She was succeeded by King James VI, also a protestant. The Geneva translation of the Bible was commonly accepted by English speaking peoples everywhere. However, there were two political problems with this translation: (1) the translation had not been officially sanctioned by the Church of England and (2) the Geneva Bible translation (and particularly the notes) were decidedly non-pluralistic. The crown needed a more politically correct translation, for which it could assume responsibility. Thus, a translation project was launched to create an properly authorized version. Of course, an authorized version was problematic for many Christians for the very reasons that King James had implemented the new translation. A lot of Christians (Separatists) believed that the secular head of the state was taking on a responsibility for which God had not granted them. A lot of other Christians (Puritans) believed that the non-pluralistic nature of the translation was an explicit consequence of the original language. (By the way, there was a lot of overlap in these two groups, and many others with similar complaints.) Nonetheless, the authorized translators, while complying with the objective of political correctness (they knew who paid their salary), were no dummies! Their own scholarship was such that they knew a good translation when they saw it. Consequently, much of the new translation used the same language as the Geneva translation. Gradually, over time, the political aspects of the issue tended to be forgotten, particularly in the forming of a new nation, on another continent. The authorized version became more and more extant. Its language became more and more understood, especially as pastors familiar with the original languages, taught from the many pulpits in America. (Those Christians built universities for this very purpose: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc.) Gradually the authorized translation even changed the common language of the people; which thing actually improved the translation. So that is the story as I understand it. Sorry for not annotating. Also, sorry in advance, for whatever I failed to properly mention. I am certain, for example, that the Anglican church (secular and clergy), had more numerous and nuanced reasons for doing what they did; just as I am sure that that would have been true of the opponents of their actions. In Him, Doc "And considering how hard a thing it is to understand the holy Scriptures, and what errors, sects, and heresies grow daily for lack of the true knowledge thereof, and how many are discouraged (as they pretend [archaic meaning to undertake]) because they cannot attain to the true and simple meaning of the same, we have also endeavored both by the diligent reading of the best commentaries, and also by the conference with the godly and learned brethren, to gather brief annotations upon all the hard places, as well for the understanding of such words as are obscure, and for the declaration of the text, as for the application of the same as may most appertain to God's glory and the edification of His Church." --Geneva Bible Preface (1560) "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, containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it not be interpreted by every translator with the like grace nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere." --King James Bible Introduction (1611) |
||||||
3 | Geniva Bible and the KJV | Bible general | justme | 240462 | ||
Doc: Thank you so very much, as always you seem to be able to find just about anything. justme |
||||||
Up | Down | |||
Questions and/or Subjects for Bible general | Author | ||
|
MzVicki | ||
|
melody9 | ||
|
Movingon | ||
|
Movingon | ||
|
Elmario | ||
|
MzVicki | ||
|
Els | ||
|
Shaunalin | ||
|
davea622 | ||
|
justme | ||
|
DocTrinsograce | ||
|
justme |