Oldest Draft of King James Bible Discovered


If this turns out to be true, it could be very interesting and potentially problematic for biblical literalists.

I'll be following this story with interest.

I'm sure Shakespeare helped write it.

Trollmode on. :|

Why?

"Post-WW2, the camps became impossible to find as they were American-German collaborative efforts. As the years rolled on, the body count rose to nearly a billion. Here and there, Roma wandering in the wild smelled cooked meat they only knew from funeral pyres."

Because.

Isn't this only problematic for biblical literalists who base their views on the KJV? Are there many of those?

I don't even see the problem for KJV literalists (the few of them that there are).

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/kjb_only.htm

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/knowkjv.html

** Note: Although KJV-only doesn't automatically imply strict literalism, I believe that the two lines of thinking are highly correlated with each other.

I don't see how a "draft" of the KJV and those drafts revealing something to us about how the scholarship of the time worked through translational issues is a problem for anyone. It's not as if literalists believe that God dropped the Bible out of the sky, or that they wrote the Bible in some sort of God-induced trance. And the defenses quoted above are in no way diminished if we have an early draft of the KJV.

Yeah, but they die. Whether they die off or it's just another splintering of Christianity is pretty nigh irrelevant, wouldn't you think?

LOL

And there was me thinking this went without saying, but you got a laugh from someone so and had a little troll, good for you, I almost chuckled myself. It's rated by some as one of the most influential books in history, but I'm sure you know how use Google Louis, so Google it if you care to.

Before this was discovered, there were Christians who took offense at anything without stopping to look at the merit of the inquiry.

Yeah, this collection of old papers changes little.

/me jingles denarii. Insallah, simians.

This doesn't support anything about any claim regarding King James Only literalism, or any form of literalism at all.

Edit: If anyone is interested in the development of King James Onlyism:

http://www.truth.sg/resources/KJV%20...0J%20Price.pdf

I recommend reading the first several pages of the introduction. I doubt it's worth buying to read to the whole thing.

You clearly don't even know what a "biblical literalist" is, nor do you
have a clue why this would have anything to do with biblical literalism.

no one goes by the KJB. "Biblical Literalist" read the greek and hebrew texts. Those unable to read greek or hebrew read the NASB bible. Those that dont read the NASB but instead read something like the NIV bible are mocked and ridiculed.

Possible, but massively overstated, with your usual and completely unreasonable certainty.

Since you didn't ask, I'll elaborate; I define biblical literalism as taking the bible literally as the divine and unaltered word of god, i.e. it is not metaphorical or allegorical, that one is adhering to the literal meaning of the texts. I'm also aware that the term doesn't rule out an interpretative approach, but clearly wasn't referring to those who take an interpretive view in my OP, otherwise I would have had to write a huge post full of qualifications which I mistakenly thought unnecessary.

So, anyone who believes in the inerrancy of the KJB, or has a literal approach to it, might have problems with evidence that the translators experimented with different versions of the wording.

Really not sure what you think you're doing right now and suspect it has more to do with trying to argue with me for the sake of it rather than discussing the actual, and obvious meaning of my OP.

Untrue.

And this still has nothing to do with whether there's a rough draft of the KJV.

No on both accounts. Whether the writers considered ("experimented with") different wording doesn't mean much of anything with regards to a literal approach.

I find it interesting that Louis questioned the "actual and obvious meaning of your OP" and you also dismissed his question out of hand. Really not sure what you think you're doing right now and I suspect it has more with you continuing to hide from reality by not dealing with what people actually believe.

i dont think very many people at all believe in the inerrancy on the KJB. so this isn't really a hot topic. most Christian and Catholic churches don't recognize is at inspired by God or use it in their churches. i think it is more of a select congregation thing, were old people like it bc it reminds them of what they grew up with. but nobody believes it is inerrant.

This isn't true.

1) Many churches do use it and (edit: most) Christians read it:

http://www.christiancentury.org/arti...le-and-its-kjv

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gle...n-niv-kjv.html

2) Many Christians to treat translations of the Bible as being God-inspired texts. This isn't the same as inerrancy in the translation, which might be what you meant to say.

Close. There are some out there, but they are a vocally insistent minority.

That vomit is untrue. those sources aren't credible and a 1k survey def doesn't sway my vote. You sending me a link with interviews from historically black Progressive National Baptist movement only proves my point. I agree that KJB is popular bc most people lets face it don't really dive into the bible that much. So u have a lot of older people who were raised on KJB and u have a lot of people that just want to google a verse for a tattoo, or wedding speech. Its no different from people going to Dan Blizarian for poker advice over Chris Moorman. Its just the way the secular world works.

Nothing new here. The Christian community has known for a long time that the KJB isn't as accurate as other translations. How can u think the translation is superior to texts which it was transcribed from? We have Hebrew and koine Greek scholars now and all that good jazz.

The Bard doesn't demand rigor.

Why would a vastly superior intelligence care how it's represented in inspiration?

"Of course," said the Johnson girl. Eastern is DIY, Western hopes there's someone watching.

the God-inspired thing to do would be learn Hebrew and Koine Greek

I'd rather be in the middle of a hundred Hebrew girls and trace patterns in Aramaic.

:/ But suit yourself.

Ummmmm... okay. If you don't want to accept what is a pretty standard sample size for a national survey and call it vomit, I suppose that's your prerogative. For comparison, a standard survey by the Pew Research Center is only 1500 people. The survey I linked was on par for size with the Barna Group's "State of the Bible" telephone surveys, too. Or you can compare it to sample sizes for Gallup polls. But whatever. It's all vomit if you know nothing about statistics or sampling.

Does it? That was what came up on a relatively short Google search. I could probably try harder, but it's not worth my time. Even though you don't like an N=1000 type of survey, I'll quote from the one that was linked in my other post:

Or maybe I'll just quote the Barna Group's "State of the Bible" survey from 2015:

http://www.americanbible.org/uploads...015_report.pdf



---

I'm sure that this is a fully-informed position based on multiple data points. You probably have a sample size of millions from which to draw your conclusions. I'm sure that your assertions are backed up by all kinds of evidence: anecdotal, fabricated, imagined...

Yeah, because there aren't any formal endorsements of the King James Bible by some denominations: http://www.episcopalchurch.org/page/bible. Ooops.

It's true that other denominations have not gone through the process of making formal lists, but the southern baptist convention has not rejected the King James Version (implicitly, they accept its usage -- but if you know *ANYTHING* about the Southern Baptist Convention, it's very obvious what's going on):

http://www.sbc.net/faqs.asp

You can pretend to be knowledgeable, or you can actually know what you're talking about. Take your pick.

It is for anyone who has a literal, inerrant take on the KJB. That being the point of my OP.

Catholics would hardly use it since it's a book of the English church. This comment makes me wonder if you're as informed on this subject as you seem to think.


Care to support this with some facts?

Here's a link that immediately proves you wrong. Took me all of 30 seconds to find it.

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/KJB/inspired.htm