How We Got the Bible Part 16: Evaluating the King James Version скачать в хорошем качестве

How We Got the Bible Part 16: Evaluating the King James Version

http://www.sparkandfoster.com Shot on a Sony FS5 4K cinema camera with Rokinon 50mm T1.5 cinema prime lens and a Sony A7S II 4K camera with Rokinon 35mm T1.5 cinema prime lens. Edited in Final Cut Pro X. Graded in FilmConvert. "How We Got the Bible: Transmission and Translation" with Pastor Sean Finnegan. Session 16: Evaluating the King James Version (KJV) The King James Version translation of the Bible went through several committees before it was finalized. The scholars were instructed to follow the Bishop’s Bible (an earlier English translation) as long as it adhered to the text of the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) and to consult the English translations of Tyndale, Matthew, and Coverdale, as well as the Great Bible (another earlier English translation) and the Geneva Bible (another earlier English translation) when they appeared to contain more accurate renderings of the original languages (Hebrew and Greek). The King James Version gathered to itself the virtues of the long and brilliant line of English Bible translations; it united high scholarship with Christian devotion and piety. It came into being at a time when the English language was vigorous and young, and its scholars had a remarkable mastery of the instrument which Providence had prepared for them. Their version has justifiably been called the most noblest monuments of English prose. Indeed, the King James Version has become an enduring monument of English prose because of its gracious style, majestic language, and poetic rhythms. No other book has had such a tremendous influence on English literature, an no other translation has touched the lives of so many English-speaking people for centuries and centuries, even until the present day. Nevertheless, for about 80 years after its first publication in 1611, the King James Version endured bitter attacks. It was denounced as theologically unsound and ecclesiastically biased, as truckling to the king and unduly deferring to his belief in witchcraft, as untrue to the Hebrew text and relying too much on the Septuagint. The personal integrity of the translators was impugned. Among other things, they were accused of blasphemy, damnable corruptions, intolerable deceit, and vile imposture. The translators of the King James Version, for all their learning, had a rather imperfect grasp of biblical Hebrew. At times, they got confused about syntax, and they repeatedly missed the nuance – if not the entire meaning – of Hebrew words. Usually, this is a matter of being slightly off or somewhat misleading, as when, following the Vulgate, they transpose concrete Hebrew terms into theologically fraught ones – “soul” for “nefesh,” which actually means “essential self,” “being,” “life-breath,”; or “salvation” for “yeshu’ah,” which actually means “rescue” or “getting out of a tight fix.” Such errors are probably understandable because Hebrew was a book language for the King James Version translators, and a language only cultivated for barely a century by Christian humanists.