| Author |
Message |
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
CyberCypher wrote:
| Quote: | John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
|
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized Version?
--
John Dean
Oxford
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:cmc18u$37o$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible started
to be called the Authorized Version?
I can tell you when the name "Authorized Version" first appeared in
print: 1824 according to *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,*
11th edition.
|
Thank you. I expect a certain amount of off topic drift on any topic,
but you are the only person to appear on my server who has actually
attempted the question asked.
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:29 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
"CyberCypher" <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9597B21BB8791cctxt2002@130.133.1.4...
| Quote: | Raymond S. Wise wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
"CyberCypher" <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959786E435F8Ecctxt2002@130.133.1.4...
Steve Hayes wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
On 4 Nov 2004 02:32:17 GMT, CyberCypher
cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
But who were the somebodies, and when and why did they write
it?
The only such somebody we are sure of is Joseph Smith, the writer
of The Book of Mormon. His motives were the same as all other
such somebodies: he wanted the money and power that came from
having a following. L. Ron Hubbard demonstrated quite clearly
that "If you write it, people will believe it" when he gave birth
to Scientology. We don't keep quoting P. T. Barnum's "There's a
sucker born every minute" for nothing. "O, Lord, won't you give
me a Mercedes-Benz?"
Joseph Smith is not the only one who created the holy writings for
a religion, sect, or cult, as even your own post suggests.
My post never suggests anywhere that what the whoremaster, political
meddler, and charlatan Joseph Smith wrote was "holy". Please do not
ascribe your characterizations to me or my words. The man perpetrated
|
You know, what I wrote really does not suggest that Joseph Smith's book was
"holy" in any sense other than that his followers consider it to be so.
Think about it: How many people in the world could possibly write "the holy
writings for a religion, sect, or cult" and at the same time believe that
the writings in question were, *from his own point of view,* sacred? It
follows that nothing I wrote indicated that you believe the writings in
question to be, from your own point of view, sacred.
| Quote: | a major fraud (so much for "holiness") more than 180 years ago. That
suckers believed him and accepted that he had been given by the angel
Moroni (a Freudian name if ever there was one) golden tablets from
which he copied his words was their problem, but now it is the
problem of the rest of the world, none of which is safe from its
presumptuous teenaged "elders of the church" bicycling their way
through their proselytizing missions to win sous for their church's
treasury and the names of souls for their geneaology of the saved.
|
[...]
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 6:56 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | "Bloke" <here@nowhere.com> wrote in message
[...]
An early edition of the King Jim was known as the 'naughty bible'
owing to the misprints in the commandments, whereby the critical
'not' was left out - a popular, though short-lived, edition no
doubt.
It is usually referred to as the "Wicked Bible." [...]
|
And the omission was from the Seventh Commandment, hence the
impression's other nickname, "The Adulterous Bible". The publisher
was punished with a fine heavy enough to bankrupt him (I think it was
£300).
I've never heard of a version called "the naughty Bible" -- I don't
think it exists.
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Ward
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:21 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:09:06 +0100, "John Dean"
<john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Thank you. I expect a certain amount of off topic drift on any topic,
but you are the only person to appear on my server who has actually
attempted the question asked.
|
I have an unauthorized version, inscribed by the author, with a couple
of extra lines of revelation directed at me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roland Hutchinson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:cmc18u$37o$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible started to
be called the Authorized Version?
I can tell you when the name "Authorized Version" first appeared in print:
1824 according to *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,* 11th edition.
|
Confirmed by the OED2, which sheds some small amount of additional light:
3. Legally or duly sanctioned or appointed. Authorized Version of the
Bible: a popular appellation of the version of 1611. (The Great Bible 1540,
and Bishops' Bible (after 1572), actually bore on their titles ?authorized
and appointed,? but that of 1611 has never claimed to be ?authorized.?)
authorized capital (see quots.).
1480 CAXTON Ovid's Met. XV. iv, A cyte rych and auctorysed in thy lynage.
1538 STARKEY Eng. 181 That by no prerogatyfe he usurpe upon the pepul any
authorysyd tyranny. 1794 PALEY Evid. II. ii. (1817) 24 Authorized
assurances of the reality of a future existence. 1824 DIBDIN Libr. Comp. 32
What is called our authorized version. 1879 RUSKIN Lett. Clergy 39 This
piece of authorized mockery. 1911 W. THOMSON Dict. of Banking 39/2
Authorised capital, the capital of a company as authorised by its
memorandum of association.
[later quotations all concern "authorised capital"]
--
Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food.
NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 8:25 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2004 09:30:26 GMT, CyberCypher
<cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Raymond S. Wise wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
"CyberCypher" <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote in message
news:Xns959786E435F8Ecctxt2002@130.133.1.4...
Steve Hayes wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
On 4 Nov 2004 02:32:17 GMT, CyberCypher
cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
But who were the somebodies, and when and why did they write
it?
The only such somebody we are sure of is Joseph Smith, the writer
of The Book of Mormon. His motives were the same as all other
such somebodies: he wanted the money and power that came from
having a following. L. Ron Hubbard demonstrated quite clearly
that "If you write it, people will believe it" when he gave birth
to Scientology. We don't keep quoting P. T. Barnum's "There's a
sucker born every minute" for nothing. "O, Lord, won't you give
me a Mercedes-Benz?"
Joseph Smith is not the only one who created the holy writings for
a religion, sect, or cult, as even your own post suggests.
My post never suggests anywhere that what the whoremaster, political
meddler, and charlatan Joseph Smith wrote was "holy". Please do not
ascribe your characterizations to me or my words
|
Based on the body of your posts, you don't believe in religion and
feel that all religious figures are speaking nonsense when it comes to
religion. Therefore, I'd conclude that you don't accept the concept
of "holy" in any reference. Why, then, do you object so strongly to
saying Smith's writings were "holy"? Wouldn't you just feel that he
was just run-of-the-mill wrong like the rest of the religious
followers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matthew Newell
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 9:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
John Dean wrote:
| Quote: | Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible started to
be called the Authorized Version?
|
The earliest reference I can find is an advert for a religious
chronology in the Times (London) in December 1819 (it is not totally
clear if it means the King James)
"... texts of the authorized Version of the four Holy Evangelists..."
and two years later there is an advert concerning the London Polyglot
Bible and Brian Walton (who edited this new translation from the King
James in 1650ish). But in this case it is refered to as the "authorised
English Version"
These are only two I can find pre-dating dictionary references provided
elsewhere in thread.
Regards
Matthew Newell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 6:00 am
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> writes:
| Quote: | ascribe your characterizations to me or my words. The man perpetrated
a major fraud (so much for "holiness") more than 180 years ago. That
suckers believed him and accepted that he had been given by the angel
Moroni (a Freudian name if ever there was one)
|
If so, then it was a prescient one, as "moron" dates back barely half
that far, to 1910 according to the OED. (Except in the sense of
"salamander", which goes back to 1774.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Usenet is like Tetris for people
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |who still remember how to read.
Palo Alto, CA 94304
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:42 am
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
On 4 Nov 2004 05:15:33 GMT, CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Steve Hayes wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
On 4 Nov 2004 02:32:17 GMT, CyberCypher
cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
But who were the somebodies, and when and why did they write it?
The only such somebody we are sure of is Joseph Smith, the writer of
The Book of Mormon. His motives were the same as all other such
somebodies: he wanted the money and power that came from having a
following.
|
So was he really the first to call it the "Authorised Version"?
I suppose the date fit.
L. Ron Hubbard demonstrated quite clearly that "If you write
| Quote: | it, people will believe it" when he gave birth to Scientology. We don't
keep quoting P. T. Barnum's "There's a sucker born every minute" for
nothing. "O, Lord, won't you give me a Mercedes-Benz?"
|
I don't think Elron authorised the KJV, though. "Dianetics", yes.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:42 am
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:17:20 +0800, "Bloke" <here@nowhere.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Steve Hayes" spake thus:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
But who were the somebodies, and when and why did they write it?
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
A bunch of clever-trousers in the church, commissioned by King James I, did
it. The first edition (authorised for reading in churches) was published in
1611, with numerous amendments and revisions since (flame warning! this is
heresy amongst some King Jim enthusiasts).
|
Any evidence that the 1611 edition said "authorised" rather than "appointed"?
These asertiosns are all very well, but they beg the question.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 7:42 am
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 05:11:32 +0000, Don Aitken <don-aitken@freeuk.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:44:42 -0600, "Raymond S. Wise"
mplsrayNOSPAM@gbronline.com> wrote:
"John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote in message
news:cmc18u$37o$1@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible started to
be called the Authorized Version?
I can tell you when the name "Authorized Version" first appeared in print:
1824 according to *Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary,* 11th edition.
But the words "printed by authority" appear (still, I think) on the
title page of editions produced in the UK. The one I have, published
in 1908, has the Royal Licence in the front matter, as follows:
"LICENCE
In terms of Her Majesty's Letters Patent to her Printers for Scotland,
and of the Instructions issued by Her Majesty in Council, dated
Eleventh July and Twenty-eighth December Eighteen Hundred and
Thirty-nine, I hereby License and Authorise WILLIAM COLLINS, SONS, AND
COMPANY LIMITED to Print and Publish as by the Authority of his
Majesty, but so far as regards the text only, an edition of the Holy
Bible in Nonpareil Type, Trigesimo-secundo size, to consist of Thirty
Thousand Copies, as proposed in their declaration, dated the Eighth
Day of March, Nineteen Hundred and four; the terms and conditions of
the said Instructions being always and in all points fully complied
with and observed by the said WILLIAM COLLINS, SONS, AND COMPANY
LIMITED."
It is the "authorised version" because no edition of it may be
published in the UK without this authorisation. This was been true
ever since the translation was made. Such authorisation is given only
to Collins and Eyre and Spottiswoode, as successors to the
King's/Queeen's Printers for Scotland and England respectively, and to
Oxford and Cambridge University Presses. No attempt has ever been made
to restrict publication abroad.
|
Thank you!
Fifth time lucky!
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Ward
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:06 am
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
Apropos of nothing, one of the first translations of Scripture is the
Septuagint, done by a "committee of 70". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:40 am
Post subject: Mutual intelligibility |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 12:04:45 +0100, "John Dean" <john-dean@frag.lineone.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | CyberCypher wrote:
John Dean wrote on 04 Nov 2004:
Anyone know when and why the King James Version of the Bible
started to be called the Authorized Version?
Because somebody (somebodies, actually) actually *wrote* it?
Yebbut - when and why did it start to be called the Authorized Version?
|
I asked the same question, and got about five replies answering a different
question.
All the replies anwering a different question were from the USA or from people
who originated in the USA but live elsewhere, and in this case the answer to
the question asked was from Don Aitken, in the UK.
I am wondering if this is a linguistic difference between American English and
other Englishes, or if it is a cultural trait of the USA.
It has happened in another thread in AUE (the "Allah" one).
And in another newsgroup there was a poster, apparently from the USA, who
attacked a statement by a group of Anglican bishops in Africa, and almost
every point was an attack, not on what they said, but on what they did not
say.
I am beginning to think that people in the USA are unable to understand
questions asked by people in other places, and insist on answering questions
that were not asked, and evading the questions that were asked.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Hayes
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 10:27 am
Post subject: Re: Authorized Version |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:00:03 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | CyberCypher <cybercypher@19-16-25-13-01-03.com> writes:
ascribe your characterizations to me or my words. The man perpetrated
a major fraud (so much for "holiness") more than 180 years ago. That
suckers believed him and accepted that he had been given by the angel
Moroni (a Freudian name if ever there was one)
If so, then it was a prescient one, as "moron" dates back barely half
that far, to 1910 according to the OED. (Except in the sense of
"salamander", which goes back to 1774.)
|
And Freud was considerably later too.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in