Comments on: Anglicans await the ESV Apocrypha… http://heissufficient.com/2008/08/21/anglicans-await-apocrypha/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=anglicans-await-apocrypha A personal walk in a wilderness of words Wed, 08 Feb 2012 04:32:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Jody+ http://heissufficient.com/2008/08/21/anglicans-await-apocrypha/#comment-3102 Jody+ Fri, 22 Aug 2008 16:34:04 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/?p=878#comment-3102 Sorry about the formatting.  That's the second time the paragraph breaks haven't made it to the published comment. Sorry about the formatting.  That’s the second time the paragraph breaks haven’t made it to the published comment.

]]> By: Jody+ http://heissufficient.com/2008/08/21/anglicans-await-apocrypha/#comment-3099 Jody+ Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:55:16 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/?p=878#comment-3099 Obviously Iyov is being polemical given that he did (sort of) keep reading--though he seems to have missed the point of my introduction about loving or hating a mainstream bible translation with too much zeal.  I've replied to some of his issues on his blog, but to the ones he points out here:In regards to several of your critiques, I think you're perhaps being overly specific when I was being more general. I said that for several centuries there were really only two widely used translations of the Bible in the English language. Well, your comments don't really refute that. I'm aware of how long the Geneva bible was popular, but I also know it's popularity did not hold a candle to the Authorized Version even in North America where puritans settled and the reach of the Anglican Church was weak or non-existent. So it was popular for over a century--ok, how does that refute my statement? I think you're looking for a level of specificity that I wasn't aiming for, and are targeting places where you're understanding of something subjective (e.g. "waned rather quickly") is at variance with mine. I would still say the Geneva Bible's popularity waned rather quickly in comparison to the AV and Douay-Rheims. Its impact was great, but its popular staying power was not.The book I suggested at the beginning of my post "In the Beginning" by Alister McGrath deals with many of the historical points you raise (such as the limited popularity of the AV early on), so I'm not unaware of them--I just don't think one is required to provide every detail of information to everyone about the entire background of one's post. How cumbersome it would be to go into all those details in a general blog post about another topic.Should I critique your post because you didn't talk about the Marian exiles who translated the Geneva Bible? Or because you mention revisions of the AV/KJV but don't give any dates? That would be beside the point... as are some of your comments.<em>In fact, there are a wide variety of translations that have been in use since since the 16th century.</em>I never said there weren't, but none gained what I would call widespread use or had a great deal of influence on society at large. It is only recently that more contemporary translations have really supplanted these older versions.You're right that the Douay-Rheims was not in response to the AV, but pre-dated it. My mistake for writing quickly. If anything it was in response to the Geneva Bible. I think it's NT was published in the 1580's or 90's. But, the point was and still is that the AV and Douay-Rheims were for hundreds of years the standard Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles in English.<em>I could, of course further point out that the KJV has been revised quite a few number of times (as has the wide variety of works known as the D-R.)</em>You could, but that would be beside the point and a waste of time. :-p<em>the Geneva Bible continued (and continues) to be widely used</em>Once again, your definitions of what constitute "widely used" are at odds. A subjective disagreement rather than an objective one of course. How often has someone come to a Bible study you've been to toting one around as something other than a novelty? Obviously Iyov is being polemical given that he did (sort of) keep reading–though he seems to have missed the point of my introduction about loving or hating a mainstream bible translation with too much zeal.  I’ve replied to some of his issues on his blog, but to the ones he points out here:In regards to several of your critiques, I think you’re perhaps being overly specific when I was being more general. I said that for several centuries there were really only two widely used translations of the Bible in the English language. Well, your comments don’t really refute that. I’m aware of how long the Geneva bible was popular, but I also know it’s popularity did not hold a candle to the Authorized Version even in North America where puritans settled and the reach of the Anglican Church was weak or non-existent. So it was popular for over a century–ok, how does that refute my statement? I think you’re looking for a level of specificity that I wasn’t aiming for, and are targeting places where you’re understanding of something subjective (e.g. “waned rather quickly”) is at variance with mine. I would still say the Geneva Bible’s popularity waned rather quickly in comparison to the AV and Douay-Rheims. Its impact was great, but its popular staying power was not.The book I suggested at the beginning of my post “In the Beginning” by Alister McGrath deals with many of the historical points you raise (such as the limited popularity of the AV early on), so I’m not unaware of them–I just don’t think one is required to provide every detail of information to everyone about the entire background of one’s post. How cumbersome it would be to go into all those details in a general blog post about another topic.Should I critique your post because you didn’t talk about the Marian exiles who translated the Geneva Bible? Or because you mention revisions of the AV/KJV but don’t give any dates? That would be beside the point… as are some of your comments.In fact, there are a wide variety of translations that have been in use since since the 16th century.I never said there weren’t, but none gained what I would call widespread use or had a great deal of influence on society at large. It is only recently that more contemporary translations have really supplanted these older versions.You’re right that the Douay-Rheims was not in response to the AV, but pre-dated it. My mistake for writing quickly. If anything it was in response to the Geneva Bible. I think it’s NT was published in the 1580′s or 90′s. But, the point was and still is that the AV and Douay-Rheims were for hundreds of years the standard Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles in English.I could, of course further point out that the KJV has been revised quite a few number of times (as has the wide variety of works known as the D-R.)You could, but that would be beside the point and a waste of time. :-pthe Geneva Bible continued (and continues) to be widely usedOnce again, your definitions of what constitute “widely used” are at odds. A subjective disagreement rather than an objective one of course. How often has someone come to a Bible study you’ve been to toting one around as something other than a novelty?

]]> By: ElShaddai Edwards http://heissufficient.com/2008/08/21/anglicans-await-apocrypha/#comment-3095 ElShaddai Edwards Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:12:15 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/?p=878#comment-3095 Picky, picky, picky.... Picky, picky, picky….

]]> By: Iyov http://heissufficient.com/2008/08/21/anglicans-await-apocrypha/#comment-3092 Iyov Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:26:47 +0000 http://heissufficient.net/?p=878#comment-3092 I stopped reading after this sentence: <i>For several centuries, there were really only two widely used translations of the Bible in the English Language–The Authorized Version and the Douay-Rheims , which was the Roman Catholic response to the former (the puritans loved the Geneva Bible, but its widespread use seems to have waned rather quickly)</i> Quick, how many errors can you find in this sentence? <a href="http://voiceofiyov.blogspot.com/2008/08/don-trust-anglican-priests-when-it.html" rel="nofollow">I'm up to seven.</a> <em>[Ed. link added]</em> I stopped reading after this sentence:

For several centuries, there were really only two widely used translations of the Bible in the English Language–The Authorized Version and the Douay-Rheims , which was the Roman Catholic response to the former (the puritans loved the Geneva Bible, but its widespread use seems to have waned rather quickly)

Quick, how many errors can you find in this sentence? I’m up to seven. [Ed. link added]

]]>