Radio Streams
SA Radio
24/7 Radio Stream
VCY America
24/7 Radio Stream
653

My Favorite Things
Home
NewsroomALL
Events | Notices | Blogs
Newest Audio | Video | Clips
Broadcasters
Church Finder
Live Webcasts
Sermons by Bible
Sermons by Category
Sermons by Topic
Sermons by Speaker
Sermons by Language
Sermons by Date
Staff Picks
CommentsALL -12 sec
Top Sermons
Online Bible
Hymnal
Daily Reading
Our Services
Broadcaster Dashboard
Members Only

Breaking News All | The Vault | United Prayer | SA Newsroom
FRONT PAGE  |  12/2/2022
SUNDAY, DEC 26, 2010  |  48 comments
How The King James Bible 'Begat' English Idioms
In Begat, David Crystal sets out to prove that the King James Bible has contributed more to the English language than any other literary source.

If you've ever "fought the good fight" or chuckled at "what comes out of the mouths of babes," you just might agree with him.

Phrases with roots in the King James Bible are everywhere. Crystal tells NPR's Neal Conan that writing Begat began with his curiosity about a simple question: How many English language idioms come from the King James Bible? When Crystal posed this question to people, they guessed a wide range of answers — anywhere from 50 to 1,000. So he decided he'd better read the Bible and figure it out. ...


CLICK HERE to Read Entire Article
www.npr.org

Cut to the Heart!
  START  
  Recommended sermons | more..
•  Christ's Prayer, Our Holiness • Bill Welzien | 12/29/2019
•  Cut to the Heart!Dr. Steven J. Lawson | 3/12/2018
•  Reformer William Tyndale • Dr. Ian R. K. Paisley | 3/1/1965
•  The Bible in America • Tim Tomlinson | 2/1/2022
COMMENTS  locked  
    Sorting Order:  
· Page 1 ·  Found: 48 user comment(s)
News ItemSystem Notice
SermonAudio.com
This forum thread has been closed by SermonAudio.
No further comments are permitted for this news item.

News Item6/16/18 4:14 AM
na ta | vietnam  Contact via emailFind all comments by na ta
Thank you for sharing this exciting resource with me and the world. Wish you always luck.
[URL=https://cryptofeed.online/icon]]]ICON Price Prediction[/URL]
48

News Item6/16/18 4:08 AM
natala | vietnam  Contact via emailFind all comments by natala
If there are many sad stories, share it with the people you trust. Sharing helps people get closer together and you also relieve some of that sadness.
[url=https://cryptofeed.online/icon]ICON Price Prediction[/url]
47

News Item1/7/11 1:38 AM
Alan H | Washington State  Protected NameFind all comments by Alan H
John Wycliffe translated his version of the bible from the Latin Vulgate; the translators of the Geneva Bible did not. Insisting that the translators of the GB used the LV, which was the Catholic Bible for several hundred years, doesn't make a bit of sense, even if it were true. Wycliffe's translation was actually a pretty poor translation because there are some words which still fit the Catholic system even translated into English from the Latin, such as "penance" instead of "repentance." The Geneva Bible was a "Reformation" bible, Wycliffe's translation was not, even though God used it mightily. I still wonder at the providence of God in Wycliffe's ministry.

I think you need to do a little history study Tony because it's impossible to defend the truth with error. You do more damage than good. I only use the KJV, but I cannot support your false claims. Show me any historical document which speaks of the Geneva Bible being translated from the Latin Vulgate and I'll join ranks with you, but I know you won't be able to find a lick of evidence to prove anything you've said. It seems to me that you are implying that the Geneva Bible is just a Catholic Bible in English. Did you know that the translators of the GB also used Tyndale's translation as did the KJV translators?

46

News Item1/7/11 1:26 AM
Filthy Lurker  Find all comments by Filthy Lurker
Lurker wrote:
Yawn.
When you figure out which version of "historic fact" you are going to stick with, let us know.
Agreed.
45

News Item1/6/11 10:33 PM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
D'ULTIMATEReallyTruestKJVSword wrote:
I Say That YOU, "lurker", ARE The One Who IS EVASIVE And ERRONEOUS To YOUR DOGMATIC ERRONEOUS STATEMENT, FALSE ALLUSION & ACCUSATION THAT I'm "Evasive and (My Statement & Words) irrelevant" TO THE FALSELY PERCEIVED "erroneous statement" THAT YOU THINK THAT I'VE MADE !
The Historic FACT Is That THE "GENEVA-BIBLE" OR "BREECHES-BIBLE" WAS INDEED TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN VULGATE--But Not JUST The Latin-Vulgate ALONE !
Why Do You Think The "Disclaiming" &-Or Further "Clarifying" Statement, "and conferred with the beft translations in diuers languages (i.e. THE LATIN VULGATE)", Was Written On The First Page Of THE 1599 GENEVA BIBLE ?
The Word "conferred", "consulted" &-Or "compared" Is Also Alluded To & Used In THE KING JAMES BIBLES' TITLE PAGE:
"& with the former Translations (i.e. The Geneva's, Bishop's, Coverdale's & Tyndale's Bibles; And, Etc.) diligently compared and revised," !
*THE GENEVA-"BIBLE" WAS NOT A PURE & COMPLETE HOLY-BIBLE, LIKE THE KJB, WITH JUST THE WORDS OF GOD TRANSLATED THEREIN: BUT CONTAINED THE UN-HOLY-SPIRIT-INSPIRED "CALVINIST" OPINIONS & "DOCTRINES" OF MEN !
Yawn.

When you figure out which version of "historic fact" you are going to stick with, let us know.

44

News Item1/6/11 8:26 PM
D'ULTIMATEReallyTruestKJVSword  Find all comments by D'ULTIMATEReallyTruestKJVSword
Lurker wrote:
Evasive and irrelevant to your dogmatic erroneous statement
"lurker": YOU Say "Evasive and irrelevant to your dogmatic erroneous statement" !

I Say That YOU, "lurker", ARE The One Who IS EVASIVE And ERRONEOUS To YOUR DOGMATIC ERRONEOUS STATEMENT, FALSE ALLUSION & ACCUSATION THAT I'm "Evasive and (My Statement & Words) irrelevant" TO THE FALSELY PERCEIVED "erroneous statement" THAT YOU THINK THAT I'VE MADE !

The Historic FACT Is That THE "GENEVA-BIBLE" OR "BREECHES-BIBLE" WAS INDEED TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN VULGATE--But Not JUST The Latin-Vulgate ALONE !

Why Do You Think The "Disclaiming" &-Or Further "Clarifying" Statement, "and conferred with the beft translations in diuers languages (i.e. THE LATIN VULGATE)", Was Written On The First Page Of THE 1599 GENEVA BIBLE ?

The Word "conferred", "consulted" &-Or "compared" Is Also Alluded To & Used In THE KING JAMES BIBLES' TITLE PAGE:

"& with the former Translations (i.e. The Geneva's, Bishop's, Coverdale's & Tyndale's Bibles; And, Etc.) diligently compared and revised," !

*THE GENEVA-"BIBLE" WAS NOT A PURE & COMPLETE HOLY-BIBLE, LIKE THE KJB, WITH JUST THE WORDS OF GOD TRANSLATED THEREIN: BUT CONTAINED THE UN-HOLY-SPIRIT-INSPIRED "CALVINIST" OPINIONS & "DOCTRINES" OF MEN !

43

News Item1/2/11 11:37 AM
His Story  Find all comments by His Story
"As the reign of Elizabeth (1558-1603) was coming to a close, we find a draft *FOR AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT FOR A NEW VERSION OF THE BIBLE:* "An act for the reducing of diversities of bibles now extant in the English tongue to one settled vulgar translated from the original." The Bishop's Bible of 1568, although it may have eclipsed the Great Bible, was still rivaled by the Geneva Bible. Nothing ever became of this draft during the reign of Elizabeth, who died in 1603, and was succeeded by James 1, as the throne passed from the Tudors to the Stuarts. James was at that time James VI of Scotland, and had been for thirty-seven years. He was born during the period between the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible.

One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergymen, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible..."[URL=http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html]]]History KJV[/URL]

42

News Item1/2/11 2:01 AM
Neil | Tucson  Find all comments by Neil
Alan, the Translators were not the same people who called for a new version. They were directed by James in response to complaints by Puritans (CofE men, not Dissenters) during the 1604 Hampton Court Conference about errors in the Great Bible & Bishop's Bible, which were the earlier translations used by the state church. And James himself objected to the Geneva Bible's "seditious" margin notes (which commended defiance of wicked rulers).

Why this objection? The Stuart kings were firm believers in Divine Right absolutism, which Presbys & many Dissenters denied.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_james_bible#Considerations_for_a_new_version_of_the_English_Bible
[Please observe, the Wikipedia article is well footnoted]

41

News Item1/1/11 10:46 PM
Alan H | Washington State  Protected NameFind all comments by Alan H
Ciao wrote:
Judging by the recurring level of debate in these forums, what is clear is that the KJV translators would not be stupid enough to engage with supporters and detractors alike.
Ciao,

No! I disagree! An assumption on your part. The translators of the Authorized Version believed they were translating the very Word of God from the Hebrew and Greek text. I am sure they would defend the Scriptures, even their own translation, as compared with the corrupt modern translations, but they would probably use much better arguments. You need to remember that there were several versions available at the time they petitioned the King of England to translate a new version. Though they didn't debate concerning those other versions they did reject them all by default, in asking permission to produce a better translation. Those translators were not the kind of men who would sit by idly and watch as the Church was inundated with confusion and division, as it has been in our day. Those men were faithful men. Faithful to God; faithful to the original languages; and faithful to God's Church. Vastly different from those merchandisers who seek filthy lucre, and are faithful to nothing else. We may not argue well, but it is our duty to be light! God help us!

40

News Item1/1/11 5:48 PM
Ciao  Find all comments by Ciao
Jim Lincoln wrote:
I will put forth three things to you, You can tell me why these ideas shouldn't be acknowledged, ... I think the AV translators would agree.

It was a British Bible designed to aid the nationalism of Great Britain, This his makes it anti-American, and the supporters in effect anti-American.

Judging by the recurring level of debate in these forums, what is clear is that the KJV translators would not be stupid enough to engage with supporters and detractors alike.
39

News Item1/1/11 4:15 PM
vbnm  Find all comments by vbnm
Jim Lincoln wrote:
1) The AV is a White Supremist bible, I don't see any but White Anglican translators on the team

2) It was a British Bible designed to aid the nationalism of Great Britain, This his makes it anti-American

3) Baptist killers on the translation team

4) Any Baptist who is even slightly aware of the facts, will reject the AV

Jim;
You appear to be getting very desperate for sensible arguements.

1) There were not very many sun-tanned folks with Hebrew, Greek and other languages. Nor come to that were they Christian theologians and accademics.

2) No it was specifically an "ENGLISH" translation for those who spoke english. - Back then the Americans spoke english too. (Probably without the accent)

3) Baptists were identified as heretics in those days - By just about everybody. As I said before Tough - But reality.

4) Until recently ALL Baptists used the KING JAMES BIBLE, for example C.H.Spurgeon not only didn't whine about it, but used it more effectively in the power of God, than most churches today, put together, do with these badly translated modern versions.

38

News Item1/1/11 2:50 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Why do you say, God was ever happy with the The [A]nglican [V]ersion a syncretic Bible put forth by a syncretic church founded by a serial wife murderer! [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1824]]]Part III: From the KJV to the RV (from Elegance to Accuracy)[/URL].

I will put forth three things to you, You can tell me why these ideas shouldn't be acknowledged, except for the first one I think the AV translators would agree.

The AV is a White Supremist bible, I don't see any but White Anglican translators on the team (in fairness there weren't too many non-whites in England at the time.)

It was a British Bible designed to aid the nationalism of Great Britain, This his makes it anti-American, and the supporters in effect anti-American.

There were Baptist killers on the translation team, including its head, [URL=http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/bancroft.html]]]The Influence of An Anglican Archbishop on the KJV[/URL] and [URL=http://www.kjv-only.com/rick/influence.html]]]Did the Members of the High Commission Court (English Inquistion) Have Any Influence on the KJV?[/URL].

Any Baptist who is even slightly aware of the facts, will reject the AV, and use a version such as the Holman or the [URL=http://www.lockman.org/nasb/]]]New American Standard Bible[/URL].

37

News Item1/1/11 1:07 PM
EhWhat  Find all comments by EhWhat
Jim Lincoln wrote:
Joyner says...
...it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists. While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists.... This irony is strange indeed when fundamental Baptists take sides with Episcopalians and Catholics and reject their own.
Strange conclusion to come to?

God seems to have been perfectly happy with the King James Version.

Yet Joyner-Lincoln say the Baptists should not be?

Do Baptists have a different God then Jim?

Or do you suggest; Whats good enough for God - Is not good enough for Baptists?

I guess scholars like the Anglican, Liberal heretics, and other Roman Catholic influences, of the 19th century is what you want the Baptists to follow Jim?

Weird!

36

News Item1/1/11 10:49 AM
Arthur  Find all comments by Arthur
Alan H wrote:
As some of you may have noticed, "John UK" has been absent for quite some time from Sermon Audio. I have had a little contact with him through email and he is currently having "technical difficulties." He has been communicating with Sermon Audio trying to find a solution to the problem, but obviously without any success. It is uncertain whether it is his own computer or whether SA has inadvertently blocked him (If that's the case, they have been unable to unblock him). He has kept up reading the posts but is unable to submit any posts himself. I, for one, really miss his input. And he misses inputting!
Please pray that this may be resolved soon.
Thanks! Alan H
Cheers Alan.

And John
If you are reading me old turnip, looking forward to you rejoining the gang soon. God be with you.
Arthur.

35

News Item12/31/10 10:30 PM
Rick | Alabama  Find all comments by Rick
Alan H wrote:
As some of you may have noticed, "John UK" has been absent for quite some time from Sermon Audio. I have had a little contact with him through email and he is currently having "technical difficulties." He has been communicating with Sermon Audio trying to find a solution to the problem, but obviously without any success. It is uncertain whether it is his own computer or whether SA has inadvertently blocked him (If that's the case, they have been unable to unblock him). He has kept up reading the posts but is unable to submit any posts himself. I, for one, really miss his input. And he misses inputting!
Please pray that this may be resolved soon.
Thanks! Alan H
Amen! Something similar happened to me not to long ago, but Steven with S/A was able to fix the problem. I hope to see John's post again soon.
34

News Item12/31/10 8:24 PM
Alan H | Washington State  Protected NameFind all comments by Alan H
As some of you may have noticed, "John UK" has been absent for quite some time from Sermon Audio. I have had a little contact with him through email and he is currently having "technical difficulties." He has been communicating with Sermon Audio trying to find a solution to the problem, but obviously without any success. It is uncertain whether it is his own computer or whether SA has inadvertently blocked him (If that's the case, they have been unable to unblock him). He has kept up reading the posts but is unable to submit any posts himself. I, for one, really miss his input. And he misses inputting!

Please pray that this may be resolved soon.

Thanks! Alan H

33

News Item12/31/10 2:54 PM
True Sword  Find all comments by True Sword
Jim Lincoln wrote:
1) The KJV was translated by the Church of England

2) They reveal their bias by refusing to translate words like “baptism”

3) The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha,

4) Also, it contained a list of holy days,

5) There was not a big variety of denominations on the KJV translation committee.

6) There was not one Baptist

1) Thats a lie!

2) The translation was accurate, God saw to that in collecting the most eminent Greek, Hebrew and language experts of the day. All praise be to God. Amen!

3) So what?

4) So what?

5) There wasn't a quote "big variety" of denominations around then! Which BTW is good not bad!

6) Yes you are correct GOD did not use Baptists to translate His Word into English. - That is a very interesting point Jim.
The "Baptist" denomination had only just been invented and the Reformed Church eg Puritans didn't accept them except as a bunch of heretics. History shows that the Baptists were a long time in becoming acceptable. - Tough but thats reality for you.

GOD has authorised the KING JAMES VERSION of His Holy Word in the most practical of ways - "HE" used it for centuries over all other versions and texts.

Thats one thing the modern versions cannot claim!

32

News Item12/31/10 1:57 PM
Jim Lincoln | Nebraska  Find all comments by Jim Lincoln
Dr. Robert A. Joyner wrote:
The KJV was translated by the Church of England... They reveal their bias by refusing to translate words like “baptism” and “deacon,” because if they did, it would contradict the practice of their church. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha, 14 books and 172 chapters of uninspired writings from the Catholic Bible. Also, it contained a list of holy days, including one for the “blessed Virgin.” There was not a big variety of denominations on the KJV translation committee. There was not one Baptist. King James hated Baptists. He said he wanted to “harrow out of England” all Baptists....

...it is misguided for fundamental Baptists to defend a version of the Bible based on a Greek text, prepared by a liberal Roman Catholic, translated by Episcopalians and authorized by a king who hated Baptists. While they reject translations based on a Greek text approved by all the great scholars and early fundamental leaders and translated by good Bible believing scholars from all groups, including Baptists.... This irony is strange indeed when fundamental Baptists take sides with Episcopalians and Catholics and reject their own.

from, [URL=http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_which_bible_pr.html]]]Which Bible?[/URL] Welcome R.GR!
31

News Item12/31/10 11:06 AM
PmD | UK  Contact via emailFind all comments by PmD
I hope all these comment makers READ "The BIBLE".

Some Sound really Horrid.

30

News Item12/31/10 8:39 AM
Lurker  Protected NameFind all comments by Lurker
D'ULTIMATEReallyTruestKJVSword wrote:
The "Geneva" Being Inferior, Not As Pure A Bible Translation Or "Uncluttered" With Men's Opinions (Especially CALVINIST Opinions): AS THE HISTORIC AUTHORIZED ENGLISH KING JAMES BIBLE IS THE BEST OF THE BEST OF ENGLISH BIBLES EVER !
Evasive and irrelevant to your dogmatic erroneous statement.....

D'ULTIMATEReallyTruestKJVSword wrote:
The Historic FACT Is That The "Geneva-Bible" Or "Breeches-Bible" WAS INDEED TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN VULGATE !
29
There are a total of 48 user comments displayedSubscribe to these comments
Jump to Page : [1] 2 3 | last


Dr. Stephen Kim
The Virgin Mary Error

Christmas 2021
Sunday Service
Armed Forces Church
Play! | MP3 | RSS


A Table of Prayer

Rev Thomas Yates
What Is The Gospel?

Vital Questions
Maryport Street Baptist...
Video!Play! | MP4

Shawn Reynolds
How The Lord Rebukes Satan

Sovereign Grace Baptist
Sunday Service
Play! | MP3

Sponsor:
Give the Gift of Family Discipleship

See our family disc­ipl­eship gift guide, get 15% off orders over $35 using CHR­ISTM­AS22
https://www.truth78.org/gif..

Sponsor:
Deliverance: Game Of Spiritual Warfare

The high­est crowdf­unded Chr­ist­ian board game of all time is avail­able for pre-­ord­er!
https://deliverancethegame...

Sermon: BR# 174 I Changed My Mind
Dr. James M. Phillips

FOUNDATIONS CONFERENCE

SPONSOR | 4,200+

SPONSOR




SA UPDATES NEWSLETTER Sign up for a weekly dose of personal thoughts along with interesting content updates. Sign Up
FOLLOW US


Gospel of John
Cities | Local | Personal

MOBILE
iPhone + iPad New!
ChurchOne App New!
Watch
Android New!
ChurchOne App New!
Fire Tablet
Wear
Chromecast TV
Apple TV
Android TV
ROKU TV
Amazon Fire TV
Amazon Echo
Kindle Reader


HELP
Knowledgebase
Broadcasters
Listeners
Q&A
Uploading Sermons
Uploading Videos
Webcasting
TECH TALKS

NEWS
Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe
Staff Picks | RSS
SA Newsroom
SERVICES
Dashboard | Info
Cross Publish
Audio | Video | Stats
Sermon Player | Video
Church Finder | Info
Mobile & Apps
Webcast | Multicast
Solo Sites
Internationalization
Podcasting
Listen Line
Events | Notices
Transcription
Billboards
QR Codes
Online Donations
24x7 Radio Stream
INTEGRATION
Embed Codes
Twitter
Facebook
Logos | e-Sword | BLB
JSON API

BATCH
Upload via RSS
Upload via FTP
Upload via Dropbox

SUPPORT
Advertising | Local Ads
Support Us
Stories
ABOUT US
The largest and most trusted library of audio sermons from conservative churches and ministries worldwide.

Our Services | Articles of Faith
Broadcast With Us
Earn SA COINS!
Privacy Policy

THE VAULT VLOG
A Table of Prayer New!
Copyright © 2022 SermonAudio.