Jump to content

Update your fables


Recommended Posts

I just finished reading "Norse Mythology" by Neil Gaiman.


Basically he takes all the old stories of the Norse gods, Odin, Thor, Loki, Frigga etc - and writes them in a way that they're interesting and engaging.  He gives the characters, well, character - you see their motivations and faults, it's not just "...then Loki did this and Thor did that".


Got me thinking that if the current religions want to stay relevant, maybe they should update their own books.  Let's face it, the bible is poorly written and about as interesting as the ingredients list on packaged food.  A lot of "begatting" and no character development whatsoever.  I can't speak for the other books but I'm guessing they wouldn't be reviewed favourably by an unbiased critic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, spacesailor said:

Isn't our bible,  the Scottish Kings, way that He  wanted. Not for their masses. spacesailor

Spacey, will you take the time to investigate the history of the 1607 version of the bible that is called the King James Version. The newly crowned King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604. That gathering proposed a new English version in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. The Puritans perceived a few translation problems in earlier translations being used at the time  the Bishops and  the Great Bibles. 


The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars. All were members of the Church of England and all but one were clergy. The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as high churchmen. 


The title of the first edition of the translation, in Early Modern English, was :

"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament, AND THE NEW:

Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Cõmandement".  

Bible King James Version The Holy Bible By Bible King James, 60% OFF



Bringing the basic text of the Anglican Church into uniformity was a very important task that required authorisation of the supreme head of the Church of England, who has been the Monarch since the time of Henry the Eighth. You could equate the importance the task to the many Royal Commissions governments create to deal with matters of importance. Therefore, once the work had been done - by religious experts - the work had to be accepted and approved by the Head of the Church. The title page carries the words "Appointed to be read in Churches", suggesting it was probably authorised by order in council, but no record of the authorisation survives because the Privy Council registers from 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19. In the formality of Subjects presenting their works to the Monarch, the translators had this included:


From Autographs to King James Version: | Bible Q&A


It appears that the only input King James had was that the translators should not translate word for word, but to translate the meaning implied by the words. There were a couple of things that were more part of the historical content of the Old Testament that did not reflect well on Kings. King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive to the principles of divinely ordained royal supremacy: Exodus 1:19, where the Geneva Bible notes had commended the example of civil disobedience to the Egyptian Pharaoh showed by the Hebrew midwives, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous 'mother', Queen Maachah (Maachah had actually been Asa's grandmother, but James considered the Geneva Bible reference as sanctioning the execution of his own mother Mary, Queen of Scots).


Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the history of the Church of England. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the a hierarchical form of church governance ("ecclesiastical polity") and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy.


King James didn't mess with the accepted content of the Bible that was fundamental to Christian beliefs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the very days of our week are named after norse gods, well tiw's day, wodens day, thors day and freyas day are.  I reckon that freya, being a female, leaves those middle-eastern gods in the dust ( the all male trinity in particular is obvious nonsense)

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" the work had to be accepted and approved by the head of the church " .

King James.

" appointed to be read in churches, ", ( in the formality of subjects presenting their works to the monarch ) .

King James .

So it all came back to 

King James. 

 If it wasn't to his liking, it wasn't accepted. 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...