- Joined
- Feb 4, 2012
- Messages
- 4,013
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 38
Why is the word charity in some of our English Bibles?
On another thread someone mentioned a sermon by a rabid KJVO religious speaker where he pontificated on the word charity that is in some of our English bible translations.
I started to do a little due diligence on this, and this is a bit of what I found.
In the early 1500s translators rendered agape as love.
Tyndale NT uses love. 1525
Coverdale uses love. 1535
Matthew's has love. 1537
Great Bible has love. 1541
Matthew-Tyndale has love. 1549
Geneva NT has love. 1557
Bishop's has love. 1568
Rheims NT has charity. 1582
Geneva has love. 1583
KJV has charity. 1611
It is evident from the evidence that the KJV1611 imported the charity reading directly from the Rheims 1582 NT, which the translators would have had in the Fulke diglot.
https://archive.org/details/FulkeNewTestamentConfutation1589
This would make the KJV1611 a Bible that was heavily influenced by the High-Church faction of the Church of England including the head guy Richard Bancroft.
I wonder if the KJVOs know that they have a High-Church Catholic Bible?
Most modern versions have corrected this error brought on by the Latin loving Catholics.
Even the New American Catholic Bible corrects this poor translation.
On another thread someone mentioned a sermon by a rabid KJVO religious speaker where he pontificated on the word charity that is in some of our English bible translations.
I started to do a little due diligence on this, and this is a bit of what I found.
In the early 1500s translators rendered agape as love.
Tyndale NT uses love. 1525
Coverdale uses love. 1535
Matthew's has love. 1537
Great Bible has love. 1541
Matthew-Tyndale has love. 1549
Geneva NT has love. 1557
Bishop's has love. 1568
Rheims NT has charity. 1582
Geneva has love. 1583
KJV has charity. 1611
It is evident from the evidence that the KJV1611 imported the charity reading directly from the Rheims 1582 NT, which the translators would have had in the Fulke diglot.
https://archive.org/details/FulkeNewTestamentConfutation1589
This would make the KJV1611 a Bible that was heavily influenced by the High-Church faction of the Church of England including the head guy Richard Bancroft.
I wonder if the KJVOs know that they have a High-Church Catholic Bible?
Most modern versions have corrected this error brought on by the Latin loving Catholics.
Even the New American Catholic Bible corrects this poor translation.