penumbra

There is probably something to that. My fundie older sister said she never really understood what she read in the bible until her preacher held twice weekly "theology classes" (as she called them - more like fundie brainwashing sessions) and explained it all. Now, of course, his every word is the absolute truth and it's all so clear.

lpetrich

This reminds me of how my mother, a fellow freethinker, thinks that the King James Version is Great Literature.

But that does not matter very much to me; what matters to me is intelligibility. This sentiment may make me seem like a peasant, but I feel no choice but to stand by it.

And I wonder what Yuri Kuchinsky is screeching about in his posting on the alleged sins of New-Testament editors Westcott and Hort. Could it be that W&H have pushed a version of the NT with significant differences from the one translated in the KJV?

Tod

Wow, I must've slide into a parallel universe, because in the one I'm from, Doctor X often has "intelligent" and "useful" things to say and I got the point of his tongue-in-cheek post even if you didn't.

Tod

Well the whole "virgin" vs. "young woman" in Isaiah chapter 7 comes to mind. I used to have a list of KJV errors, but it was sadly lost long ago during the reinstallation of my operating system.

Doctor X

Tod:

You do me too much honor, sir.

lpetrich:

Me mum remembers having to sign a waver in college to use the KJV in a literature class--back then it was not recognized by the Catholic Church, apparently. Her university was not religious; it just did not want any hassles.

As you and others have noted, the KJV "sounds" like a god--it has a majesty of language. Whether or not it is a good translation or based on good witnesses, does not matter in that respect. Furthermore, to understand what writers thought of the bible--such as allusions and other references--a critic needs to confront the KJV. Even here on this board devoted to Intelligent Conversation [Director's Cut available on DVD.--Ed.]--and especially on other forums such as the E versus C--posters will quote the KJV. In one of my favorite passages--involving child sacrifice--the KJV actually "softens" the message far less than some "modern" versions.

--J.D.

Amos

That's typical for a literalist who wants to hide the cruel actions of his God.

BioBeing

Way back when in this thread Badfish was arguing that he used the KJV because it was inerrant... er, and written by a King, and Jesus was a King, so it must be real.

He never did explain the unicorn thing though.

Soul Invictus

Bede,

I can't concur with you. He's proven an invaluable resource (at least for me anyway) and unlike posters (who will go unnamed...and no you are not one of them) at least he will reference a basis for his assertions. He's well read and studied. I'm not sure why you posted this inflammatory remark.

rlogan

Perhaps a little pent up frustration found an opening.

JD's been a help to me, anyway. I can forgive an outburst. We're all human.

I'd have to agree that the KJV sounds majestic. I asked myself why I refer to it - and it was because that was what my church used when I was young. I've made no decision based on a scholarly approach. - guess I should have read that thread on which version is best!!

Vorkosigan

I believe all these reasons given above are wrong. The KJV-only crowd backs the KJV because the text of that document is crucial to the understanding of Dispensationalist theology contained in what is probably the best-selling book of the 20th century in the United States, the mad Schofield Reference Bible. By changing the text with the release of more critical versions at the end of the 19th century, the text critics utterly yanked the rug out from under Dispensationalism. The wording of the KJV is crucial to Schofield's reading of End Times, etc.

Vorkosigan