Freethought & Rationalism Archive

walt6 · 12-08-2004, 07:58 PM

I noticed that fundamentalists often insist that the King James version of the Bible is the only true version. Does anyone know how this idea evolved or was created?

I wouldn't think that good King James was a good role model for fundamentalist christians. comments?

Toto · 12-08-2004, 08:28 PM

Not all fundamentalists believe in the King James version.

But there are some who believe that the translators of the KJ Bible were directly inspired by God to produce a truer version than the one used by the pagan-infested, idolotrous Catholics.

Atheos · 12-08-2004, 09:01 PM

I suppose the biggest factor for me was the fact that it's what my momma believed in. I honestly thought that God used "Thee" and "Thou" when talking, and that prayers had to use the same King James english or they wouldn't be understood. Sheesh.

Interestingly, newer translations are easier to read and have the advantage of being able to use the texts unearthed in more recent times rather than relying almost solely on the Byzantine codecs.

Still yet it was difficult for me even knowing more than the average Joe about textual criticism to avoid thinking of the KJV as the "safe harbor" away from error.

-Atheos

RBH · 12-08-2004, 09:15 PM

Off to BCH.

RBH
E/C Moderator

Ken W · 12-08-2004, 11:33 PM

Middle English makes things sound so sanctimonious. Now if the garden variety preachers would learn to use the pronouns correctly....

To their credit, I know two fundamentalists who think KJV is a bad version to use for teaching and they thought my Living Bible was terrible.

Vorkosigan · 12-08-2004, 11:50 PM

Bruce Bawer traces it back to the publication of the biggest best seller in the United States over the last century, the Schofield reference bible. It's the Dispensationalist Bible, a fruitcake reading, but the BIble at its heart is the KJV. The Schofield interpretation is critically dependent on the language of the KJV. Thus, the attachment among many fundie whackjobs.

may · 12-09-2004, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by walt6

I noticed that fundamentalists often insist that the King James version of the Bible is the only true version. Does anyone know how this idea evolved or was created?

I wouldn't think that good King James was a good role model for fundamentalist christians. comments?

What do most users of the King James Bible not know about this translation? Do those who object to changing the King James Version know that it has already been changed in thousands of ways?

gregor · 12-09-2004, 06:13 AM

Read "The Bible in English" for the story of the KJV 1611, the Tyndale Bible, and other versions.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels

I haven't had time to read it, but I heard an hour-long interview of the author and the subject is fascinating.

Lucretius · 12-09-2004, 06:40 AM

Possibly one big advantage it has for fundies is that is is NOT the Catholic Duoay bible

Godfather · 12-09-2004, 06:49 AM

I used to be a KJV only chritstian. If you have ever seen a kent hovind video, he gives a few reasons why he believes other translations are evil.

Being the impressionable teenager I was, I went online to check it out.

The KJV christian believes that Satan has used translators of other versions to subtily remove, reword, or complicate passages of the bible.

The newer translations of the bible have their sources from earlier manuscripts. They find that a few sections are left out. They rationalize that if it isn't in the earlier text, it must have been added later. They are right, but the kjv christian says that they are removing things from god's word.

All kjv only christians are also hardcore fundamentalist young earth creationists, and surprisingly most of them hate busch. Go figure.

There is not much reason to be a christian, there is absolutely no reason to be a kjv only.

12-08-2004, 07:58 PM	#1
walt6 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: San Francisco Bay Posts: 1,144	King James I noticed that fundamentalists often insist that the King James version of the Bible is the only true version. Does anyone know how this idea evolved or was created? I wouldn't think that good King James was a good role model for fundamentalist christians. comments?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-08-2004, 08:28 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Not all fundamentalists believe in the King James version. But there are some who believe that the translators of the KJ Bible were directly inspired by God to produce a truer version than the one used by the pagan-infested, idolotrous Catholics.

12-08-2004, 09:01 PM	#3
Atheos Talk Freethought Staff Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Heart of the Bible Belt Posts: 5,807	I suppose the biggest factor for me was the fact that it's what my momma believed in. I honestly thought that God used "Thee" and "Thou" when talking, and that prayers had to use the same King James english or they wouldn't be understood. Sheesh. Interestingly, newer translations are easier to read and have the advantage of being able to use the texts unearthed in more recent times rather than relying almost solely on the Byzantine codecs. Still yet it was difficult for me even knowing more than the average Joe about textual criticism to avoid thinking of the KJV as the "safe harbor" away from error. -Atheos

12-08-2004, 09:15 PM	#4
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	Off to BCH. RBH E/C Moderator

12-08-2004, 11:33 PM	#5
Ken W Regular Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 118	Middle English makes things sound so sanctimonious. Now if the garden variety preachers would learn to use the pronouns correctly.... To their credit, I know two fundamentalists who think KJV is a bad version to use for teaching and they thought my Living Bible was terrible.

12-08-2004, 11:50 PM	#6
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Bruce Bawer traces it back to the publication of the biggest best seller in the United States over the last century, the Schofield reference bible. It's the Dispensationalist Bible, a fruitcake reading, but the BIble at its heart is the KJV. The Schofield interpretation is critically dependent on the language of the KJV. Thus, the attachment among many fundie whackjobs.

12-09-2004, 06:13 AM	#8
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	Read "The Bible in English" for the story of the KJV 1611, the Tyndale Bible, and other versions. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels I haven't had time to read it, but I heard an hour-long interview of the author and the subject is fascinating.

12-09-2004, 06:40 AM	#9
Lucretius Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: . Posts: 1,014	Possibly one big advantage it has for fundies is that is is NOT the Catholic Duoay bible

12-09-2004, 06:49 AM	#10
Godfather Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Hurricane Central. Posts: 158	I used to be a KJV only chritstian. If you have ever seen a kent hovind video, he gives a few reasons why he believes other translations are evil. Being the impressionable teenager I was, I went online to check it out. The KJV christian believes that Satan has used translators of other versions to subtily remove, reword, or complicate passages of the bible. The newer translations of the bible have their sources from earlier manuscripts. They find that a few sections are left out. They rationalize that if it isn't in the earlier text, it must have been added later. They are right, but the kjv christian says that they are removing things from god's word. All kjv only christians are also hardcore fundamentalist young earth creationists, and surprisingly most of them hate busch. Go figure. There is not much reason to be a christian, there is absolutely no reason to be a kjv only.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.