penumbra

It seems to me that most of the Bible literalists/fundamentalists I have come in contact with hold the belief that the KJV is the "one and only true Word of God". Now I know the some of it's basic origins, based on the Textus Receptus, 54 learned men, commissioned in 1604, completed in 1611, etc., but I've never fully understood why or how this particular version, as opposed to others, became the apparent standard for conservative Christians today.

Can some of the more learned folks here clue me in?

NeoApostate

Tradition?

That and a lot of modern translations that are very paraphrased and not very close to the original texts, making a perfect straw man for adherants to 'KJV only' whenever constructive criticism of KJV arises.

wade-w

This will probably get a better response in the Biblical Criticism and History forum.

Doctor X

Tradition.

TRADITION!

As one mentor put it, for better or worse no self-respecting deity does not "smite thee."

I find it funny that a respected interpretation of the Quran has "thees, thous," and "smiteths."

For the same reason, if a god exists he better look like Charlton Heston. . . .

--J.D.

Bede

JD,

This forum is intended for intelligent conversation. Either make an intelligent post or go to another forum where your inane comments are more in keeping with the purpose of the board. Currently, you never add anything useful.

Amos

I am not learned but know that it was the first translation that leans heavily towards literalism and the wording of it leads one to believe that bible reading is major factor in seeking justification that leads to salvation. Their warped interpretation is directed towards their own justification and now its readers are obligated to translate the bible in all languages.

Noteworthy here is that the Catholic church is just opposite to this and would sooner read the Gospel in Latin then have its members be misled by literalism.

Demigawd

I disagree. Doctor X is pointing out, in a humorous manner, some of the psychological underpinnings of why KJV has such a popularity among a certain set of Christians. Tradition coupled with archaic speech has its appeal. I remember how, when I was a church-going lad, the adults would get all solemn, abandoning their Southern drawls in order to speak like The Mighty Thor.

Doctor X

Bede:

Despite your contributions, this is, indeed, a forum for "intelligent conversation." However, since my manner distempers your entrails to distraction, you may wish to consider the Ignore Function or, more maturely:

Demigawd:

I am much obligued. It is a serious issue. I do not like to "name drop"--and I generally dislike posters who do. Besides, how do you confirm such appeals to authority.

Nevertheless, a noted professor who has edited dictionaries on religion note the power the language of the KJV conveys. "We" grow up with it. Gods do "smiteth thee" whether or not the Hebrew justifies the translation. Indeed, other posters have noted that a better rendering of the opening to Genesis is "at the time when" or "When Elohim was"--rather than the imperious "In the beginning."

Too bad, the KJV stands.

In popular discussions with people who do not study biblical scholarship to the extent that they would post on an "intelligent conversation" on the subject, some have evoked the KJV as "the original" bible! It holds the popular imagination, whether one likes it or not.

--J.D.

Javaman

For a somewhat pedantic read on your question, you can try this site. I'd like to see an 'intelligent conversation' ( ) about the accuracy of the KJV translation. I'll lurk for the answers and I'll even read answers that may contain humour.

Dargo

I can think of two advantages of the King Jimmy version for fundies although they would not admit this. The archaic language helps to mask errors and contradictions. It also makes it more tedious to read thus making church members less likely to read it and notice any errors or contradictions. They should just let their pastor tell them what the Bible means and not worry their pretty little heads over such unimportant details. To be fair though, many fundamentalist churches do favor newer translations. At least, KJ onlyism doesn't seem to be very common among Southern Baptists although I think many of the independent fundamentalist baptist churches (they think the Southern Baptist convention is too liberal) are KJ onlyists or at least leaning in that direction. I'm not familiar enough with other denominations.