Javaman

Vorkosigan, your post makes it sound like there has been a concerted conspiracy in the works here. I don't have the knowledge to refute you (nor do I necessarily want to) but wouldn't mind a little more info.

I tried to find some answers online but didn't have any luck as of yet. I did find a page that helped me out a little in other regards, a New Zealand page called HOW TO CHOOSE A BIBLE .

Javaman

I will say that all this looking around for info on the Schofield Reference Bible has led to some very interesting pages, such as this one entitled THE SECRET RAPTURE - IS IT SCRIPTURAL?. I'm not sure if I'm worried about the fact that I'm becoming fascinated by Biblical history... what with being a lifelong atheist and all. I'm becoming more and more shocked that I know I have very little knowledge of the subject so far but have much more knowledge than many believers that I work with. That seems so wrong. Sorry that was a bit off topic.

Haran

In the fundamentalist Baptist circles that I grew up in, the use of the KJV had little or nothing to do with preservation of end time beliefs. It had more to do with tradition and/or lack of knowledge about other translations. The first people I remember using translations other than the KJV were the pastors. People got tired of trying to follow the pastor when he was reading a different translation, so many began to change to whatever the pastor read from (usually NIV or NASV).

I think that many people probably held to use of the KJV because of tradition (it was right for my parents and former pastor, so it's right for me). Because of tradition and the archaic sound (though people probably realized this was poor reason), it probably just seemed more holy and worth preserving.

Today, I think it is still used for many different reasons. Some may use it to preserve their belief in the end times. Some because their parents used it and they used it growing up. Some because the archaic language sounds more holy, original, and authoritative than modern english. Some because they believe that the majority of ancient manuscripts must preserve the correct text by divine providence and that it was handed down through to the KJV. Some because they have done research and believe that Egypt was a "hotbed of Gnosticism and other heresies" and that the Byzantine text must preserve the original wording. There are probably many other reasons both good and poor...

Wayne P

Bede, you said,

And yet you never make these comments to Amos and Offa! Neither posts in a particularly coherent manner, neither hold theological views that can squared with their denominations,(or yours), all of which makes their comments inane and useless for a discussion on this board. And yet you only seem to dislike the inanities of skeptics and atheists. Why is that????

Like I said just a digression.

Doctor X

Vork:

This is an intelligent forum. If you cannot contribute [Stop that!--Ed.]

Right . . . sorry . . . anyways, I disagree with you in that I think most modern adherents do not study the Bible to that theological degree. I think they, as Haran notes, feels they are preserving a tradition that is being lost.

I can remember when a modern translation came out some years ago, there were complaints that it was "different." Certainly, a scholar can gripe about attempts to "PC" the texts. However, the assumption, it seemed to me, behind the complaints were that updating the KJV is "changing what God wrote."

However, I think you do raise a point amonst those who "study the bible." Being told that the references you have relied upon are "wrong" will shake anyone's sensibilities.

--J.D.

Badfish

The KJ is the authorized version, it was translated under a monarchy (like Gods kingdom) therefore among other things the KJ is the authority and the book that God meant for the english speaking world.

Heres some history

Doctor X

Presumably you mean, "according to proponents"?

--J.D.

Badfish

Are there Christian opponents of the KJ? And if so, how do they come to such a conclusion? Sounds like more rhetorical assumption on anyone who opposes since proof is in the soul and how it is enlightened and not really in text. The text from the KJ is basically correct according to what we have from being passed down. However one needs correct text to spread the gospel, and I'm not really saying the KJ is the only reliable text, just the most accurate and historically authoritative.

Doctor X

It depends on what you mean by "opponent." As far as I know, there are not roving bands of Christians or Atheists . . . but you can never be sure about those Zoroastrians . . . who are burning KJVs.

On the other hand, quite Christian biblical scholars existed and do exist and they do not use the KJV when quoting the texts in English scholary works.

--J.D.

Badfish

Zoroastrians, hehe

Well yes there are scholars that do use older text and differing text, but in the end it seems to all say the same thing, heh?

However there are those versions God warned about, the ones that stray so radically from holy text that they are false testimony and basically useless. Those are the false texts the bible (Bishops, KJ, original gospels, etc.) refer to. So if ancient text is correct, then there will be false and misleading texts.