Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JonathanChance · 08-04-2003, 10:17 PM

No, this is not something from Landover Baptist.

Quote:

They have changed it the key points in the Bible," said Bishop Tom Turner Sr. of Jesus Non-Denominational Church in Greenville.

"The majority of it's probably the same, but it takes just a little bit to mislead people."

So the Book of Mormon, versions of the Bible, even the Catholic Rosary, all went up in flames.

Church leaders say any Bible besides the King James version that they use, are distractions.

Oy gevalt! I'm glad that the fundies who live around here don't even come close to this caliber!

Besides, what is it about the KJV that appeals to fundies in general rather than more modern translations? Is it the Elizibethian English or something?

Doctor X · 08-04-2003, 10:20 PM

Indeed.

Two main reasons:

Doubt: people hold on to the tradition because it promisses permanence and certainty. If a new translation is better--and based on better witnesses--it questions the certainty.

It Ain't God if He Don't Smiteth: people have become use to the language--again tradition.

--J.D.

Vorkosigan · 08-04-2003, 10:42 PM

No, D0c, that is incorrect. The KJV is absolutely vital to their beliefs for other reasons.

In 1907 Schofield came out with what is undoubtedly the best-selling book in US history, the Schofield Reference Bible (updated in '67). This work created the modern Dispenstationalist movement. Using the KJV as the basis for his bizarre readings of the Bible, he invented a whole theology. Unfortunately, it is closely tied to the language of the KJV, much of which has been superseded by the more accurate versions that came out at about the same time based on superior scholarly understandings of the sacred text. So it is not tradition, but religious requirement, that they utilize the KJV. See Bruce Bawer's Stealing Jesus for a good view of this movement and its stupidities.

Vorkosigan

PopeInTheWoods · 08-04-2003, 10:46 PM

The Song of Solomon sounds much steamier in the KJV....

Doctor X · 08-04-2003, 10:56 PM

Vork:

I do not see the contradiction, though I appreciate the extra detail.

Sometimes I try to be succinct.

Anyways, not to waste 17 pages on whether or not a "religious requirement" is or is not a "tradition," I will thank you for the book recommendation--I have actually been looking for a good reference for that period.

Is it the group that had the "fundamentals"--something like twelve--that gave rise to the term fundamentalism?

--J.D.

Secular Pinoy · 08-05-2003, 02:38 AM

Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God is a good history book for understanding the fundamentalist strains in the Abrahamic Religions.

Doctor X · 08-05-2003, 02:56 AM

SecularPinoy:

If that was directed toward me, what I am trying to remember is that somewhere around the early 1900-1910s a reaction against criticism and other "stuff"--some sort of convention--was a proclamation of a number of "fundamentals"--I think twelve. One of them was that the Bible was "inerrant--everyword-true-from-God-so-there-you-godless-piece-of excrement."

I ask'd Vort if the Dispensationist movement may have been behind the "fundamentals" from which we get "fundamentalism."

Why I hate trying to remember something I tripped over years ago. . . .

--J.D.

Mister Impossible · 08-05-2003, 04:20 AM

I hope they don't take as much offence from web-sites which give a message contrary to their beliefs. It would be a shame for their ISP to go up in flames.

Secular Pinoy · 08-05-2003, 04:52 AM

Doc, yes it was directed to you as a book recommendation.

According to Karen Armstrong, it was the liberals' encroaching attacks on traditional faith that angered the conservatives to take action, which eventually brought about the publication of The Fundamentals between 1910 to 1915, which are indeed 12 pamphlets (see pp. 170-171). The pamphlets were "neither radical nor particularly militant." However,

Quote:

[D]uring the Great War, and element of terror entered conservative Protestantism and it became fundamentalist. Americans had always had a tendancy to see a conflict as apocalyptic, and the great War confirmed many of them in their premillennial convictions.
<snip>
Three big Prophecy Conferences were held between 1914 and 1918, where the participants combed through the Scofield Reference Bible to find more "signs of the end times." (p. 171)

Note: Red indicates my revisions.

Earlier in the book (pp. 138-140) Armstrong introduced Darby,

Quote:

The new premillennialism was preached in America by the Englishman John Nelson Darby (1800-82), who found few fellow followers in Britain but toured the United States to great acclaim six times between 1859 to 1877. His vision could see nothing good in the modern world, which was hurtling toward destruction. Instead of being more virtuous, as the Enlightenment thinkers had hoped, humanity was becoming so depraved that God would soon be forced to intervene and smash their society, inflicting untold misery upon the human race. (p. 138)

Dargo · 08-05-2003, 05:47 AM

I can think of two other attractions of the King Jimmy version. The archaic language makes it more difficult to understand thus helping to mask errors. Also, being more difficult to read makes Christians less likely to read it and thus notice said errrors. These good sheep should just trust their pastor to tell them what the correct interpretation is and not worry their pretty little heads over it.

To be fair, most evangelicals aren't KJ Onlyist. It seem to be most common among Fundamentalist Baptists. There the ones who think the Southern Baptist Convention is too liberal!

For those really curious about this issue, here are a couple of Christian sites. One is by a KJ onlyist and the other is refuting that position.
Authorized version defense

King James Only Resource Center

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

08-04-2003, 10:20 PM	#2
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Indeed. Two main reasons: Doubt: people hold on to the tradition because it promisses permanence and certainty. If a new translation is better--and based on better witnesses--it questions the certainty. It Ain't God if He Don't Smiteth: people have become use to the language--again tradition. --J.D.

08-04-2003, 10:42 PM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	No, D0c, that is incorrect. The KJV is absolutely vital to their beliefs for other reasons. In 1907 Schofield came out with what is undoubtedly the best-selling book in US history, the Schofield Reference Bible (updated in '67). This work created the modern Dispenstationalist movement. Using the KJV as the basis for his bizarre readings of the Bible, he invented a whole theology. Unfortunately, it is closely tied to the language of the KJV, much of which has been superseded by the more accurate versions that came out at about the same time based on superior scholarly understandings of the sacred text. So it is not tradition, but religious requirement, that they utilize the KJV. See Bruce Bawer's Stealing Jesus for a good view of this movement and its stupidities. Vorkosigan

08-04-2003, 10:46 PM	#4
PopeInTheWoods Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Rochester NY USA Posts: 4,318	The Song of Solomon sounds much steamier in the KJV....

08-04-2003, 10:56 PM	#5
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Vork: I do not see the contradiction, though I appreciate the extra detail. Sometimes I try to be succinct. Anyways, not to waste 17 pages on whether or not a "religious requirement" is or is not a "tradition," I will thank you for the book recommendation--I have actually been looking for a good reference for that period. Is it the group that had the "fundamentals"--something like twelve--that gave rise to the term fundamentalism? --J.D.

08-05-2003, 02:38 AM	#6
Secular Pinoy Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Quezon City, Philippines Posts: 1,994	Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God is a good history book for understanding the fundamentalist strains in the Abrahamic Religions.

08-05-2003, 02:56 AM	#7
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	SecularPinoy: If that was directed toward me, what I am trying to remember is that somewhere around the early 1900-1910s a reaction against criticism and other "stuff"--some sort of convention--was a proclamation of a number of "fundamentals"--I think twelve. One of them was that the Bible was "inerrant--everyword-true-from-God-so-there-you-godless-piece-of excrement." I ask'd Vort if the Dispensationist movement may have been behind the "fundamentals" from which we get "fundamentalism." Why I hate trying to remember something I tripped over years ago. . . . --J.D.

08-05-2003, 04:20 AM	#8
Mister Impossible Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: UK Posts: 298	I hope they don't take as much offence from web-sites which give a message contrary to their beliefs. It would be a shame for their ISP to go up in flames.

08-05-2003, 05:47 AM	#10
Dargo Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Texas Posts: 713	I can think of two other attractions of the King Jimmy version. The archaic language makes it more difficult to understand thus helping to mask errors. Also, being more difficult to read makes Christians less likely to read it and thus notice said errrors. These good sheep should just trust their pastor to tell them what the correct interpretation is and not worry their pretty little heads over it. To be fair, most evangelicals aren't KJ Onlyist. It seem to be most common among Fundamentalist Baptists. There the ones who think the Southern Baptist Convention is too liberal! For those really curious about this issue, here are a couple of Christian sites. One is by a KJ onlyist and the other is refuting that position. Authorized version defense King James Only Resource Center

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.