"Fake" Bibles?

[Archae]

One of those :wtf: stories...

Do You Believe This Book?
By Carlos Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 02:09:19 PM EST
topic: Christian Religious Supremacy section:Front Page print this story

Bob Allen of Ethics Daily discovers some interesting things about the young guy who asked the Republican candidates if they believed every word of the King James Version of the Bible.

It is hard to imagine that ideas like this are still floating around about the King James Version of the Bible, but here they are:

Huckabee's answer also didn't satisfy Dearing, who appears in other videos on a religious version of YouTube advocating use of only the King James Version of the Bible.

"I think Mike Huckabee is a typical liberal pastor, because I heard in a previous debate that he didn't think it matters whether or not you believe the creation in Genesis was six literal days," Dearing told the Dallas newspaper.

http://tinyurl.com/2h7n22

[Bolo Boffin]

1. I had a feeling that's what that guy meant.

If Huckabee had popped the phrase "plenary inspiration" out there, the guy would have been satisfied. He didn't.

[Kutjara]

2. Oh yes.

Quite a few people believe that the King James version was not merely a translation of preexisting Greek and Aramaic texts, but a Divinely-inspired original version, direct from Big-G Himself. Presumably, God felt that something had been lost during all the transcription and retranscription over the millennia, so he put his author cap on once again and redictated the whole thing.

Because of this, KJV believers feel that any other version of the Bible is corrupt, misguided or Satanically-inspired.

Isn't it fascinating how finely detailed people's delusions can be?

[gateley]

3. That's really interesting - I had no idea the KJV was viewed all that differently

from other versions (not that I'm a bible scholar). Thanks.

[Kutjara]

6. Personally, I think the whole thing was cooked up...

...to get around criticisms that English versions of the Bible were translations of translations, and therefore subject to error (unless you believe that every single transcriber was divinely guided and therefore free from error, which is a bit of a stretch). By declaring the KJV itself as divinely inspired, any criticism of it's authenticity could be silenced. It also sidestepped the embarrassing fact that many self-anointed "theologians" can't read the languages the Bible was originally written in. With the KJV being the authoritative one, they didn't have to bother studying all those dead languages.

[gateley]

13. RE: Languages. That reminds me of a story - not sure if it's true, but when

ebonics was being discussed as possibly being taught in schools, some fundamentalist, RW politician said "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for the rest of us." :7

So.... WHO was it who claimed the KJV was divinely inspired -- His Royal Highness himself? And how was this new! improved! version explained to the masses?

I'm constantly dumbfounded how people refer to the bible as though, like you said, The big G rolled up his sleeves, licked the tip of his stylus, then went to work. I heard a radio show where a Biblical scholar was succinctly pointing out the changes that had occurred in the bible over the years, the 'cut and paste' jobs, the discrepancies between one book and another, and the first caller said "well you're wrong because it says in the Bible..." I thought - did you LISTEN to this person articulately and simply present his case?

[Kutjara]

16. I don't think King J and his translators cared all that much.

The weird idea that the Bible is literally true in every particular is a modern one. Up until the late 19th Century or so, it was widely accepted that the Bible was allegorical. It's lessons were meant to teach moral values by the use of engaging stories that people would remember. Very few people probably even considered the idea that the book was an infallible historical record.

King James would probably be appalled at the idea that God had dictated the Bible to his scholars. He was a devout Catholic who simply wished to make an important text available to a wider audience.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

28. How did the bible go from 600 books, to only 66?

http://www.bibleufo.com/anomlostbooks.htm
Constantine began what was to become a centuries long effort to eliminate any book in the original Bible that was considered unacceptable to the new doctrine of the church. At that time, it is believed there were up to 600 books, which comprised the work we now know as the Bible. Through a series of decisions made by the early church leadership, all but 80 of those books, known as the King James Translation of 1611, were purged from the work, with a further reduction by the Protestant Reformation bringing the number to 66 in the "Authorized" King James Bible.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyone who thinks that the current bible is in any way, shape or form the "Literal word of God" or even CLOSE to the original has been smokin' some serious mind-altering substances.

[TexasProgresive]

25. If the King James was good enough for Jesus then it's

good enough for thee. There are plenty who actually believe that and completely forget that the Bible was originally in Hebrew and Greek and that Jesus spoke Aramaic.

These same types also say that if English was good enough for Jesus.....

[Geoff R. Casavant]

29. Find and read "Misquoting Jesus"

It discusses how present editions of the Bible are based on older texts, so far none older than 200CE or so, and how later editors made changes, or added comments that were later incorporated into the text, or in one case, where the meaning of a passage was radically altered because of an ink smudge that that bled into text from the other side of the page.

The most ironic point is that the texts that were translated to make the KJV are generally considered to be the most error-riddled.

[NMMNG]

4. KJV is *the* only proper Bible

If it was good enough for Jesus (and he did speak English, you know) it's good enough for us.

[dailykoff]

8. KJ's mother was Mary Stuart

and his father was Henry Darnley, both Catholics. Hmm..

[murielm99]

17. When he was a child,

he was often told that his mother had been a witch and a whore.

He may have been bisexual. He was known to have male favorites at court who may have been his lovers.

He did not have an aversion to women, but he had an abhorrence of witchcraft. I once read an article that said that may have been why there are so many references to witchcraft in the KJV of the Bible. That, and some other things, were translated or worded in ways to please the king.

[Buns_of_Fire]

15. It looks to me that it's the King James BIBLE that Dearing worships, not necessarily GOD.

Like an instruction manual for the proper assembly of your soul for the afterlife. If tab "A" is correctly inserted into slot "B" (according to version 2.0 version of the manual, revised), the soul will perform perfectly for all eternity.

But none will know EXACTLY what will happen until you flip the "ON" switch. And you can't flip the "ON" switch until you die.

[Kutjara]

19. Exactly. At the core of much Biblical literalism...

...is fear of the consequences of critical thought. If the Bible is merely a collection of stories meant to impart moral values, then the burden is on the reader to interpret their meaning. This requires a lot of thought, self-examination, and wisdom.

If, however, the Bible is a step-by-step instruction manual, no thought is required. Just follow the directions and paradise will be thine.

The first approach to Biblical understanding carries with it the risk that the reader may interpret wrongly, the result of which may be, in extreme cases, damnation.

The second approach "guarantees" Heaven for all God's automatons.

It's easy to see why many people prefer the second approach.

[Archae]

30. My Mom says it that way too.

She calls them "Bibletians" instead of Christians.

[left is right]

24. KJV was condemned by the leading theologians of the day

as vulgar and too common. They disapproved of a Bible that could be read and understood by John Q Everyman. It wasn't until sometime after the Puritan movement that it was considered authoritative

[Initech]

5. Mike Huckabee = Ned Flanders?

[Kutjara]

11. Indeedily. n/t

[donheld]

22. Okily Dokily

[kineneb]

7. problem with KJV- written in (now)archaic English of early 17th C.

meanings of words, and their usage have changed since its editing. I bet the KJV-only folks have no clue about late Elizabethan- early Stuart English usage. It is the language of Shakespeare, and does anyone think it is "modern"?


...too many years working Renaissance faires as an English noble...

[intaglio]

14. Another problem for the KJV supporters

... is that James was probably actively bisexual. Most of the extreme christians who support the primacy of the KJV idea would regard James as being satannically, rather than divinely, inspired.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. In fact, a lot of the language is older than late Elizabethan

See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Style . They wanted an 'authoritative' sound to it, so they kept a lot of the style from Tyndale's bible - produced 80 years earlier. It's really pre-Shakespeare language.

[murielm99]

9. Wait a minute.

There's a RELIGIOUS VERSION of YouTube? How did that happen? Did they buy the rights to do this, or did they just copycat it, because of divine right or some such horse shit?

A religious version of YouTube. Will wonders never cease!

Is it really religious, with legitimate theological discussions, or is it like fundie TV?

[NMMNG]

10. God Tube

http://www.godtube.com/

[MADem]

21. Your shitting me!! That sounds like the title of an old porn film! nt

[Monk06]

12. The only authoritive Bible would be the 39 books of the Hebrew Old Testement

Completed in 500 BC.

Note: Lewis Black does a very funny bit on
the 'Old' testament.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmSfkCRsU0s&feature=related

[Unrepentant Fenian]

18. Fake bible??????

Isn't that kind of redundant?

[NYC Liberal]

23. It's sort of like "compassionate conservative" nt

[orleans]

20. reminds me

http://www.misspoppy.com/

[tekisui]

27. Worth mentioning-- Mormons only accept the KJV of the Bible.

Mormons believe in the bible, but only the KJV. THey believe all other versions are false translations. I thought that the guy asking the question was trying to give Mittster a chance to declare, without a doubt, that he believes it to be true. Had someone held up an alternate version, Mitt would have had to dance around a little.

Of course, mormons also believe the book of mormon and other texts to be scripture.