Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why do fundamentalist Christians prefer the King James Bible?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:57 PM
Original message
Why do fundamentalist Christians prefer the King James Bible?
It does not seem to me that the other versions are all that much different, on substance, than the KJV.

So what is so special about the KJV?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. They think God dictated it to King James
and that it is in God's original dialect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
virgogal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. Don't know. Don't care.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
3. Dunno...but...why do I prefer the Mr. Magoo version of "A Christmas Carol?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Velveteen Ocelot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:01 PM
Response to Original message
4. Because it's so archaic they can't really figure out what it means.
Actually, there is some wonderful, beautiful language in the KJV. But many modern scholars consider a good deal of it to have been translated inaccurately.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terra Alta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. I often wonder about that, too.
I mean, there are even churches(Independent Fundamental Baptist churches come to mind) that accept the KJV and ONLY the KJV.. to them, all other versions are a "perversion of God's word".

Wasn't King James gay? Wonder what they'd think of that.

As for me, my favorite Bible version is The Message. Fundies hate it and my pastor speaks from The Message quite often.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
zeemike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. Well first that's not true.
Most of the fundies will quote anything but the KJV.
And there is a great deal of difference in the KJV and some of the newer translations....the new trans latins tend to add words that were never their to fit it to what they believe or want you to believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcane1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
8. It sounds more "official"
Though some modern versions actually omit verses. Hoseah 13:16 for example, doesn't exist in some modern translations.

But I think it's mostly because the language sounds more authoritarian, slightly hard to understand, and thus more god-like.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brother Buzz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
9. It was good enough for Jesus, so it's good enough for us!
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:10 PM by Brother Buzz
Jesus was fluent in Olde English, don't you know.

:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SharonAnn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. You beat me to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
27. Love it !
:rofl: best laugh I've had this week. How true,how true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
42. One of our Texas Governors said that.
Ma Ferguson said English was good enough for Jesus.


:rofl: :banghead: That was back in the 20s or 30s.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. A lie that continues to be spread by atheists
yet it's been debunked time & again, so makes you wonder why such "rational" thinkers keep repeating it.

Miriam Ferguson, along with a few other people, have been credited with the quote: If English was good enough for Jesus Christ, it ought to be good enough for the children of Texas.<7> There are variations of this phrase going back to 1881 that were often used to ridicule the backwardness of various unnamed Christians, which strengthens the argument that the attribution to Ferguson was incorrect.<8>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miriam_A._Ferguson

Oh & thanks ever so much for bashing a governor who was one of the first to take the KKK head-on.

From the same link: "Fergusonism," as the Fergusons' brand of populism was called, was still a controversial subject in Texas. As governor, she tackled some of the tougher issues of the day. Though a teetotaler like her husband, she aligned herself with the "wets" in the battle over prohibition and took a firm stand against the Ku Klux Klan. She was a fiscal conservative.<3>

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
P. Galore Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. I heard the story from Ann Richards.
Eleanor Roosevelt avoiding meeting with Ma when she was in Texas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
belpejic Donating Member (431 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 11:08 PM
Response to Reply #9
52. I used to be fluent in Olde English as well
But as I've grown older and my income level has changed I prefer exploring microbrews. Not that I would turn down a Ballantine if it were offered....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:08 PM
Response to Original message
10. They don't and the vast majority prefer the New International Version
which is clearly based on better scholarship. The KJV is awesome Elizabethan prose and poetry, but from an academic standpoint, not the best translation.

IIRC the Mormons use KJV, not sure about the JWs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Jevoha's Witnesses have their own translatoin.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:20 PM by white_wolf
According to Wikipedia it is called "New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures." They actually completely change some parts of the text to make it fit with their doctrines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. Wrong place.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:15 PM by white_wolf
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:17 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. It is called KIT, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, but will accept KJV when pressed
according to friends
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:14 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. Actually, the KJV is considered Jacobean
I know, picking nits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. But correct...my mistake
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
REP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
12. I don't know that they do, but most educated people prefer it for the poetry of language
It is one of the most linguistically beautiful translations in English; the modern ones are clunky and tone-deaf.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
highplainsdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
30. +1,000
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
37. I dunno . . .
I kind of like the NRSV and the NIV. I haven't had a chance to try out the new revised NAB yet. I've got one on order.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
16. The King James Only movement has a few different currents.
My favorite is the group that believes that the KJV is the actual version give by God to the Moses and everyone else. They actually think God spoke to all those people in Elizabethan English.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. It is amusing the the Book of Mormon is in part "written" like KJV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
25. Yeah, I've heard some Mormons say Smith translated it like that
because he wanted to use language that religious people were used to in religious texts. I, personally just think he copied a lot of it from the KJV. Also the argument that he wanted to make it more accessible doesn't fly for me, because he introduces so many new doctrines and teaching in it that I really think the language would have been the least of the hurdles to get over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Most agree it was plagiarized except for the true believers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. And which group would this be? Because I find it hard to credit this comment.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:25 PM by WinkyDink
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
white_wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. I know I've read that before, but I can't find it now.
Here is the closest I can find: "The KJV As New Revelation" - This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.-Wikipedia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yo_Mama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
17. They don't
I know there are some churches that do, but most Protestant fundamentalist groups use an updated version of the Bible.

If you follow the doctrine of "sola scriptura" you are very serious about the bible.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:19 PM
Response to Original message
21. Hell... The Way They Tend To Prefer Extreme Judgement And Punishment...
They seem like Old Testament Christians to me.

But wouldn't that mean...

Oh, nevermind.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WinkyDink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. "wouldn't that mean" what? There really is no such thing as an "Old Testament Christian," that's
being a contradiction in terms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #24
40. You Are So Close...
Keep goin...

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wabbajack_ Donating Member (669 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:21 PM
Response to Original message
23. Cause they like to call penises
"Privy members".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #23
32. You mean like when Paul keeps saying
"he's doomed to hell cause he can't make his member keep still around the other guys?"

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Smarmie Doofus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:29 PM
Response to Original message
28. Maybe it's more blatant in its glorification of murder, racism and genocide?
I'm just spitballing here.:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaysunb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Even a "Doofus" can spot bullshit.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:42 PM
Response to Original message
33. Not all are like that.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:49 PM by Brigid
But some think that newer translations are not literal enough. For example, there is a passage in 1 Samuel where Hannah is praying for a child, and asks not to be mistaken for a follower of Belial (a phrase that is meaningless to anyone who has no idea who or what that is; she was referring to the pagan god Baal). The NIV renders that phrase as "wicked woman," using what is called the "dynamic equivalent" approach to translation. What the King-James-only crowd forgets is that many older manuscripts have been discovered since 1611, and that many words in the English language have fallen into disuse or changed meaning since then too. Just goes to show some of the difficult issues translaters have to deal with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anneboleyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:43 PM
Response to Original message
34. It was produced in 1604 by some of the leading Protestant reformers in England
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 09:46 PM by anneboleyn
(on edit, as other posters note, some fundamentalists use versions that are based on the KJV but have modernized language, or they use new translations entirely. I know they still hold the KJV in very high regard)

with specific attention paid to the challenges and pleasures of translating the original languages into the English vernacular. During the Reformation, there was an enormous increase in interest in biblical scholarship and translation into the vernacular. The gentlemen selected by King James I were extremely skilled writers as well and were for the most part genuine scholars who undertook the task at hand with great seriousness. I study this time period (late medieval-Renaissance) and have taught it at university, so these topics are always interesting to me. I should add that I am not nor have I ever been a Christian fundamentalist (or a fundamentalist of any variety) so I am just going on what scholars of Christian fundamentalism have explained to me about the perpetual American-protestant interest in this very English translation. There are also quibbles about specific terms and specific passages. For the most part the (American) fundamentalists agree with the King James translators on both the "appropriate" and "best" translations. Of course this is also because the King James Bible was produced as the ultimate official Protestant bible in English.

The bible was produced in the wake of the Reformation in England, and members of the large team of translators James I assembled were important figures during this time period. James I (James VI of Scotland) was very committed to the Church of England, and he wanted a translation that would validate the new church. Part of this was about using English instead of (Catholic) Latin.

There were earlier translations of the bible into English, some considered acceptable by the orthodoxy (the Catholic Church) and others considered less acceptable or even heretical by the orthodoxy. One that was very important to the Protestant reformers was the "heretical" Wycliffite Bible (produced in the fourteenth century, during Chaucer's time period). Another was the leading Protestant reformer William Tyndale's translation of the New Testament (1525, printed during Henry VIII's reign). Tyndale was burned at the stake in 1536. His translation, which is beautifully written, is considered the basis for much of the New Testament translation in the King James version.

Okay, enough! I tend to drone on; I still have that grad student geekiness. Sorry, and hopefully I helped answer your question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brigid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. I though the KJV came out in 1611?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anneboleyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. It was worked on over a period of seven years, 1604-1611. So it was started in 1604.
Edited on Sat Apr-16-11 11:00 PM by anneboleyn
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
35. It still has old english style wording and phrasing, for example
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=KJV

28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents


http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2025&version=ESV

28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents




I can think of no other possible reason other than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DevonRex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
38. They don't. Nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasProgresive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:05 PM
Response to Original message
39. If the King James was good enough for Jesus it's good enough for me!
I've actually heard that said and I think they were being serious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jcboon Donating Member (73 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:11 PM
Response to Original message
41. Not all of them do
Many fundamentalists were raised on the King James version and it has a familiar feeling for them.
The King James was designed to be read aloud to a mostly illiterate population.
I understand that scholars would read passages to one other in an effort to achieve the most sonorous effect.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
43. Because a god told King James to be gay and to commission the bible.
And, of course, then dictated it to those working on it.

Or something like that. ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anneboleyn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. Yes on the first point, something they don't like to discuss
but King James preferred the company of other men.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WolverineDG Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
44. I'm not a fundie, & I prefer the KJV
thanks for just assuming that only fundies prefer the KJV, though. :eyes:

For the record, I do read other versions, but prefer the poetry of the KJV.

dg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:48 PM
Response to Original message
45. When I took religion classes in college
we read the New English Bible which was a direct translation from ancient sources.
It has now been revised and called The Revised English Bible. It's pretty clear without being dumbed down.
This was not at a fundy college; this was a Presbyterian college.

I like the poetic parts of the King James.

The subject-object-verb constructions are poetic.

Example from the Book of Common Prayer: With my body I thee worship.

In Latin, subject-object-verb is a common sentence structure.


I also had it pointed out to me that the old pronouns are close to German, like "du" for "you" and "die" for "thee" and "dein" for "thine".

Fascinating.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ashling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
47. If it was good enough for Jesus its good enough for ...
:sarsam::sarcas::sargasm::sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quaker bill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
50. Because it is the only "true word of God"
Faith like this does not require rationalization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
darkstar3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-16-11 11:19 PM
Response to Original message
53. There's a lot of flip answers here, but as an ex-fundie who was part of one of those churches...
The KJV is used and preferred in many churches (almost all where I grew up) because of a mistaken impression that age and tradition make it more accurate. It's up to 400 years closer to the source material than some of the new translations. It's the first sanctioned translation in English. It had the backing of a VERY Christian English king, who made sure that it was "true to Christ's word."

Is any of this true? Well, some of it. It IS 400 years closer to the source material...

But this mistaken impression does get corrected sometimes. When my church switched pastors in my teen years, we also switched Bibles. The new pastor preferred the NAS based on the idea that it was a "more accurate translation."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC