King James Bible and fundamentalist evangelicals

[BlueK]

I found this curious entry in wikipedia about the KJV and how many extreme conservative evangelicals consider it to be the only true translation. Very odd. I'd never heard about anything like that before until I happened to notice a picture of conference protesters on fairlds.org of one of them holding a sign pointing out that only the KJV was inspired and all others were of the devil. Apparently the main motivation being that more modern translations based on older and better sources don't support their doctrinal positions as well as they'd like. Which kind of begs the question of why would God make the Bible be inerrant only in one English version from the 1600s but not in other languages or in the original.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I found this curious entry in wikipedia about the KJV and how many extreme conservative evangelicals consider it to be the only true translation. Very odd. I'd never heard about anything like that before until I happened to notice a picture of conference protesters on fairlds.org of one of them holding a sign pointing out that only the KJV was inspired and all others were of the devil. Apparently the main motivation being that more modern translations based on older and better sources don't support their doctrinal positions as well as they'd like. Which kind of begs the question of why would God make the Bible be inerrant only in one English version from the 1600s but not in other languages or in the original.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-James-Only_Movement

I don't understand how Mormons can disagree with them given that so much of JS's translation of the Book of Mormon turned out to almost exactly parrot the King James Versoin.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by BlueK

I found this curious entry in wikipedia about the KJV and how many extreme conservative evangelicals consider it to be the only true translation. Very odd. I'd never heard about anything like that before

I've never heard that before either. All the hardcore evangelicals I know go with either NAS or NIV.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I don't understand how Mormons can disagree with them given that so much of JS's translation of the Book of Mormon turned out to almost exactly parrot the King James Versoin.

That's silly. Where the KJV was adequate for the passage being quoted, I don't see the problem. Are you really saying that despite the LDS belief about the Bible not being perfect that we should change that idea because the Book of Mormon has passages that mirror the KJV? So because it's there it must be perfect. You're setting up a straw man you can tear down. That's all you're doing.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BlueK

That's silly. Where the KJV was adequate for the passage being quoted, I don't see the problem. Are you really saying that despite the LDS belief about the Bible not being perfect that we should change that idea because the Book of Mormon has passages that mirror the KJV? So because it's there it must be perfect. You're setting up a straw man you can tear down. That's all you're doing.

We've discussed this ad nauseum before. Only a hack translator would refer to a prior (imperfect) version and copy the "adequate" parts. Lame.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

We've discussed this ad nauseum before. Only a hack translator would refer to a prior (imperfect) version and copy the "adequate" parts. Lame.

As if Joseph was a professional translator. For all we know he was going along looking through the Urim & Thummim and read "insert Isaiah 2:1-10 here." You really get hung up on some weird stuff.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

We've discussed this ad nauseum before. Only a hack translator would refer to a prior (imperfect) version and copy the "adequate" parts. Lame.

That was your conclusion, not the conclusion from the remainder of the discussion participants.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BlueK

As if Joseph was a professional translator. For all we know he was going along looking through the Urim & Thummim and read "insert Isaiah 2:1-10 here." You really get hung up on some weird stuff.

You think Joseph looked through a pair of brass goggles fastened to an ancient breast plate he found burried in New York that gave him citations to the King James Version like a magic eight ball, and I'm the wierd one. Can't argue with that.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You think Joseph looked through a pair of brass goggles fastened to an ancient breast plate he found burried in New York that gave him citations to the King James Version like a magic eight ball, and I'm the wierd one. Can't argue with that.

Yeah, something like that. What I meant was, for someone who doesn't believe in God it seems kind of odd that you get off on tangents like why the Book of Mormon has KJV citations in it or about how LDS shouldn't like other translations. Like it should even matter to you. Thanks for hijacking the thread.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You think Joseph looked through a pair of brass goggles fastened to an ancient breast plate he found burried in New York that gave him citations to the King James Version like a magic eight ball, and I'm the wierd one. Can't argue with that.

Thanks for the input, Mr. Weisberg.