The King James Version: Better Than The Originals?

March 22, 2013 By 12 Comments

Stuff Fundies Like shared the above image. At first I thought it must be satire. But apparently not…

 

Filed Under: fundamentalism Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , 12 Comments
  • TrevorN

    Hebrew and Greek readers, we pity you. Europeans, Asians, and Africans, we ignore you. God has always been an Englishman (probably living in New York).

  • http://www.facebook.com/reed.hamil Reed Hamil

    I love how the pricing for individual cards (they sell these things?!?) reads “Single card .05 cents each.” That’s one heck of a prophet (pun-dropped-so-hard-it-hurts).

  • Dustin

    this has to be a joke…..

    • http://www.facebook.com/Glenn.Andrew.Peoples Glenn Andrew Peoples

      You better believe it’s not.

    • hansmast

      It may not be, but it should be. I’m an ultra-conservative Christian, but no person that understands language can believe this stuff. It helps, of course, that I grew up Amish-Mennonite, so we had the Bible in German and English growing up.

    • hansmast

      Oh. You’re right. It is a joke. When I looked up Jeremiah 36:23 I realized it was a joke. My bad. :-D

  • hansmast

    Just for fun, because I started this response before realizing that this is a parody:

    1. True. However, simple commonsense tells us that we should go with the copies of the originals closest in time to the originals. The KJB is not only 1000 years after the earliest copies we have, it’s also been translated. Translations are necessary, but fallible. Only the original word of God is infallible.

    2. So?

    3. That’s a historical account of an evil king burning God’s word. It says nothing about the desire or actions of God in regard to the NT Scriptures.

    4. That’s why we have translations like KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, etc.

    5. No, it’s not. Only English-speakers. Other languages are not able to read KJB. Also, there’s this little thing called copies…

    6. No one says the originals should be used for daily study, but rather that they should form the basis for rigorous translations.

    7. See #1.

  • Johnw

    Hey! If the AV/KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it’s good enough for me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.lang1 Jimmy Lang

    I have only ever heard of a couple authors that write stuff like this, and the majority of individuals that read the KJV do not view it like this. Come clean and tell us why you hate it so?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I am not sure if this was addressed to me, since I have only great appreciation for the KJV. But I do oppose KJV-onlyism because it is a diabolical attempt to manipulate people and keep them from understanding the Bible, by keeping them reading it in antiquated English that is hard to understand, so that they will trust their self-appointed and deceitful teachers to tell them what it means. But if those teachers have lied about something as basic as Bible translations, can they be trusted when it comes to the meaning of the Bible?

      • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.lang1 Jimmy Lang

        umm is this your blog? If so it would be addressed to you. lol. Just seems kind of funny that you dedicate a post to a position so few people hold to. Are they really that influential? I realize with some people they are. However, by and large I fail to see the point here. I have never attended church with anyone that held this position. I linked here from a scholarly sight. I have no idea why scholars would care about this issue. Well, they don’t.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          You seem to be new to the phenomenon of blogging, so let me see if I can explain it to you. On blogs, people often share quotes and images that they came across which made them laugh, or which were silly or ridiculous. I do not see in this post anything that suggests that the viewpoint is one that scholars care about. I do see in is post evidence of why it would be considered worth sharing for the chuckle it provides.