Fundamentalists and the KJV Bible

[RHisComingHome]

Can someone please explain to me the reason that many Fundamentalist Christians will ONLY read the King James Version of the Bible? In fact, I’ve seen blogs where they (the fundamentalists) will post about why all the other versions of the Bible are wrong and only the KJV is right. I’m utterly confused by this. I find all the “thee” and “thou” words in the KJV to be distracting.

I’m trying to figure out how to get inside the mind of the Catholic-hate-spewing Fundamentals so I can respond appropriately to their crazy diatribes.

Thanks

 

[gallo]

Some of the reasoning I hear is:

• that it is “authorized” by King James so this gives it a legitimacy over others
• “This is the version our Church always used”
• It’s believed to be the most accurate

Most people don’t know what the “authorization” means in actuality and some have even gone as far as to say that King James was James the apostle. Go figure. However, if I understand correctly, the version used in the US is not the original King James version because the deuterocanonical books were taken out when it came the Americas.

I think that around where I live at least, the reason is that it’s the version that was always used in the faith tradition of the person saying that it’s the only correct version. Most people that I ask why it is seen as such don’t give a reason other than the three I listed. I would be interested i hearing a “scholarly” view.

Just my observations.

 

[SyCarl]

There are some, referred to as the King James Onlyists who feel that the King James Version is an inspired translation. They are really quite a small minority.
They give varying reasons for their views. Among these are that the Textus Receptus, the Greek basis for the KJV, is better than the Hort-Wescott Greek New Testament. The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of surviving manuscripts, those being from the Byzantine tradition. The Hort-Wescott, used by the Bible Socirties, relies on older Greek manuscripts of the Alexandrian school which represent only about 5% of the total surviving manuscripts.
The KJ Onlylist also view the newer version as corrupt because they think they downplay the divinity of Jesus and such doctrines as the Trinity. However these doctrines are still quite clear in the modern versions.
They refer to the newer versions as New Age versions, including the New King James Version , which uses the Textus Receptus as its textual basis for the New Testament. One valid point in favour of the KJV is that the thees and thous make it clearer when one person is being addressed than the you an yours that replace them. This is true of all the early versions, including the Douay Rheims.

 

[Grateful4mercy]

There are some, referred to as the King James Onlyists who feel that the King James Version is an inspired translation. They are really quite a small minority.
They give varying reasons for their views. Among these are that the Textus Receptus, the Greek basis for the KJV, is better than the Hort-Wescott Greek New Testament. The Textus Receptus agrees with the majority of surviving manuscripts, those being from the Byzantine tradition. The Hort-Wescott, used by the Bible Socirties, relies on older Greek manuscripts of the Alexandrian school which represent only about 5% of the total surviving manuscripts.
The KJ Onlylist also view the newer version as corrupt because they think they downplay the divinity of Jesus and such doctrines as the Trinity. However these doctrines are still quite clear in the modern versions.
They refer to the newer versions as New Age versions, including the New King James Version , which uses the Textus Receptus as its textual basis for the New Testament. One valid point in favour of the KJV is that the thees and thous make it clearer when one person is being addressed than the you an yours that replace them. This is true of all the early versions, including the Douay Rheims.

Man, where were you when I got into THIS ridiculous conversation?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The two best KJV Fundamentalist quotes:
If it was good enough for the Apostles it is good enough for me.

The Bible fell from Heaven in 1611.

 

[Kevan]

Somebody here made a cartoon with Paintshop or something a year or two ago depicting God handing down a KJV from Heaven. It was pretty funny, but I don’t know how to locate it again.

I’m trying to figure out how to get inside the mind of the Catholic-hate-spewing Fundamentals

Don’t assume too quickly that they have minds. When people behave like rabid dogs, something besides Fundamentalism is going on in their heads. I’m a Fundamentalist and seldom get the urge to call people names and talk to them like they are subhuman demons.

SyCarl pretty well stated their positions. They believe, based on several lines of evidence, that God providentially brought the KJV into being for the English speaking people. Common language is “When I say that I believe the Bible, I am talking about the book I am holding in my hands, not some ‘manuscripts’ that no one has ever seen.”

Arguing with them is like an excursion into the Twilight Zone. I refuse to do it, and I’m their first cousin. I heartily recommend my approach to you as well.

 

[Techno2000]

The two best KJV Fundamentalist quotes:
If it was good enough for the Apostles it is good enough for me.

The Bible fell from Heaven in 1611.

That almost makes me want to spit out my coffee::whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

 

[sandmountainsli]

The language of the KJV is more majestic than the later versions and most people know key verses by heart. I am glad my church uses the KJV, it keeps things simple and beautifully spoken.
WP

 

[Techno2000]

The language of the KJV is more majestic than the later versions and most people know key verses by heart. I am glad my church uses the KJV, it keeps things simple and beautifully spoken.
WP

Is this part of the KJV majestic and beautiful to you ???

46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. Second Book Of Machabees
Chapter 12 | 46

 

[Kevan]

Somebody here made a cartoon with Paintshop or something a year or two ago

I found it. Click here.

 

[Kevan]

That almost makes me want to spit out my coffee::whacky: :whacky: :whacky:

Well, they aren’t real quotations.

sandmountainsli:

The language of the KJV is more majestic than the later versions and most people know key verses by heart.

That makes it my favorite as well.

 

[Techno2000]

Well, they aren’t real quotations…

How do you know ?

 

[Techno2000]

Well, they aren’t real quotations.That makes it my favorite as well.

A old Black man I work with(Baptist) thinks one must kill every snake you see because they come from the Devil he sites Genesis 3:15 for this:

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

True Story…

 

[jmcrae]

I am related to people who think that “King James” was one of the Apostles - Jesus’ brother. (Rightful heir to the King of the Jews, don’cha know; that’s why he’s called “King James.”)

 

[Zenas]

It’s Tradition. Although fundamentalists eschew Tradition in the Catholic Church, they seem to have plenty of it themselves. Exclusive use of the KJV is one of them.

Although I don’t use it often in my personal reading, I love the beautiful language of the KJV. A couple of weeks ago, I caught Garrison Keillor on Morning Edition talking about the KJV. He said that by 1611 the English language had pretty much dropped its usage of “thee”, “thou”, “sayest”, etc., but King James asked his scribes to use this older language so it would sound more authoritative. Does anyone shed some additional light on that?

 

[lak611]

A old Black man I work with(Baptist) thinks one must kill every snake you see because they come from the Devil he sites Genesis 3:15 for this:

15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

True Story…

But what does that have to do with the KJV? Genesis 3:15 is rendered similarly in all translations. By the way, you quoted the Douay-Rheims, not the KJV. From the KJV

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

 

[Techno2000]

But what does that have to do with the KJV? Genesis 3:15 is rendered similarly in all translations. By the way, you quoted the Douay-Rheims, not the KJV. From the KJV

He has a KJV and Believe it or not, a Douay-Rheims that he said
he found, which he just calls the the Holy Bible(I have seen it in the back windshield of his car). I have been going fishing with him for years and trys to kill every snake he
sees, I can not explain anything to him, because he is stuck in his ways.

PS I was responding to a post about stupid interpretation of the
Bible.

 

[lak611]

PS I was responding to a post about stupid interpretation of the Bible.

Ok, that makes sense now. Unfortunately, he would probably come up with the same interpretation of snakes must be destroyed no matter what translation of the Bible he chose.

 

[Techno2000]

It’s Tradition. Although fundamentalists eschew Tradition in the Catholic Church, they seem to have plenty of it themselves. Exclusive use of the KJV is one of them.

Although I don’t use it often in my personal reading, I love the beautiful language of the KJV. A couple of weeks ago, I caught Garrison Keillor on Morning Edition talking about the KJV. He said that by 1611 the English language had pretty much dropped its usage of “thee”, “thou”, “sayest”, etc., but King James asked his scribes to use this older language so it would sound more authoritative. Does anyone shed some additional light on that?

I don’t know about that because KJV and Douay-Rheims are only
about 30 years apart but they kind of sound alike.

 

[lak611]

I don’t know about that because KJV and Douay-Rheims are only
about 30 years apart but they kind of sound alike.

The Douay-Rheims that you and I have is actually a revision by Challoner in 1749-1752. The KJV that is found in stores today (which I do own) was also revised in the 18th century.

Here’s Genesis 3:15 from the original 1611 KJV:

Gen 3:15 And I will put enmitie betweene thee and the woman, and betweene thy seed and her seed: it shal bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heele.

The original KJV had even more archaic language. I do not have a copy of or a link to the original Douay-Rheims, so I don’t know what that English was like.