Kentucky governor proclaims official Bible Month

October 15, 2011 • 6:18 am

When I was in Kentucky, an alert student brought to my attention the fact that the state’s governor, Steven Beshear, had just proclaimed this November “King James Version of the Bible” month. Here’s the official proclamation (click to enlarge; you can download the pdf file here).

Note how the language is twisted to emphasize the “secular” contributions of the Bible: how it has entered into American culture and has been the source of many now-familiar phrases.  This “secular effect” ploy is often used to defend the placing of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and schoolhouses.

This is so clearly unconstitutional that it screams for an ACLU lawsuit and an injunction.  Let’s hope the relevant lawyers and organizations (FFRF, are you listening?) get on this one.

Ten to one they’d never proclaim “Qur’an Month” or “Torah Month” in Kentucky.

98 thoughts on “Kentucky governor proclaims official Bible Month

    1. Actually Shakespeare would be a close second. You have to remember that even just a hundred years ago the bible would be the only book commonly available in every household to teach reading out of when not in school. Whereas, Shakespeare would have only been available in many households.

      1. That’s not actually the point I was making.

        Shakespeare did have a huge effect on English as we speak it now, regardless of whether we or our forebears have read any of it or not.

        We use all sorts of figures of speech and phrases that appeared in his works. They became a part of everyday language hundreds of years ago and have in turn been used by countless writers and speakers.

    1. Is that, maybe, the collective noun for poetry — as in a “murder of crows” or a “convocation of eagles”? (In checking those, I discovered this collective: an “implausibility of gnus.”)

      1. Hah. Yes, also known as “terms of venery.” James Lipton wrote a fine, entertaining book on the subject, AN EXALTATION OF LARKS (Grossman, 1968).

        1. I’ve heard of that title, Don, but haven’t had a chance to read the book. I’ve always gotten a kick out of these “terms of venery” (and thanks for providing me the correct name for the concept). The “implausibility of gnus” seems apt, in that what binds Gnus collectively is their recognition of religions’ implausibility.

  1. Do you suppose that Beshear is even aware that the 1611 KJV was a Catholic bible, which included the apocrypha?

    1. To call it a Catholic bible is probably contested by the Church of England who ordered the translation.

      1. Fair comment up to a point, but I grew up in a CofE community, and the bible with the apocrypha was definitely considered there to be a Roman Catholic bible. And I think that’s generally true for protestants for the last two or three centuries.

        1. I guess most Jewish people would smile, when they see Protestants and Catholics quarrel about whose bible is the most authoritative … 😉

        2. Why should Catholics care which version of the Bible Protestants think is more Catholic? Surely the Pope has the last word on that.

    1. Do we really need a biologist for that? The first part is a description followed by admitting there a) no work done by the author b) there are bottlenecks, contrary to what the author says is “evolutionary assumptions”.

      Then he gets to the meat, which is assuming Adam had enough variation to explain the average variation (i.e. every human has the same amount of variation), he just reshuffles the variation assuming little mutation. He sets this up so that the believers doesn’t have to admit that he doesn’t explain the pattern of bottlenecks, including the absent A&E bottleneck.

      Btw, isn’t it funny how the female is somehow unimportant here?

      1. Well, if she was created from Adam’s rib she must have been genetically identical with him (she got two identical X chromosomes presumably), so in reality there was only one genetic code to pass down. So the whole story has even another degree of stupid!

        1. Perhaps as a clone made from Adam’s rib, Eve had Adam’s X-Y chromosomes. That makes them the first homosexual couple. Where did Cain, Abel & Seth come from? Why g-d made them, just as g-d must have made the wives that Cain & Seth found. See how it all falls into place when one of the four rivers flowing out of Eden is “the stream of consciousness.”

    2. Actually his bit of math showing that genetic variation would be effectively eliminated in ten generations is correct scientifically.

      The problem is his model is limited to ten females per generation. There has never been a time with only ten females for ten generations. There have been population bottlenecks but one this small would have just lead to extinction. This is actually important to remember on how humans spread over the earth. A small population can persist for a few generations at most but beyond that inbreeding becomes so bad that the population goes extinct so needs to be refreshed with outsiders.

      Then he goes on to some fiction babel about how diversity can be created from just one person. Now it’s true from a single person you can get much variation of what halves of chromosomes are donated you ultimately only have those two halves. The different between possibly combinations and actual diversity is lost and thus the premise is junk.

      Then he g

  2. Actually it seems legitimate though it depends on what other things have ‘months’ in Kentucky. It is the 400th year of the KJV and as a book it has been highly influential (think of the number of people who have lost their faith after reading it:-). In England atheists such as Richard Dawkins have been involved in the 400th anniversary. Kentucky atheistic groups might want to turn this to their own advantage by having a discussion of Job (which frankly has a fairly cynical view of God) or Ecclesiastes in November (or do something with the Song of Songs or a talk on how King James made sure the translation would support his views on church and state).

    18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

    19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

    20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

    21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

    22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

  3. Although some vaguely dishonest glossing and twisting was done in the proclamation, I (as a lawyer) don’t agree that this proclamation is “clearly unconstitutional.” I could make the case that it is constitutional under the Lemon v. Kurtzman test.

    1. Really? Please explain to us how none of the three tests applies to the subject proclamation:

      Three … tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

      Personally I fail to see:

      1) Any “secular” legislative purpose;

      2) How it doesn’t support and advance a particular religion in light of the history of the xtian bible. Seems to me like it would also inhibit some non-xtian folks from voicing a contra position; and

      3) How such a proclamation for a month long celebration of the xtian bible doesn’t involve excessive government entanglement with that religion.

      Now, state the contra position for our benefit.

  4. In a state that is building a Noah’s Ark theme park and has a museum that shows humans riding dinosaurs, this is a minor offense.

  5. Fundamentalists do us a favor when they praise the KJV, for then we can point to its inclusion of the fraudulent Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7–8. There is no biblical support for the Trinity, so the Church made it up and inserted into a medeval translation, where it remains an enshrined lie in the KJV. Some later translations omit the Comma, as you can see by toggling the Biblegateway’s translation selection.

    1. Went to the Wikipedia page, but still don’t have a clear sense of the issue. Why was the trinity so important that a comma had to be sneaked in?

      1. I don’t think it’s so much that the trinity is so important that a comma (not a , for those who haven’t read the page ’cause that confused me for a bit) had to be sneaked in but that it included an oft-repeated but non-historical bit of text that was supposed to reference the trinity, and which people in general took to be support for the idea of the trinity in the bible (though none actually exists, outside of the comma in question).

      2. The Byzantine civil wars fought over the Christian Trinity between Trinitarians and their Christian anti-Trinitarian opponents defined what we understand as “orthodox” Christianity. These deadly disputes were the impetus for the Nicene Councils and the codification of the Bible itself. They are of central importance to both western and eastern history, and laid the theological foundation for the rise of Trinitarian Christianity’s purely and absolutely monotheistic rival Islam.

        The problem comes from attempting to make sense of the nonsensical, self-contradictory idea a monotheistic god could have a son who himself was godlike or god himself. The “resolution” was achieved through sectarian conflict led by dueling Byzantine emperors and the empire’s ecclesiastical leadership. This medieval conflict is the origin of both Christianity and the Bible as we know them.

        Gibbon and others write extensively on the deadly fighting between Trinitarian Christians and their Christian anti-Trinitarian foes. Here is Gibbon on the battle between the dueling bishops Macedonius and Paul of Constantinople: “The factions immediately flew to arms, the consecrated ground was used as their field of battle; and one of the ecclesiastical historians has observed, as a real fact, not as a figure of rhetoric, that the well before the church overflowed with a stream of blood, which filled the porticos and the adjacent courts.”

        The “orthodox” faction of Paul prevailed, which is why Macedonius and his “Macedonian” sect of Christians are now called “heretics”. Had the tide of battle turned the other way, history would label these Christian sects oppositely. Making sense of the catalog of “heresies” disputing the divinity of Jesus from early Christians is a daunting effort: Google Arians, Semi-Arians, Homoousians, Homoiousians, Heteroousians (!), Trinitarians, and Macedonians.

        1. Those anti-trinitarians must have given rise to modern unitarians who are, for the most part, nonitarians.

        2. The problem comes from attempting to make sense of the nonsensical, self-contradictory idea a monotheistic god could have a son who himself was godlike or god himself.

          How could one of the three even be a “son”? He would have to be a son for all eternity, including the eternity preceding his being born in a manger as an actual son. It doesn’t make any fraking sense.

          1. And why is the father called the father when the holy ghost was the one that “visited” Mary? How come the holy ghost isn’t called the father and the father isn’t called the holy ghost? Do these people ever think these things through? Lol.

          2. The Arian “heresy” is only the first chapter of the Christological can of wormholes. As soon as the dogma of the Trinity was “resolved” in the 4th century (suppressing the heretical anti-Trinitarian churches took centuries longer, and yet they still arose in the west after the Reformation as noted above).

            Even if you accept the Trinity, how do you describe the nature of Christ? Divine? Human? Divine and human? And Christians are mind/body dualists, so what is the nature of Christ’s Will? Divine? Human? Both? … In the century following Nicaea, Christians fractured into every possible permutation (and more) given these all possibilities, and fought viciously among themselves, yielding persecution, war, and schism. Google Monophysitism, Miaphysitism, Nestroianism, Nestorianism, Dyophysitism, Monothelitism, Eutychianism, and see if you can make sense of any of it.

            Back to the Trinity, for those of you who learned about the transitive property of equality (x = y and y = z implies x = z) in grade school will enjoy laughing at the Scutum Fidei graphical explanation of the Trinity.

  6. The blog post title made me say “uh oh” – but upon reading the proclamation, I’m surprised by how unobjectionable the actual wording is!

    The document proclaims the historical significance and influence of the KJB – which is entirely reasonable. It’s a special proclamation to honor (what is arguably) the most published book in history, one with particular significance for the language of the land? Why, that sounds like the sort of cultured and scholarly thing we’d *like* our leaders to do!

    Alas, there’s no doubt a fly in the ointment. I’m not so naive as to think the Kentucky gov is doing this out of a love for literary history; were that the case, we could expect further proclamations on behalf of all sorts of important works, not just a Bible. That’s not going to happen. Yes, the unfortunate background to the otherwise unobjectionable text is government promotion of Christianity.

    But look on the bright side. Look at how fully the proclaimers had to couch this in purely secular terms – terms that, again, are perfectly agreeable and correct in letter (if not necessarily spirit). Most importantly, note the complete lack of any supernatural or unsupportable claim (such as “WHEREAS, the Bible records the word of God” or “WHEREAS, this nation was founded upon Christian values”). Would the proclamation have been so scripturally tepid just a few decades past?

    We may be unable to cleanly wipe away such religious flights of government fancy, but I say we’re doing a good job of slowly rubbing them out!

    1. I think that is the whole point. There would be no objections if this was just one in a string of worthy literature that the government body chose to honor. But it isn’t. So this is the mental equivalent of trying to couch Creationism in the language of “Academic Freedom”.

      In other words, it’s a fraud.

      As a side bar – since when did government ever feel the need to become advocates of works of literature? That is NOT their job, and it’s not what they got elected to do.

      1. Yes, the point of the post is perfectly clear. But I’d pick a bone with, for example, the description of the language as “twisted”. The intent may be dishonest, but the language itself is fine!

        Personally, I’d like to see concerned citizens latch on to this with a positive stance: “Oh, we’re honoring important literature now? Great, let’s show the world a literate Kentucky! We’ve got some great suggestions for the next month’s literary honoree…” That’d force the gov to take a public stand on whether or not it’s giving Christianity special consideration (while giving the believers no “angry atheists hate literature” ammo).

        After that, if (when?) the state gov clearly demonstrates a religious bias, it’d be time to bring out the Separation of Church & State injunction.

        But anyway. While I’d rather not see such stunts at all, I smile to see how the nuts can no longer push belief with impunity, and have to hide behind secular masks. Progress!

    2. In order to not incur at least some non-xtian wrath, wouldn’t it have been a simple thing to include at least the Torah, Qur’an, and the Veda Texts; not to mention a whole host of others?

      I think the clear intent is to hype the xtian “holy book”. What, compared to works of folks like Shakespeare, Voltaire, Burns and many others, has the 1611 kjv contributed to the English language?

      Given Beshear’s record of religious statements, how could any reasonable person think, let alone believe, that the proclamation is anything but sectarian?(see here as an example of Beshear’s religious conduct as governor:

      It would, I think, be very enlightening to be able to see all of the internal staff communications that took place in the drafting of the proclamation. Don’t hold your breath.

      1. Yes, the gov needs to be enthusiastically asked what books will be given recognition next. Put him on the spot! If (which I don’t expect) the gov then issues proclamations for Shakespeare and others, well, that’d be an odd but interesting thing going on in Kentucky. Whereas if (as I expect) no other proclamations come forth, it’ll be time to complain, armed with the fact that the gov was publicly invited to do the right thing but refused to do so.

      2. put words into my mouth
        turned the world upside down
        take root
        the powers that be
        filthy lucre
        no peace for the wicked
        a fly in the ointment
        the blind leading the blind
        feet of clay
        battering ram
        to set one’s teeth on edge
        by the skin of one’s teeth
        the land of the living
        from strength to strength
        give up the ghost
        salt of the earth
        a law unto herself
        fat of the land

        and loads more:

        The King James bible has had a massive influence on the English language. Probably more so than any other single work (so Shakespeare’s collection comes out ahead). It is worthy of recognition.

  7. It’s always Bible Month in Kentucky.

    As long as they do a different version of the bible every month, they are not endorsing a specific religion, are they? 😉

  8. Yet another salvo in the American Culture Wars. This clown is just begging for a lawsuit to burnish his Christian credentials, isn’t he?

  9. “(click to enlarge; you can download the pdf file here)”

    No thanks. There are many things I’d like to see embiggened, but a proclamation about KJV Bible month signed by Kentucky’s governor is not among them.

  10. Is being disingenuous a new Christian virtue I hadn’t heard about? You could probably make many of the same statements about Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

    1. There’s nothing new about it. Eusebius wrote in the third century about how it was acceptable to tell lies for the good of the faith and the faithful have been doing it ever since without compunction.

  11. It seems like there would be plenty of embarrassing passages to highlight during November.

    Like the passage where Solomon turned away from god before his death. Solomon is often called “the wisest man in the bible.” what did he know that we don’t?

    Or all the passages where Pharoah was ready to release Moses and his people, but “god hardened his heart”, ultimately leading to the death of thousands of children at gods hand.

    No doubt there’s more.

    On a side note, the proclaimation is dated “in the year of our lord” How does that pass the separation test?

    1. the proclaimation is dated “in the year of our lord” How does that pass the separation test?

      Well, the Constitution itself is dated, “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”

        1. And just as obviously it’s a traditional way of dating a document, used throughout US history. The Emancipation Proclamation included it, and just last week when Obama proclaimed National School Lunch Week it ended with “the seventh day of October, in the year of our Lord two thousand eleven.”

          To me, these kinds of issues are an irrelevant distraction, whether it’s “In God We Trust” on money, or god in the Pledge of Allegiance, or similar things, compared to the very real problems of religious privileges and exemptions throughout US laws and regulations. From tax laws to zoning, child abuse, immigration, copyrights, civil rights, and just about every other area of state and federal laws, religious organizations have exemptions and privileges, to the very real detriment of citizens. The advantages religious organizations’ businesses have over small secular companies is immense, and the financial burden on the average citizen because of religious privilege is huge, yet we hear little about it. When today’s leaders were growing up there was real separation of church and state in the US. That’s no longer the case.

          1. That’s exactly why anything that can be pointed out should be pointed out. We need to put(and keep) the pressure on wherever and whenever we can. Small steps lead to large victories!

    2. Religious references such as “in the year of the Lord” or “in God we trust” fall within the legal rubric “ceremonial deism” — the equivalent, in essence, of religious throat-clearing, non-sectarian references so generic that they’ve lost nearly all religious significance.

      It is difficult to square this one-off category with the rest of Establishment-Clause doctrine, but it hardly seems worth the legal capital that would be expended in waging the battle, given the more pressing First Amendment fights that regularly arise. You’d think that if devout believers really understood this legal rationale — that some references to the All Mighty are too trivial to matter — then they would be the offended party seeking to remove them.

  12. This proclamation is dubious primarily in the sense that it is tainted by the sectarianism of its subject matter, but its not at all unconstitutional. Jerry, you are off-base here. You would do better to confine yourself to the biology, accommodationism, boots, food, and felines topics. I suggest you follow the FFRF, Center for Inquiry, ACLU, etc. on EC issues instead of trying to take the lead on this topic.

    1. I’m not taking the lead here; I’m giving my opinion. And your comment is snarky and snide; you could easily have conveyed your meaning without being insulting.

      1. I don’t think it’s insulting to recommend that you stick with positions that are defensible (science) or the other ones that are more for humor (cats).

        Spending effort on fighting legal but annoying to you proclamations is a waste of effort.

        If you has a choice would you rather remove “In God We Trust” or marginalize anti-science? An answer would be all of the above. Well I’d like to have 10 jobs to increase my income 10 times but that doesn’t work.

        That being said, you didn’t really spend much time on this proclamation. It’s offensive, to you, you mentioned it, now you can go back to more important things.

        1. That’s your zip code right? Your neighbours in Alexandria, KY must double back when they spot your scat. I read your stuff & I don’t see “recommend” ~ I see a prescriptive & arrogant attitude that takes liberties with this forum where we are all the guests of Prof. Coyne.

          1. Apologies for attempting to bring any alternate perspective. I forgot that when atheists gather that they form a church like any other group of theists.

            1. My objection wasn’t to your alternate perspective.

              It’s your use of words. It’s snark. It’s superiority. It’s being an arrogant arse. [all of which I am guilty of too]

              “…now you can go back to more important things” really pissed me off. Simple.

    2. I’m with Jerry on his reply.

      I strongly suspect that you are in no way, shape, or form a Constitutional Law expert.

      Go and study the Lemon Law cases; I think you might change your mind.

      1. The National Day of Prayer law was correctly ruled to be unconstitutional (although unfortunately that was overruled) because that is a Congressional law requiring the president to actively urge citizens every year to engage in a religious practice – prayer. This is not a law, and as a proclamation it is not urging citizens to engage in a religious practice or hold a particular religious belief. Its promoting a religious text, but the proclamation is promoting the book as literature for its contribution to language, poetry, music and the like, so the proclamation is itself religiously neutral. It is not a violation of the EC to include the bible as a literature text in a public school English language course, so there is no way it is illegal to just issue a proclamation for the bible as a work of literature.

        1. Its promoting a [VERY SPECIFIC] religious text

          …and you REALLY think the intent is secular?


          yeah, sure it is. The only secular purpose this crap serves is to mollify the ultra-religious voter base in Kentucky, but somehow I don’t think the Governor would want to admit that.

          what’s more, it doesn’t matter if it’s a proclamation or a law wrt to the establishment clause, what IS important is that it was given official recognition and direct support by a public figure.

          Moreover, even whether it IS legal or not, it’s certainly a fucking intended slap in the face to the constitution, and YOU SHOULD BE AS PISSED AS THE REST OF US ABOUT IT.

          1. There is no question that religious texts can, and do, have secular content in the literary context, which is why it is legal for a public school to include content from one or more religious texts when teaching about literature, poetry, or language. That an elected official has other, partisan motives, for issuing such a proclamation does not make it a violation of the EC. A proclamation like this could be issued by an atheist governor because the content of such a proclamation can be both factually true and secular.

            1. There is no question that religious texts can, and do, have secular content in the literary context

              you’re deluded.

              show us the secular value in this proclamation.


              your attempts at comparing this to actually studying a text in a school curriculum are entirely inane.

              Tell you what, you disingenuous idiot, when an atheist governor proclaims a month of …

              oh wait, THEY CAN’T. there is no atheist bible.


              1. Proclamations are not literature. The relationship here is that proclamation celebrates an example of what the governor asserts is good literature. Milton, Shakespeare, Herman Melville; just a few of the thousands of authors whose work contains important biblical imagery and references. A working knowledge of the bible aids the study of literature.

    3. Whereas Explicit Atheist would do better to confine him/herself to not being rude to the host of this website.

  13. Proclamations like this (like non-binding resolutions in Congress) are a dime a dozen and given for some of the most inane things, just rubber stamped so some legislator can help a constituent puff up an ego.

    Hell, my mother-in-law has one from the Kentucky legislature (she only got a day, not a month) for working as the director of a university performing arts hall.

  14. Jerry, I think you missed some important context when you said that it was merely “Bible month” rather than “King James Version” bible month. On the one hand, that specificity is probably sufficient to get around the Lemon Test, as it could be argued that what is promoted is not a religious scripture in general, but a specific historically-important document. But, more importantly, I see this also as a “dog whistle” for fundamentalists, many of whom assert the KJV as the One True Bible, and all other versions as liberal distortions. For those fundies, proclaiming a KJV Month is pretty much endorsing their specific fundamentalist views.

  15. As if the bible nonsense on its own weren’t bad enough, the governor has to throw in historical revision. The governor must have been hanging out with David Barton.

  16. I think it’s a great idea, Kentucky is going to have a monthly book club just like Oprah. I think I’d suggest something from Dickens for next month since we’re going with fiction. Or perhaps “On the Origin of Species” if we’re going to alternate great fiction with non-fiction. Or perhaps some of the ancient Greek myths if we’re going with a mythology theme. Just think of the educational possibilities, Kentucky could rehabilitate its reputation worldwide!

    It won’t of course. Pity.

  17. The problem with the courts these days is that they will not hear about the constitutionality of this case because thy would feel the claimant(s) did not suffer damage as a result of the Governor’s actions. I don’t understand how constitutionality has anything to do with civil damage. I wonder if the courts would hear a case involving Kentucky Piss on the Bible Month?

    1. they will not hear about the constitutionality of this case because thy would feel the claimant(s) did not suffer damage as a result of the Governor’s actions.

      Exactly right. The Day of Prayer ruling was unanimously overruled because “a feeling of alienation cannot suffice as injury.”

  18. Can we get an official “Euclid’s ELEMENTS” Month here in Kentucky (heck, THAT work predates the New Testament by 300+ years, plus there are NOT hundreds of doctrinally distinct “denominations” of geometry today that have sprung from Euclid’s “Elements,” but only one)?

    1. According to my monthly ad from Ward’s Scientific, the following are are October possibilities:

      October 9–15 Earth Science Week
      October 13 National Fossil Day
      October 16–22 National Chemistry Week
      October 20 World Statistics Day
      October 23 National Mole Day, celebrating Avogadro’s number

    2. Were you thinking of the Elements because of Abe Lincoln? It’s a logical book choice for KY.

      Not sure I agree that there’s only one geometry today though. I reckon differential, algebraic, topological, symplectic etc. are “doctrinally distinct” [I had to look those words up]

  19. Not a Canaanite, a witch or a menstruating woman? Then don’t miss these events:

    Louisville, 5th: Stoning of Adulterers; children half-price
    Frankfort, 12th: Biblical Ball — come as a Plague of Egypt!
    Louisville, 16th: Slaughter of the First-born
    Anderson County, 18th: Parting of Beaver Lake. Indoors if wet.
    Henderson, 23rd: Bush-burning competition — who can keep theirs alight longest?
    Florence, 28th: The Smiting Controversy: hip, thigh — or both?

    1. Woo! Burning Bush competion. I’m an expert at burning bush honeysuckle and while I’ve gotten my biochar process going well I can’t say that the bush burning has every provided any verbal direction. However it does hiss somewhat as the water steams off, possibly it really whispering and I should listen more closely.

    1. May was Building Safety Month

      I wonder if the Governor put aluminum siding on his mansion?

      surely the shit is gonna be flying fast and hard with this latest stupid stunt of his.

  20. No objection to acknowledging the 400th anniversary of the KJV- it is one of the pillars of English literature, and second only to Shakespeare in influence.

    Of course that’s not why they proclaimed it; the Bill Buckley/George Will Defenders of High Culture in conservatism have long been overrun by the hordes who wear their ignorance proudly.

    I do like smaller group within the “King James Version Only” crowd who proclaim the KJV is to be preferred even above the Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic originals.

    Their argument is that God knew that the English were about to conquer a good chunk of the world, and then America would make the English language even more widespread, so He divinely inspired the compilers to produce a work that “corrected” the “mistakes” that had crept into the originals.

    Thus, when modern scholars point out places where the KJV has mistranslated the original, they’re just trying to undo the final version as proof-read by the Big Guy Himself.

Leave a Reply