I participate in another forum that deal mostly with Bible editions, bindings, etc. Recently the moderator raised the issue of "why even bother with the KJV" and responded to his own question by saying it's the version with the most classic styles and bindings, historically.

I, of course, jumped in and said "You know, it's really more than that--it's an issue of textual preservation, versus reliance on a 'corrected' text from the late 19th century." (In a nutshell--I said more than that).

But good grief--all the responses are "there is no difference in any of the Bibles out there", "here we go again, another 'KVJ only' argument", "are you saying one group of translators was divinely inspired and another wasn't", etc. etc. etc. One person even said "If the KJV is the text God wants us to have, why did he wait so long for it to be available?" -- which I promptly turned around and asked "If the critical text that is the basis for EVERY modern translation is the right text, why did God make us wait until 19th centruy British scholars did the 'correcting'?"

But the whole tone is dismissive and mocking in the discussion. These are smart people, and people who I think really do believe the Bible . . . why is it so hard to get the discussion of the textual basis of the translation "on the table", so to speak? Why is everyone so bought in to the textual criticism approach? Why do all these Christian people think men have the ability and the prerogative to determine God's words?

It's amazing. Just amazing.

Lee