Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A church in North Carolina is holding an old fashioned book burning on Halloween night. What will they be burning, you ask? Copies of Harry Potter? Maybe a little Vonnegut? Nope. They're burning Bibles. Evil Bibles.
Come to our Halloween book burning. We are burning Satan's bibles like the NIV, RSV, NKJV, TLB, NASB, NEV, NRSV, ASV, NWT, Good News for Modern Man, The Evidence Bible, The Message Bible, The Green Bible, ect.These are perversions of God's Word, the King James Bible.
Oh, but that's just the start. They'll also be burning books by popular Christian authors who aren't quite up to snuff and are therefore in the employ of Satan:
We will also be burning Satan's popular books written by heretics like Westcott & Hort, Bruce Metzger, Billy Graham Rick Warren Bill Hybels , John McArthur, James Dobson, Charles Swindoll John Piper, Chuck Colson, Tony Evans, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swagart, Mark Driskol, Franklin Graham , Bill Bright, Tim Lahaye, Paula White, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joyce Myers, Brian McLaren, Robert Schuller, Mother Teresa, The Pope, Rob Bell, Erwin McManus, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, Brennan Manning, William Young, etc.
Here's my favorite part:
We will be serving Bar-b-Que Chicken, fried chicken, and all the sides.
Oooh, maybe they'll cook the chicken with the flames of these evil books. Nothing flavors better than a little Satan smoke. By the way, they're also going to be burning "Satan's music such as country," but it's a little late to try and get on my good side now.
Politics
Comments
Wow, I'm surprised at some of the names in the list of authors. They must be seriously hard-core.
If they weren't burning books, I might think they were a progressive church. ;^)
Posted by: Jon H | October 23, 2009 9:29 AM
Pity the Conservapaedia Bible Project doesn't have a hard copy out yet. Maybe they can burn the site to a DVD and symbolically immolate that :)
Posted by: mad the swine | October 23, 2009 9:31 AM
Did they buy the books for the fires from Satan, thereby subsidizing his evil ministeries, or did they accept Satanic literary donations directly from the horrible and duplicitious minions of our Dark Lord?
Posted by: threetorches | October 23, 2009 9:35 AM
Cuz' everybody knows that the KJV, written in the original english, used by JESUS, is the only authoritative source for GODLY GOOFINESS, er, I mean GOODNESS!!
Posted by: democommie | October 23, 2009 9:36 AM
Well, this is certainly bad news. Hell's only selling point was that folks like Benny Hinn, James Dobson, and Joseph Ratzinger wouldn't be there. Now what do I have to look forward to?
Posted by: Imrryr | October 23, 2009 9:39 AM
Someone should tell them that the influence of Satan will spread through the smoke and fumes of the burned books. It would be entertaining to watch the ensuing consternation.
Posted by: Moderately Unbalanced Squid | October 23, 2009 9:40 AM
Someone should ask them for objective, empirical evidence that their version of the Bible is correct and they aren't just accepting its validity due to bias or the fact that corresponds with their views.
Posted by: History Punk | October 23, 2009 9:41 AM
Waaaay back when I was a kid and actually went to church, the United Church of Christ I went to used "Good News For Modern Man." Now I find out it's actually a satanic text?! Whew, that makes me feel better about my misspent youth!
Posted by: Squiddhartha | October 23, 2009 9:41 AM
Aww.. look on the bright side .. Just think how many cousins will fall in love by the romantic light of the book burning.
Posted by: Lise | October 23, 2009 9:41 AM
I really find book burning quite pointless since history has shown that the ideas never really went away. And don't these sadists realize that the spoken word is a bigger threat than a book since you cannot KILL the speaker (because it's illegal see.)?
Besides; how much pollution does book burning cause? Could the fire get out of control and cause a forest fire? Does it violate burning bylaws (in my city; yes)? You can tell these guys are either clueless or have utter contempt for science due to their hyper-referencing everything they fear into Satan.
And what; no Harry Potter? Dammit; you cannot have a nutty book burning without at least one science fiction witchcraft book that is popular with children. Every nutty guy knows that. THINK OF THE FUCKIN CHILDREN PEOPLE!! STOP THINKING ABOUT YOUR FUCKIN SELF!!
This is an epic fail on all planes... Time to bring out the bad book police.
Posted by: Gregory Weagle | October 23, 2009 9:43 AM
They eat their own.
Posted by: Nigel Patel | October 23, 2009 9:44 AM
At least Tim LaHaye is listed as a "heretic" author of "Satan's popular books." Maybe the forces of sanity have a chance after all?
Posted by: Douglas McClean | October 23, 2009 9:46 AM
Has anybody mentioned to them that the King James who authorized the Authorized Version was homosexual and an Anglican?
Posted by: wubbes | October 23, 2009 9:47 AM
Christians burning bibles.
Only in America.
Posted by: gary l. day | October 23, 2009 9:47 AM
The church is about ten miles from my house, which I guess makes me the unofficial ScienceBlogs sponsor of the event. I'm going to have to address the menu, however: Chicken is not even mentioned in Leviticus.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 23, 2009 9:48 AM
It's very difficult to understand why some fundies are so obsessed with the KJV. For one thing, it's a less accurate translation of the original texts, since the translators had fewer sources to draw on.
Of course, biblical literalism is distinctly irrational in itself. But it seems even more bizarre to argue that the "inerrant word of God" is contained not in the actual original Hebrew and Greek texts, but rather in an inaccurate seventeenth-century translation commissioned for political reasons by an eccentric British monarch.* I don't know what kind of universe these people live in, but it certainly isn't the same one as the rest of us.
*Who, ironically enough, was also bisexual and had numerous documented affairs with men. But don't tell the fundies that, lest their heads explode.
Posted by: Walton | October 23, 2009 9:51 AM
Oh good, they're burning Rick Warren and John McArthur books. If you've ever read one, you would agree to that!!!
Posted by: MartyM | October 23, 2009 9:55 AM
I'm not familiar with the history of book burning but I would imagine that it was initially a less symbolic and more practical way of information suppression. Now it's purely symbolic, an empty gesture of a bygone era.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 23, 2009 9:56 AM
I see the fundies can't even agree on what version of bullshit they subscribe to.
Posted by: Katharine | October 23, 2009 9:59 AM
I visited the church website, which incidentally is an HTML disaster zone. They link to sermons by Kent Hovind. Another page has a sermon entitled "The NIV and the New Age Movement."
This pastor is one kinda nutjob.
Posted by: wheatdogg | October 23, 2009 10:00 AM
The Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, North Carolina. Praise Gawd!
It's the insane asylum's insane asylum.
I wonder if that pastor made it past the fifth grade?
Posted by: Rick R | October 23, 2009 10:04 AM
It seems that one preacher passes muster with this group. Look on the left-hand side of the web site and you will find a link to "Teachings of Kent Hovind."
Posted by: Elf Eye | October 23, 2009 10:04 AM
Ed, they're also burning music:
Time to send that John Tesh album back to Hell!
Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | October 23, 2009 10:07 AM
And after the chicken, goose-stepping! :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 23, 2009 10:07 AM
kersham, my apologies for your nearness to this insanity. Please stay upwind if possible. Any idea of the size of this church? Are we talking 4 old men and a few dogs or will this be hundreds of fools devoutly burning books for the sake of their already lost souls?
Posted by: MikeMa | October 23, 2009 10:07 AM
"...maybe they'll cook the chicken with the flames of these evil books."
And then maybe they'll ingest the toxins from the burned ink and glue and DIE! OOooh, I'm giddy with anticipation.
Posted by: Sean L. | October 23, 2009 10:08 AM
Tch-tch. That part of NC never could get their barbecue right.
Posted by: Savagemutt | October 23, 2009 10:16 AM
Ah, so you are an Emeril Lagasse fan?
Posted by: carlsonjok | October 23, 2009 10:19 AM
"We will also be burning Satan's music such as country , rap , rock , pop, heavy metal, western, soft and easy, southern gospel , [sic] contempory Christian , jazz, soul, oldies but goldies, etc."
- 'cause listening to those abominations might lead to [shudders, grasps pearls and casts an eye about for the fainting couch] - DANCING! :D - DJ
---------------------
BLACKADDER: May I offer you a chair Uncle?
AUNT: A CHAIR! CHILD OF THE DEVIL! When at home my husband sits on a spike.
BLACKADDER: And what, pray tell, do you sit upon dear Aunt?
AUNT: Why, I sit on my husband. Two spikes would be extravagance!
Posted by: DingoJack | October 23, 2009 10:19 AM
Years ago, when I was stationed in NC, my company commander welcomed me with the words "Welcome to North Carolina. You have just stepped back in time 20 years."
Posted by: Shay | October 23, 2009 10:25 AM
MikeMa@25: Any idea of the size of this church? Are we talking 4 old men and a few dogs or will this be hundreds of fools devoutly burning books for the sake of their already lost souls?
I'm in Chicago, so don't consider this authoritative, but I recall from a different place where this was being discussed someone who claimed to live in the town said there were only a dozen or so people in the whole church. Perhaps kehrsam can corroborate that.
Posted by: Geds | October 23, 2009 10:26 AM
I'm not sure about burning books, but burning vinyl, outdoors? I think the local firechief, as well as the state/fed EPA might not take so kindly to that. Depends on the area, I suppose. I can't, legally, have a fire in my yard, ever. Of course the Asst. Assoc. Dep. Fire Chief told me that the only time they will roll a truck is on a neighbor's complaint. Not that anyone like Mr. kehrsam is really a neighbor, but if he just happened to be driving through the area and had the smoke affect his brething or vision...
Posted by: democommie | October 23, 2009 10:27 AM
DJ: "Great...Boo's...up..." Also, poor Nathaniel...
--
I am absolutely against book-burnings, even if the intended kindling is crap. I can't even bear to throw out books, no matter how stupid they are.
I can't help but wonder if there's a market for Satan-smoked chicken...I'd buy it.
Posted by: Tina St. Sebastian | October 23, 2009 10:31 AM
This guy probably believes that Jesus spoke English, and the KJV is the original version of the Bible. Sadly, some people truly believe that.
Posted by: catgirl | October 23, 2009 10:32 AM
They're just burning books, not the heretics themselves?
Wimps.
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | October 23, 2009 10:35 AM
Shay: I've heard tell of a British Airways flight-attendant offer this greeting to passengers landing in Riyadh: "Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Riyadh. For the correct time, please set your clocks back 300 years." I also heard tell he/she was fired before the plane doors were even opened.
democommie: Silly pinko, only Pagan fires violate local fire codes.
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 23, 2009 10:37 AM
SPAM's latest flavor sensation for Halloween -
Satan-smoked Chicken flavor, (now with 100% more mystery-meat goodness!) ;) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 23, 2009 10:38 AM
Bart Ehrman - my favorite historian regarding the history of Christianity, does a fine job in several of his books reporting why the King James Version is one of the most inaccurate translations of any ever published. This reality fits well with democommie's point. In addition, no modern translation is reliable since none of the original transcripts are available coupled to our now being cognizant that liberal editing and making up of stories was both ingrained in the culture and a legacy from older cultures that influenced them (the Greeks). And not just by those creating these works, but also those who subsequently distributed and edited them. The circumstantial evidence that the original manuscripts would be suspect and the empirical evidence of subsequent editing of later copies is overwhelming.
My town includes a church (one of three that dominate the town, the rest are minor in their influence) that also subscribes that the KJV is the only authoritative translation (Grace Baptist Church). They also prohibit their females from wearing pants, and you should see what the young ladies have to wear to play sports in (they're a liberal crew, letting their girls play sports). They're website is down otherwise I'd link to some photos. I'd rather be Amish, they at least get to drink beer.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 23, 2009 10:41 AM
An atheist is someone who believes on one less bible than a literalist.
Posted by: Dave X | October 23, 2009 10:43 AM
This guy probably believes that Jesus spoke English, and the KJV is the original version of the Bible. Sadly, some people truly believe that.
Smugness and ignorance are spotted together more often than I can count on this blog. Uh, no, he doesn't believe that Jesus spoke English. He doesn't believe that the KJV is the original version of the Bible. Many religious scholars believe the King James to be a more accurate translation of the original texts.
Posted by: mroberts | October 23, 2009 10:44 AM
In addition, no modern translation is reliable since none of the original transcripts are available coupled to our now being cognizant that liberal editing and making up of stories was both ingrained in the culture and a legacy from older cultures that influenced them (the Greeks). And not just by those creating these works, but also those who subsequently distributed and edited them. The circumstantial evidence that the original manuscripts would be suspect and the empirical evidence of subsequent editing of later copies is overwhelming.
Hardly true. The Dead Sea Scrolls yielded a copy of the Book of Isaiah that is over 2000 years old. It matches nearly perfectly with the modern text. The only variances are a few spelling and punctuation errors. Interestingly, the Book of Isaiah contains many prophetic texts regarding Jesus, who lived after the Dead Sea Scrolls version of the text was written.
Posted by: mroberts | October 23, 2009 10:47 AM
"Many religious scholars believe the King James to be a more accurate translation of the original texts. "
On what grounds? I'm honestly curious.
Posted by: Salmo | October 23, 2009 10:51 AM
mroberts- "Uh, no, he doesn't believe that Jesus spoke English. He doesn't believe that the KJV is the original version of the Bible. Many religious scholars believe the King James to be a more accurate translation of the original texts."
Interesting that you post on this thread. So, do you support this church's burning of other "lesser" versions of the bible, as well as the other works listed?
Posted by: Rick R | October 23, 2009 10:55 AM
mroberts writes: Smugness and ignorance are spotted together more often than I can count on this blog.
If you stopped posting, that would go a long way towards fixing the problem.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 23, 2009 10:58 AM
This has to be satire, like:
The Landover Baptist Church. Amen.
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
(How do you make a url a link?)
Posted by: Rodney | October 23, 2009 10:59 AM
The main preacher was incapable of graduating out of a bible college. He also conflates Eve (women) with Satan and distinguishes them from God and himself: http://amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/Download99.html
Here's the money quote on education, he asks himself, "Did you go to college?" and then answers:
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 23, 2009 11:03 AM
I guess I should have made it clear that my first sentence was sarcasm. I know it's hard for some people to get it, and I should be more considerate to people who just don't think quite as fast as the rest of us. I don't think that the pastor believes that the Bible was originally written in English. However, some people really do believe that. I don't know if that makes my sarcasm funnier, or just scary.
Posted by: catgirl | October 23, 2009 11:05 AM
Salmo: Essentially because it relied on the Textus Receptus alone (ie, essentially what Jerome had available for the Vulgate: Mrroberts is showing himself to be one of the reprobate by bringing the Dead Sea Scrolls into the picture).
The church itself in on US 276 heading south from Canton over an arm of Mt. Pisgah. It is a small building, and while I don't know how many members it has, it is surrounded by Federal property (Pisgah National Forest and the Blue Ridge Parkway, which crosses 276 a stone's throw from the church). There is a fairly populous village (Cruso) about three miles down 276. I'd guess 50-100 regular attendees, but possibly much less.
By the way, Highway 276 in NC is one of the great drives by car or bicycle in the US. It includes some of the best waterfalls in the east, and Sliding Rock and the Cradle of Forestry in the US near Brevard. If biking, go north to south, as the climb up Caesars Head on the SC border has to be seen to be believed.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 23, 2009 11:10 AM
Walton @16: It's very difficult to understand why some fundies are so obsessed with the KJV. For one thing, it's a less accurate translation of the original texts, since the translators had fewer sources to draw on.
It's a reductio ad absurdum of the literal-dictation theory of inspiration. Obviously, only the text that God dictated can be the Real True Word Of God(tm). But if you're too pig-ignorant and lazy to actually learn Hebrew and Greek (along with the common Anglophone arrogance) then you have to arbitrarily baptize some English translation as being God's Own Translation which magically preserves the sense of the original. The KJV being the traditionally dominant Protestant version prior to the 20th century, it's the obvious choice.
IIUC, the Muslims have the same view of the Quran, but at least have the honesty to stick with the Arabic version as being the only RTWoG; translations are allowed, but are seen as inferior substitutes.
And why am I not surprised to find that mroberts is at least sympathetic to KJ-Onlyism.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | October 23, 2009 11:11 AM
mrroberts@40: Many religious scholars believe the King James to be a more accurate translation of the original texts.
Um, no. Many religious people who have next little or no education on the subject believe the King James to be a "more accurate translation" (whatever that means). There's a high correlation between pastors who only preach from the KJV and pastors who dropped out of second-rate Bible Colleges, assuming they got that far.
Michael Heath @38 mentions Bart Ehrman's history of the KJV. It's quite the useful primer on the subject. But since I can, I think I'll go in to a bit of depth on the subject.
The Latin Vulgate was the primary version of the Bible, and pretty much the only version, up until about the 15th Century. The Vulgate itself was a heavily flawed book that was based off of a small selection of flawed texts and had been further modified to the church's whim. Any use of Greek and Hebrew texts was considered blasphemy. Changes to the Vulgate were based on maintaining orthodoxy rather than making the book more accurate.
When King James appointed the committees to set up the KJV the idea of using Greek and Hebrew was no longer anathema. However, they didn't have many copies and much of what they had was fairly inaccurate. Moreover, the goals of the KJV included propping up Anglican ecclesiology and minimizing the use of Puritan ideas. The book was to be at least as political as it was religious.
The KJV translators ran in to huge gaps in the available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Where those gaps existed they simply plugged English translations of the Vulgate in to fill the holes. This basically ended up creating a wildly inaccurate hodgepodge of translations. Furthermore, there were several different committees working on the translation, each of which came to different results. So the translations were harmonized, further distorting things.
The Dead Sea Scrolls yielded a copy of the Book of Isaiah that is over 2000 years old. It matches nearly perfectly with the modern text.
Cite?
Moreover, assuming that statement is true (which is a bit difficult to believe if you know how language changes over time), it conveniently ignores the fact that there were 21 other manuscripts/manuscript fragments for the book of Isaiah found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls and many of the other manuscripts didn't agree with the book of Isaiah that was more or less complete.
Posted by: Geds | October 23, 2009 11:27 AM
Geds - your referring to the Dead Seas scrolls brings up fond memories of college for me. I took a number of classes at Michigan State regarding the development of the OT and NT from their dept. head of religion. I forget his name now; he was a wonderful guy and story teller and also one of the most popular profs on campus (we had a student developed rating guide).
His first gig as a post-grad
slavestudent was the Dead Sea Scroll dig and then later on he became one of the translators. He told me then that he still dreamt of his having to dig out all the bat shit to get at the archaeologically worthy items being excavated.Just like the difference between scientists and creationists, there's a huge gap between the Christian historians and theologians who do the hard work at getting at the truth and the fundie/evangelical populist leaders who get paid to arm-chair dispute their findings with all the attendant ignorance and delusions we see both from this church and at least one commenter in this thread.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 23, 2009 11:42 AM
As is usually (usually being anything, even one less than, EVERY FUCKING TIME) the case, mroberts comments are smug, arrogant and ill-informed. Why this would be a surprise to anyone who is a.) more than semi-literate or b.) a regular reader here is beyond me.
catgirl:
Your comment @34:
"This guy probably believes that Jesus spoke English, and the KJV is the original version of the Bible. Sadly, some people truly believe that."
is, quite possibly, 100% accurate.
mroberts comment @40:
"Smugness and ignorance are spotted together more often than I can count on this blog. Uh, no, he doesn't believe that Jesus spoke English. He doesn't believe that the KJV is the original version of the Bible. Many religious scholars believe the King James to be a more accurate translation of the original texts."
otoh, is most likely a complete supposition. Since he does not offer any qualifiers about how he KNOWS what he says is true, we are left with a hard decision. Should we take mroberts "word" for it that he is in current contact with the whackaloon preacher in question--so that his comment is actually based on fact--or simply assume (a safe assumption where mroberts' rants are concerned) that he is simply making shit up as he goes. Well, it's not actually that hard a decision, at least for me.
For any that were on the two threads about Mr. Pat and his blog. mroberts is what happens when folks like Pat are not slapped down when they bring the bullshit.
Posted by: democommie | October 23, 2009 11:53 AM
Michael Heath @51: I took a number of classes at Michigan State regarding the development of the OT and NT from their dept. head of religion.
That's kind of funny. I veered slightly off course during my last semester at Western Illinois to take a 200-level Bible class with the head of the religious studies department because I'd met him and really wanted to take a class with him. I was still holding on to my evangelical/fundamentalistness at the time, but the stuff he taught in that class had a huge impact on my decision to really seriously question the bull crap my pastors and the other people I knew from church had always spouted off and I'd taken for granted.
It is amazing what a good teacher who welcomes you to understand what actually went in to the making of religion can do. It's about so much more than simple platitudes. The analogy of finding out about how sausage is made seems far more apt these days...
Posted by: Geds | October 23, 2009 12:00 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | October 23, 2009 12:14 PM
Michael Heath @51:
Was that John Green you were talking about? I never heard him speak, but I heard great things about him as a speaker (and other more interesting stories about him from one of his grad students).
Posted by: Ian | October 23, 2009 12:26 PM
Looking through their photos, it appears that their sanctuary only holds a congregation of 34 people including the choir. So not exactly mainstream, though I am rather impressed by the sheer volume of insanity on their web site. I guess when you only have a tiny flock to minister, you have plenty of time on your hands for screed writing.
Their signs page is rather entertaining.
One of them reads: "Beer is alright in it's place, but it's place is in Hell"
As you can tell, spelling and grammar are not exactly this pastor's strong suit--and that was cause for this hilarity:
Posted by: tacitus | October 23, 2009 12:38 PM
Silly people--don't they realize book burning is ineffective unless a few heretics are burned along with the books?
Posted by: mark | October 23, 2009 12:40 PM
Posted by: Taz | October 23, 2009 12:44 PM
Judging from one of their web pages, a part of their insistence on the KJV is because they like the language a lot better. They think it's more inspirational than modern-day, ordinary-people language.
Here, at least, I think they have a point. However, if the nice-sounding translation is also inaccurate, who cares how nice it sounds?
Posted by: Dave | October 23, 2009 12:46 PM
If they think the KJV is bad, wait until they see the RunDMC version:
"Jezuz, he wuz hangin' wid his boyz on the hill.
Simon sez we got no Mickey D's.
Jezuz just say, "Chill".
"My dads he gonna make it right, bring me some loaves and fishes.
If my man, Si, would stop his whinin, we'd maybe get some knishes."
Word (of GOD).
Posted by: democommie | October 23, 2009 12:53 PM
kehrsam ought to bring a Devil's food cake to the bbq happening alongside the conflagratory celebration.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 23, 2009 12:58 PM
Just to correct you, mroberts, there most certainly are people who think Jesus spoke English and that the KJV is THE original bible.
I was an evangelical briefly in the 90s, and the other 'gelicals I hung out with mentioned this. One missionary had actually met such a benighted person. And yes, the other 'gelicals though that the KJV originalists were pretty dumb.
By the way, remember those fools who disrupted the Hindu priest's prayer at the Capitol building? They are KJV-onlyists. That's how the main protester, Ante Pavkovic, made a name for himself on the 'Net before he had to go and shout down some poor Hindu priest in the Senate.
Posted by: Adrienne | October 23, 2009 1:03 PM
Jon H, #1: Wow, I'm surprised at some of the names in the list of authors. They must be seriously hard-core.
Well, the fact that the only translation of the Bible that they accept is the KJV is another big tip off there. There is a corner of Christian wackynuttery that feels that the KJV translators were all divinely inspired, just like the original writers of the Bible, and so the KJV is, indeed, the inspired word of God.
Yeah, it sounds nutty. But if you're going to believe that humans lived in perfect harmony in a Second-Law-of-Thermodynamics-less world 6000 years ago until a talking snake ruined things, you're probably going to be open to lots of real nutty ideas.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 23, 2009 1:07 PM
I grew up in a church very similar to the one Mr. Heath describes @38. The KJV (with Jesus' words in red text) was the only one that was allowed, and was given to children as young as 5... definitely by age 8.
Looking back on it all, I think the reason why the KJV is so popular is because it is written in such archaic form... 'ye olde englishe'... or whatever.
Since the language is so old, it's much easier for a pastor to put whatever spin on a particular passage he wants.
When asked why they insist on the KJV only, my relatives would respond that it gives what Jesus REALLY said (ie, the red words). One time, my mother (who was backslidden... she had reasonably shoulder-length short hair, wore pants and jeans, and married a Catholic... lol) pulled the "Jesus didn't speak English" line on my most fundamentalist aunt.
This aunt just really couldn't understand it at all... she was like but it's in RED... it MUST be Jesus's real words. The Bible must be inerrant!
I was just a young kid, but I still remember conversations like that all the time. I can't stop rolling my eyes at such 'logic' even to this day.
Posted by: doctorgoo | October 23, 2009 1:13 PM
It was the woman who was at fault, Chiroptera. Just the woman. Didn't you see on their webpage that the serpent and the woman both had their lines in black?
Posted by: kehrsam | October 23, 2009 1:27 PM
doctorgoo, #64: Looking back on it all, I think the reason why the KJV is so popular is because it is written in such archaic form... 'ye olde englishe'... or whatever.
Heh. I was evangelical Christian back when the final version of the NIV came out and was becoming popular. Many in the church I attended began to use it. I remembering being a little sad about losing what I felt to be the poetic flavor of KJV (and I guess I still do, but being an atheist now I guess it's none of my business), but even then I understood the purpose and necessity of a better, more up-to-date translation.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 23, 2009 1:27 PM
I have a few bibles somewhere in my basement I could probably dig up if they want to burn them. I am almost positive none of them are KJV.
Posted by: Tilting At Windows | October 23, 2009 1:28 PM
1. It's a fragment, albiet a relatively large one.
2. It was written in Hebrew.
I'm somewhat unsure how something written in Hebrew can "match nearly perfectly with the modern text." If you meant to say that it matches quite well with other ancient manuscripts that contain portions of Isiah that would probably be true.
But the crux of the issue is taking that Hebrew, and ancient Hebrew at that, and converting it into English and the various and sundry problems one encounters in doing that.
Posted by: Ben P | October 23, 2009 1:34 PM
I'm reminded of a fantasy author (Mercedes Lackey) who offered her books at a volume discount for book burnings. (Apparently OK fundies in the '90s didn't like gay magicians with talking horses. Go figure.)
Clearly someone is making good money off these weirdos. I hope they get an improper burning fine.
Posted by: JustaTech | October 23, 2009 1:34 PM
doctorgoo@64: Looking back on it all, I think the reason why the KJV is so popular is because it is written in such archaic form... 'ye olde englishe'... or whatever.,
See? This is what happens when you're too repressed to go to King Richard's RenFaire and eat a damned turkey leg.
Huzzah!
Posted by: Matt J. | October 23, 2009 1:35 PM
Sorry, mrroberts, I have to correct you here. You see, if these "scholars" believe the King James Blasphemy is in any way accurate, they are not "religious," they are heretics who are pushing the word of Satan.
At least, that's what the nuns and priests taught me in Catholic school, where heretical Protestant bullsh*t like the KJ are rightly excluded for the real writings of true Christianity(TM), as approved by the Vatican.
Of course I also happen to believe Mr. Ratzinger and his minions are just as whacked as these book-burning freaks, but that's because I understand rational thought and argument.
Posted by: CPT_Doom | October 23, 2009 1:41 PM
What will happen to all the Christians whose mother tongue is not English ? Are they all going to hell ? Heavens will be filled only with English speaking devotes ? And I thought I was the only member of my family going to hell... I guess I'm relieved !
Posted by: BdN | October 23, 2009 1:41 PM
If you listen to this guy, there are only six men and a few hound dogs going to Heaven. Everyone else is damned. But then, he serves chicken at a barbeque rather than pork, God's own meat.
Posted by: kehrsam | October 23, 2009 1:48 PM
In fairness, the idea that the KJV is the "perfect" translation intended by God requires no more implausible leaps of logic and faith than Creationism, literal belief in the Noachian flood, etc. I mean, God knew the early documents were going to get altered, right? So He, in His infinite wisdom, inspired King James to commission a translation, which was woefully inadequate in comparison to the documents available at the time, but which just "happened" to express what God actually wanted to say in perfect English, due to the Holy Spirit acting on the translators, etc.
I mean, really, is that any less plausible than the idea that one mechanism for the post-flood dispersal of animals to Australia and other remote contents was that "volcanoes in the Mount Ararat region were able to transport the smaller animals over much greater distances than the animals could get just by walking?" If you believe that, the KJV thing is child's play!
Posted by: James Sweet | October 23, 2009 1:55 PM
Being a pantheist and a lover of evangelicals, charcoal not gas and with a little hot pepper sauce for devilish flavor, I readily agree that the KJV is the ONLY true and inspired word of God. Who cares if the translation is a bit off? We are looking for the rolling sonorous language that inspires and uplifts, that brings joy to the heart by promising the righteous eternal life and happiness, that provides a place of peace and hope to the subjugated and downtrodden, that brings love to the forefront of human endeavor, that places mankind in proper relation to God of the Universe, and provides the fertile soil from which hate, intolerance, and injustice can be rationalized in the name of god.
Posted by: Yeti | October 23, 2009 2:11 PM
OMFG!!! o.O
This is the first time I hear about this one. It's one of the stupidest thing I've ever read. The paragraph doesn't even make sense. Have you read the discussion on this page ?
-"It is eminently possible that the Lord, not wanting mice, voles, chipmunks or koalas to have to over-exert themselves in arduous migration, might have Provided for them to be transported in fluffy clouds of volcanic ejecta (eg. tuff) to His desired locations, around the globe"
-"I mention the film Twister in the article, which depicts the use of tornadoes as (safe) transportation for animals as large as cows. Surely the divine providence could provide similar transit strategies for migratory marsupials."
-"The Lord works, as all believers know, in mysterious ways. Furthermore, the Krakatoa evidence directly disproves evolution, because only the animals that existed before the eruption repopulated the island,"
So much wrong in one place...
Posted by: BdN | October 23, 2009 2:13 PM
Ian @ 55: I went and did a search on Amazon and MSU's Religious Studies sites and I'm near certain it's Robert T. Anderson, who's now retired. He was an older gent when I took three of his classes in the mid-80s; he is still associated with MSU as a professor emetrius.
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 23, 2009 2:14 PM
It seems so bizarre to see the words 'book burning' written with such honest pride. The drivel about the accuracy of one translation vs another, the rejection of non-KJV texts, the inclusion of all the authors on that list from their website is just astonishing. The reasons have to be more for attention (and $$$) than for religious correctness. The idjit in charge is just stirring up trouble to fill the coffers and the pews. Probably needs a new boiler for heat this winter.
Another moron rejecting reason for sophistry.
Posted by: MikeMa | October 23, 2009 2:18 PM
The hound dogs would at least be worthy, the men not so much.
Posted by: Militant Agnostic | October 23, 2009 2:19 PM
Book burnings/record burnings/etc. are all vestiges of a long-bygone era, of course, but there's nonetheless a serious, violent undertone to these acts. It's not enough for these sorry people to go into the modern age kicking and screaming, but they're literally trying (in their own, impotent way) to destroy modernity and everything that reminds them of it.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | October 23, 2009 2:32 PM
He's got a quote on that page at the top of the section called "Our Scriptural Basis for Burning":
"A true scholar is one who believes the Bible (KJV) whether he understands it or not."
That certainly sums up the mindset, doesn't it?
Posted by: Taz | October 23, 2009 2:34 PM
I have a few bibles somewhere in my basement I could probably dig up if they want to burn them. I am almost positive none of them are KJV.
If they were, but you told them they weren't, would any of them be literate enough to verify your claim?
Posted by: Raging Bee | October 23, 2009 2:41 PM
Yeti #75: Nice. I was starting to think you were serious up until the last sentence. In fact, I was getting all worked up to reply, "Sonorous language and love thy fellow man, yes, but what about the hate and intolerance..." hahahah...
Posted by: James Sweet | October 23, 2009 2:51 PM
James Sweet, #74: In fairness, the idea that the KJV is the "perfect" translation intended by God requires no more implausible leaps of logic and faith than Creationism, literal belief in the Noachian flood, etc.
And remember, these are also people who make up history out of whole cloth when it suits them, like when they claim that Founders of the Republic were all Southern Baptists who intended to set up a theocratic democracy among conservative Protestant Christian voters, or whatever it is these people keep claiming. So another answer to the objection
...which was woefully inadequate in comparison to the documents available at the time....
it wouldn't surprise me if they claimed that the documentation available at the time were completely adequate, the more recent discoveries being clearly heretical texts pushed by atheist troublemakers.
Posted by: Chiroptera | October 23, 2009 3:12 PM
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | October 23, 2009 3:21 PM
The more you read, the funnier it gets.
He apparently has a huge problem with the Catholic church burning English bibles, since that was just a ploy to make them dependent on priests who spoke Latin. Meanwhile keeping a book written in a 400 year old dialect of English is hunky-dory.
He apparently is very passionate that it doesn't matter what the original language of the bible is, god will preserve the true meaning, which he did in the KJV. Of course, the other versions are all perversions of god's word, because, you know, it's not like god can protect the true meaning of his word in new versions of the bible. Wait...
Posted by: muffinman | October 23, 2009 3:21 PM
Well, them bible humpers may know a bit about book burning, but when it comes to meltin' down the hot wax, they should talk to Bill Veeck (rhymes with "wreck"):
http://swindlemagazine.com/issue09/disco-demolition-night/
Posted by: democommie | October 23, 2009 3:26 PM
Wow, this is getting so much better. The THE POWER OF THE FLESH page was pretty hilarious, since apparently anything and everything is a sin of the flesh (including doubt, for some inexplicable reason). The clincher was that he was inspired to write this after he saw his daughter, his own child!, commit the unspeakable sin of "dipping her biscuit in the pork chop grease."
Posted by: muffinman | October 23, 2009 3:58 PM
From their site:
"We are not burning Bibles written in other languages that are based on the TR. We are not burning the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva or other translations that are based on the TR."
Now this is baffling. Tyndale's translation is the source for 80% of the Geneva and the KJV, so those are at least related. However, the Wycliffe used only the Catholic Latin Vulgate as a source. It's in no way related to the other three. It's only saving grace, I suppose, is that it is the first English translation. As such I'm not so sure many of their congregation are aware that Jesus didn't speak English. Further, if the KJV is the inerrant, preserved word of God, why did it take God 250 years and four tries to get it right?
Posted by: Robert Faber | October 23, 2009 4:09 PM
Posted by: llewelly | October 23, 2009 5:03 PM
I have a serious problem because of all this. I always go buy banned books as a show of solidarity to the authors. Now I'm expected to buy a copy of the "Left Behind" series?
Maybe there IS a god, and he's having a good laugh at my conundrum.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 23, 2009 6:01 PM
I've always thought that a good way to mess with Christian book-burners was to start a rumor that Nefarious Agents of Evil have infiltrated their group and plan to sneak bibles in among the copies of Harry Potter and gay penguin books. This would play off their paranoia, already evident by the fact they're burning books, leading them to either call off the burning out of fear for the Bible, or better yet, start accusing one another of being part of the Satanic Conspiracy until the group succumbs to infighting.
I guess in this case one would have to stress that King James Bibles would be snuck into the fire by Satan's Undercover Minions.
Posted by: jpf | October 23, 2009 6:15 PM
@88, about "THE POWER OF THE FLESH":
I'm sorry... but this has me ROFLMAO too much! That just sounds almost Freudian, but just not quite. 5555
Posted by: doctorgoo | October 23, 2009 6:22 PM
Sounds ok to me, once you've applied appropriate location-dependent translation. All you have to do is substitute "Budweiser" for "Beer" and it all makes perfect sense...
Posted by: Brain Hertz | October 23, 2009 6:25 PM
"since apparently anything and everything is a sin of the flesh"
OK, are we sure this isn't a Poe? All I could think of was Tim Curry standing in front of the RKO logo in full drag roaring out a power ballad in "Rocky Horror".
And biscuits in pork chop grease = divine.
Posted by: Rick R | October 23, 2009 6:31 PM
Wow! I'm surprised the Narnia books weren't on the list, nor was the New English Bible(ecumenical), the Jerusalem Bible(sort of Catholic), etc., etc. The sound not only seriously hard core, but seriously ignorant and seriously nutty.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | October 23, 2009 6:49 PM
Interestingly, the question of how to dispose of damaged Bibles from a library came up for me a few weeks ago. I tried to find a sensitive answer and learned that, if donation is impossible (i.e., extensive damage), there is no scriptural prohibition against throwing away a Bible, although it makes certain individuals uncomfortable. The Lutheran magazine even urged its readers to recycle the paper if possible. If burned or buried, it is to be done "respectfully." Hell, I used to take people's Bibles out of the trash and the "free box" at the estate sale because I have a horror of throwing out books. This is obviously a snotty little rite to upset other Christians. These people apparently have no identity apart from "not being like them over there" (and "there, and there, and there...") and it's pretty pathetic. Why not just burn all English versions of the Bible, then? Did Jesus speak English?
Posted by: Kristine | October 23, 2009 7:30 PM
I suppose it's fitting that those hooked on KJV would abbreviate "et cetera" as "ect." (It appears thus on the church's web site.)
Posted by: Uncle Glenny | October 23, 2009 7:32 PM
Why not just burn all English versions of the Bible, then? Did Jesus speak English?
Never mind, folks. I had my own, and apparently stupid, question answered in simple green-and-blue-and-black font:
4. Do you have any real "concrete" evidence that the KJV is God's Word?
God said in Psalms 12:6-7 "Blah, blah, blah..." This is all the concrete evidence I need. God's Word. This is a typical question by a liberal New Evangelical Bible doubter.
How do they know the KJV is the only real version, even though the Bible was not written in English and the author of the website admits that he cannot read Hebrew, or Greek, or Latin? Because the KJV tells him so! The KJV is real, and so it cannot be a false interpretation, and that's how he knows that the KJV is the real one! Geez, I feel so stupid now. I'll just go and hide my head in shame at my lack of belief.
*eyeroll*
Posted by: Kristine | October 23, 2009 7:47 PM
mrroberts appears to have devolved into a drive-by troll. Instead of sticking around vainly arguing his false points, he pops in, spews a bunch of easily refuted bullshit, and runs away. Now if only he would skip to the going away part and we'd all be better off...*sigh*
I find it quite amusing that the Left Behind series is a book to be banned and burned. Every year I have fungelical students trying to convince me that it's "a wonderful series that I should read right away!"
Posted by: dogmeatib | October 23, 2009 7:52 PM
Kehrsam, I beg of you, please, puuhhhhleeeeeeeeaaaaaaase go and document this momentous event. For it may be lost to humanity. Forever. Can you even comprehend what a tragedy that would be!?!
Cell cam pics and videos are acceptable. Just make sure to agree politely with everything they say. I wouldn't want you to end up on the menu too.
Posted by: Leni | October 23, 2009 7:57 PM
No way! That line more than makes up for the rest of it.
Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | October 23, 2009 9:45 PM
dogmeatib:
I'm surprised by this, possibly because I know almost nothing about the series beyond who wrote it, it's fiction, but supporters of the book want you to believe it's a legitimate warning the so-called end times are at hand.
I'm surprised there'd be high school students reading this; their parents yes, but kids?
Posted by: Michael Heath | October 23, 2009 9:56 PM
Ohhhh not the NWT. I grew up on that. At least it was Jehovah's Witnesses' version of God's Word, rather than King James's version.
I'm not sure why that's better. Who was King James? And how do they know his version was better than other versions?
Have these people done any comparisons with original text? How do they know their version isn't the wrong one and some other one is correct?
Oh, wait. I'm applying that thinking thing to it, and I forgot they don't.
But what's the obsession with sticking to a bible that has all the "thee" "thou" "shalt" etc? "Well, if Olde English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me."
I'd love to see them trying to burn the online bible "2001 Translation" (http://www.2001translation.com/). Just chuck a laptop with the 2001 Translation on-screen into the fire...
Posted by: Glenn Davey | October 23, 2009 10:01 PM
Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip - Can't help but agree with you there. But I bet the parishioners spend Saturday nights drinking at the nearby watering hole called "Bob's Country Bunker"*? - DJ
-----------
*Famous, of course, for playing both kinds of music: Country and Western!
PS What are the odds that the Pastor is the CAT man?
Posted by: DingoJack | October 23, 2009 10:06 PM
I reckon someone should go down to the BBQ with a bunch of KJV bibles and throw them into the fire. Just yell out what you're about to do a few seconds before you do it, so you can catch the look on their faces, and then get prepared to RUN.
Posted by: Glenn Davey | October 23, 2009 10:10 PM
If YOU'RE prepared to do that, you're a lot braver that I am.
These types hate that constitution thingy except for the 2nd amendment. I'd recommend the full-body Kevlar BBQ apron! :) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | October 23, 2009 10:25 PM
Don't read it. Read Fred Clark's critique instead.
Posted by: DaveL | October 23, 2009 10:32 PM
Let's add the King James Version to the list because it's an obvious satanic perversion of the Torah and a bastardization of Talmudic traditions.
Posted by: MadScientist | October 23, 2009 10:36 PM
Oh, I forgot, but democommie reminded me. The King James Version was indeed written in English - a great heresy since god only communicated in Latin at that time and the unmentionable masses could only learn about god from the educated clergy.
Posted by: MadScientist | October 23, 2009 10:42 PM
I reckon someone should go down to the BBQ with a bunch of KJV bibles and throw them into the fire.
The head of the church is Pastor Marc Grizzard. Now, why did I just smack my lips? (Mmmm, fried grizzard. It sounds like a Southern dish...)
Posted by: Kristine | October 24, 2009 1:47 AM
But where is the love ^H^H^H^H^H hate for the Lolcat Bible?
Posted by: Captain Button | October 24, 2009 2:17 AM
Once had a True Believer in the EvC chatroom tell us "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."
Unfortuntely, he was serious.
Posted by: Richard White | October 24, 2009 9:37 AM
"A true scholar is one who believes the Bible (KJV) whether he understands it or not."
I'm blinded both by the flaming ignorance of the statementand the HTML on that page.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | October 25, 2009 5:31 AM
I just browsed their website (there's a couple of minutes I won't get back), and found a section entitled, "Sermons By My Daddy" ( http://amazinggracebaptistchurchkjv.com/news1.html ). Apparently, his Daddy was "The World's Greatest Preacher". There's actually a photo of him with his father; he was probably about eight or ten, and they were fishin' down by the crik. It's rather heartbreaking to see that vulnerable child and consider what he's become.
Being a man of letters, Pastor Grizzard has written a poem in tribute to his father:
MY HERO!
There was a Preacher's Son,
who loved his daddy a ton.
He thought the world of him,
because he was his best Friend.
Close by his side he would stand,
cause everything he did was so grand.
Superman, Batman, and Robin were zero's,
when compared to his daddy his hero.
Greater than any policeman or fireman to me,
for he led me to Jesus you see.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why they shouldn't be allowed to have children.
Posted by: Jeff Eyges | October 25, 2009 10:53 AM
"The Smalll Church with the Big Carbon Footprint."
See:
http://notionscapital.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/faith-on-fire/
Posted by: Mike Licht | November 6, 2009 11:43 PM