Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:34 am
IIRC, the original King James version of 1611 was the only one to include footnotes by the translators indicating different readings from different manuscripts, and translators notes when there was some doubt over the translation. If the other King James versions had carried out this scheme, there would have perhaps been far less confusion and dogmatism with regard to certain doctrines...
Aside from that, there seems to be this sense of "Well, the King James was the original English translation, and so must be the best" mentality.
Aside from that, there seems to be this sense of "Well, the King James was the original English translation, and so must be the best" mentality.