King James Bible wrong.
Adam Rifkin stashed this in Religion
The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.
There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8000 versions of these old manuscripts, with no two alike.
The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve.
So, 21st Century Christians believe the "Word of God" is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8000 contradictory copies of 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century.
That's not faith. That's insanity.
Having been brought up in a church where many consider KJV to be the "Literal Word of God in English" (my aspie brain always preferred NASB), it took me a while to realize that the people and churches who most hold this view are usually guilty of Bibliolatry and that the debate over passage and verse is reductive and essentially legalistic, which is exactly what Jesus was working against.
Except for the reality that legalist hermeneutics tends to dominate the church around the world (just as the Beit Shammai dominated the Sanhedrin during Jesus's age until the destruction of the Temple), and is the cause of a significant amount of suffering, I don't think it could even be taken seriously.
Which is why it's horrifying that so many Americans believe the King James Bible is the literal word of God.
Unfortunately, this part of the population does not consider the word of reason. Thus anything goes.
In Russia, almost every priest was approved and installed by KGB (pretty much the equivalent of pure evil). This is well known fact, yet many keep attending chirches and listening the words of priests as god's level of autority.
Well, at least the church is a way to stay on the good side of the government, right?