re: #13 Chrysicat

Too Catholic.

NVM that Anglicanism in 1612 had barely diverged from Catholicism (just changed who the Apostolic Successor was), the fact that it was Protestant—even PINO—is enough to make it more acceptable. *SMH*

Oh, much more to it than that. There was a different translation out of Geneva (the “Geneva Bible” natch en.wikipedia.org ) that was beloved by the Puritans and other radical protestants and had nice detailed foot notes explaining just how you were supposed to interpret various passages. It tended towards a very anti-monarchy stance and hence James didn’t much care for it.

His authorized version (supplanting the earlier authorized versions - the Great Bible & The Bishop’s Bible) was ordered to have no footnotes and a deliberatly archaic language. They were supposed to be told in the homilies and sermons how to interpret things but a funny thing happened - as theological tastes changed, the lack of footnotes became a plus. They could impose whatever interpretation on it that they wanted. That, more than anything else, is what made it the favorite of American protestants.

As for Anglicans, look how long the pre-KJV psalter of Coverdale remained in the Book of Common Prayer… We’re odd fish, we are.

As for the AFA, their desire to limit god to their own small thinking is the real heresy.