...working in England in 1611 ACTUALLY "got it right" as far as what God REALLY meant. No other versions, no other translators, no other language, etc.
Now I'll grant you that the KJV English has a lovely resonance to it (especially the Psalms, some of which really do seem inspired...) but the notion that ONLY those forty or so C of E scholars actually sufficiently understood --not the earliest possible texts, mind you, which they did not have access to, but a mishmash of earlier translations and early texts-- is amazing.
As far as Constantine's role in the selection of texts (actually, there were several earlier, and several later canons, and still different versions accepted by different Christian denominations today, so even the Canon of Trent--which I think is what you're referring to--can't be considered exclusively authoritative and universal) that is largely apocryphal. The Canon of Trent was actually several iterations by several bodies in the late 4th and early 5th centuries, but it was largely officiated by Augustine and Innocent I.
Biblical literalism has always totally baffled me. It's like being let loose in the biggest gourmet shop in New York City and claiming that only the sliced turkey is worth eating.
amusedly,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read