Question for those who only use the KJV Bible (CC)

[Dustybug]

I'd really only like responses from those who are KJV only, as I don't want a debate here. Thanks!

 

I grew up Southern Baptist, but used a NKJV Bible in my childhood church and for most of my young life/teens. When I went to college, my religion classes required an NIV, so I started using that.

 

My DH was raised Southern Baptist as well, but in churches that use/taught KJV only. We are now members of an Independent Baptist church that teaches the same. I have no problems using the KJV at all, but I don't have the conviction like my DH and many of our Christian friends that this is the ONLY version that should ever be used.

 

I guess I really have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to WHY it is thought to be the only version that should be used. DH and I have discussed it at length and while I will follow his wishes as far as using only that version to teach our children, I still don't understand the logic behind it. Or at least behind the reasons that I have been given. (I should add that DH does not have a problem with me using other versions, but prefers that I use KJV. I generally use that most often anyway since it is what our church teaches from.)

 

This is really a long winded way of asking if someone could explain this to me? Please?? :)

[Ottakee]

No answers but wanting to learn as well.

[Mama Geek]

I am no expert but if I remember right there were a bunch of translational scholars who got together and translated the KJV from the original language. They had to come to pretty strong agreement when doing the translation.

 

For the record our first choice in KJV and if something doesn't make sense then we try to look at a version like the NIV.

[Flowing Brook]

Here are some links for a site that has done extensive research on the subject. Basically the NIV for example leaves out things like the blood of Christ. HTH The last link has a short version. If you don't have time to do alot of reading.

 

http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/biblecrs/nkjv1/nkjv1.htm

 

http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/biblecrs/niv1/niv1.htm

 

http://www.libertygospeltracts.com/tracts/NIV%20Test/nivtest.htm

[Ellie]

I did an Internet search on "King James Bible only" and found quite a few links. I only read one 'cuz it made me crazy (I don't believe for a minute that the KJ is the only acceptable version), but you might be able to make it through some of them since you have a vested interest. :-)

[amey311]

If you're interested in the origins of the KJV, National Geographic magazine did an article on it. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/12/king-james-bible/nicolson-text

 

At the end of the article there's mention that the author of the article also wrote a book about the men who wrote the KJV.

 

I found the article interesting, and will now go back to lurking because I have no opinion on different versions of the Bible (well, I have some opinions on that one they were doing to look like a magazine...)

[praisefor3]

I only looked at the last link but my response to that would be: They are referring to the KJV as if it is the original Bible and the offense is to the KJV not the original language. So my question would be: Did the NIV translators cut out "the blood" from the original version and feel they are better translating the original than the KJV did in that particular verse, or did they truly leave "the blood" out of their version and it really was in the original? In other words, the argument they give is in comparing the NIV to the KJV, not in comparing the NIV to the original language. I really don't care if they left out "the blood" in the NIV unless it was in the original. I don't see this link as defending the original, just the KJV and I have trouble seeing that logic. The KJV, afterall, is still just a translation. I'm not defending the NIV as the best translation, just reminding that the KJV is also a translation.

[LostSurprise]

In my personal opinion, I think its accepted because its been around long enough to outlast challenges (and therefore the most 'spirit-led'). There's always some debate with new translations about what they left out and how they phrase things.

 

It was created in a time when some persecution was involved in creating Bibles, so that gives it a feeling of being hard-won.

 

Plus, its one of the most poetic versions.

 

I'm not a KJV-only person, but I have family members that are. I don't think its the most technically correct version, but its hard to read Psalms in any other version. There's just something about Psalms and the book of John in KJV. Beautiful poetry.

[Flowing Brook]

I only looked at the last link but my response to that would be: They are referring to the KJV as if it is the original Bible and the offense is to the KJV not the original language. So my question would be: Did the NIV translators cut out "the blood" from the original version and feel they are better translating the original than the KJV did in that particular verse, or did they truly leave "the blood" out of their version and it really was in the original? In other words, the argument they give is in comparing the NIV to the KJV, not in comparing the NIV to the original language. I really don't care if they left out "the blood" in the NIV unless it was in the original. I don't see this link as defending the original, just the KJV and I have trouble seeing that logic. The KJV, afterall, is still just a translation. I'm not defending the NIV as the best translation, just reminding that the KJV is also a translation.

 

Things like the blood and other verses that were left out totally were being compared to the original translation. Things like God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit being one are taken out of the NIV

Here are a list of verses that the NIV has taken out all together.

1- Matthew 17:21 "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting."

 

2- Matthew 18:11 "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."

 

3- Matthew 23:14 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater ****ation."

 

4- Mark 7:16 "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear."

 

5- Mark 9:44 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

 

6- Mark 9:46 "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

 

7- Mark 11:26 "But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses."

 

8- Mark 15:28 "And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors."

 

9- Luke 17:36 "Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left."

 

10- John 5:4 "For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had."

 

11- Acts 8:37 "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."

 

12- Acts 15:34 "Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still."

 

13- Acts 24:7 "But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,"

 

14- Acts 28:29 "And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves."

 

15- Romans 16:24 "The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen."

 

16- I John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

 

Some other little facts the New King James [NKJV] I found out:

 

Removes the word 'God' 51 times

Removes the word 'Lord' 66 times

Removes the word 'heaven' 50 times

KJV uses 'Jehovah' 7 times; never used in the New King James

The word '****ation' used 11 times KJV; never used in NKJV

New King James has 2289 less words in the new testament.

Edited July 4, 2012 by puddles

[Jean in Newcastle]

I'm not KJV only but have family members who are. The translation of the KJV is from Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament collectively called the Textus Receptus. The people who are King James only believe that these manuscripts are the most accurate.

[mommaduck]

I'm not KJV only but have family members who are. The translation of the KJV is from Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament collectively called the Textus Receptus. The people who are King James only believe that these manuscripts are the most accurate.

:iagree: And there are entire books and websites that are devoted to this teaching.

 

(used to be KJVO, but am no longer)

[Laurie4b]

I'm not KJV only but have family members who are. The translation of the KJV is from Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament collectively called the Textus Receptus. The people who are King James only believe that these manuscripts are the most accurate.

 

The Textus Receptus are from around 500-1000 AD. This was a Byzantine set of texts. Those texts do contain verses that the more modern translations do not; however, those verses are not contained in an earlier set of manuscripts, used by those translating modern versions.

 

Other more recent versions (not just NIV) are based off the Alexandria manuscripts, which are from 200-400 AD. Modern translations that rely on the earlier manuscripts consider the disputed verses "extras" added by scribes to clarify a passage. The thinking is the closer the manuscripts to the time they were written, the closer they will be to the original.

 

Curious about whether the version used by Orthodox is more like the KJV since the texts were Byzantine. Does anyone know?

[Kathryn]

The Textus Receptus are from around 500-1000 AD. This was a Byzantine set of texts. Those texts do contain verses that the more modern translations do not; however, those verses are not contained in an earlier set of manuscripts, used by those translating modern versions.

 

Other more recent versions (not just NIV) are based off the Alexandria manuscripts, which are from 200-400 AD. Modern translations that rely on the earlier manuscripts consider the disputed verses "extras" added by scribes to clarify a passage. The thinking is the closer the manuscripts to the time they were written, the closer they will be to the original.

 

 

This was my understanding.

[mommaduck]

The Textus Receptus are from around 500-1000 AD. This was a Byzantine set of texts. Those texts do contain verses that the more modern translations do not; however, those verses are not contained in an earlier set of manuscripts, used by those translating modern versions.

 

Other more recent versions (not just NIV) are based off the Alexandria manuscripts, which are from 200-400 AD. Modern translations that rely on the earlier manuscripts consider the disputed verses "extras" added by scribes to clarify a passage. The thinking is the closer the manuscripts to the time they were written, the closer they will be to the original.

 

Curious about whether the version used by Orthodox is more like the KJV since the texts were Byzantine. Does anyone know?

For the OT, we use the Septuagint.

 

 

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7068/ good explanation. With the correction that there are at least two English translations currently being used (and NOT the two that are listed in the article). The EOB and the OSB. There are criticisms of the study notes in the OSB. The EOB is more scholarly. The OSB used the NKJV as a basis, repairing any additions or subtractions done by KJV and/or NKJV translators.

Edited July 4, 2012 by mommaduck

[happyhomey]

I'm not KJV only but have family members who are. The translation of the KJV is from Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament collectively called the Textus Receptus. The people who are King James only believe that these manuscripts are the most accurate.

 

I am KJV only and the primary reason is what is quoted above. The modern translations like the NIV do not use the same manuscripts as the manuscripts that the KJV version uses. Since I believe that the Bible, in its original form is the preserved, inspired word of God, two sets of manuscripts that are different can not both be this.

 

Without going into a long discussion of why I believe the KJV uses the correct original transcripts, let me just say that this is something you could looked up and compare the two set of manuscripts yourself. The manuscripts that are used for translating the modern versions of the Bible leave out entire verses, including Christ's own words. To me, that speaks volumes in and of itself. The NIV, although a fairly recent translation, has already be gone through a complete revision with the 2011 versions. Again, IMO, that speaks loudly, in and of itself.

 

HTH:)

Edited July 4, 2012 by happyhomey
clarification/grammar

[Juniper]

OP, I was just reading this article today and wanted to share. It is not exactly what you asked for, but it might encourage you as you continue to use the KJV.

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/What-the-King-James-Bible-Hath-Wrought.html

[shanvan]

OP, I was just reading this article today and wanted to share. It is not exactly what you asked for, but it might encourage you as you continue to use the KJV.

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/What-the-King-James-Bible-Hath-Wrought.html

 

Very nice article. Thanks for posting.

[Dobela]

I have friends that use the KJV or the NKJV exclusively. I don't remember all the arguments, but one is that other versions, such as the NIV, dumb down the language and make everything too generalized.

 

I grew up using New American Standard, switched to NIV in college, and now our church leaders are gradually moving more to the ESV version. But my preacher usually recommends that in personal study you look at multiple versions to get the best translation as each translation is not perfect.

[TXMomof4]

The Textus Receptus are from around 500-1000 AD. This was a Byzantine set of texts. Those texts do contain verses that the more modern translations do not; however, those verses are not contained in an earlier set of manuscripts, used by those translating modern versions.

 

Other more recent versions (not just NIV) are based off the Alexandria manuscripts, which are from 200-400 AD. Modern translations that rely on the earlier manuscripts consider the disputed verses "extras" added by scribes to clarify a passage. The thinking is the closer the manuscripts to the time they were written, the closer they will be to the original.

 

 

:iagree:

[Bluegoat]

OP, I was just reading this article today and wanted to share. It is not exactly what you asked for, but it might encourage you as you continue to use the KJV.

 

http://www.memoriapress.com/articles/What-the-King-James-Bible-Hath-Wrought.html

 

Thanks for posting this! I really enjoyed it!

[Scuff]

I only looked at the last link but my response to that would be: They are referring to the KJV as if it is the original Bible and the offense is to the KJV not the original language. So my question would be: Did the NIV translators cut out "the blood" from the original version and feel they are better translating the original than the KJV did in that particular verse, or did they truly leave "the blood" out of their version and it really was in the original? In other words, the argument they give is in comparing the NIV to the KJV, not in comparing the NIV to the original language. I really don't care if they left out "the blood" in the NIV unless it was in the original. I don't see this link as defending the original, just the KJV and I have trouble seeing that logic. The KJV, afterall, is still just a translation. I'm not defending the NIV as the best translation, just reminding that the KJV is also a translation.

 

The problem is which original documents. The OT documents were meticulously copied by scribes with great precision. The documents found are all the same and there is no variation. The NT is made up of letters and things that weren't copied at meticulously. Mostly, they are the same. But there are some variations. (there are no original originals. There's a bunch of old copies, but nothing that can be said "This is the Actual letter Paul wrote to the Corinthians.") So the KJV used certain documents and the NIV used others, which causes some differences and many opinions about those differences.

 

My 2c, since I'm already typing :) , the differences aren't that big of a deal. The NIV may not have "blood" in some places, but they certainly include it in others. One can read the NIV and completely understand that the blood of Jesus is what washes away sin. Personally, I grew up with KJV and memorized many KJV verses. It helped tremendously when it came time to study Shakespeare. :) But actually understanding the scripture didn't really begin until I bought an NIV as a teen. So long as one is reading the Bible with understanding, and that Bible is translated from originals By people who understand language, than I don't Think it matters too much. I don't like the newer NIV because they changed a lot of the gender words. Seems like an effort to be politically correct, not a proper translation of the actual words. And that's all I'll say about that, since the op wanted KjV only people to respond. I did want to explain above about the documents, though.

 

*Or i could've kept my mouth shut and kept reading the thread.

Edited July 4, 2012 by Scuff

[Dustybug]

Thank you to all have responded and to those who have posted links. I'm sorry I didn't get back to respond sooner, it's been a busy day! You all have helped. I guess I was looking for the more "scholarly" answer, rather than just, "That's what I was taught growing up" answer.

 

You all have been a great help. :)

[Juniper]

So, because of this thread and the article I linked I just purchased a rather nice illuminated KJV bible. They had them on clearance at B&N. Beautiful illumanted artwork and letters throughout...almost on every page.

[shanvan]

So, because of this thread and the article I linked I just purchased a rather nice illuminated KJV bible. They had them on clearance at B&N. Beautiful illumanted artwork and letters throughout...almost on every page.

 

Wouldn't you like to post a link so I can spend money too?

[Kathryn]

Wouldn't you like to post a link so I can spend money too?

 

:iagree::tongue_smilie:

[Juniper]

I'm on my phone or I would. It was originally 60, but clearanced ddown 24: to

[Dustybug]

So, because of this thread and the article I linked I just purchased a rather nice illuminated KJV bible. They had them on clearance at B&N. Beautiful illumanted artwork and letters throughout...almost on every page.

 

 

:D

[kricau]

WOW!!! these make me want to go back to KJV (only). We have used NIV & NKJV. But I have always like KJV the best. It is so beautiful.

[kricau]

Oooh, thanks for the tip.

 

If anybody needed 6 or more, you can get them at the dollar tree

http://www.dollartree.com/Holy-Bibles-with-Leatherette-Covers-King-James-Version/p315670/index.pro#

for $3.33 (or less / more bought)

 

So, because of this thread and the article I linked I just purchased a rather nice illuminated KJV bible. They had them on clearance at B&N. Beautiful illumanted artwork and letters throughout...almost on every page.

[Juniper]

Okay here is the one I got at B&N. I have no idea which stores are carrying it, but the artwork is beautiful. :)

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Bible-Illuminated-Edition/dp/1592233376/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341462819&sr=8-1&keywords=the+holy+bible+illuminated+family+edition

[Lovedtodeath]

The pastor that baptized me gave a different reason. He says that we can actually understand the KJV better because we can look the words up and know what they meant at the time... with other versions you can't be as sure because the meaning of some words may have gradually changed.

 

I am not KJV only.

[tntgoodwin]

DISCLAIMER: I am not KJV-only.

 

I actually dislike the KJV, and believe it to have many errors in translation. I prefer the NASB and ESV, personally. (I don't think they are perfect either, btw) However, my opinion is that God used the KJV as pretty much the only Bible many people had for a very long time, and still worked mightily through it, despite its flaws. I have no problem with people preferring or requiring KJV, and believe God can speak to the reader through it. Look at all the great theologians, evangelists, and preachers of the past who only used the KJV.

 

I actively dislike the NIV as well. I think the 1984 edition is superior to the subsequent versions, but still I have too many issues with it to use it regularly. But, all the same, God has used it to speak to people and bring them to Him throughout the years.

 

Just something to keep in mind as you are looking at this topic.

 

As to why, there are different reasons. Keep in mind there are those who believe the KJV to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and there are those who just think it is the best translation based on the best manuscripts (the Textus Receptus, or Byzantine text), and those who just like it the best because of its language or that's what they grew up with, etc. So their reasons could be different. What is the position of your dh and/or the church you attend?

[Parrothead]

Just bumping this back up. In another thread recently someone posted the why of the KJV only thinking. I responded back to the post so maybe I can find a link.

 

ETA: It wasn't a post. It was a PM. So I can't/won't link that.

 

I did find this site kjvonly.org. Maybe you can find your answers there.

Edited July 5, 2012 by Parrothead

[Laurie4b]

The pastor that baptized me gave a different reason. He says that we can actually understand the KJV better because we can look the words up and know what they meant at the time... with other versions you can't be as sure because the meaning of some words may have gradually changed.

 

I am not KJV only.

 

You mean look up the English words and understand what they meant at the time, or because you don't know what the English means, you look up the Hebrew or Greek? If it's the first reason, it makes no sense at all. Later translations are made from the oldest existing manuscripts directly into the language they are being translated into. So if a group of scholars translates a Bible into French in 2012, they will use French words according to their meaning in 2012.

 

If it means you don't know the meaning of the archaic English and it causes you to look it up in the Greek, you can/should do that with modern English,not because the English changes but because when translating any language into another, there are shades in the meanings of words that do not always translate exactly.

 

Maybe you meant something else. I"m curious.

[Lovedtodeath]

You mean look up the English words and understand what they meant at the time,

I thought he meant that. Because if I read a Bible translated in the 1960's some words have changed, but if I read the KJV I know to get an Old English dictionary.

 

Then there is another pastor I know who says that you should use the KJV because it is harder to understand, so you have to rely on the Holy Spirit more and your human reasoning less. (I do not agree with this, but that is what he says.) He also says that you should pick on translation and stick to it because looking in other translations can cause you to pick the one you prefer, rather than listen to God. hmmm... yeah, I have seen that happen, but that is not always the case.

[Dustybug]

DISCLAIMER: I am not KJV-only.

 

I actually dislike the KJV, and believe it to have many errors in translation. I prefer the NASB and ESV, personally. (I don't think they are perfect either, btw) However, my opinion is that God used the KJV as pretty much the only Bible many people had for a very long time, and still worked mightily through it, despite its flaws. I have no problem with people preferring or requiring KJV, and believe God can speak to the reader through it. Look at all the great theologians, evangelists, and preachers of the past who only used the KJV.

 

I actively dislike the NIV as well. I think the 1984 edition is superior to the subsequent versions, but still I have too many issues with it to use it regularly. But, all the same, God has used it to speak to people and bring them to Him throughout the years.

 

Just something to keep in mind as you are looking at this topic.

 

As to why, there are different reasons. Keep in mind there are those who believe the KJV to be the inspired, inerrant Word of God, and there are those who just think it is the best translation based on the best manuscripts (the Textus Receptus, or Byzantine text), and those who just like it the best because of its language or that's what they grew up with, etc. So their reasons could be different. What is the position of your dh and/or the church you attend?

 

 

My DH was raised to believe (by his pastor father) that the KJV is the first complete translation of the Bible into English and therefore, we need no other English translations. I don't know if that is completely true, because I've honestly never researched it, but DH hasn't really delved into the "why" on his own. That's fine with me, I'm not trying to make him change his views, I just want to understand better.

 

Our church (which is not his father's) teaches that the KJV is the one and only "authorized" english version of the Bible (whatever that means). I have never asked anyone to explain it further, mostly because I didn't want to ruffle feathers and because I don't actually mind using the KJV, just want to know why so many are KJV-only. When we first started attending this church four years ago, one of the deacons told me that they were, "KJV Only, but not KJV Ugly" (meaning they didn't condemn others for using something different, although they definitely teach that they believe that one should only use the KJV).

[mommaduck]

Our church (which is not his father's) teaches that the KJV is the one and only "authorized" english version of the Bible (whatever that means).

Authorized means the King (of England) ordered it and eventually permitted ONLY that version to be used. There were other English Bibles prior. The KJV was a bit of a reaction against the Geneva 1560 (loved my Geneva, btw...good if you are Protestant).

 

However, anymore the KJVO's treat "Authorised" as though it was authorised by God as THE English translation over and above all those before and after (I grew up KJVO, btw)

[brehon]

Authorized means the King (of England) ordered it and eventually permitted ONLY that version to be used. There were other English Bibles prior. The KJV was a bit of a reaction against the Geneva 1560 (loved my Geneva, btw...good if you are Protestant).

 

However, anymore the KJVO's treat "Authorised" as though it was authorised by God as THE English translation over and above all those before and after (I grew up KJVO, btw)

 

:iagree: And, if I recall correctly, the KJV owes much to Tyndale's Bible of a few centuries earlier.

[ElizabethB]

I am not KJV only, but I love the language of the KJV. While I read the NIV to my children at times along with a few other versions that are more understandable to children than the KJV, the NIV is dumbed down vocabulary wise. In fact, on my "Why Johnny Doesn't Like to Read Page," I talk about this dumbing down of vocabulary:

 

Here is a comparison of the King James Version (KJV) of Romans 12 to the New International Version (NIV) version of Romans 12 to show both the nature of vocabulary restrictions caused by whole word teaching and also to show how uncomfortable it is to be a reader taught with whole word methods. The KJV is on the first page, the NIV is on the second page. If you were taught with whole word methods, you would have to guess at several of the words (those words not in the most common 10,000 words in the English language) based on their first and last letters. Depending on your memorization abilities, several of the red words would be difficult and would require study, and the purple words would be slightly more difficult to remember. The KJV has 10% of its words that are not the most common 10,000 words in the English language; the vocabulary impoverished NIV has only 2%. If reading everything was this uncomfortable for you, you might prefer TV as well!

[SonshineLearner]

 

Some other little facts the New King James [NKJV] I found out:

 

Removes the word 'God' 51 times

Removes the word 'Lord' 66 times

Removes the word 'heaven' 50 times

KJV uses 'Jehovah' 7 times; never used in the New King James

The word '****ation' used 11 times KJV; never used in NKJV

New King James has 2289 less words in the new testament.

 

Just a couple of comments. I think that the KJV is a lovely translation. Most important is to use one of the accepted.... KJV.... NKJV... American Standard... ect.

 

"Jehovah" isn't really what would be said... Oops! (It's Yawweh)

 

Unless you're reading in the original languages... I wouldn't call any of the ones that actually try to translate word for word.. bad. I wouldn't use "The Message" or even the "NIV" when there are other choices.

 

Just a thought :) I don't think that a defense can really be made that the KJV is the only one. If you tried to read the original KJV, it's not really that possible.... :)

[tntgoodwin]

My DH was raised to believe (by his pastor father) that the KJV is the first complete translation of the Bible into English and therefore, we need no other English translations. I don't know if that is completely true, because I've honestly never researched it, but DH hasn't really delved into the "why" on his own. That's fine with me, I'm not trying to make him change his views, I just want to understand better.

 

Our church (which is not his father's) teaches that the KJV is the one and only "authorized" english version of the Bible (whatever that means). I have never asked anyone to explain it further, mostly because I didn't want to ruffle feathers and because I don't actually mind using the KJV, just want to know why so many are KJV-only. When we first started attending this church four years ago, one of the deacons told me that they were, "KJV Only, but not KJV Ugly" (meaning they didn't condemn others for using something different, although they definitely teach that they believe that one should only use the KJV).

 

A. It wasn't the first complete English translation of the Bible, but probably was the most widespread for many years. Some people today still use the 1599 Geneva Bible, for example. KJV was from 1611. Though it has been revised several times since then.

 

B. As far as the Church goes, it was Authorized by King James... But they sound reasonable as a whole in allowing others to use something different.

 

You may find this article beneficial.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement

[Rene']

My DH was raised to believe (by his pastor father) that the KJV is the first complete translation of the Bible into English and therefore, we need no other English translations. I don't know if that is completely true, because I've honestly never researched it...

 

There were actually 9 other English Bibles before the King James.

 

1. Wycliffe (translated from the Latin Vulgate, complete in 1382)
   
2. Tyndale (first to translate NT from Greek to English, OT was not finished, Tyndale was burned to death in 1536)
   
3. Coverdale (Myles Coverdale - first to publish a complete English Bible, 1535)
   
4. Matthew (Thomas Matthew - a friend of Tyndale, he used Tyndale's unfinished works, using Coverdale's to fill in where necessary, revised it slightly and added introductions and chapter summaries. Interestingly, though Tyndale was killed for translating the bible into English, his work, due to Matthew, was circulated with the King's permission and authority. Published in 1537)
   
5. the Great Bible (This was the first "authorized" Bible - Thomas Cromwell instructed Myles Coverdale to revise the Matthew Bible and it's "controversial notes". It was called the Great Bible because it was very large. It was finished in April of 1539)
   
6. Taverner (Richard Taverner, a Greek scholar, also set about to revise the Matthew Bible at the same time as Coverdale.)
   
7. Geneva (Translated by William Whittingham while in Geneva, where the Reformers fled during Mary Tudor's reign, it was completed in 1560. The translation was superior to the Great Bible, but the notes made it unacceptable for official use in England.)
   
8. Bishop's (First Bible to be translated by a committee, published in 1568. Archbishop Matthew Parker served as the editor and most of the revisers were bishops, so it was called the Bishop's Bible.)
   
9. Douay-Rheims (First Catholic translation of the Bible in English. NT was finished in 1582, OT was not complete until 1610-11.)
   

 

 

Our church (which is not his father's) teaches that the KJV is the one and only "authorized" english version of the Bible (whatever that means). I have never asked anyone to explain it further, mostly because I didn't want to ruffle feathers and because I don't actually mind using the KJV, just want to know why so many are KJV-only.

 

The title page of the King James Version published in 1611 contains the phrase "...by his Majesties special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches."

 

One thing that many do not know is the the King James Bible was not the idea of King James. It was presented to him by Dr. John Rainolds, a Puritan, at the Hampton Court Conference which took place not long after King James had been crowned King of England. A new translation of the bible was not even officially on the agenda.

 

On day 2 of the conference Rainolds presented the idea for a new translation of the Bible, stating that those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th were corrupt.

 

King James said that he "could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that of all, the Geneva is the worst." The King actually had no problem with the text of the Geneva, it was the notes he did not like. The Bishop of London then said that no notes were to be added to Rainold's new Bible.

 

It was already a common practice to authorize the use of one bible throughout the churches of England. The Bishop's bible was in use when the King James Bible was translated, it's understandable that the King James Bible would then become *the* bible used in the churches. It was not unlawful to read or teach from other bibles, however. Some of the translators are reported as quoting or preaching from some of the previous English bibles such as the Geneva or the Bishop's, as well as the King James.

 

When we first started attending this church four years ago, one of the deacons told me that they were, "KJV Only, but not KJV Ugly" (meaning they didn't condemn others for using something different, although they definitely teach that they believe that one should only use the KJV).

 

I've never heard that phrase before but that describes us. I was not raised to be KJO. My husband was not either but he was KJO when I met him. My husband posts frequently on a bible forum and will use the ESV when he feels it will help others understand what he's trying to say better and with people who are against the KJ.

 

This post is already pretty long so I'll try to explain how I became KJO in a condense way. It started when I wondered about God telling Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth, the same thing he told Noah after the flood. Everyone I talked to said either it was translated wrong and should say "fill" or "replenish" doesn't have to mean "to fill again". This bothered me a great deal and I began to think "how can we trust anything in the bible and know that it was translated correctly?"

 

Through my searching I discovered that the King James is correct, the word means "to fill up again" and I became a believer in the Gap Theory. I learned that the King James defines it's own words. I use a program like eSword to see how English words are used throughout the bible and let the Bible tell me what those words mean. I can also look up the Greek or Hebrew and see how those have been translated in to different English words.

 

Suddenly a whole bunch of stuff began to fall into place, like a puzzle being put together. Through the years I've learned to trust exactly how the King James Bible is translated. I believe it is not just "God's Word", but God's WordS for English speaking people.

 

It is translated from the Textus Receptus, which is also called the Majority Text because it's based on about 90% of the existing manuscripts. The Minority Text (from which the NIV is translated) is older, but it represents only about 5% of the existing manuscripts.

 

There were 47 scholars who worked for 7 years translating the Bible. King James referred to them as "learned men" and that was very much true. They were divided into 6 groups - 2 met at Westminster, 2 at Oxford, and 2 at Cambridge. Each group was given a portion to translate, after that work was done each portion was passed to the other five groups for review.

[shanvan]

There were actually 9 other English Bibles before the King James.

 

 

1. Wycliffe (translated from the Latin Vulgate' date=' complete in 1382)

   [*']Tyndale (first to translate NT from Greek to English, OT was not finished, Tyndale was burned to death in 1536)

2. Coverdale (Myles Coverdale - first to publish a complete English Bible, 1535)

3. Matthew (Thomas Matthew - a friend of Tyndale, he used Tyndale's unfinished works, using Coverdale's to fill in where necessary, revised it slightly and added introductions and chapter summaries. Interestingly, though Tyndale was killed for translating the bible into English, his work, due to Matthew, was circulated with the King's permission and authority. Published in 1537)

4. the Great Bible (This was the first "authorized" Bible - Thomas Cromwell instructed Myles Coverdale to revise the Matthew Bible and it's "controversial notes". It was called the Great Bible because it was very large. It was finished in April of 1539)

5. Taverner (Richard Taverner, a Greek scholar, also set about to revise the Matthew Bible at the same time as Coverdale.)

6. Geneva (Translated by William Whittingham while in Geneva, where the Reformers fled during Mary Tudor's reign, it was completed in 1560. The translation was superior to the Great Bible, but the notes made it unacceptable for official use in England.)

7. Bishop's (First Bible to be translated by a committee, published in 1568. Archbishop Matthew Parker served as the editor and most of the revisers were bishops, so it was called the Bishop's Bible.)

8. Douay-Rheims (First Catholic translation of the Bible in English. NT was finished in 1582, OT was not complete until 1610-11.)

 

 

 

 

 

The title page of the King James Version published in 1611 contains the phrase "...by his Majesties special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches."

 

One thing that many do not know is the the King James Bible was not the idea of King James. It was presented to him by Dr. John Rainolds, a Puritan, at the Hampton Court Conference which took place not long after King James had been crowned King of England. A new translation of the bible was not even officially on the agenda.

 

On day 2 of the conference Rainolds presented the idea for a new translation of the Bible, stating that those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry the 8th and Edward the 6th were corrupt.

 

King James said that he "could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that of all, the Geneva is the worst." The King actually had no problem with the text of the Geneva, it was the notes he did not like. The Bishop of London then said that no notes were to be added to Rainold's new Bible.

 

It was already a common practice to authorize the use of one bible throughout the churches of England. The Bishop's bible was in use when the King James Bible was translated, it's understandable that the King James Bible would then become *the* bible used in the churches. It was not unlawful to read or teach from other bibles, however. Some of the translators are reported as quoting or preaching from some of the previous English bibles such as the Geneva or the Bishop's, as well as the King James.

 

 

 

I've never heard that phrase before but that describes us. I was not raised to be KJO. My husband was not either but he was KJO when I met him. My husband posts frequently on a bible forum and will use the ESV when he feels it will help others understand what he's trying to say better and with people who are against the KJ.

 

This post is already pretty long so I'll try to explain how I became KJO in a condense way. It started when I wondered about God telling Adam and Eve to "replenish" the earth, the same thing he told Noah after the flood. Everyone I talked to said either it was translated wrong and should say "fill" or "replenish" doesn't have to mean "to fill again". This bothered me a great deal and I began to think "how can we trust anything in the bible and know that it was translated correctly?"

 

Through my searching I discovered that the King James is correct, the word means "to fill up again" and I became a believer in the Gap Theory. I learned that the King James defines it's own words. I use a program like eSword to see how English words are used throughout the bible and let the Bible tell me what those words mean. I can also look up the Greek or Hebrew and see how those have been translated in to different English words.

 

Suddenly a whole bunch of stuff began to fall into place, like a puzzle being put together. Through the years I've learned to trust exactly how the King James Bible is translated. I believe it is not just "God's Word", but God's WordS for English speaking people.

 

It is translated from the Textus Receptus, which is also called the Majority Text because it's based on about 90% of the existing manuscripts. The Minority Text (from which the NIV is translated) is older, but it represents only about 5% of the existing manuscripts.

 

There were 47 scholars who worked for 7 years translating the Bible. King James referred to them as "learned men" and that was very much true. They were divided into 6 groups - 2 met at Westminster, 2 at Oxford, and 2 at Cambridge. Each group was given a portion to translate, after that work was done each portion was passed to the other five groups for review.

 

Very nice summation and explanation of why you (and I) are KJO. I became convinced when I led a Bible Study for women and tried to use verses from another translation to make them easier to understand (for the record I don't find KJ difficult). I knew exactly which verses I wanted, but when I looked them up to use from other translations I found that on many, the meaning was changed so that those verses no longer made the exact points I wanted to make. Sometimes the change in meaning was ever so subtle, but it was still there.

 

While I am KJO, I don't think I am KJU (U for ugly as in post above). I'm not going to try to convert or degrade others for using a different translation.

[mommaduck]

The problem with the Gap Theory is that it is racist, has been discredited, and was never held by the historical churches.

 

n 1655, Frenchman Isaac La Peyrère published his theory that not only did Adam come from pre-Adamic stock (rather than being formed by God from the dust of the ground), but also Cain’s wife and the inhabitants of Cain’s city came from other pre-Adamic stock

 

In the 18th and 19th centuries, because white and non-white people looked superficially different, a minority of Christians thought that God had created non-whites separately from Adam, and so they must have descended from pre-Adamic creatures. Hence pre-Adamism took the form of polygenism, or multiple creations of different races. Proponents of this idea often thought that non-whites were inferior beings who could be treated as slaves. Pre-Adamism thus became the scientific justification for slavery, and a defense for racism.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=295349 (used to be found in an AIG article)

 

 

A “mistranslation” has contributed to the case for this misinterpretation. In the King James Version of the Bible, God says to Adam, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Proponents of the Gap Theory emphasize the word “replenish.” They interpret the text as saying that Adam and Eve were to refill the Earth. They were to fill it again. The problem with this view is that, regardless of what it says in English translations, the Hebrew word is mâlê’, and it simply means “to fill” or “to be full.” Moreover, the English translators of the King James Version knew the word means “to fill.” They chose “replenish” because, in 17th-century Elizabethan English, “replenish” meant “to fill” (similar to how in modern English the word “replete” doesn’t mean to “abound again,” it simply means “abundant” or “abounding”). Language is not static, but dynamic. Words change meaning over time. Today “replenish” means “to fill again.” It didn’t mean the same thing in 17th century England. Nearly all modern translations translate mâlê’ as simply “fill” in the passage in question (Genesis 1:28).

 

Proponents of the Gap Theory respond by pointing out that God said to Noah after the flood, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill [mâlê’] the earth” (Genesis 9:1). It is evident that Noah was meant to refill the earth after the flood. Can’t we then interpret the same command to Adam to mean the same thing—that Adam was to repopulate the earth after God’s judgment? The fact is that, regardless what the condition of the planet was before Noah’s flood, God didn’t tell Noah to “refill” the Earth. He simply said to fill it. God chose the words He chose and no others. If He said “refill,” that would have been something, but since He just said “fill,” that argument falls flat.

http://www.gotquestions.org/pre-Adamic-race.html

 

 

My stepfather and his family, raised UMC and Nazarene, were big proponents of the Gap Theory and Scofield's Bible was huge in our house and IFB church, so I grew up hearing about it. (if only my mother had known to tell him that he had adopted a mixed child...I laugh at the irony!)

Edited July 6, 2012 by mommaduck

[tntgoodwin]

Very nice summation and explanation of why you (and I) are KJO. I became convinced when I led a Bible Study for women and tried to use verses from another translation to make them easier to understand (for the record I don't find KJ difficult). I knew exactly which verses I wanted, but when I looked them up to use from other translations I found that on many, the meaning was changed so that those verses no longer made the exact points I wanted to make. Sometimes the change in meaning was ever so subtle, but it was still there.

 

While I am KJO, I don't think I am KJU (U for ugly as in post above). I'm not going to try to convert or degrade others for using a different translation.

 

If the KJV got them wrong, wouldn't you prefer a version that corrected them and were accurate, versus a version that allows you to make certain points?

 

Just wondering. :001_smile:

[shanvan]

The problem with the Gap Theory is that it is racist, has been discredited, and was never held by the historical churches.

 

Wanted to add that I did not mean to comment on the gap theory, as I don't know enough about it.

[shanvan]

If the KJV got them wrong, wouldn't you prefer a version that corrected them and were accurate, versus a version that allows you to make certain points?

 

Just wondering. :001_smile:

 

This is coming across to me as argumentative, though as I see the smiley, maybe that is not the intent. I have obviously concluded that the KJ did not get them wrong. I have done my own research and made my decision. Others may come to a different conclusion. There really isn't much more I can say b/c, as I have already stated, I am not out to convert anyone to my position. I simply do not wish to argue about these things. Now, if you tell me my Cocker Spaniel is going to bite b/c that's what cockers do...........that I might argue about.:D

 

The OP's original question was actually for those who have decided that they are KJO. I posted one of my reasons, which I did not mean to argue as a conclusion all people should reach.

[mommaduck]

Wanted to add that I did not mean to comment on the gap theory, as I don't know enough about it.

I know :) KJVO and Gap Theory are two completely different and separate issues ;)

[tntgoodwin]

This is coming across to me as argumentative, though as I see the smiley, maybe that is not the intent. I have obviously concluded that the KJ did not get them wrong. I have done my own research and made my decision. Others may come to a different conclusion. There really isn't much more I can say b/c, as I have already stated, I am not out to convert anyone to my position. I simply do not wish to argue about these things. Now, if you tell me my Cocker Spaniel is going to bite b/c that's what cockers do...........that I might argue about.:D

 

The OP's original question was actually for those who have decided that they are KJO. I posted one of my reasons, which I did not mean to argue as a conclusion all people should reach.

 

Nope, not trying to start an argument. :D

I understand that you believe the KJV to be the correct version, I guess my question is "Why?" From what you wrote, it seemed that you believe the KJV to be correct because it is the version that agrees with you, KWIM?

[shanvan]

Nope, not trying to start an argument. :D

I understand that you believe the KJV to be the correct version, I guess my question is "Why?" From what you wrote, it seemed that you believe the KJV to be correct because it is the version that agrees with you, KWIM?

 

No, based on much reading and praying about the topic. Finding the difference in meanings based on translation re-sparked the research which I had done years ago. So, my earlier post was poorly worded since I had become convinced before, but investigated again after planning the Bible study. For the study I ended up including 2 versions of the verses since I knew there were people who used other translations...though I don't remember which since it was close to 5 years ago. Several of the women have moved away the rest of us are so busy with high school aged Dc that we rarely see one another.