Is 'KJV Only" a denominational issue?

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Matthew 7:21-23 King James Version (KJV)
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Jesus never spoke those words to any believer in Him. He spoke them to unbelieving religious Pharisees. Accurate contextual exegesis, thou art a jewel!!
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Aren't Ruckman and Riplinger in a category of their own with their thoughts on the KJV?

I think most KJVO people just want a Bible from the textus receptus. I don't see how if the KJV was the "only" Bible used for several hundreds of years with some exceptions... How it originated with the SDA church? It originated because it's the legitimate English Bible. People don't want to deviate from it for many reasons. In my English city I found many KJVO churches. I also think you are wrong when you say it's "dying out" because it really seems to be increasing nowadays.

Sure, Ruckman & Riplinger added their own stuff to the KJVO myth, but they started out copying from the first 3 boox, same as most other KJVOs do.
And I expect the UK has more KJVOs per capita than the US does now, as the KJV is a British version.

Still, it doesn't overcome the FACT that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support & is therefore false.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As some of you know, I strongly oppose the idea that it is better to learn foreign languages for the sake of exact transliteration than simply buy a readable version of the Bible. Reason being, of course, if you can't understand the Bible now, you won't read it later. I want to know if "KJV only" churches belong to specifc denominations or random pastors at any kind of church prefer it. Can i just look at a church name and assume they only read the KJV?

The KJV does seem to be translated leaning more towards reformed theology in my opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟119,794.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Sure, Ruckman & Riplinger added their own stuff to the KJVO myth, but they started out copying from the first 3 boox, same as most other KJVOs do.
And I expect the UK has more KJVOs per capita than the US does now, as the KJV is a British version.

Still, it doesn't overcome the FACT that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support & is therefore false.
I don't know what you mean by scriptural support? Isn't the KJV itself the scriptural support? BIBLE VERSES ABOUT PRESERVATION Just a few examples.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don't know what you mean by scriptural support? Isn't the KJV itself the scriptural support? BIBLE VERSES ABOUT PRESERVATION Just a few examples.

"Scriptural support" means Scripture saying that English users should only use the KJV. If that's what God wanted, He would've said so.

And the "preservation" verses can be found in any valid Bible version. They're not exclusive to the KJV or any other one version.
 
Upvote 0

Dansiph

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jun 26, 2018
1,349
1,001
UK
✟119,794.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If that's what God wanted, He would've said so.
I don't really see how that could be included in the Bible, in that way. To me it just goes without saying there should be one Bible.

And the "preservation" verses can be found in any valid Bible version.
Most KJVO people don't consider many of the other Bibles a "valid Bible version". Meaning the modern translations. It's the source of the translation that's the issue. If they're different then something is wrong. That's where people say they're not different. If that's the case why make another version?
 
Upvote 0

Messerve

Well-Known Member
Sep 30, 2018
1,381
1,064
hjkhjkh
✟25,910.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I must be able to read the Bible NOW. If I have to learn the original languages, that is impossible. There's a reason modern English Bibles were invented: so people can read and understamd them immediately.


What are the differences?
Oh, I would never say you have to know foreign languages first! But as you dig deeper, it's a valuable education to get if you have the time.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I don't really see how that could be included in the Bible, in that way. To me it just goes without saying there should be one Bible.

"One Bible" would mean all Bibles are written in the original languages. There is no way to transliterate a Hebrew or Greek book to English because the grammar, syntax, and vocabulary are totally different. That is just the nature of languages, not a fault of English translators.

Most KJVO people don't consider many of the other Bibles a valid Bible version. Meaning the modern translations. It's the source of the translation that's the issue. If they're different then something is wrong. That's where people say they're not different. If that's the case why make another version?

The source is always God. Some Bibles have Satanic changes like Mary being a "young woman" instead of a virgin, but only Bible scholars, not just any church with a political agenda, write them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I don't really see how that could be included in the Bible, in that way. To me it just goes without saying there should be one Bible.

So, who determines what language it should be in?
And GOD can say anything He chooses, in countless ways as to how to say it. If He wanted us to be KJVO, or to use just any one given version, He would've said so, simple as THAT.


Most KJVO people don't consider many of the other Bibles a "valid Bible version".

And, of course, they're simply WRONG.


Meaning the modern translations. It's the source of the translation that's the issue. If they're different then something is wrong. That's where people say they're not different. If that's the case why make another version?

KJVOs are fond of saying, "Things that are different are not the same." In that case, which KJV is correct? The AV 1611, the original KJV? The 1769 Blayney's Edition, the one most-commonly used in the US? The Oxford Edition? The Cambridge Edition?(I have one.) Any one of dozens of "modified" KJV editions? Any of the several AV 1611 editions? THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER !

In the US, there was a Ford automobile known as the "Model T", which was made from 1909 to 1927. It was a good car for the mostly-unpaved roads & wagon trails prevalent across the US til the latter part of the 1920s. But, as roads improved, the Model T proved to be a poor choice for a smooth road. Thus, it was replaced with the "Model A", made for paved roads. Also, many other auto makers made vehicles suited for the roads of the time.

The KJV is a "Model T" Bible version. Its English style is obsolete, & many words used both then & now have different meanings today. Thus, GOD, who causes/allows all changes in languages, caused newer translations to be made to keep up with the language.

As for manuscripts, which of the over-30 revisions of the Textus Receptus is the correct one? How does one know? Same for individual manuscripts. None of us were there when any of them was made; we generally don't know who made them when or where! We don't know what sources they used. But one thing we DO know: GOD preserved them all for us. I believe He wants us to have an eclectic view of His word from various manuscripts, as ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek won't translate exactly into English or any other current language.

**THE KJVO MYTH: PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE !!**
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
The KJV is a "Model T" Bible version. Its English style is obsolete, & many words used both then & now have different meanings today. Thus, GOD, who causes/allows all changes in languages, caused newer translations to be made to keep up with the language.

This and the fact that it was written in England makes translating it to American English impossible.

I believe because God created all languages, He would want the Bible to be available in American English, even if doing so requires changing some of the text. For example, in Genesis 1, when I read "firmament," I think of the continents (firm = solid), but that does not match up with God calling it heaven.
 
Upvote 0

Redwingfan9

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2019
2,629
1,532
Midwest
✟70,636.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
As some of you know, I strongly oppose the idea that it is better to learn foreign languages for the sake of exact transliteration than simply buy a readable version of the Bible. Reason being, of course, if you can't understand the Bible now, you won't read it later. I want to know if "KJV only" churches belong to specifc denominations or random pastors at any kind of church prefer it. Can i just look at a church name and assume they only read the KJV?

Only a pastor needs to know Greek and Hebrew. In any event, KJV churches aren't necessarily obvious from denominational ties for the most part. There are some Dutch Reformed churches that stick to kjv and I'm sure there are others but I have found that most kjv churches are one offs in their denomination.

Whether the authorized version is the best is up for debate. The nice thing about it is that it's based on the scriptures handed down from the beginning rather than fragments discovered sonce the 19th century.
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Only a pastor needs to know Greek and Hebrew. In any event, KJV churches aren't necessarily obvious from denominational ties for the most part. There are some Dutch Reformed churches that stick to kjv and I'm sure there are others but I have found that most kjv churches are one offs in their denomination.

Whether the authorized version is the best is up for debate. The nice thing about it is that it's based on the scriptures handed down from the beginning rather than fragments discovered sonce the 19th century.

God said that in the end times, knowledge shall increase. And that included knowledge of God's word. After all, 'twas HE who preserved all the ancient Scriptural mss. we have today.
 
Upvote 0

8484838

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 27, 2017
1,530
1,627
28
.
✟480,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm an indy fundy Baptist, & our congregation doesn't follow ANY false, man-made doctrines of faith/wirship, including the KJVO myth. That myth has been a pox within the IFB denom for a while now, but I think it's dying out at last.
Notice I said almost always. When it comes to IFB, the non-KJV churches are the minority - at least in the area I live.
 
Upvote 0

8484838

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 27, 2017
1,530
1,627
28
.
✟480,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Anderson is a quack.

And the KJVO myth is phony as a Ford Corvette.

Proof?

It doesn't have one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, even in theKJV itself. And a thorough, careful reading of the AV 1611's preface, To The Reader, will show the very makers of the KJV were not KJVO !
So you have an issue with a person believing that God not only verbally inspired the Bible and that it's inerrant, but you also have an issue with a person believing that God would perfectly preserve his words throughout all generations? Contemporary translations are similar to the KJV, but they are not the same. What's similar is not the same. If God's word is perfectly preserved, then one of them has to be the perfectly preserved word of God. They can't all be different and be the preserved word.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

anna ~ grace

Newbie
Supporter
May 9, 2010
9,071
11,925
✟108,146.93
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As some of you know, I strongly oppose the idea that it is better to learn foreign languages for the sake of exact transliteration than simply buy a readable version of the Bible. Reason being, of course, if you can't understand the Bible now, you won't read it later. I want to know if "KJV only" churches belong to specifc denominations or random pastors at any kind of church prefer it. Can i just look at a church name and assume they only read the KJV?
Very conservative, independent Baptist churches are the only ones I've met so far who teach this. There might be some very conservative, old-school Pentecostals who feel the same, too.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarks Prodigal

Member
Supporter
Jul 31, 2019
18
12
Ozarks
✟32,196.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
So you have an issue with a person believing that God not only verbally inspired the Bible and that it's inerrant, but you also have an issue with a person believing that God would perfectly preserve his words throughout all generations? Contemporary translations are similar to the KJV, but they are not the same. What's similar is not the same. If God's word is perfectly preserved, then one of them has to be the perfectly preserved word of God. They can't all be different and be the preserved word.

So far, I haven't found any of the versions that are perfectly preserved... here's a site that lists the changes to the KJV over the years. Do you know of any versions that haven't changed since their original printing? I'm not looking to argue, just providing some input.

Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration | Bible.org
and another:
Changes in the King James version
and one more:
Changes To The KJV Since 1611

The last one has a comment about the changes being mostly cosmetic and not being major. I agree... I use the NASB as my primary Bible but I use the KJV as a parallel reference along with Young's Literal Translation. Plus, most of my reference materials use the KJV as the basis for their works. So, I'm not about to walk away from the Bible I was raised up studying as a child. I just find the NASB easier reading and it's a bit more literal at times. Incidentally, the NASB has a history of changes also, just not as lengthy as the KJV:

What is the New American Standard Bible (NASB)? | GotQuestions.org

My point to all of this? Something that is perfect is not changed under normal circumstances but, considering man was involved in the translation of the original documents, there were bound to be errors. All of us make mistakes and the folks that worked on the KJV over the years were no exception. Should this slow anyone down from accepting the Bible for what it is? Absolutely not! However, the translation differences might slow you down a little bit but that's certainly no deal breaker, just an annoyance.

God bless...
 
Upvote 0

robycop3

Newbie
Sep 16, 2014
2,435
539
✟107,962.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
So you have an issue with a person believing that God not only verbally inspired the Bible and that it's inerrant, but you also have an issue with a person believing that God would perfectly preserve his words throughout all generations? Contemporary translations are similar to the KJV, but they are not the same. What's similar is not the same. If God's word is perfectly preserved, then one of them has to be the perfectly preserved word of God. They can't all be different and be the preserved word.

Yes, God DID preserve His word perfectly - in the ancient Scriptural mss. However, TRANSLATIONS made from those mss. are a different matter. The KJV is far-from-perfect. It has several blatant goofs, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. And if one still says it's perfect, then, WHICH EDITION is? KJVOs admit things that are different are not the same, and each KJV edition is different from any other, such as the Oxford & Cambridge editions of today. And where in Scripture does GOD support the KJVO myth ?
 
Upvote 0

8484838

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 27, 2017
1,530
1,627
28
.
✟480,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So far, I haven't found any of the versions that are perfectly preserved... here's a site that lists the changes to the KJV over the years. Do you know of any versions that haven't changed since their original printing? I'm not looking to argue, just providing some input.

Changes to the KJV since 1611: An Illustration | Bible.org
and another:
Changes in the King James version
and one more:
Changes To The KJV Since 1611

The last one has a comment about the changes being mostly cosmetic and not being major. I agree... I use the NASB as my primary Bible but I use the KJV as a parallel reference along with Young's Literal Translation. Plus, most of my reference materials use the KJV as the basis for their works. So, I'm not about to walk away from the Bible I was raised up studying as a child. I just find the NASB easier reading and it's a bit more literal at times. Incidentally, the NASB has a history of changes also, just not as lengthy as the KJV:

What is the New American Standard Bible (NASB)? | GotQuestions.org

My point to all of this? Something that is perfect is not changed under normal circumstances but, considering man was involved in the translation of the original documents, there were bound to be errors. All of us make mistakes and the folks that worked on the KJV over the years were no exception. Should this slow anyone down from accepting the Bible for what it is? Absolutely not! However, the translation differences might slow you down a little bit but that's certainly no deal breaker, just an annoyance.

God bless...
The words that God inspired are preserved and perfect. The changes from the 1611 to the 1769 do not change the words that God preserved, nor the meaning of them. The changes were entirely cosmetic and typographical. The argument of the 1611 to the 1769 proving the fallibility of the KJV holds no water, since no one can even prove where there was one change made that affected the meaning of the text.

If you would like, I can show you more than a few differences from the ESV, the NASB, the NKJV, and the NIV that not only change the wording, but affect the meaning of the text.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dansiph
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

8484838

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 27, 2017
1,530
1,627
28
.
✟480,532.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, God DID preserve His word perfectly - in the ancient Scriptural mss. However, TRANSLATIONS made from those mss. are a different matter. The KJV is far-from-perfect. It has several blatant goofs, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4. And if one still says it's perfect, then, WHICH EDITION is? KJVOs admit things that are different are not the same, and each KJV edition is different from any other, such as the Oxford & Cambridge editions of today. And where in Scripture does GOD support the KJVO myth ?
Well, at least you admit that you don't believe there is a Bible today that God provides us that is perfectly inspired and preserved. It's not my problem if you don't believe what God says, it's yours friend.
 
Upvote 0