I think the KJV only position is a lot more sensible than people make it out to be.
Also, I will never understand it being "difficult to read". Sure there's a few words I don't understand straight away and there's tricky parts in places. BUT the overwhelming majority you just read like butter. I'm reading the gospels atm and the only tricky part I've encountered was the first sentence of Luke. I'm now approaching John which is said to be one of the easiest to understand.
There' some misinformation and lies in this thread about KJVO and KJV only people imo.
Lastly, although many will undoubtedly have a bad opinion of him because of some of his views. Pastor Steven Anderson has a video series talking about James White's book:
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?
I've found, most of the time, the KJVO "branding" is present around the church. I've seen it on signs, websites, and bulletins. I say this tongue-in-cheek, but if you're ever unsure, just mention something about your favorite NIV and you'll know in two seconds...
IFB are the most common, but there are smaller independent types I've seen be KJVO as well. I know there are others scattered among various denominations. I would generalize that it tends to be a Baptist thing, but I've heard of others in the Pentecostal realm. I've seen some include some more obscure Presbyterian groups, but most I've encountered in that area may prefer the KJV for reasons relating more to the TR vs CT debate.
I think the KJV only position is a lot more sensible than people make it out to be.
Also, I will never understand it being "difficult to read". Sure there's a few words I don't understand straight away and there's tricky parts in places. BUT the overwhelming majority you just read like butter. I'm reading the gospels atm and the only tricky part I've encountered was the first sentence of Luke. I'm now approaching John which is said to be one of the easiest to understand.
It is harder for me because of the incorrect word order and usage of words that no longer exist anywhere else, such as espy and smite. I learned those two by doing crossword puzzles.
Why do Protestants insist on a Bible written by people that persecuted them? I never understood why the Geneva Bible is not the predominant Protestant Bible today?
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?
King James Only Advocates fall into a wide variety of beliefs. There is a "KJV Only" guy I talked with once who denied the Trinity even. Obviously he is wrong for denying the Trinity. Most KJV Only advocates appear to be for Eternal Security, Belief Alone-ism, or a Sin and Still Be Saved Type Belief. However, there are Conditional Salvationists like myself (and poster "LoveofTruth") who believe the King James Bible is God's perfect Word for today, as well (Note: This doesn't mean I do not read Modern Translations; Please see the latter half of my post below to learn more). But yes, I agree with you that you do not need to know Hebrew or Greek in order to understand the Bible.
Reasons why I believe the KJV (Cambridge Edition - circa 1900) is the divinely inspired perfect Word:
#1.God's Word claims that it is perfect:
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.
#2.KJV vs. Modern Translations:
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?
Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.
See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...
Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.
See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.
Why is this a problem?
Let's look at...
Genesis 22:17
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.
For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").
Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).
To learn more on this study, click on the following spoiler button:
In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.
In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?
Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).
"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).
This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),
"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).
Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.
The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!
Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.
Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).
In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.
But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?
Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).
So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!
Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.
So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.
For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.
Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.
"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).
The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).
#3.Biblical Numerics:
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.
Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:
Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.
King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):
King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):
Now, while I may not agree with Mike and Chuck on everything they teach in the Bible (like their view on Soteriology) nor on the way they teach the Bible, but their teaching on Biblical numerics are amazing; I have found that they have made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the original languages (Chuck) and only in the King James (Mike).
#4.Men have lost their voice for tampering with God's Word:
The Bible warns us not to add to God's Word, otherwise the plagues that are written in this book (the Bible) will be added to us.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book" (Revelation 22:18).
Many have said that this is only talking about the book of Revelation. But men have lost their voice for adding to God's Word (Which is a plague in another part of the Bible and not Revelation).
Concluding thoughts on the KJV vs. the Modern Translations:
I believe the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) is the Word of God for our world language (English) today (See this short article here). In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either.
From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.
Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.
In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift through the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).
This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.
Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.
For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.
Why do Protestants insist on a Bible written by people that persecuted them? I never understood why the Geneva Bible is not the predominant Protestant Bible today?
Correct. They did not have computers, inket printers, etc. Also, it is obvious when you read the KJV it has many words that do not exist anymore. This shows changes in the language itself.
Why do Protestants insist on a Bible written by people that persecuted them? I never understood why the Geneva Bible is not the predominant Protestant Bible today?
There are a couple reasons, and of course, I will overgeneralize in them, but this is a forum and our attention spans are slightly longer than a gnat at times.
One comes to mind is the use of the word "tyrant" in place of the word "king" in the Geneva Bible. In addition the footnotes challenged the monarchy, to say the least. Let's just say it made the Geneva Bible a little less than popular with the monarchy and associated characters. So the political dimension of the translation was a big one.
Why it was later adopted by the opposing party(?) - well that likely has to do more so with the literary merit of the KJV. It's memorable precisely because it's really a work of art in a lot of places. It went on to influence the English language.
And lastly, the KJV was authorized and not banned, quite unlike the Geneva Bible. So you have large components of the Anglo-Catholic/High Church crowd using it alongside the more English Reformed crowd. Later this would follow with Baptists, Prebyterians, etc. With the Scots, Irish, and English all funneling into America in later times, it just grew from there.
Independent Fundamental Baptist churches are almost always KJVO as a rule of thumb; it is the primary distinction we have against other baptist sects, like the Southern Baptists or the Reformed Baptists.
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.
It was the original reformers Bible, proceeding the King James Bible for 50 years. Even after they came to America, it was the Puritans Bible. Men such as William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and John Milton used the Geneva Bible in their writings.
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.
Well, actually, James, there've been KJVOs since 1611, but its very makers were not among them! However, the modern edition of the myth arose from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. ben wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, which he wrote in response to a squabble within his cult, not trying to expand the false KJVO doctrine. When the squabble was ended, he lost interest in that book.
However, it was heavily plagiarized in J. J. Ray's 1955 book, God Wrote Only One Bible, in which he didn't mention Dr. W at all. Then, Dr. D. O. Fuller copied a good amount from both Wilkinson & Ray in his 1970 book, Which Bible? & while he at least acknowledged Dr. W, he was careful not to mention W's CULT AFFILIATION.
Those 3 boox, one from a cult official & the other 2 streaked with dishonesty, were the "foundation stones" of the modern KJVO myth. Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, & virtually every other KJVO author has copied from any or all those 3 boox. All those boox are available from Amazon or Ebay.
I think the KJV only position is a lot more sensible than people make it out to be.
Also, I will never understand it being "difficult to read". Sure there's a few words I don't understand straight away and there's tricky parts in places. BUT the overwhelming majority you just read like butter. I'm reading the gospels atm and the only tricky part I've encountered was the first sentence of Luke. I'm now approaching John which is said to be one of the easiest to understand.
There' some misinformation and lies in this thread about KJVO and KJV only people imo.
Lastly, although many will undoubtedly have a bad opinion of him because of some of his views. Pastor Steven Anderson has a video series talking about James White's book:
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 !
Well, actually, James, there've been KJVOs since 1611, but its very makers were not among them! However, the modern edition of the myth arose from 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official Dr. ben wilkinson's 1930 book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, which he wrote in response to a squabble within his cult, not trying to expand the false KJVO doctrine. When the squabble was ended, he lost interest in that book.
However, it was heavily plagiarized in J. J. Ray's 1955 book, God Wrote Only One Bible, in which he didn't mention Dr. W at all. Then, Dr. D. O. Fuller copied a good amount from both Wilkinson & Ray in his 1970 book, Which Bible? & while he at least acknowledged Dr. W, he was careful not to mention W's CULT AFFILIATION.
Those 3 boox, one from a cult official & the other 2 streaked with dishonesty, were the "foundation stones" of the modern KJVO myth. Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, & virtually every other KJVO author has copied from any or all those 3 boox. All those boox are available from Amazon or Ebay.
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.
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?
KJV-onlyism appears to be a movement restricted to fundamental baptist circles. The spectrum of churches that chooses majority-text based bibles over modern translations is larger.
