Is 'KJV Only" a denominational issue?

[Redwingfan9]

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 ?

KJV definitely has a handful of poor translations, including Acts 12:4 which should read "passover" instead of "easter." There simply wasn't a holy day called easter back at that time, such a holy day is never commanded in scripture. Passover on the other hand would have been well known to everyone, including the Roman authorities, at the time. There are a handful of other issues, such as the insistence on using "bishop" instead of elder.

Nevertheless, the one thing KJV has going for it is that it is translated from the ancient scriptures that God handed down to believers over the centuries. Most of the modern translations use fragments found since the 19th century, which means they weren't passed down to Christians over the centuries. The Dead Sea Scrolls are interesting but they shouldn't be used to translate scripture into modern dialect because they weren't handed down to believers through the years. We should not suppose that God hid his word for nearly 2,000 years from his people.

 

[Ozarks Prodigal]

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.

I check parallel versions on a regular basis for three reasons... 1) to increase my level of understanding, 2) to check for differences in wording, and 3) if there are differences in wording, dictionaries, lexicons and possibly even commentaries are used to check translation of key words. God is perfect but man is far from it. Two of the aforementioned versions are known for being literal in their translations with Young's being most literal in nature. After experiences during my lifetime, trust but verify is second nature because it's rare when one is told the precise truth about much of anything. Whether that is through human error or deliberate, it doesn't really matter. I just do the best I can in understanding the scripture with God's help and go on about my business, and His if He's got something for me to do.

Have a blessed day...

 

[thecolorsblend]

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 haven't seen KJV only to be a denominational thing.

I have, however, noticed that it tends to mostly be a generational thing.

 

[GodLovesCats]

In that case all of the IBF churches must have old pastors closer to my mom's age than mine.

 

[D.A. Wright]

Satan has counterfeited everything that that is true. Look at marriage today, Moses's staff ect. why would he not counterfeit the word of GOD?

You might find this interesting concerning these new translations of the Bible.

Heresies and blasphemies of Wescott & Hort

Why did the Authorized Version translators choose the English word "Easter" to represent the Greek word meaning "Passover" in the following verse?

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. (Acts 12:4)

 

[thecolorsblend]

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.

It's a question of aptitude. I'm being polite. Some native English-speakers don't have the intelligence to understand archaic forms of English. That's not meant to be a swipe against them; just a simple fact.

While the KJV may be a good translation, it's simply incomprehensible to a lot of people. I don't think the right answer is to force them to read a translation of scripture which they will always struggle to understand.

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:

There are very few Protestant teachers that I respect. Very few. I could count them on one hand and still have fingers left over.

But Anderson is one of them. He stands up for what he believes no matter the odds, no matter the obstacles, no matter the cost. He has earned my respect.

(Although, yes, he and I have no shortage of disagreements on many matters)

 

[D.A. Wright]

I haven't seen KJV only to be a denominational thing.

I have, however, noticed that it tends to mostly be a generational thing.

I would certainly agree, to a point. But I've observed that it's largely a schism that seems to attach itself quite readily to fundamentalism in any age. It's dying off, in any case. A well-respected scholar in my own denomination spent years researching to write an entire book on the subject, which is a torturous read, to be sure. And although wildly popular at one time, today it is considered somewhat of an embarrassing episode in his otherwise impressive career. These things happen to the dusty frames we be.

 

[D.A. Wright]

By the way, I absolutely adore the King James Version. It is also one of the easiest to use for memorization because of its distinct form of unction. I memorized so much of it that I find it nearly impossible to memorize from any other. I find no way to decide which of the others would suit me.

 

[D.A. Wright]

BUT the overwhelming majority you just read like butter.

Not for this fairly intelligent American. No way. And I say that having been a KJVO proponent for the first half of my life of 55 years thus far. I still love it so, though, so help me.

 

[Dansiph]

It's a question of aptitude. I'm being polite. Some native English-speakers don't have the intelligence to understand archaic forms of English. That's not meant to be a swipe against them; just a simple fact.

While the KJV may be a good translation, it's simply incomprehensible to a lot of people. I don't think the right answer is to force them to read a translation of scripture which they will always struggle to understand.

There are very Protestant teachers that I respect. Very few. I could count them on one hand and still have fingers left over.

But Anderson is one of them. He stands up for what he believes no matter the odds, no matter the obstacles, no matter the cost. He has earned my respect.

(Although, yes, he and I have no shortage of disagreements on many matters)

I agree with some parts of what you said. I also understand that it takes some getting used to, to read the KJV style. I think the majority of Christians can get used to it. I'd even say if you struggle so much to make it unreadable you probably need help reading anyway. (This is not meant to cause offense). These people should be helped to comprehend the KJV.

What helps me is reading a lot of KJV and hearing the KJV spoken and preached. I've definitely got better at reading it over the time I've been a Christian although tbh I never really struggled.

I respect Pastor Anderson too. For those reasons. I will say and again I'm not trying to cause offense or an argument but Pastor Anderson does not consider himself a protestant. His friend from another similar church released a documentary called Being Baptist. They believe that the original Christians resembled Baptists.

 

[Dansiph]

Not for this fairly intelligent American. No way. And I say that having been a KJVO proponent for the first half of my life of 55 years thus far. I still love it so, though, so help me.

The only thing I can think of is to listen to the KJV spoken. Try to get used to the thee and thou and ye etc and what they mean. A good reading to listen to is Psalms and Proverbs. I find that this version of Proverbs 1 helps with how it is spoken:

 

[thecolorsblend]

For those reasons. I will say and again I'm not trying to cause offense or an argument but Pastor Anderson does not consider himself a protestant. His friend from another similar church released a documentary called Being Baptist. They believe that the original Christians resembled Baptists.

Sometimes the meme comes true.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Not for this fairly intelligent American. No way. And I say that having been a KJVO proponent for the first half of my life of 55 years thus far. I still love it so, though, so help me.

If the KJV is easy to read and other versions are not, you must be a native Old English speaKer. I find the version so difficult because it is like reading a foreign language sometimes (word order and words that do not exist anywhere else screw me up). There is no way someone can be a native modern English speaker and not have a much easier time reading the KJV.

 

[GodLovesCats]

BTW I don't believe it has anything to do with how intelligent someone is. I could have an IQ of 200 and I still would not be able to read Hebrew.

 

[D.A. Wright]

Sometimes the meme comes true.

View attachment 261204

Ah, but I don't see the late 19th to early 20th century persecution of Catholics in the U. S. Thaaat's right, we did that.

 

[D.A. Wright]

There are some that hold the KJV to be superior to the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and all who use any other translation is considered a heretic (I suppose Paul was one), as if the translation improved the flaws of the original tongue.

Never heard that one before, but I can't say I'm shocked with some of the fanaticism I see on here.

 

[D.A. Wright]

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.

Who's "we," Nic? I'm having trouble distinguishing what's what, here.

 

[D.A. Wright]

BTW I don't believe it has anything to do with how intelligent someone is. I could have an IQ of 200 and I still would not be able to read Hebrew.

I was merely trying to point out that if the KJV reads "like butter," generally speaking, as one poster put it, then how come I never learned words like "discern," "countenance," "longsuffering," "pestilence," etc., in school? (Did I mention I love the King James Version?)

 

[GodLovesCats]

Longsuffering is not a word. It is long-suffering, which means "suffering a long time."

Countenance, pestilencde, and discern are not words I have seen in my NIV Bible.

 

[Dansiph]

If the KJV is easy to read and other versions are not, you must be a native Old English speaKer. I find the version so difficult because it is like reading a foreign language sometimes (word order and words that do not exist anywhere else screw me up). There is no way someone can be a native modern English speaker and not have a much easier time reading the KJV.

The KJV is not written in Old English. I am a modern English speaker and the KJV is fine to read. I have no special talent or qualifications either. I think the KJV is written in Early Modern English. Some words are difficult but some like discern and countenance are words that are still currently used.