KJV Only

[theophilus40]

The translation a preacher uses doesn't determine how good he is. I use the ESV but I have learned much from preachers and teachers that only used the KJV. It is the Holy Spirit who gives us the ability to understand the Bible and he isn't limited to a specific translation. Attending a church that it KJV only won't prevent you from using another translation in your own study.

Here is a good site for learning more about this subject:

The KJV-only Issue Page

 

[TwinMommy]

The translation a preacher uses doesn't determine how good he is. I use the ESV but I have learned much from preachers and teachers that only used the KJV. It is the Holy Spirit who gives us the ability to understand the Bible and he isn't limited to a specific translation. Attending a church that it KJV only won't prevent you from using another translation in your own study.

Here is a good site for learning more about this subject:

The KJV-only Issue Page

Very true about not needing to use it when not at church. Thanks for the link, off to check it out.

 

[theophilus40]

Very true about not needing to use it when not at church.

You wouldn't need to use it when you go to church either. When you go to church does anyone ever check to see which translation you are using?

 

[TwinMommy]

You wouldn't need to use it when you go to church either. When you go to church does anyone ever check to see which translation you are using?

I have a hardback Life Application study Bible...very clear was to the translation. I will be purchasing a new one soon, but not KJV. I have the NLT and want to switch to NASB because I have grown to like that translation the most.

I guess I would in a sense feel like I was lying if going to a KJV only church and was using something else.

 

[HantsUK]

I have a hardback Life Application study Bible...very clear was to the translation. I will be purchasing a new one soon, but not KJV. I have the NLT and want to switch to NASB because I have grown to like that translation the most.

I guess I would in a sense feel like I was lying if going to a KJV only church and was using something else.

That depends.

In principal, I see no problem with going to a church that uses a different translation to your preferred one. But you would need to respect their choice.

I take my normal Bible to church so that I can make notes in it. I wouldn't take a different version/translation just to keep up appearances. But you need not bring attention to using a different version. Mine is small, so most people would not know what version it was (problem is, I'm starting to find it too small to read!).

There is a difference between quietly using a difference translation, and pretending to use the official one. If we can't be honest in church, then there is something seriously wrong (either with ourselves, or with that church).

But, for some churches, using the Authorised Version (ak KJV - but being a British baptist, I find the 'KJ' bit objectionable) is much more than just a preference, and may even be part of their statement of faith. I could not accept that. Would this church be willing to accept you, if you disagreed with them over this? Do they prefer the AV/JKV- or do they say that other (newer) versions are wrong? Would they accept you into membership, or let you be fully involved in whatever area of ministry or service that God has called you to, if you do not agree with them over KJVOnly views? If not, then you need to find somewhere else.

Pray about it.

 

[Liberated91]

i've read that certain translations actually choose to leave certain verses out of their translation... like Matthew 17:21 and Mark 10:21 which are important verses. Idk if its legalistic to want an kjv only church, i want that too.

 

[ChristianT]

i've read that certain translations actually choose to leave certain verses out of their translation... like Matthew 17:21 and Mark 10:21 which are important verses. Idk if its legalistic to want an kjv only church, i want that too.

That's because many of the manuscripts from the earlier period don't include those verses.

 

[JM]

The Reformed argument for the tradition text has yet to be discussed. Modern Protestants have fought the good fight against the Papal Magisterium only to replace it with a Magisterium of scholars and textual critics who would remove or cause doubt on passages as they see fit. There is no final authority to appeal to in modern evangelicalism. The biblical text is shifting sand. Those who prefer to use a rational approach in defining the New Testament text have to admit that scripture is selected by the text critic. In the office of a scholar many manuscripts are studied. The assumption is often stated that "only the originals are inspired." The scholar must conduct examinations of the many manuscripts to determine which verse is more likely to be inspired and therefore authentic. But what kind of method does he use? What is his rule to determine what is, might be or is not scripture? The Bible critic or critics, whatever the case maybe, must choose and whatever kind of rule chosen becomes their guiding principle. It is not driven by the logic of faith the Reformers used but a secular naturalistic presupposition. This presupposition looks to man for answers and denies the God who acts in history and intervenes in our daily lives. It ultimately denies the God breathed nature of the Bible.



I'll direct you to a link and leave it at that.

Unscribed.

Jerusalem Blade’s Posts | Feileadh Mor

 

[Keachian]

What JM has forgotten to mention is that we don't need to take the Critic's word for it and to hold on to a tradition is just as non-Reformed as a magesterium.

In fact Reformers such as Theodore Beza compiled Greek texts based on what would be called today Critical scholarship.

 

[OzSpen]

i've read that certain translations actually choose to leave certain verses out of their translation... like Matthew 17:21 and Mark 10:21 which are important verses. Idk if its legalistic to want an kjv only church, i want that too.

It's not that translations that use the earlier MSS (e.g. NASB, NIV, ESV) "leave certain verses out of their translation", but that those who use the later translations (as with KJV, NKJ) are actually using later MSS that ADD these verses.

Oz

 

[TwinMommy]

I spent a lot of time yesterday reading/watching videos on this topic and I am more confused than ever LOL I think it is time that I stop and turn to prayer about this. When you watch one person giving reasons that KJV is the only Bible, there is another one refuting all of it.

 

[rcetc]

I hope this is the right place to post this.

I am in the process of moving. I am figuring out what churches I will be visiting once moved. I have been to Baptist churches in the past. One of the ones I am looking at is KJV. I have not been to a KJV only church before.

I am curious as to the reason some feel the KJV is the only Bible to use. I am not wanting to debate because I honestly don't know, so I wanted to get some thoughts on it.

The KJV debate within the modern church started with Peter Ruckman a Baptist pastor. You can read about him in the on-line Encyclopedia located at: en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman. Much of this debate started around 1980 and has grown from there.


It is my position that claiming the inspiration of the KJV over all other manuscripts is going beyond reason and faith. The really funny aspect of this debate is if you actually saw a copy of a KJV of 1611 you would not be-able to read it. You could not understand the English language construction. When a pastor friend showed me his copy of a 1611 version, I just started laughing.


I grew up on the KJV and memorized many passages from it. Therefore, I have a high regard for it as a translation but I mostly use the NASB because I am interested in a word for word translation, but a concept for concept approach is also acceptable. To translate to the many different languages of the world from the Hebrew and Greek text available requires a concept for concept translation. It's the only way you can do it. A good book on the translation debate is a book called “The Translation Debate: What Makes a Bible Translation Good?” by Eugene H. Glassman. I think it is out of print, but is still obtainable through Amazon.com. The author is a Bible translator by profession.


I hope this was helpful.

 

[Keachian]

The KJV debate within the modern church started with Peter Ruckman a Baptist pastor. You can read about him in the on-line Encyclopedia located at: en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman. Much of this debate started around 1980 and has grown from there.


It is my position that claiming the inspiration of the KJV over all other manuscripts is going beyond reason and faith. The really funny aspect of this debate is if you actually saw a copy of a KJV of 1611 you would not be-able to read it. You could not understand the English language construction. When a pastor friend showed me his copy of a 1611 version, I just started laughing.


I grew up on the KJV and memorized many passages from it. Therefore, I have a high regard for it as a translation but I mostly use the NASB because I am interested in a word for word translation, but a concept for concept approach is also acceptable. To translate to the many different languages of the world from the Hebrew and Greek text available requires a concept for concept translation. It's the only way you can do it. A good book on the translation debate is a book called “The Translation Debate: What Makes a Bible Translation Good?” by Eugene H. Glassman. I think it is out of print, but is still obtainable through Amazon.com. The author is a Bible translator by profession.


I hope this was helpful.

You can go back further to Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by Benjamin G Wilkinson, one of the main reasons Wilkinson argues for the KJV is to defend distinctive SDA doctrines, it is somewhat easier to do so with the KJV, but they're still incorrect doctrines.

 

[TwinMommy]

The KJV debate within the modern church started with Peter Ruckman a Baptist pastor. You can read about him in the on-line Encyclopedia located at: en/wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Ruckman. Much of this debate started around 1980 and has grown from there.


It is my position that claiming the inspiration of the KJV over all other manuscripts is going beyond reason and faith. The really funny aspect of this debate is if you actually saw a copy of a KJV of 1611 you would not be-able to read it. You could not understand the English language construction. When a pastor friend showed me his copy of a 1611 version, I just started laughing.


I grew up on the KJV and memorized many passages from it. Therefore, I have a high regard for it as a translation but I mostly use the NASB because I am interested in a word for word translation, but a concept for concept approach is also acceptable. To translate to the many different languages of the world from the Hebrew and Greek text available requires a concept for concept translation. It's the only way you can do it. A good book on the translation debate is a book called “The Translation Debate: What Makes a Bible Translation Good?” by Eugene H. Glassman. I think it is out of print, but is still obtainable through Amazon.com. The author is a Bible translator by profession.


I hope this was helpful.

Will check out info on him today. I have read so much for and against it. Everyone is very convincing and full of info their view. I think my best bet of course is to be in prayer about it.

 

[standingtall]

I spent a lot of time yesterday reading/watching videos on this topic and I am more confused than ever LOL I think it is time that I stop and turn to prayer about this. When you watch one person giving reasons that KJV is the only Bible, there is another one refuting all of it.

Use whatever version you can understand and enjoy. Seriously, your salvation does NOT depend on which version you use. If your decision is based upon what others think about a particular version, you're gonna get a headache. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone thinks their opinion is right.

On a side note, if you visit a church where they believe the KJV is the ONLY version of the Bible that is God's true word run away...fast. You will be looked down on and chastised for using any other version. They will be a legalistic and controlling church. These types of churches think the "Authorized" in "Authorized Version" means it was authorized by God, when in actuality, it really means it was authorized by King James.

 

[dysert]

On a side note, if you visit a church where they believe the KJV is the ONLY version of the Bible that is God's true word run away...fast. You will be looked down on and chastised for using any other version. They will be a legalistic and controlling church. These types of churches think the "Authorized" in "Authorized Version" means it was authorized by God, when in actuality, it really means it was authorized by King James.

I echo this sentiment. I have family members that got involved in a KJV-only church, and it eventually became almost a cult-like assembly. My family members soon cut off all ties with the rest of the family, and to this day (this happened at least 20 years ago) live only within their church family. It's literally like they just disappeared 20 years ago because we haven't heard from them or seen them ever since.

 

[theophilus40]

On a side note, if you visit a church where they believe the KJV is the ONLY version of the Bible that is God's true word run away...fast. You will be looked down on and chastised for using any other version.

Not all KJV only churches are like that. I used to attend a church that only used the KJV. Nobody objected to the fact that I brought my ESV Bible. I even got into discussions with the pastor about which version was better. He disagreed with what I said but never tried to get me to change Bibles.

 

[Bella Vita]

This is religious, pretentious, legalistic garbage. God does not care what translation we use as long as it is his word and maintains the teaching of Christ.

What makes the KJV better than reading the original Hebrew or Greek? It's not any better in fact if you wanna get down to it it is harder to read. Therefore making it harder to understand ones faith.

One should use the translation that best suits the type of study they are doing at the time. For example when I do deep historical study I use the ESV. The study notes, maps, and archaeological information is amazing. But when I do personal intimate study I like to use the NIV. It is easy to read and flows nicely and makes it easier for me to have conversations with God on his word.

The KJV is not held supreme over any other translation. It is simply one option that can be used depending on what you are learning or studying at the time. To hold it above any other translation or to tell others they are wrong for using another translation is wrong.

 

[WannaWitness]

I had been doing some reading about this issue in recent years and many good points were opened up to me... including the fact that the translators of the KJV encouraged the use of other translations - and there is evidence in their original preface, as shown in the following links:

Robert Joyner - Were the KJV Translators KJV Only?

Robert Joyner - Appendix A

I don't see anything wrong with using (and even preferring) the KJV translation. I mean, if it is seen as just a personal conviction, and nothing beyond that. I know a number of fellow believers who read and study only from the King James translation, but it seems to be nothing more than a matter of "sticking to tradition". I see them as very genuine Christian brothers and sisters, nice people, and to say they were "legalistic" would be a downright lie. However, I draw the line when a KJVO reader views another fellow believer who disagrees as unholy and not truly caring about pleasing the Lord - and even unsaved! That is where the legalism truly comes in.

Now, this isn't saying that there aren't a number of supposed "translations" and off-the-wall paraphrases to steer clear of (because I believe such writings exist). But that definitely doesn't mean that other translations can't be useful.

 

[standingtall]

I had been doing some reading about this issue in recent years and many good points were opened up to me... including the fact that the translators of the KJV encouraged the use of other translations - and there is evidence in their original preface, as shown in the following links:

Robert Joyner - Were the KJV Translators KJV Only?

Robert Joyner - Appendix A

Good post.