Hi Cody. I hope you don't mind if I address the points you've raised.
-I believe in Jesus Christ also.
I'm sure you do. But consider this. Saying "I believe in Jesus" doesn't mean much these days. Muslims believe in Jesus. So do some Hindus. Mormons also believe in Jesus. In fact, the only people around who don't "believe in Jesus" are Jews and atheists. Intellectual assent to the existence of Jesus or the fact that some of his teachings are beneficial doesn't save. Faith that the death and resurrection of Jesus effects our salvation is what saves. I know that you have that faith, and I'm not trying to grou you in the same category as Mormons. All I'm saying is that there are a lot of false religions and cults out there who claim to believe in Jesus. So in this day and age it's all the more important that we be clear with our words.
-I'm glad you don't use English versions with different speaking people. That would be kind of silly.
Here's a question that no KJV-onlyist as ever given me a straight answer to. How do I provide a non-English speaker with the Word of God? One KJV-onlyist pointed me to a Spanish Bible that is translated from the Textus Receptus (I found this strange, since KJVO people believe that the KJV, but
not the TR, was specially inspired by God). But what about someone who speaks, say, Swahili? There do exist Bibles in arcane languages. But by saying that all Bible translations except the KJV are inspired by Satan, you are denying non-English speakers access to the word of God. You are denying them salvation, because faith can only come by hearing the word of Christ. So again, how does a non-English speaker read the Word of God?
-Thanks for putting me in a cult.
To be fair, KJV-onlyism bears at least a couple marks of cults. First of all, their apologists and proponents lie blatently about other Christians, and claim that anyone who disagrees with them is inspired by Satan. Abandonment of logic and reason is a common trait of cultists. Other KJV-onlyists adhere to rather strange doctrines. I've seen one KJV-only church which believes that the earth is the center of the universe. A member of this church (who was a very nice person) used to post here. Ultimately KJV-onlyism will lead to liberalism. When you abandon logic and reason, the only defense you can give for your faith is "I just believe it's true." That's very shaky foundation, and it will ultimately lead to universalism.
-I do worship Jesus. I don't worship the Bible and nor does any other King James Onlyist I know, but I do put God's word on high. (Psalms 138:2)
I believe that you worship Jesus. I'm not even saying that you're a false believer. But do you really reverence God's Word? A common objection KJV-onlyists level against modern translations is that they downplay important doctrines like the deity of Christ (actually the
opposite is true, compare Romans 9:5 and 2 Peter 1:1 in the KJV and the ESV). Let's say for the moment that this is true. Do you realize why this argument is terribly flawed? What you are saying is that we should invent a set of doctrines, and then choose the Bible translation that best agrees with the doctrines that we've created. Obviously I believe that Jesus is God. But I believe that Jesus is God because the Bible says that he is. I do not believe the Bible because it says that Jesus is God. We wouldn't know that Jesus is God unless the Bible said so. KJV-onlyism requires you to replace the Word of God with the wisdom of man
There are no King James haters, or at least I've never run into anyone who really could be said to hate it, and I've been following this dispute for a good amount of time.
I'll go on record as saying that I
do not hate the KJV. I don't hate KJV-onlyists either. But I hate KJV-onlyism, because it is a false doctrine and is supported by lies.
It was a fine translation for its day, and the people of its day would have been wise to take heed of it, but it has translational issues, its langauge is archaic, and it's unthinkable that we should ask people to be restricted to it as the only real Bible. The objection is not to the "King James," it's to the "Only."
Thank you, I believe that you've spoken well.