I have run into this issue to many times to count and all you can do is to say what you feel and expect to be yelled at. If they were a thoughtful lot they would already have done the research and would know that the KJV is a good thought for thought translation but there are a number of, as close as can be, word for word versions that, perhaps?, are better. It is not a good position to debate at all.
Answers To Kjv Exclusive Theology
- Thread starter Brewdaddy
- Start date
I am at a good / small Assemblies of God church. KJV preferred, certainly not exclusive.
I like AoG mostly. I've had some slightly negative experiences in one church, but overall, it is pretty positive. I don't completely agree with their doctrines (that's not unusual), but I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would be overly troublesome. I like some of their children's curriculum.
I would say be kind. Is there a reason to be rude to them ? No. Just let them know you go to a church. If you would like to try the church, go for a Sunday it may surprise you.
Well I wont beat around the bush, King James Onlyists are a CULT.
Like all cults, they base their theology or ideas around one or two special verses, which they take miles out of context and create their own spin on them. The key verse for King James Onlyists is Psalm 12: 6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.
They take this to mean that Gods word, as in The Bible will be refined and become pure after the seventh "version" in "the perfect Lange" . With a little but of juggling with numbers, the King James Bible has been declared the 7th English Language version and therefore that is the one which is the perfect Bible that we should now all use. Any other Bible after it and before it is a corruption and from Satan.
Once you start delving, there is a huge treasure trove of ridiculous claims made by its leaders. They rant on almost rabid like insisting that words in later translations such as Passover instead of Easter is the work of Satan. It also becomes ridiculous when they claim that American spelling is also from Satan, that satan corrupted 17th Century English and perverted it so that all other Bible will now be perverted.
Evidence for this comes from the word Saviour, they like their numerology, which is 7 letters, which we all should know means perfect etc, however the later perversions of the Bible, are mainly American spelling, so we see the word Savior instead, which is 6 letters and represents man.
Like all other cults, they will not pay any attention to your arguments, they only appear to do so if they think they can out think you, otherwise they go off on tangent and just repeat everything again, which is what all cults do.
Another indication that they are a cult is that they claim God, Jesus and HOly SPirit exclusively for their own. They will claim that individuals who are told about the King James Bible issue and do not join them after being told, will be questioned about their choice of Bible by Jesus at the Judgement Seat. They go even further than that, by saying that if people are using Bibles other than the King James, after being told, do not get red-flags and warnings about how bad it is, then the Spirit they know and possess is not that of the Holy Spirit but demonic spirits.
Another Cult behaviour is that yet again people who disagree with them are actually disagreeing with God and hate the King James Bible, I know one person despite being told million times to date that I love the King James Bible, still claims I am a hater of the King James Bible and I am not a true Bible Believer, that is another phrase they love, that they are "Bible Believers" and everyone else is not.
I have hardly begun to scratch the surface, in short this is a cult, many people get sucked into this cult in same way as all other cults, they are fed a tiny snippet of information to hook them and make them go "ooooo!!" then end up brainwashing them.
So stay clear of the King James Only Cult, you will never beat them, but unlike the saying, you must never join them.
Like all cults, they base their theology or ideas around one or two special verses, which they take miles out of context and create their own spin on them. The key verse for King James Onlyists is Psalm 12: 6 And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.
They take this to mean that Gods word, as in The Bible will be refined and become pure after the seventh "version" in "the perfect Lange" . With a little but of juggling with numbers, the King James Bible has been declared the 7th English Language version and therefore that is the one which is the perfect Bible that we should now all use. Any other Bible after it and before it is a corruption and from Satan.
Once you start delving, there is a huge treasure trove of ridiculous claims made by its leaders. They rant on almost rabid like insisting that words in later translations such as Passover instead of Easter is the work of Satan. It also becomes ridiculous when they claim that American spelling is also from Satan, that satan corrupted 17th Century English and perverted it so that all other Bible will now be perverted.
Evidence for this comes from the word Saviour, they like their numerology, which is 7 letters, which we all should know means perfect etc, however the later perversions of the Bible, are mainly American spelling, so we see the word Savior instead, which is 6 letters and represents man.
Like all other cults, they will not pay any attention to your arguments, they only appear to do so if they think they can out think you, otherwise they go off on tangent and just repeat everything again, which is what all cults do.
Another indication that they are a cult is that they claim God, Jesus and HOly SPirit exclusively for their own. They will claim that individuals who are told about the King James Bible issue and do not join them after being told, will be questioned about their choice of Bible by Jesus at the Judgement Seat. They go even further than that, by saying that if people are using Bibles other than the King James, after being told, do not get red-flags and warnings about how bad it is, then the Spirit they know and possess is not that of the Holy Spirit but demonic spirits.
Another Cult behaviour is that yet again people who disagree with them are actually disagreeing with God and hate the King James Bible, I know one person despite being told million times to date that I love the King James Bible, still claims I am a hater of the King James Bible and I am not a true Bible Believer, that is another phrase they love, that they are "Bible Believers" and everyone else is not.
I have hardly begun to scratch the surface, in short this is a cult, many people get sucked into this cult in same way as all other cults, they are fed a tiny snippet of information to hook them and make them go "ooooo!!" then end up brainwashing them.
So stay clear of the King James Only Cult, you will never beat them, but unlike the saying, you must never join them.
The problem with KJV only is that you have to speak English in order to have the "right" translation.
Is there a KJV in Spanish? Russian? Bantu? Cantonese?
There's nothing wrong (that I can tell) with the KJV. However, saying that the KJV is the only translation to have is just another form of idolatry. A good litmus test for idolatry is that you know you're idolizing something when you have to demonize something else. If you're demonizing other translations in favor of your own, then you've probably got some misplaced priorities.
I don't know if I would have classified myself as a cultist (although I'm sure there are some out there), but I used to be an elitist and pious KJV-only guy until I found myself referencing other English translations so I could make sense of certain KJV passages, so I finally let go of my piety and starting using a translation that I found to speak more clearly to me. There are some English translations out there that are way off the mark, as someone mentioned previously, but you're not missing out on any thing if you're reading an NIV or ESV - for example.
Is there a KJV in Spanish? Russian? Bantu? Cantonese?
There's nothing wrong (that I can tell) with the KJV. However, saying that the KJV is the only translation to have is just another form of idolatry. A good litmus test for idolatry is that you know you're idolizing something when you have to demonize something else. If you're demonizing other translations in favor of your own, then you've probably got some misplaced priorities.
I don't know if I would have classified myself as a cultist (although I'm sure there are some out there), but I used to be an elitist and pious KJV-only guy until I found myself referencing other English translations so I could make sense of certain KJV passages, so I finally let go of my piety and starting using a translation that I found to speak more clearly to me. There are some English translations out there that are way off the mark, as someone mentioned previously, but you're not missing out on any thing if you're reading an NIV or ESV - for example.
This is one of the big points against KJV-only that's occurred to me. Which language takes precedence if there is a conflict in translations? Might as well go back to the original languages if you want to argue about it.
The main problem I see with the KJV-only attitude is how KJV is treated as the standard by which all other translations are judged. It usually manifests itself as, "They changed words in this verse", or "They removed words in this verse". Sometimes they're right, but then they seem blind to other places where KJV has also changed the meaning from the original languages. (Some changes were borrowed from earlier translations.)
I do like KJV, but I tend to use Young, Darby, Green and a few others for studying. No translation is perfect; there is always a loss of meaning when going from one language to another. So multiple good translations help.
I'm quite new to this forum, so I don't want to keep beating a dead horse (so to speak). Kurt75 & Fadingman both touched on an aspect that I've never got a satisfactory response [in fact, I've never even got ONE at all!] from the die-hard KJV 1611 advocates.
There's also a few other aspects of KJV-onlyism that bothers me.
PREMISE: The KJV 1611 is THE ONLY "WORD OF GOD!" Okay, let's just step back and analyze that statement.
If the above premise IS true, then how were people who lived PRIOR to 1611 saved? Please bear with me on this.
1. We are justified [which to me means "saved"] by FAITH (Romans 3:28)
2. FAITH cometh by hearing, and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD (Romans 10:17 [bolding is mine])
3. If 1 & 2 above are true, then doesn't it follow that one must have THE WORD OF GOD in order to be saved?
4. Since [according to the KJV only advocates] the KJV 1611 is THE ONLY "WORD OF GOD," then how were people who lived (& died!) BEFORE 1611 able to be saved?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREMISE: God only wrote ONE pure and perfect Bible, and that Bible is the KJV 1611.
1. So, if that's the case, you're telling me that, prior to 1611, there was NO Word of God in existence, right?
2. If you say that, "Well, no....I didn't mean to imply that," then what WERE you trying to imply?
3. Seems to me that what you're trying to tell me was that one day God suddenly woke up and realized "WOW, those poor earthlings don't have My Word!! Gotta DO something about that, and really quick too!! Let's see....Oh, I know what I'll do! I'll divinely inspire a body of early seventeenth century Englishmen to come up with what will be called 'The Authorized' King James Version' so that those poor earthlings will NOW have My Word!!!"
4. If that characterization is inherently false, then wouldn't it logically follow that, prior to 1611, there was a God's Word somewhere in existence?
5. If there was, in fact, God's Word in existence PRIOR to 1611, why then would (at least in God's eyes) there be a necessity for another, newer God's Word, viz., the KJV 1611???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREMISE: "This 1611 KJV I'm holding in my hand, and what you folks out there in the pews have in your hands, is the pure and unadulterated 'Word of God'!!!"
1. Most preachers and/or lay people do not, in fact, possess the 1611 KJV.
2. The KJV has gone through several editions/revisions down through the years.
3. If a person did, in fact, possess the 1611 KJV, he/she would be reading early modern English and it would be in Gothic type fonts.
4. BTW, the "original 1611 KJV" also contained the Apocrypha.....Not something many non-Roman Catholics would probably look upon with much favor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does all of this that I've pointed out therefore mean I'm "anti-KJV"? No, it doesn't. I regularly read and study from it, and are blessed by doing so. In fact, [and this would be important to immersionists such as Baptists historically are] I pursued a rather diligent study over the question of whether or not the words "baptism," "baptize," etc., in the KJV meant something other than "immersion," "immerse." I concluded that these words DID, in fact, mean "immerse," etc.!!
There's also a few other aspects of KJV-onlyism that bothers me.
PREMISE: The KJV 1611 is THE ONLY "WORD OF GOD!" Okay, let's just step back and analyze that statement.
If the above premise IS true, then how were people who lived PRIOR to 1611 saved? Please bear with me on this.
1. We are justified [which to me means "saved"] by FAITH (Romans 3:28)
2. FAITH cometh by hearing, and hearing by THE WORD OF GOD (Romans 10:17 [bolding is mine])
3. If 1 & 2 above are true, then doesn't it follow that one must have THE WORD OF GOD in order to be saved?
4. Since [according to the KJV only advocates] the KJV 1611 is THE ONLY "WORD OF GOD," then how were people who lived (& died!) BEFORE 1611 able to be saved?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREMISE: God only wrote ONE pure and perfect Bible, and that Bible is the KJV 1611.
1. So, if that's the case, you're telling me that, prior to 1611, there was NO Word of God in existence, right?
2. If you say that, "Well, no....I didn't mean to imply that," then what WERE you trying to imply?
3. Seems to me that what you're trying to tell me was that one day God suddenly woke up and realized "WOW, those poor earthlings don't have My Word!! Gotta DO something about that, and really quick too!! Let's see....Oh, I know what I'll do! I'll divinely inspire a body of early seventeenth century Englishmen to come up with what will be called 'The Authorized' King James Version' so that those poor earthlings will NOW have My Word!!!"
4. If that characterization is inherently false, then wouldn't it logically follow that, prior to 1611, there was a God's Word somewhere in existence?
5. If there was, in fact, God's Word in existence PRIOR to 1611, why then would (at least in God's eyes) there be a necessity for another, newer God's Word, viz., the KJV 1611???
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREMISE: "This 1611 KJV I'm holding in my hand, and what you folks out there in the pews have in your hands, is the pure and unadulterated 'Word of God'!!!"
1. Most preachers and/or lay people do not, in fact, possess the 1611 KJV.
2. The KJV has gone through several editions/revisions down through the years.
3. If a person did, in fact, possess the 1611 KJV, he/she would be reading early modern English and it would be in Gothic type fonts.
4. BTW, the "original 1611 KJV" also contained the Apocrypha.....Not something many non-Roman Catholics would probably look upon with much favor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does all of this that I've pointed out therefore mean I'm "anti-KJV"? No, it doesn't. I regularly read and study from it, and are blessed by doing so. In fact, [and this would be important to immersionists such as Baptists historically are] I pursued a rather diligent study over the question of whether or not the words "baptism," "baptize," etc., in the KJV meant something other than "immersion," "immerse." I concluded that these words DID, in fact, mean "immerse," etc.!!
We often fight the 'KJV only' mentality in our area-and since we use the KJV as our standard-we get grouped into the 'KJV only' stereotype. It can be very frustrating. There is one particular movement in our area that claims all 'godly standards' derived from England starting with the KJV.....
Well; I would voice my opinion on that last statement-but I am not sure I am eloquent enough to make my own response Godly.
Well; I would voice my opinion on that last statement-but I am not sure I am eloquent enough to make my own response Godly.
Reminds me of a KJV-only forum of which I was a member for a short (& I do mean short!) time a few years ago.
In my member introduction post, I mentioned that I was a history buff (have an earned MA in History from a state university) and was interested in the life and times of Tudor & Stuart England.
Just the mere mention of that fact set off fire bells by the powers that be of that KJV-only forum! Why it did so is beyond me, but, as the very profound statement goes, "It is what it is!"
Last edited:
Yes Major, you did miss it...
The reason KJV people are so adamant about not using newer versions is because they are corrupt. The NIV uses the alternative 'critical text' like the other new ones, so I used it as my example because it is the most popular. Now If we need to go into the other versions and look at their errors, you will mostly find the same ones because they all come from the same 'critical texts' (which include the Apocrypha). But each new version has its own set of problems...Even the NKJV changes significantly...
How didn't I address the question? I did, I addressed it from a scriptural analysis based upon the difference in manuscripts. So either you did not read the post, or you have nothing to refute it...The King James is trustworthy and the new versions that use the alternative 'critical text' are not! Man lives (receives spiritual life ) from the word of God:
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
Jas 1:21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
2Co 3:3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.
Pro 4:4 He taught me also, and said unto me, Let thine heart retain my words: keep my commandments, and live.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Joh 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Joh 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Joh 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
That is what it means to be born again.If you are eating poisoned food, how 'alive' are you going to be? Not very... The newer versions have corrupted Christianity in America...It is not a coincidence that the United States took such a downward spiritual spiral at the same time all of these new versions became prevalent! The new versions match the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses...enough said!
I addressed the question properly, you just didn't like the answer I gave...
T/C
One other thing...The KJV people are not causing the division- It is the people using so many different Bibles that are causing division. I know an associate Pastor who does his Bible studies and preaching out of four different Bibles. Different versions with different translations and 'study Bibles' infused with the teachings of men are what is causing division. Division and carnality is caused from lack of knowledge my friend...
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Those who are still 'in the milk' are carnal. They have not received knowledge. The newer versions are causing a lack of knowledge and carnality-which leads to division! Many who are babies in the word still claim to be 'of Paul or Apollos' (of Luther or Calvin, Baptist or Lutheran, etc) Do you have a denominational belief ? If you do, it is because you have not received enough of the truth to bring you out of your carnality. Reading a Bible that lacks good spiritual food will do that very thing to you! Consider it..If you disagree, it is what it is, but you cannot refute scriptural proof of the spiritual errors in newer versions.
T/C
1Co 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?
1Co 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.
Those who are still 'in the milk' are carnal. They have not received knowledge. The newer versions are causing a lack of knowledge and carnality-which leads to division! Many who are babies in the word still claim to be 'of Paul or Apollos' (of Luther or Calvin, Baptist or Lutheran, etc) Do you have a denominational belief ? If you do, it is because you have not received enough of the truth to bring you out of your carnality. Reading a Bible that lacks good spiritual food will do that very thing to you! Consider it..If you disagree, it is what it is, but you cannot refute scriptural proof of the spiritual errors in newer versions.
T/C
Interesting point!
I do like and use the King James, but I'm not King James Only.
Blessings.
Hey Town Crier, I would like to initiate some discussion on some of the ideas you've presented. I understand it's a sensitive topic for some, and I want to have a discussion with civility and respect for your ideas, so please understand that if I challenge your ideas, it's for the sake of respectful discussion, not an insult to what you believe. I believe there is strength and value in using multiple translations because I don't want to believe incorrect theology, but if I'm on the wrong path with that, than I'd like to be shown to be wrong.
First, there seems to be valid controversy, as in all translations, over the KJV sources and translation process. (I'd just be going on memory for some of the controversy, so I'll just refer readers Wikipedia's KJV article, which is well referenced, for summary: 3.1.4 Sources). I am not a Bible scholar, able to defend or criticise the KJV, all I can really do is read about the debate between scholars. If I am to dismiss this controversy, then, not being a Bible scholar myself, on what basis? If there is legitimate criticism, what am I to make of it?
Let's also consider the nature of language. A language is dynamic. Change in a language is inevitable, and natural. Change in the English language has been slowed because of efforts to standardise the language, but it still changes. The 1611 KJV is far less comprehensible than more recent KJV renderings, and as language continues to change, it will eventually be totally incomprehensible without translation. Eventually, so will all modern versions, like the NIV. If we argue that a certain translation is "inspired," surely its inspiration is rooted in a certain place in history. As language continues to change, won't we need new translations out of necessity, and when we do, do we translate from the best sources available at that time, or can we rely on the 1611 KJV as a reliable source to translate into other languages, like future Englishes?
Let's also talk about the nature of translation. The KJV uses a word-for-word translation theory (formal equivalence), as do other translations like Young's Literal Translation and the NASB. None of these are totally accurate literal translations, because an exact word-for-word translation would be nonsense in another language, because of grammar structures, but also because of phrases, concepts and vocabulary that don't have exact matches across languages. Dynamic equivalence, and the other hand, seeks to translate whole concepts into their equivalents in the receptor language, so concepts aren't lost due to a lack of equivalent vocabulary. No translation theory can possibly result in a totally accurate reproduction of any text from any language. Because of this, it seems logical, and safest, to require translations using both formal and dynamic equivalence.
Finally, let's look at the nature of scholarship and archaeological evidence. The translators of the 1611 KJV didn't know everything there is to know about ancient languages, and didn't have the same body of archaeological evidence that we now possess. Doesn't it seem to follow that as we learn more about ancient languages and build a stronger body of archaeological evidence, we should be able to make increasingly accurate translations?
To me, this is all evidence that having multiple translations, combined with access to the discussion over controversy over various renderings, is the most ideal situation we can hope for.
I think the King James translators, who based a lot of their work on William Tyndale's work, were pretty learned men, actually. It does need to remembered that what is sometimes known as 'the 1611' was actually revised a number of times: in 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769. Some people would argue that a revision such as the NKJV is actually a continuation of the revision process already underway in previous revisions of the King James. Interestingly, the KJ21 (by Twenty-First Century King James Publishers) underwent such a light revision process that it is referred to as an update rather than a revision of the King James.
Blessings.
Blessings.
I guess, though, this begs the question, for people who claim that the KJV is "divinely inspired" as a translation, which rendering of it is the inspired one?
The very question is bogus, because it's a translation. However, as the King James's own Introduction, the Translators to the Reader, say: the King's speech, translated, is still the King's speech. So it does give access to the inspired Word of God, as do other translations of it.
Blessings.
