Answers To Kjv Exclusive Theology

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.
 
I don't know that KingJ's church does that, and from what I've seen of his postings, I would think he attends a doctrinally sound church. But, how quickly do you mention being KJV only in your teaching? Is it the cornerstone of your doctrines, or is it just a means to create unity within your congregation? I suspect, it is just done for unity, knowing that you have a stable source. There is nothing wrong with that at all.
I am at a good / small Assemblies of God church. KJV preferred, certainly not exclusive.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The problem with KJV only is that you have to speak English in order to have the "right" translation.

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.!! :)
 
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.
 
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.

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!"
 
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.


Town Crier responds with:

Hi Ag...

How about you answer a couple of questions for me...First; Have you done your homework on the difference between the 'Critical text' of which most new English translations are derived and the 'Received text' that the KJV comes from?

Second; Do you believe in the deity of Jesus Christ?

To everyone else on this forum...

Let's look at a couple of compelling differences between the KJV and the NIV given that it is the most popular Bible in american churches today


The NIV removes that the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit are one in 1 John 5:7-8:

KJV:

1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


NIV: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.



The NIV removes God’s name from Timothy 3:16 that clearly shows Jesus was God manifested in the flesh.

KJV:

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


NIV

16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.


‘He’ leaves an open door for the heretical theories that Jesus was not the earthly manifestation of God. The NIV does it again in 1 John 3:16. The KJV says that God laid down His life for us. The NIV changes ‘God laid down His life for us’- into Jesus Christ, removing yet another identifier of God manifested in the flesh:

KJV: 1Jn 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.


NIV: 16 This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.


Three places in the Bible that clearly show God came down as Jesus Christ are removed in the NIV. There are others...But let's look at another aspect of the NIV;


The NIV removes the deity of Christ as well in several verses-here is one:

I Corinthians 15:47:

KJV: The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.


NIV: The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven.



The NIV removes Jesus name as judge in Roman’s 14:10, which again takes Jesus out of the Godhead:

KJV: But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.


NIV: You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister[a]? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat.



Acts 2:30 the NIV removes Christ from the throne:

KJV: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;


NIV: But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne.


The NIV removes that Christ created all things in Ephesians 3:9:

KJV: And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:


NIV: and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.



Again in Hebrews 2:7

KJV: Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:


NIV: But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.


The NIV removes the Son of God as the one who saved Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego:

KJV: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


NIV: He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."


Clearly hiding the identity of who ‘saved’ them... Ask yourself who it is that tries to hide the truth about the savior? Here is another egregious change... They remove the command to take up the cross in Mark 10:21:

KJV: Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

NIV: Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."



Are you seeing a pattern here yet? The NIV ( as well as other modern versions) remove/change scriptures that say God and Christ are one, that Jesus created all things, that we are saved by Him, that He is ruler and judge...There is more evidence of corruption..Jesus name is removed from many scriptures;

1st Timothy 2:7

KJV: 1Ti 2:7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.


NIV: 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying- and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

2 Timothy 4:22

KJV:The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen. The second epistle unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.

NIV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you all.

John 4:42

KJV: And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.

NIV: They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world."


John 6:69

KJV: And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.


NIV: We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God."


1 Corinthians 16:22

KJV: If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.


NIV: If anyone does not love the Lord--a curse be on him. Come, O Lord !


Ephesians 3:9

KJV: And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:


NIV: and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.


So who would want to hide the true identity of Christ or at least diminish Him...

The NIV removes Acts 8:37 ( a confession of belief) and also Jesus name again:

KJV:
Act 8:35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

Act 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.


NIV:
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” [37][c]38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39


Rev 13:1 , in the NIV, John is not standing on the sea- Satan is (to ‘stand’ is a sign of power):

KJV: Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.


NIV: 1The dragon[a] 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.


Satan clearly influenced the ‘ translators’-as if to say ‘I stand on the shore of the sea having dominion’, which is interesting because the children of Israel are ‘the sand’ of the sea according to the KJV:

Heb 11:12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.

Hos 1:10 Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.


Who wants to have dominion over the Children of Israel ? That is simply another ‘signature’ by the one who ‘influenced’ the translators of the NIV...


Jesus Christ calls Himself the “morning star” in Revelation 22:16:
KJV:
Rev 22:16
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.


The NIV gives Satan that name in Isaiah 14:12:

NIV: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn!


These subtle kinds of ‘mistakes’ do not come from above..they come from below...How can you read a Bible that has Satan taking the title of Christ for himself?

Set aside the 'carnal' aspect of translation and look at the 'spiritual' aspects of it. The NIV and most newer versions have serious spiritual problems. Looking at the errors, they are clearly because of a spiritual influence that is not of God. Would Jesus remove His own name or give it to Satan? Would God remove His own testimony of the triune Godhead 3 times? It isn't that I am a KJV only guy- just that the KJV is the English version of the Word of God divinely inspired . Not coincidentally, it came out just a few years before a country called the United States was born and was the spiritual food of the nation for over 200 years.

Also- not coincidental is the fact that around the time these 'easier to read' versions became prevalent in the United States, the U.S. began to suffer a moral and spiritual decline that is getting worse every day.

Important to understand is that the ‘critical text’ ( Codex vaticanus and sinaticus)by which most new versions come from was provided by the Catholic church and actually came from the Alexandrians (a belief system similar to Jehovah Witnesses). These Alexandrians were one of the groups that Stephen disputed with:

KJV:
Act 6:9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.
Act 6:10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.


Now answer me one last question. What is your 'doctrine of Salvation' and which scriptures do you use to back it up? Let's see if your Bible version and 'spirit' fed you the truth...

Sincerely, Town Crier;

Woe unto the prophet who buildeth a wall and daubs it with untempered mortar...

Eze 13:9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
Eze 13:10 Because, even because they have seduced my people, saying, Peace; and there was no peace; and one built up a wall, and, lo, others daubed it with untempered morter:
 
Last edited:
Maybe I missed it, but I did not remember reading that this thread was a battle between the NIV and the KJV as our friend above has made it.

Such a long post does nothing but cause it to be ignored....IMHO and it did not address the OP's question at all.
 
Maybe I missed it, but I did not remember reading that this thread was a battle between the NIV and the KJV as our friend above has made it.

Such a long post does nothing but cause it to be ignored....IMHO and it did not address the OP's question at all.


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
 
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...

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
 
KJV is pretty darn good! If you wanna use it only it's fine with me. Just make sure you have sound doctrine.
 
Back
Top