King James Only

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Yep, sort of like the Model "A". It was a great car..... when it first came out. Today, it is rightfully considered a museum relic. Yes, it can still transport a person from point "A" to point "B", but in most illogical and unnecessarily complicated manner.
 
Last edited:

Ezra

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2018
2,564
1,314
113
62
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
not really an answer but i guess this is your way of avoiding the question. i dont blame you.
i have avoided nothing ..i dont know if king james was what you claim .. i have a thompson chain reference kjv it only says on the inside page . its scriptures not king james . if anything the kjv will cause you to study harder i did a tour of a Bible museum not once did kj being gay come up
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen and Enoch111

Enoch111

Well-Known Member
May 27, 2018
17,688
15,996
113
Alberta
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
i have avoided nothing ..i dont know if king james was what you claim .. i have a thompson chain reference kjv it only says on the inside page . its scriptures not king james . if anything the kjv will cause you to study harder i did a tour of a Bible museum not once did kj being gay come up
Jaybird is here to simply throw mud at King James in the hopes that Christians will reject the King James Bible because he has made wild accusations about James. It would be a waste of time responding to this nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,505
12,924
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
It is pointless to be discussing the virtues and flaws of King James I. His detractors may have accused him of everything under the sun, while his supporters praised him to high heaven. IT MAKES NOT A WHIT OF DIFFERENCE.

Sure I get that.
However aside of discussing James himself...
It gives me insight to how an individual thinks and lands on a position.

James was BORN in Scotland...and became the King of England....not a particularly favorable birthplace for the "subjects" of England's King...and noteworthy of how people OF England reacted negatively toward James...based on what facts.

Not much different when the Pharisees Rejected Jesus..."a nobody from Nazareth"...
"King of the Jews"....uh?

Not much different when Americans Rejected Obama..."a son of a foreigner"...who wanted to effect "change" in America, according to how his father attempted to effect "change" in his homeland of Kenya.

What is historically and spiritually true is that it was under this English king that the Authorized Version of the Bible was translated, and it is this very Bible which became the PREDOMINANT English translation worldwide for over 400 years. And that is because of its intrinsic value. Up until the 20th century every Bible study tool and commentary was based upon this Bible, and no conservative Christian scholar every questioned its faithfulness and reliability.
Agree.

By focusing on James, people deliberately take away from the excellency of this translation. But even the foes of the KJV publicly admitted that it was an outstanding translation. I could quote chapter and verse.

Agree. And that was my point. What Facts really influence people and to what extent.

It's like ... Trumps hair... Can we go on about that FOR MONTHS and MONTHS... because a mans Hair is intrinsic to being thee POTUS...
LOL.

Glory To God,
Taken
 
  • Like
Reactions: bbyrd009

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,505
12,924
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
but why so common among this class? i know of abusive fathers/mothers , molesters and such that have destroyed homes but these are out of the ordinary

I wouldn't say so much as common...but rather, moreso, brought to the forefront by men writing about "the royals".

People of ALL positions...kings, paupers, and everything in between....have their share of gentle and kind TO harsh and overbearing.

The higher the position, the more they are written about.

i'm not so sure, there are scriptures that say different. the power possibly but those chosen for power i dont think so. if this were true it would mean anyone could murder any leader at any time and simply claim the Lord chose them.

There is NO Power, except that which is Given of God. Even satan's power is that which is Given him of God.

Really doesn't matter, what a man claims...God told me to do it....my spouse told me to do it...my teacher, my daddy, my neighbor...whatever....
The fact is...a person is still subject to the consequences of their behavior...according to the Civil Law that has jurisdictional authority over that person.

not saying these things were new but that they were pretty different in england compared to the rest of europe. england was the first to have a middle calss with the possibility to elevate oneself out of serf class.
beheading is nothing new but i was showing how james and his son pushed thigs to the point where his son was executed. most kings are greedy but they at least know to give back to the people every once in a while. james always refused this mostly on the grounds that he was anointed by the Almighty Himself putting himself on the same level as Moses David and Solomon. very arrogant.

Fact is MOST people are GREEDY...
That is a part of a HUMANS nature...some overcome the tendency to be GREEDY and HOARDING....and others do not.

Lots of people are ARROGANT...others are CONFIDANT...it's a fine line.

Glory to God,
Taken
 

Taken

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Encounter Team
Feb 6, 2018
24,505
12,924
113
United States
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Enoch111 ~

I own several copies of different versions of the Bible.
Personally the 1611 KJV is one of my favorite Versions.
And the modern Versions without doubt are my least favorite, for multiple reasons, particularly, the choice of words that change the meaning....as it is common practice in modern times to change the meaning of words to be the complete opposite of original intent.

I trust God is Faithful and has lead me to His Word as He sees fit to benefit me.

Glory to God,
Taken
 

Berserk

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2019
878
670
93
76
Colville
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
There are 10 million variant readings in New Testament Greek manuscripts.
The KJV is based on the latest and most corrupt of these manuscripts.
Text Criticism is the science of retrieving a text as close as possible to the original. It does this first by grouping the manuscripts into families by date, locale, and patterns of known copy errors and then by discovering when, how, and why errors crept into the Greek text. It also compares the text with quotations of the same passage by church fathers who wrote before the manuscript in question. The KJV comes out the worst of all when subjected to such objective analysis. It always amazes me that the Christians who champion the highest view of biblical inspiration choose to use by far the most corrupt text. Many examples of this corruption could be provided. Most KJV Only people lack the intellectual integrity to read a scholarly book on Text Criticism, preferring instead to grieve the Spirit by dismissing all such scholars as ungodly and do so to slothfully avoid the hard work of honest and open inquiry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Willie T

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2017
835
304
63
67
iowa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Do you reject the KJV?

Glory to God,
Taken

I for one do not reject the KJV, but it is ridiculous to view the KJV as the only inspired translation. Not even the translators thought that it was perfect and said so in the preface to the original 1611. And the KJV underwent revisions since the original 1611 came out.

I really like the KJV. I grew up on it. But I also know that it does have some errors, like any other translation. No translation can perfectly convey the literal meaning of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. At least the KJV has been around long enough so that those errors are well known. As far as prose, it is a beautiful translation.

I like it. I use it. But I use many translations, including the 1599 Geneva that preceded the KJV. And I will concede that there are some passages that are better translated in the KJV than in others. But the reverse can be said also.

If one is going to be hyper literal in terms of the Scripture, then learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Problem solved.
 
Last edited:

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
because people like james have ruled the nations for a long time and they have always been very cruel to the masses and show great favor to the few. i know about them because i want to know why they are like this, why does the world work like this?

And what in the world has this got to do with the OP.
Did you even read IT ALL?

If you did, you would have no silly argument like this...who cares who commissioned it...re read the opening post and stop trying to derail a good and interesting and intelligent thread....
...Oh yea, ....right....
 

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
By focusing on James, people deliberately take away from the excellency of this translation. But even the foes of the KJV publicly admitted that it was an outstanding translation. I could quote chapter and verse


AGREE!!!! Thumb.gif
A rabbit trail...but then again...that is what the Enemy likes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amadeus

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
so if you had a bible and it was called "the dark aztec canaanite child sacrifice version" you would be telling everyone the name is not important because its a good translation?


For crying out loud...grow up and get over yourself. :rolleyes:

You are deliberately derailing , if I was @Enoch111 I'd hit the report button. o_O
 
  • Like
Reactions: Copperhead

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Jaybird is here to simply throw mud at King James in the hopes that Christians will reject the King James Bible because he has made wild accusations about James. It would be a waste of time responding to this nonsense.


Oh whoops...just got to this post...too late for me, I already fell for his childishness ....and responded to him....
Slapping my head sideways....
 

Helen

Well-Known Member
Oct 22, 2011
15,476
21,155
113
Faith
Christian
Country
Canada
Reading some of these responses here, it make a person wonder how many really read ALL of the excellent opening post...and it balance re "KJV only "!! :D

Not many people I would guess,
 

DoveSpirit05

Active Member
Jul 19, 2019
660
220
43
42
London
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
I for one do not reject the KJV, but it is ridiculous to view the KJV as the only inspired translation. Not even the translators thought that it was perfect and said so in the preface to the original 1611. And the KJV underwent revisions since the original 1611 came out.

I really like the KJV. I grew up on it. But I also know that it does have some errors, like any other translation. No translation can perfectly convey the literal meaning of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. At least the KJV has been around long enough so that those errors are well known. As far as prose, it is a beautiful translation.

I like it. I use it. But I use many translations, including the 1599 Geneva that preceded the KJV. And I will concede that there are some passages that are better translated in the KJV than in others. But the reverse can be said also.

If one is going to be hyper literal in terms of the Scripture, then learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Problem solved.

by curiosity wat are the errors in the KJV?
 

Copperhead

Well-Known Member
Jul 3, 2017
835
304
63
67
iowa
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
by curiosity wat are the errors in the KJV?

Wow, that would be a very lengthy prose. If you really are interested, there is a lot of good material on the subject from some very good Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scholars. Dr. John Ankerberg had a 8 or 9 show series revolving around KJV vs the modern translations with the editors of the NASB, NKJV, NIV, and adherents of the KJV only crowd. Very good discussion and many of the problems with the KJV were brought out.

One error that is pretty fragrant in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. the "falling away". That is not what the Greek says. Apostasia simply means departure. Without a text from what is being fallen away, departed from, distancing from, etc, to say "falling away" is taking liberties with the text that a translator should not do. This has been addressed by many top Greek Scholars like Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Andy Woods, Dr. Ed Hinson, et al. in their writings.

Since the actual Greek simply is departure, the context of the passage is laid out in verse one and two, the day of Christ and our gathering to Him, not our departing from Him. So the departure of Verse 3 is something other than a departing from the faith, falling away, etc. All the English translations prior to the KJV used "a departing", "departure", "the departing", etc. When the KJV translators got their hands on the text, they wrongly changed the meaning of the passage to "falling away" which conveys a very different idea than the Greek or the context of the passage does. Why they did that, I can speculate, but speculation doesn't matter. The Latin Vulgate, which the KJV translators had a great fondness for, also used dicessio, which is literally "departure" in the English and not "falling away".

The proper name of "Lucifer" is another and many KJV only folks love to jump on the other translations about this. Isaiah 14:12. Yet, "lucifer" is the Latin for Morning Star. Many of the newer translations actually use Morning Star, which is what the Hebrew says, much to the chagrin of the KJV only crowd. So by using "lucifer" by the KJV (and NKJV), it is implying that Satan (Hebrew..."adversary") has a literal name of Lucifer, which is not true. over 1000 years of the Latin Vulgate had tainted the KJV translators. They had a great fondness for the Vulgate.

Wow. Got me started. I don't want to write a dissertation here. Many scholars of much higher pay grade than me have outlined extensively the errors in the KJV. Go study and show thyself approved.

The KJV is a very good translation. It has stood the test of time. It expresses the main points of the scripture and the Gospel most adequately. One can trust the translation that they have one of the best. But like every translation, it does fall down in a few places. There is no perfect translation. Only the original writings are totally without flaw and direct from the Holy Spirit.
 
Last edited:

charity

Well-Known Member
Nov 26, 2017
3,234
3,192
113
75
UK
Faith
Christian
Country
United Kingdom
Hello there,

I agree with all that is written in the OP. Thank you for inc
I am posting this excellent article by David Cloud, since it expresses my own position perfectly.

July 31, 2019 (first published January 20, 1996)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, [email protected]

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Only." It has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about a dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define the term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are given a nebulously-defined label.


The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying original language texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.

I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. And I know that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
[1] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

[2] If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” Prior to the Internet era, I spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. That is a fundamental error. Most of them are out-and-out heretics, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the preserved Word of God is located today.

[3] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources and bad luck, chose an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the supposed best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that this supposed corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the alleged best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe it is absolute nonsense.

[4] Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

[5] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that it is necessary to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”

ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
[1]
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given byinspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

[2] If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense and heresy, as it would mean the pure and preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

[3] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”

[4] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not important to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a proper understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of original language study tools, because many of them were influenced by the unsound theories of modern textual criticism.

[5] If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

[6] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”

[7] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.

[8] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy and unchangeable or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

[9] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”
Copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature

Hello @Enoch111,

I agree with all that is written in the OP: and thank you for bringing it to our attention.

In Christ Jesus
Chris
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helen

Willie T

Heaven Sent
Staff member
Sep 14, 2017
5,869
7,426
113
St. Petersburg Florida
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If something has already been translated, it should be unnecessary to have to have someone translate to you what is written on its pages. No one here can claim they have not had to go to someone else to explain parts of the KJV to them. There is something wrong with that kind of situation.

And, now, are we to automatically assume that the person (or book) we had to go to in order to explain the confusion of the KJV to us is somehow "inspired?"
 

Ezra

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2018
2,564
1,314
113
62
Missouri
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Wow, that would be a very lengthy prose. If you really are interested, there is a lot of good material on the subject from some very good Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scholars. Dr. John Ankerberg had a 8 or 9 show series revolving around KJV vs the modern translations with the editors of the NASB, NKJV, NIV, and adherents of the KJV only crowd. Very good discussion and many of the problems with the KJV were brought out.

One error that is pretty fragrant in 2 Thessalonians 2:3. the "falling away". That is not what the Greek says. Apostasia simply means departure. Without a text from what is being fallen away, departed from, distancing from, etc, to say "falling away" is taking liberties with the text that a translator should not do. This has been addressed by many top Greek Scholars like Dr. Kenneth Wuest, Dr. Andy Woods, Dr. Ed Hinson, et al. in their writings.

Since the actual Greek simply is departure, the context of the passage is laid out in verse one and two, the day of Christ and our gathering to Him, not our departing from Him. So the departure of Verse 3 is something other than a departing from the faith, falling away, etc. All the English translations prior to the KJV used "a departing", "departure", "the departing", etc. When the KJV translators got their hands on the text, they wrongly changed the meaning of the passage to "falling away" which conveys a very different idea than the Greek or the context of the passage does. Why they did that, I can speculate, but speculation doesn't matter. The Latin Vulgate, which the KJV translators had a great fondness for, also used dicessio, which is literally "departure" in the English and not "falling away".

The proper name of "Lucifer" is another and many KJV only folks love to jump on the other translations about this. Isaiah 14:12. Yet, "lucifer" is the Latin for Morning Star. Many of the newer translations actually use Morning Star, which is what the Hebrew says, much to the chagrin of the KJV only crowd. So by using "lucifer" by the KJV (and NKJV), it is implying that Satan (Hebrew..."adversary") has a literal name of Lucifer, which is not true. over 1000 years of the Latin Vulgate had tainted the KJV translators. They had a great fondness for the Vulgate.

Wow. Got me started. I don't want to write a dissertation here.
Many scholars of much higher pay grade than me have outlined extensively the errors in the KJV.
Go study and show thyself approved.

The KJV is a very good translation. It has stood the test of time. It expresses the main points of the scripture and the Gospel most adequately. One can trust the translation that they have one of the best. But like every translation, it does fall down in a few places. There is no perfect translation. Only the original writings are totally without flaw and direct from the Holy Spirit.
just out of curiosity have you read the original in which it is written ? i have serious doubts you have you know greek hebrew latin %100? or do you just have a phd pilled high deep degree
Why they did that, I can speculate, but speculation doesn't matter. The Latin Vulgate, which the KJV translators had a great fondness for, also used dicessio, which is literally "departure" in the English and not "falling away".
do you have the original writings? if not speculation is what your using who is these many scholars do they have the original ? a simple yes or no is suffice