As many of you know, there are some Christians that believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only good Bible. They vary in extremity:

1) Some believe the KJV is the best translation, but others are fine.
2) Some believe that the KJV is translated from perfect manuscripts while the new versions are translated from inferior ones.
3) Some believe the above, except that the new versions are not only inferior, they are satanic/perversions of God's Word.
4) Lastly, some believe that the KJV is new revelation and that it can correct any Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts.



I have no problem with people that believe the KJV is the only good Bible as long as they are sensible. Unfortunately, I have only met one or two sensible KJV Only-ists. (my_Keeper).
When KJV Only-ists try to tell you that your Bible is satanic and it is a perversion, that's when I have a problem.

What these KJV Only people will do is try to show you what makes your Bible bad.
For starters, they use a chart to show that the NIV leaves out the name "Jesus" from many places where the KJV has it. They say "Look! Your Bible is satanic because Satan hates the name of Jesus so he is trying to get modern Bibles to leave it out!"

Here is their chart:




Now what does this make you think? Is the NIV satanic?

to be continued.....

No.

I actually prefer the King James version for most things. It's an excellent translation, and has good points and bad points, like any other, with the added bonuses of A: being the dominant English Bible for over 400 years, and B: Being written in English during the Golden Age of the English language.

If you want an updated King James that keeps the thee's, thou's, shalt's, and whatnot, while updating the archaic and obsolete terms, try the 21st Century King James Version.

I find it to be highly readable (though I grew up with the original, so that might help that), and highly accurate in it's updates. The update team did not change what they did not have to, so this version retains the beautiful, lyrical quality to the Hebrew Poetry (said to be the most accurate portrayal of Hebrew poetry in an English translation, stylistically), and the classic wording people think of.

Still a 12th grade reading level.

KJ21 website

The 21st Century King James is also on BibleGateway as an available translation.

----

As for KJV Only-ists, I don't consider myself one. However, if I were, I would pick option 1. Would any KJV Only-ists care to tell me why they believe as they do?

My last post is the chart that KJV Only people show you. Every bit of it is true.
Now here is the one they don't show you:








There are 27 more verses besides these where the KJV does not have Jesus and the NIV does. So, what was it the KJV Only-ists were trying to prove again?

I think their point is that where the KJV has Jesus, it's right, and where it has he, him, Christ, or Lord, it is also right. In short, the KJV is always right--right down to it's choice of grammar, and perhaps even numbers.

It isn't really about where the names are; not about which Bible puts the name of Jesus into Scripture more. It's more about the point that every other version is different from the KJV (in position and language choice), which can conceivably make a difference in interpretation between versions. Since the milder KJV Only-ists believe the KJV is the best of the different versions, the above reasoning would tend to make sense, I think.

Any KJV Only-ists, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

My overall point is that the KJV Only-ists use double-standards to judge this. They say the NIV is satanic because it leaves out the name of Jesus so much, but in reality, it contains the name of Jesus two or three hundred more times.

I like the KJV a lot but KJV-onlyists annoy me

One thing I've never gotten though... I've never found the KJV "hard to read" like some people. I actually find the semi-archaic language beautiful to read.

Same here James. It's partly the reason I want a Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible.

I use the KJV only , but I don't think other translations are satanic

I believe the KJV is the best translation, but others are ok. I only read the KJV because I like the way it sounds,I grew up with KJV or NKJV.

I do have problems with some Bible translations,however.

This post has been edited by fjs93: Oct 28 2009, 10:00 PM

I am 110% KJV Only-ist. I have grown up reading the KJV only, my church is Very Strictly KJV Only, and yes, before anyone asks, I am a baptist. U know not all KJV Only-ist says that other versions are satanic. But i however do have a problem with them. (notice i didnt say people who read them, only the translation itself). Below is why:

1) That is the way the Bible, which was inspired by God, was written in Hebrew and then it was translated into English that way. The KJV was the original English Bible and the way that the Holy Scriptures should be interpreted based on the language they were first written in.

2) New versions leave out Jesus name so many times, satans name so many times, and the blood (the very thing that saves us and keeps us saved) so many times. I have a real problem with that.

3) Many Bible manufacturers, one which my dad knows personally, will say that they are only making the Bible easier to read for a more modern generation, by altering the original language into modern day language. So why then do they have to leave out words, and even verses in the newer Bible. There are verses and stuff that you can only find in the KJV Bible. Now tell me that Satan didnt have a hand in that one...

4) In the King James Version of the Bible, the very 2 center words in the exact center of the Bible are the Lord, both technically and symbolically showing that The Lord is the center of the Bible. You cannot do that with any other translation of the Bible. Not 1. Man couldnt do that every single time a Bible is made. Its 99.99999999% impossible. Only God can do that every single time.

5) Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV) says, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." This warning is given to those who might purposefully distort the message in this book. Moses gave a similar warning in Deuteronomy 4:1-4. No human explanation or interpretation of God's Word (NKJV, NIV, NALT, ect.) should be elevated to the same authority as the text itself (KJV).

Every single one of the facts above can be proven. Look it up online or compare Bibles for yourself if you dont believe me. Then, when you figure out that all of the above are true, tell me then whether or not the other versions dont have satans hand in them.

I am sure this stuff is true, but you start with several flaws in your logic. First, you assume God preserved the Biblical manuscripts perfectly as they were in the originals. That just didn't happen. Humans copied the manuscripts, and humans a fallible. Some inserted gloss or expansions into the text to try to make a "contradiction" go away. Such interpolations include 1 John 5:7, which appears only in a forged manuscript.
Now, these interpolations and changes do not mess up any doctrines or make the Bible untrustworthy. On the contrary, most of these "errors" are errors only in the sense that they depart from the original wording. Many of them are theologically correct. Such as John 1:18:

No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. - John 1:18 KJV

No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known. - John 1:18 ESV


1) That is not so. The KJV is translated word-for-word of the manuscripts the translators had. There are several other word-for-word translators, including the ESV, NASB, and the NKJV.

2) This one made me lol. I just showed you how many more times the NIV has the name Jesus in it than the KJV does. So which is satanic again?

3) Some versions are just stupid, like the Cotton Patch Translation. It changes items and everything.
But as for verses being left out, these verses are not in the oldest and best manuscripts. There is good reason to believe that these are later interpolations.

4) I've never heard that. lol.

5) That's hogwash. The KJV is not the text of God's Word. It is a translation, and as such, is the God's Word. But the original language texts will always be superior to any translation into any other language. And also, that verse in Revelation contains a wrong reading btw. lol. And again, if its just dynamic equivalence you have a problem with, there are several word-for-word translations.

When I first began my study, I began in the Gospels and I couldn't hardly understand anything with my KJV Bible. Eventually my aunt bought me a new Bible one Christmas, NIV I believe, and things made much more sense, but I kept the KJV with me to see what it said as well. I spent a lot of time looking up words and discussing things with my grandfather, so now I have a pretty good understanding of the KJV and would not prefer any other Bible over it.

I would prefer if everyone who dosen't use KJV was careful to be sure there aren't any drastic differences in the words.

...And also I like the way it sounds much more... But I'm an old timer.

I know what ya mean. I was raised on the KJV. I used to think that the Bible was completely error-free, including scribal error free. But then one day I found a flat-out contradiction in the KJV and that really hurt my faith for a while. I did some research, and finally out that all Bible manuscripts have some errors from copying in them. They have no bearing on anything though.

Oh. Nice to know I'm sensible, I guess. o.0

Actually, John Wycliff's Bible was the first English Bible. William Tyndale also translated the Bible into English before the KJV and there was also a translation called The Geneva Bible before the KJV.

Another thing is that the language in the KJV has gone through several revisions and the language that we have in the modern KJV Bible is drastically different then the original. The version we have today has semi-archaic language. The very first version would probably be like reading a Shakespeare play... super-archaic language.

Plus, the KJV today is not the same as it was when it first came out as the original KJV included the so-called "Apocrypha". If the KJV is truly the correct translation... wouldn't removing the "Apocrypha" be wrong?

People are kidding themselves when they say that the KJV was the "original" and "untouched" English Bible.

I like the KJV, and its a good translation, but it has problems (like every other translation).

1. The Greek text used in translating the KJV is not the earliest (and therefore not the most accurate) text we have today. Specifically, the Textus Receptus (TR) differs from the earliest Greek mansucripts in 6,000 places. Furthermore, the Textus Receptus was formed by ONE MAN: Erasmus, using only SIX GREEK TEXTS (not the many we have today). Alone, the TR differs from other same-era manuscripts in 2,000 places. Typographical errors abound in the work, presumably because Eramus was in a hurry, and he had to translate the last six verses of Revelation back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate translation he was compiling at the time. Furthermore, he also polished and edited the TR to conform to the Vulgate and/or the quotations of the early Church Fathers. While, by and large, it is a reliable text, there are errors found in the TR that are not in the modern translations. Consequently, since the KJV is based on the TR, it also assumed some of those errors. It is still a good translation, just not a perfect one (of course, the same is said of the modern translations too).

So far, I haven't seen any problems with the Hebrew Text used to translate the KJV (the Masoretic Text). In fact, from what I know, it is one of the most accurate Old Testament compilations used.

2. Newer versions attempt to accurately translate the text, either on a word-for-word basis (like the KJV or NASB), or a thought-for-thought basis (the NIV). Depending which method used, putting HE instead of Jesus, or a title of Jesus (like Christ), is not necessarily a bad thing. The same goes for every other key word in Scripture. The translators are trying to either fit the Greek text, or make it more understandable. Either way is acceptable. I happen to like the KJV language, and find it to be accurate IF (and only if), one understands the original usage.

3. Some words and verses in the Bible are in the KJV because they were in the Textus Receptus. The earliest versions of Greek Manuscripts that we have today most likely do not have those verses, if they are not included in modern translations. Other verses are left out because of printing errors (which were horrendous, in the 1611 version of the KJV, btw. The version used most widely now is the 1750 revision, not the original KJV).

4. While that is a good thing, and something you value, it makes no difference doctrinally. With few exceptions, both the KJV and every modern copy agree on doctrine. I personally like the idea of the center of the Bible being "the LORD", but that mere fact neither helps nor hinders your case.

5. When quoting Scripture, ALWAYS take it in context (surrounding verses, passage, chapter, chapters, book, intent, purpose, cultural context). The verse in Revelation reads: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." Rev 22:18-19 (KJV)

Both verses, and the phrase "This book", when taken in the correct, Biblical context, refer specifically to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible.

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." Deut 4:2 (KJV) Again, for Deuteronomy, this verse, in context, applies only to the Law, since the verse is referring back to the Law given earlier. In Deuteronomy, Moses is RE-giving the Law from Exodus and other books.

I don't believe one should ever skew verses to twist Scripture, but unless I'm missing something, those verses alone don't support that belief. Oh, the KJV IS a human translation--written by humans. It is not an autograph. Only the original Hebrew/Greek autographs were completely without error, and we have NONE of those. Every human translation, before, after, and including the KJV, has had at LEAST some errors. Most translations I know of (modern and KJV both), have no errors that would affect doctrine. Most errors in translations and manuscript copies are typographical errors, grammatical errors, or numerological errors. In your typical KJV Bible, they would take up a mere two pages. None affect doctrine.

Do some translations have Satan's hand in them? Perhaps. At the very least, there are some translations that are not theologically sound: (the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation, Joseph Smith's Translation, the Jacksonian Bible, etc.).

Regarding the safekeeping of Scripture: I do believe God guards His Word so that it will not be corrupted forever. Thus, while we have faulty translations (see above), through God's protection of the manuscripts we DO have, we have a Bible that is 95-98% (Theology course statistics) preserved from the original (including the modern translations. The few percentage points away from 100% account for the non-vital errors in translation). God's protective hand need not extend to preventing typographical errors and such--only doctrinal purity. Indeed, that is what history has demonstrated.

If you aren't sure about the differences, take three different Bibles that you KNOW will differ (KJV, NIV, and perhaps the NLT or HCSB), and look up the same passages in each. That will highlight difficult passages. The easy passages are all translated mostly the same way.

For everyday reading, pick one version ONLY to study from. That will give you consistency. For theological study, pick three, at least.

In conclusion: I prefer the KJV, and I think it is a good translation, however, it is not the only one, nor is it without error.

Yup,me too.

I'm not going to become deeply involved in this discussion at all. I've spent a great deal of time looking at the KJV only points of views and I have always thought that the KJV was in general a translatively superior Bible. Since it's essentially impossible to prove this compared to scripture of 1611 no one can really know, though, so I don't really base any of my opinions off of this. Through my research and study on this I have discovered by definition I am KJV-preferred. That is, I read predominately the KJV, but I understand that other translations are also "decent" translations, and I don't believe reputable ones to be "satanic" at all.

I have two real logical issues with KJV onlyism. In all my research I've not really found good answers to these questions and I would challenge KJV onlyers to please give me good answers to them. I have a real personal interest in KJV onlyism and am very open to it if it can be really proved to me.

My first logical problem with KJV onlyism:
Non English Translations:
KJV onlyism requires that the English KJV be the only real translation. This is required indirectly because of the requirements placed on the KJV to be the only legitimate Bible. If the KJV can be translated effectively to, for example, Swahili, then words will change. This is because Swahili does not have exact translative words from English to Swahili and therefore other words will be substituted for the English words to get a "close" translation.

If KJV onlyers accept that the English KJV can be translated to another language and be a legitimate Bible; then there is no logical reason that the 1611 KJV cannot be "translated" to a modern English translation either. If KJV onlyers say that non-English translations are not real scriptures then I would seriously question how they come to that conclusion as there is no evidence at all in the Bible to support the claim that English is the only language in which a real Bible can reside.

--

My second issue with KJV onlyism is that there is no sort of "defense" at all for a future translation that could be just as good as the KJV.

The main problem KJV onlyers have with non-KJV translations is the changing of scripture meanings. Let's say for example every current translation of the Bible is entirely invalid, save the KJV. Now let's say I put the KJV in microsoft word and do a huge find/replace and change the word "thee" to "you". Have I changed scripture? I would say no, I haven't. I've updated an Old English word to a Modern English word.

Again, KJV onlyism requires that if I were to release a Bible that simply changed every instance of "thee" to "you", for that scripture be invalid because it is simply NOT the KJV anymore. That's to me is very problematic.

--

Those are my only real problems with KJV onlyism. Again, I won't be getting involved in this discussion much more than to respond to points based off what I've written here.

Those are some very good points, Chad.
Like I said, KJV Only people differ in their extremity. I have talked to some that were considered KJV Only, but what their stance was is that the Masoretic text (Old Testament) and Textus Receptus (New Testament) are perfectly word-for-word preserved. No other manuscripts are preserved in their view. So, any translation purely from those manuscripts that used formal equivalence is God's Word.

But then, om the other side of the spectrum, I've seen some that say the KJV is "new revelation", so if people want God's perfect word, then they must learn English. In my opinion, that is extremely moronic.

First, you assume God preserved the Biblical manuscripts perfectly as they were in the originals. That just didn't happen. Humans copied the manuscripts, and humans a fallible. Some inserted gloss or expansions into the text to try to make a "contradiction" go away. Such interpolations include 1 John 5:7, which appears only in a forged manuscript.

The KJV Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17) says "ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

And im not sure what u mean about 1 John 5:7. Could u plz elaborate. You dont have to post it here if u dnt wanna. You can pm me.

4) I've never heard that. lol.

sure does lol. looked it up myself and even had my pastor help me lol.

ps it took 4ever to figure that out

.

Very poor argument considering:


All Old Testament manuscripts:


In 90 AD, at the Council of Jamnia, the Jewish elders established the final Hebrew Bible canon. Although the Jewish Scriptures were copied by hand, they were extremely accurate copy to copy. The Jews had a phenomenal system of scribes, who developed intricate and ritualistic methods for counting letters, words and paragraphs to insure that no copying errors were made. In fact, scribal tradition was maintained until the invention of the printing press in 1455. As far as manuscript accuracy, the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed the remarkable reliability of the Old Testament texts over the years.


The New Testament manuscripts are far from having any drastic differences. So, the argument that KJV used later manuscripts, does not say anything against it.

If you're referring to my post, I never said anything was lacking about the Masoretic Texts. I said Erasmus used 6 Byzantine-era Greek texts, not the dozens or more earlier ones we have today.

I use both KJV and NIV.