KJV-onlyism?

[evenifigoalone]

I'm no longer convinced that the KJV is the only correct version, although I don't believe they can all be correct. I was always taught that it was, though, and I have some serious doubts about some of the things I've been told. (I do think that the KJV is an excellent translation, though. And I've used it all my life, so I plan to keep using it.)
Just wanted to know more about other sides of the debate, and hopefully learn more.

One thing I was taught was that the KJV was translated from the textus receptus and that the modern translations were translated from a corrupt manuscript.
They have also claimed that a lot of the people who translated the modern translations were agnostics rather than Christians.
Not sure about that anymore, and am especially skeptical about that last part.

One book I read claimed that there were six translations before the KJV and that the KJV was translated at a time when the English language was at it's peak. Then it quoted a verse about God's Word being tried seven times.
The history on that sounds pretty accurate, but the conclusions the author came to based on it sound pretty subjective.


It's also been claimed that a lot of the modern versions leave out important doctrines and that they have some verses missing.



P.S. If you could give sources for your information, that'd be helpful.

 

[Obadiah]

I've studied this considerably and came to the conclusion that there is no perfect and correct translation on a word for word basis. (Most reputable theologians agree with this as well.) The major translations seem to agree in areas of doctrine and instruction, even if they word things a bit differently. I could go into a lot of detail and cite sources of info, but it would mean writing a really long post. I'm new here, and I've been reading a lot about people here not liking long posts, so I'm trying to follow that.

One thing that stood out the most in my studies was the attitudes of those who's material I read or who I listened too. Most who did NOT support KJV-onlyism were very rational and reasonable, willing to discuss and teach. Those who DO support the idea of KJV-onlyism were very consistently irrational, illogical, and tended to hurl insults and smokescreens against anyone who dared to ask the most innocent of questions about any of their beliefs. they were actually very cult like. That in itself is enough to make me VERY suspicious of any of the KJV only crowd. One of them even went so far as to tell me (and confirm that I was understanding correctly) that the KJV, the physical paper and ink book in his hands, was actually God Himself. Not just God's word, but actually God Himself. And many others supported that belief. That's pretty typical of the type of reasoning I got from most of the KJV only people I've talked to, and it tells me that they are not the people I want to learn from.

Oh, and on the KJV being the 7th translation, that's not even true. Even if it was, which of the several revisions of the KJV would have been the 7th translation? The one from 1611 that most Christians today, even KJV-onlyists have never even read, or one of the several newer revisions of it? And the verse about God's word being tried 7 times has nothing to do with the KJV. This is just some of the illogical rhetoric of the KJV only crowd.

 

[evenifigoalone]

My pastor goes so far as to teach that any church that doesn't use the KJV is apostate. He also believes you can't get saved from any other version.
I have to say that irritates me. It really does. I've been to churches that don't use the KJV, I know plenty of Christians that don't use the KJV. I don't think it's my place to question their salvation simply because they don't use a certain translation, and I've felt the Holy Spirit in churches that used other versions.

 

[Obadiah]

Questdriven, I attended a church for several years that only used the KJV and heard the same things. I can affirm that this is not true. At that church some new people eventually came in and took to the KJV only idea like a fish to water. When that happened, the pastor elevated them to high positions in the church even though they were both fairly new and ignorant Christians, one had been thrown out of his last church for teaching false doctrine, and one was living with another man's wife in adultery. But because they supported KJV-only, that was the onl thing that mattered and they were quickly elevated high in leadership in place of anyone who dared question KJV-onlyism. One of them is the one who told me that the KJV is god. I left that church while all that was happening. It is false teaching in many, many ways and it drives people away from Christianity. And as proof, that church today is just about empty. I've driven by during their Sunday morning service a number of times and saw only the pastor's car parked in the lot.

You are right to be irritated, and you should probably find a more Christ like church where you can fellowship and learn from more rational people. By the way, I also use the KJV a lot, but the church I attend now doesn't push KJV-onlyism and I have seen the Holy Spirit do far greater works in that church than in the KJV only church. That says something right there!

 

[evenifigoalone]

The KJV-only thing is the only major beef I have with my church, but I don't get much of the sermons anymore so I've been wanting to to go another church anyway. It's not quite that simple for me to just get up and go to another church, unfortunately. But I don't want to pull this thread off topic. xD

 

[Obadiah]

It can be hard to leave a church, especially if your family and friends go there. But if you don't get much from the sermons and they are teaching stuff that certainly seems questionable, it's gotta be hard to stay too! :-( But I know one thing, when I changed churches, my Christian life immediately started improving like it hadn't improved in many years. It was the best thing I ever did!

If you're not getting much from the sermons, I would recommend a church web site that has sermons from a pretty good preacher. There is a "sermons" tag a the top that takes you to a list of recorded sermons. He's no one famous, but I've referred a few other people to his sermons and they've had very positive things to say. It's at http://www.newlifelynden.com/media/sermons/

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post a web site here or not. I skimmed through the TOS and didn't see anything about it, but you're a mod, so if I'm not supposed to, let me know.

 

[evenifigoalone]

The link is fine.
Thanks.

My pastor is actually a really nice guy and everything, has done a lot to help us and others. But KJV-onlyism is like the main thing he promotes, comes up in every single sermon. He doesn't claim that it's God or anything, but he won't have anything to do with things that promote versions other than the KJV. We gave him a DVD about Christian apologetics once because it had some really interesting stuff and we thought he'd like it. But he said that he didn't even finish watching it because they began using verses from other versions.

 

[Obadiah]

We gave him a DVD about Christian apologetics once because it had some really interesting stuff and we thought he'd like it. But he said that he didn't even finish watching it because they began using verses from other versions.

LOL. If your profile didn't say you live in S/E Georgia I would think you were attending the church I used to go to! :-D

Yep, this is the typical prideful closed mindedness of the KJV-onlyist. Many of them ARE "nice" people otherwise, just like many who admit to being non-Christains are otherwise nice people too. But if you don't blindly march in lock step with every word they say about the KJV, you quickly become a "tool of Satan" in their eyes. I have flat out asked many of them (including pastors) what is more important? Preaching KJV-only or preaching salvation through Christ? They have told me more than once that preaching KJV only is more important. This is decidedly un-Christian teacing! Sure, they justify it by saying that it has to be that way because a person CAN'T be saved by hearing from any "false translation that is from Satan". But that's obviously not true. I even asked one pastor what of people who don't speak English? He said "They have a responsibility before God to learn English so they can understand the KJV in order to be saved. If they aren't willing to do that for God, they don't deserve salvation."

Not all KJV-onlyists are as extreme as others, but those who truly hold to this really are very close to being a cult. I personally can not be part of any organization that calls itself a Christian church, but teaches these things.

 

[evenifigoalone]

My dad believed the KJV-only stuff, but he was more rational about it. He believed that you could get saved from other versions, either because there was enough truth in them to convict or because a person probably had heard some verses from the KJV at some point in their life and that planted a seed that started to grow later on. He also acknowledged that you need versions in other languages.
I don't agree with him on everything, but he was great for rational discussions. But he's not here anymore.

 

[Carolyn]

I use NKJV. But I compare it with other versions sometimes. I just cant understand the old KJV and never have been able to hack it. I end up focusing on all the old language and cant see the forrest because of the trees.
It bugs me when people pray in king james thee and thou, with ests, too.
Thou knowest etc.

 

[tohelp]

Guys let me show somethings I have noted.

This word "only" is a big problem for many people. That is the sinful nature in us. That word triggers a rebellious nature in us. It is just like Eve. God told man not to eat from "only" one tree and they had to rebel. In other words we do not like exclusiveness. The moment someone uses the word "only" in a sentence we get upset. Christianity is an "only" religion.

Only one God.
His only Son.
Salvation Only through Jesus.
Only one mediator between God and man
Christianity Only true religion

Most of the people in this post mentioned that they were up set with their pastors because they said Only KJV. We have to grow out of getting rebelous at that word.

The next point I would like to make is this. If you are finding the KJV difficult to understand that is understandable. But if that makes you want to look for some easier translation then you are a wrong attitude. You should rather struggle with the KJV and strive to understand it and be humble enough to take other peoples help. Why do I say this?

Because
1. The LORD inspired this translation and designed it to be so for a purpose.
2. The result of your struggle will be unexpectedly wonderful.

I am not a native English speaker. Nor am all that good at English. I felt the same way as you do about the KJV and went around looking for easier versions. But finally the Lord brought be to the KJV and I stuck with it. Now I find it quite enjoyable to read. Because when I read it and come across some difficulty I tend to study it. The more I do so the more I grow. The LORD speaks to me. Believe me if you are finding it difficult to understand, stick with with and you will soon see that become quite comfortable in understanding it.

I do not claim that one cannot be saved reading the modern versions. You can be saved. But to grow in the Lord and go to the next level, you definitely need the KJV.

 

[Claudya]

The KJV only idea is something very weird and bizzare for a foreigner to hear about. When I heard about it the first time I really thought that KJVonly proponent was joking. It's absurd. Sorry, I feel it's somewhat indecent for an outsider to speak like that, especially in a thread made by someone that grew up with it, but really, it looks like such a bizzare idea.
The most bizzare justification for it I ever heard went like that: God is a King in heaven, so monarchy is the only true way of the world and the KJV was translated on behalf of a king, so it must be the best translation, because it was made in a country that was ruled in accordance with God's principles. Dear admins, can we have a facepalm smilie added to our smilie collection?

[Edit: Actually I think I was quite judgemental making the above statements. Sorry for that.]

Quest, what would your pastor think about people that don't speak English and thus never read the KJV? Can they be saved, in his opinion?

Oh, and btw, Quest, I think you're awesome questioning the beliefs your elders and pastors have been teaching you! We may be called to respect our elders, but discernment is a gift from the Holy Spirit that we mustn't be afraid to excercise. (I hope you understand what I mean, sometimes I just can't put my thoughts into words very well. )

 

[reba]

The pages of a book do not save. Salvation is by the Blood of Jesus.

Claudya

Quest, what would your pastor think about people that don't speak English
and thus never read the KJV?

English is my only language and I asked the same question years and years ago.... I see nothing spiritual about 'eth' !

I laugh when in the movies the directors have Jesus speaking in KJ...

KJ is by far my favorite

 

[farouk]

I'm no longer convinced that the KJV is the only correct version, although I don't believe they can all be correct. I was always taught that it was, though, and I have some serious doubts about some of the things I've been told. (I do think that the KJV is an excellent translation, though. And I've used it all my life, so I plan to keep using it.)
Just wanted to know more about other sides of the debate, and hopefully learn more.

One thing I was taught was that the KJV was translated from the textus receptus and that the modern translations were translated from a corrupt manuscript.
They have also claimed that a lot of the people who translated the modern translations were agnostics rather than Christians.
Not sure about that anymore, and am especially skeptical about that last part.

One book I read claimed that there were six translations before the KJV and that the KJV was translated at a time when the English language was at it's peak. Then it quoted a verse about God's Word being tried seven times.
The history on that sounds pretty accurate, but the conclusions the author came to based on it sound pretty subjective.


It's also been claimed that a lot of the modern versions leave out important doctrines and that they have some verses missing.



P.S. If you could give sources for your information, that'd be helpful.

questdriven:

Hi there; I've highlighted some of what you say and I agree with it!

Obviously you're not opposed to the King James; quite the contrary.

It IS a translation, and it's Anglocentric for anyone to say that there is only one way to translate anything.

Sorry you're having this difficulty. I hope your mom can be of sensible encouragement to you.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

The KJV only idea is something very weird and bizzare for a foreigner to hear about. When I heard about it the first time I really thought that KJVonly proponent was joking. It's absurd. Sorry, I feel it's somewhat indecent for an outsider to speak like that, especially in a thread made by someone that grew up with it, but really, it looks like such a bizzare idea.
The most bizzare justification for it I ever heard went like that: God is a King in heaven, so monarchy is the only true way of the world and the KJV was translated on behalf of a king, so it must be the best translation, because it was made in a country that was ruled in accordance with God's principles. Dear admins, can we have a facepalm smilie added to our smilie collection?

[Edit: Actually I think I was quite judgemental making the above statements. Sorry for that.]

Quest, what would your pastor think about people that don't speak English and thus never read the KJV? Can they be saved, in his opinion?

Oh, and btw, Quest, I think you're awesome questioning the beliefs your elders and pastors have been teaching you! We may be called to respect our elders, but discernment is a gift from the Holy Spirit that we mustn't be afraid to excercise. (I hope you understand what I mean, sometimes I just can't put my thoughts into words very well. )

I can see where it'd sound bizarre.

He's never said anything about that that I can remember, so I'm not sure what he thinks on that.

 

[farouk]

I can see where it'd sound bizarre.

He's never said anything about that that I can remember, so I'm not sure what he thinks on that.

questdriven:

I think Claudya is maybe talking about the logical extension of the sort of thing that is said.

The trouble is sometimes that people make KJV-Only statements without thinking them through.

Blessings.

 

[evenifigoalone]

True.

Mainly I'd just like to know the actual facts about the things that KJV-only people base their position on, such as some of the things I mentioned in the OP. I already know the KJV-only side, I want to know what everyone else says. (Although seeing what people on both sides have to say would still be helpful.)

 

[farouk]

True.

Mainly I'd just like to know the actual facts about the things that KJV-only people base their position on, such as some of the things I mentioned in the OP. I already know the KJV-only side, I want to know what everyone else says. (Although seeing what people on both sides have to say would still be helpful.)

questdriven:

Well, it's a case of their faulty logic, sometimes. And often the logical process isn't spelled out.

For example:

The Lord has blessed the King James greatly in the past. (True.)

Therefore the Lord cannot bless other versions. (Untrue.)

Therefore if King James organized the translators, this is why it was so good. (Untrue.)

Therefore if it doesn't go back to King James, it's no good. (Untrue.)

Therefore "we" should use only the version that the Pilgrim Fathers used, from the days of the Mayflower. (Untrue; actually the men of the Mayflower didn't use the King James; they thought it was suspicious and reliable; that's the trouble with these modern versions! — they thought. In actual fact they used the Geneva Bible; it wasn't until decades after the King James was issued that most settlers in North America started using the King James in preference to the King James.)

Blessings.

 

[Vanguard]

My position is well known about the KJV. A quick research of my threads will reveal some really good, factual info. As a matter of fact: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48992

That thread covers the history of the KJV in brief detail. If needs be, I can go into greater detail and even show you multiple verses in the KJV that have been misinterpreted, the sources behind them, etc. Just let me know.

For how verses are translated and interpreted: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48731

Lastly, reading the Bible in context: http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=48936

 

[Free]

I agree with most of what has been said in here. I have no problem with those who prefer the KJV but KJVOism is probably the most irrational belief in all of Christianity. The KJV is a good version but like all versions it has its issues, not to mention that there has been a lot more manuscript evidence found since its inception that needs to be taken into account.