King James Version Only?

@ByronEA (109)
United States
April 14, 2011 6:11pm CST
The King James Only movement teaches that the King James is the only English translation that is acceptable to God. To me, this seems like the stupidest doctrine to make a salvation issue. (And believe me, many do make it a salvation issue! Many of these Christians say any other Bible is demonic and Christians who use other Bibles are serving Satan. The more intellectual of these will argue that the Textus Recepticus (sp?) (the manuscripts that the KJV translation team uses) is the most accurate of the manuscripts, and that all others are demonic, created by Satan to lead us off the path. They claim that the KJV is the only translation to use the TR, and that all others use catholic-corrupted manuscripts. I have two points in regards to this argument. First, they fail to mention there are a few translations more modern than the KJV that uses the TR. For example, the Young's Literal Translation and the New King James Version. My second point is, they fail to mention that the difference between all the NT manuscripts is less than 1%. And that NO essential doctrine of historic Christianity comes under fire based upon these differences. Really, the vast majority of these differences is the use of a proper noun rather than a pronoun, or a misspelling, or something minor along those lines. My point is, these differences MAKE NO DIFFERENCE to Christian doctrine and theology. So whats the big deal? I think Satan is using these controversies to divide Christ's Holy Church so that we are not as effective in our mission. I say that we stop letting Satan divide us, and let the matter of translational preference be just that, a preference!
8 responses
• Philippines
15 Apr 11
Maybe the real important issue hear is did we accept Jesus as our personal savior and took his cross the way he wants us to do and bear the fruits of the spirit... Yes I do agree that the we should unite as one body of Christ in the face of the struggle and persecution no matter what version of the bible we read and understood
• Philippines
15 Apr 11
yes only JESUS CHRIST is our savior there is no such thing if you do good to others you will go to heaven and there is no other religion that you gauranted that you will go to heaven the most important thing that you accept LORD JESUS CHRIST is our savior accept him as your SAVIOR and you will go to heaven if the time is come tnx GOD BLESS!
@JohnRok1 (2051)
29 Aug 12
I don't know how I missed this one for so long! Whilst I believe the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, is the most accurate text, I don't buy the idea that the not so accurate texts were deliberate attempts of Satan and his workers to destroy the Scriptures. Frankly, if that had been the case, they'd have made a better job of it. No, during the first three and a half centuries or so there were pressures on the Church and dangers to accurate transmission that were not there subsequently, when Christianity was at least tolerated and Bibles as well. The oldest manuscripts we have are known to be copies of manuscripts made in that period, and, therefore, whilst commendable, should not be accorded the authority that should be given to the traditional text - it's like giving little Johnny's repetition of his memory verse greater authority than the one you have printed in your Bible. 1 Timothy 3:16 in many modern versions results from a miscopying of a theta as an omicron in the Greek and isn't even an accurate translation of the resultant Greek - In fact, an accurate translation of that Eclectic Critical Text Greek does not make sense (Hos, translated "He", actually means "Who" and is masculine and there is no noun in the passage to which it could refer), whereas the AV "God was manifest in the flesh" is an accurate translation of Theos (abbreviated to ThS in earlier manuscripts) ephanerwthe en sarki. And this is a verse where even the best 19th century textual critics, Alford and Wordsworth got it wrong! As regards translation, the KJV is not perfect, but strangely, its real shortcomings are reproduced in most other versions, e.g. Old Testament translation isn't literal enough, leading to loss of typology. Occasionally some other versions are better (e.g., Psalm 137:9), but this is more than counterbalanced by the times they are worse (e.g., in Job 19:26, see the mylot discussion on this verse).
• Philippines
19 Apr 11
Maybe let us take it this way, His ways are not our ways, and I am sure God see the picture clearly than any prestigious or smartest living creature in this planet. So why language or translation differences divide us? I'll better say that if we read the scriptures in a way we understand it, pray and ask for his divine understanding and I'm perfectly sure He will answer you one way or the other. Language is a tool of man to communicate not a barrier to divide, and all kinds of knowledge came from Him so why worry? I can say in my life He has manifested several times how he answers. Just try it when reading a scripture, whether it is KJV or not, pray after you read. I am sure you will find the answer if we know how to listen.
@Fatcat44 (1142)
• United States
15 Apr 11
The thing that I am seeing is that some are translating the King James version into a simpler wording, and they are losing some of the meaning. And there are some religions that are changes the writing because they do not agree with them. So I say, it needs to stay as close to the Greek and Hebrew translation as possible.
@bingskee (5237)
• Philippines
15 Apr 11
that is just baseless... if they had stated that some versions have inserted pages then that i would agree but this is just not right.
@marcmm (1806)
• Malaysia
15 Apr 11
I wouldn't make this sort of things as an issue. What really important is we understand what the God said to us through the Bible. What for I insist on reading the KJV bible when I don't understand a single word it wrote inside. It is better to read the NIV and understand it rather than reading the KJV then not understand it. The point is, we understand what is the context of the Bible.
• United States
14 Apr 11
My line of thought is that Jesus didn't speak in King James English! He spoke in other languages common to the day. We don't have any pure, literal translations but I have heard it said that KJV is the only one. I personaly have a couple that I just don't care for - and a couple of translations that are my favorites. I think the whole point is for us to get to know HIm better... who cares how we get there!
• United States
14 Apr 11
That is a man made doctrine & not one that was made by God. All bibles are the same & are written by God Himself through man. The only difference between one bible from another is that some of the older Bibles such as the KJ version is that the newer bibles are written in a more modern English so that it's readers can better understand it & 2nd the older bibles took out God's name from the bible because it was once believed that God's name was too holy & shouldn't even be used by man. Of course why God would allow us to know His name & then not want us to even use it makes no sense to me, but thats imperfect mankind for you. If they can mess it up they will & thats including the written word of God!