King James Bible Only Proponents-Why do you claim the KJV is the only inspired, inerrant Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Anna_Scott
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anna_Scott

Guest
King James Bible Only Proponents-Why do you claim the KJV is the only inspired, inerrant Bible?

I really do not understand the ***King James only ***claim. I know the King James only proponents claim the 1611 version of the KJV is the physically present, perfect, inerrant word of God and is sometimes considered superior to the Greek texts when they disagree with certain passages of the KJV.

The King James Bible was authorized by King James I, the Monarch and Head of the Church of England. The King James Bible is an Anglican Bible, which competed with the Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible.

The 1611 King James Bible originally contained 80 Books to include the Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha. The Deuterocanonical Books weren’t officially removed until 1885 (leaving 66 Books.) That means the King James Bible contained the Deuterocanonical Books for approximately 274 years. Yet today, they are not included in the King James Bibles of King James only proponents.

Even Anglicans know that the KJV contains many flaws and errors. The KJV is used, at times, in the Anglican Liturgy because of the beauty of language and historical significance. However, we use the NRSV for our Bible Studies, as it is far more accurate. The Catholic Church also adopted the NRSV as the translation used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

So, King James only proponents, please help me understand why you believe the King James Bible is the only inspired inerrant Word of God.

Looking forward to your comments,
Anna Scott
 
While I’m not KJV Only (actually, I never really use the translation), my younger brother is. Funnily enough, he’s not a believer, but whatever.

His understanding is that the Received Text is the only text preserved by God from error. Not the Majority, or Masoretic, or any other text commonly used in modern scholarship and translation. When pushed further, he admits to every other translation being false, altered by men with agendas (hidden ones, at that) and meant to lead people into error.

Nevermind the fact that he speaks not an ounce of biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek to back up claims.

I don’t understand it myself. Lord knows translations are a huge mess to get into.
 
My former church is KJV-only, so I hope to offer some points.

The first thing to note is that the KJV is familiar and that it has some really beautiful language. That goes away in some modern English version.

The biggest reason, in my opinion, is that quite a bit of theology is built up around the words. If you translate differently, you change the beliefs of a KJV church. To use a modern example: When I was a child, the word “presently” always meant in the near future. Ex: “I will be there presently.” meant “I will be there very soon.”

Today, it is interchanged with “now”. If something were a major point to me and if it used a word that had a modern meaning saying what I felt it should say, I would not be too interested in finding the original meaning.

If you have a KJV-only congregation, it can justify divorce in some cases because they translate a reason given in the Bible as adultery. A modern translation renders it as people who could not be married because of relationship. KJV-only congregations may believe all alcohol is wrong because of a line talking about not giving your brother strong drink. Alcohol is not the topic when that is re-translated.

Many of the KJV congregations in my part of the country have preachers who have not been schooled religiously other than in church and in study of a KJV Bible. They have always been taught a bias against any other and see no need to go elsewhere.
 
Anna_Scott said:
So, King James only proponents, please help me understand why you believe the King James Bible is the only inspired inerrant Word of God.

Looking forward to your comments,
Anna Scott
Click to expand...
Anna, you claim to know the mind of each and every proponent of the KJV bible. How do you know this? I am a proponent of the KJV, but I certainly don’t think that it is the only version that is the inspired word of God and I know several others that are proponents, but I don’t know any that exclude other versions as being the inspired word of God. So your original premise is faulty by a factor of several anyway.
 
Richard_Kastner said:
Anna, you claim to know the mind of each and every proponent of the KJV bible. How do you know this? I am a proponent of the KJV, but I certainly don’t think that it is the only version that is the inspired word of God and I know several others that are proponents, but I don’t know any that exclude other versions as being the inspired word of God. So your original premise is faulty by a factor of several anyway.
Click to expand...
Hence the word only. You admit yourself that you don’t think it’s the only version that is the inspired word of God. She’s asking those who believe that the KJV is the only accpetable translation, if I’m not mistaken. And I myself have met people that Anna is describing. So, no, I don’t believe her premise is faulty.
 
Richard_Kastner said:
Anna, you claim to know the mind of each and every proponent of the KJV bible. How do you know this? I am a proponent of the KJV, but I certainly don’t think that it is the only version that is the inspired word of God and I know several others that are proponents, but I don’t know any that exclude other versions as being the inspired word of God. So your original premise is faulty by a factor of several anyway.
Click to expand...
Here’s one, Richard, though admittedly he’s not much more than a lone wolf.

wkrg.com/national/article/pastor-plans-to-burn-bible-to-light-fire-under-true-believers/443303/Oct-14-2009_8-13-pm/
Pastor Marc Grizzard told Asheville TV station WLOS that the
King James version of the Bible is the only one his small western
North Carolina church follows. He says all other versions, such as
the Living Bible, are “satanic” and “perversions” of God’s
word.
Click to expand...
Jon

Jon
 
Anna_Scott said:
King James Bible Only Proponents-Why do you claim the KJV is the only inspired, inerrant Bible?

I really do not understand the ***King James only ***claim. I know the King James only proponents claim the 1611 version of the KJV is the physically present, perfect, inerrant word of God and is sometimes considered superior to the Greek texts when they disagree with certain passages of the KJV.

The King James Bible was authorized by King James I, the Monarch and Head of the Church of England. The King James Bible is an Anglican Bible, which competed with the Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible.

The 1611 King James Bible originally contained 80 Books to include the Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha. The Deuterocanonical Books weren’t officially removed until 1885 (leaving 66 Books.) That means the King James Bible contained the Deuterocanonical Books for approximately 274 years. Yet today, they are not included in the King James Bibles of King James only proponents.
Click to expand...
I actually own a photocopy of the sum and substance of the conference of Hampton Court where they laid down the ground work for what would be the KJV. I can tell you it is important to keep in mind that there was a battle between the Authentic Anglicans of the time who were still very Catholic when compared to modern day Anglicans. King James despised the Geneva Bible for its dishonest translations. To be fair, the Puritans had tried to persuade the King into compete out Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha. King James basically told them they were insane and he would not keep them out because they are inspired scripture. However, he did agree to forbid them from being used in the liturgy so that no one would be influenced into to praying to or for the dead.
My point here is that the Puritans never really willingly included the Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha in the KJV and never really considered it Scripture even though the Anglican CHurch did. As the Puritans gained more and more power in England and the Church of England it only makes sense they would do away with the books. The “KJV Only” people are basically offspring of the puritans.

One thing I always find interesting is the “Our Father” in the KJV of Matthwew contains the extra line “For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory forever." This is not in the original version of the Gospel. This comes from Catholic liturgy. Some scribe must have said to himself while copying, “Hey, this is missing that line we say in the liturgy! I bet better add it in there.” It kind of funny that many KJV only people make fun of us for having an incomplete version of the “Our Father.”

Also, the Textual critics seem to universally consider it to be one of the worse versions (not the translation but the actual scroll).

That said, there is a certain beauty to the translation. I am even fond of the New King James version.
 
dsmantz said:
While I’m not KJV Only (actually, I never really use the translation), my younger brother is. Funnily enough, he’s not a believer, but whatever.

His understanding is that the Received Text is the only text preserved by God from error. Not the Majority, or Masoretic, or any other text commonly used in modern scholarship and translation. When pushed further, he admits to every other translation being false, altered by men with agendas (hidden ones, at that) and meant to lead people into error.

Nevermind the fact that he speaks not an ounce of biblical Hebrew or Koine Greek to back up claims.

I don’t understand it myself. Lord knows translations are a huge mess to get into.
Click to expand...
dsmantz,

The history behind the Received Text or Textus Receptus is complicated, with passionate historical arguments on both sides.

It seems the question regarding the KJV and Textus Receptus is really who did the altering of the Biblical manuscripts? Does the Textus Receptus contain alterations and errors, or do the manuscripts with variants from the Textus Receptus contain alterations and errors?

As you pointed out, not knowing Classical Hebrew or Koine Greek is a problem. To a great extent, I think we are at the mercy of Biblical Scholars, and Textual Criticism. There are more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the N.T. known today (not to mention thousands in other languages); and there are more variants among them than words in the N.T. Most variants are obvious scribal errors, other variants seem intentional, other variants occurred when scribes copied notes from the margins of manuscripts into the main body of the text as they made their copies.

What I’m really trying to understand is— how did the King James only proponents develop the belief that the KJV is the only inspired, inerrant Bible? With all the manuscripts, in multiple languages, with numerous variants, how do they know?

Peace,
Anna

Edited to add P.S. I’ve read a number of books containing the above information. Since, I can’t dig them all out–Wikipedia contains most of this information. So, it’s a good quick reference.
 
Anna, you referenced the word, ‘contextual’.

For me, as a Catholic, we see Scripture all interconnected, see it more a testimony to salvation of --people–, rather than phrases pulled out to draw different assumptions.

These assumptions lead to convictions, then lead to a self-righteous…my lingo here…and then people split off to form another church.

Where does the Holy Spirit then come in regarding disputes of meaning…?

Simple prepositions…an addition or a deletion…can break unity…
 
Anna_Scott said:
King James Bible Only Proponents-Why do you claim the KJV is the only inspired, inerrant Bible?

I really do not understand the ***King James only ***claim. I know the King James only proponents claim the 1611 version of the KJV is the physically present, perfect, inerrant word of God and is sometimes considered superior to the Greek texts when they disagree with certain passages of the KJV.

The King James Bible was authorized by King James I, the Monarch and Head of the Church of England. The King James Bible is an Anglican Bible, which competed with the Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible.

The 1611 King James Bible originally contained 80 Books to include the Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha. The Deuterocanonical Books weren’t officially removed until 1885 (leaving 66 Books.) That means the King James Bible contained the Deuterocanonical Books for approximately 274 years. Yet today, they are not included in the King James Bibles of King James only proponents.

Even Anglicans know that the KJV contains many flaws and errors. The KJV is used, at times, in the Anglican Liturgy because of the beauty of language and historical significance. However, we use the NRSV for our Bible Studies, as it is far more accurate. The Catholic Church also adopted the NRSV as the translation used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition.

So, King James only proponents, please help me understand why you believe the King James Bible is the only inspired inerrant Word of God.

Looking forward to your comments,
Anna Scott
Click to expand...
I find it amazing that the KJV only crowd would accept anything produced so soon after the split with the pope.
 
Hail_Linus said:
One thing I always find interesting is the “Our Father” in the KJV of Matthwew contains the extra line “For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory forever." This is not in the original version of the Gospel. This comes from Catholic liturgy. Some scribe must have said to himself while copying, “Hey, this is missing that line we say in the liturgy! I bet better add it in there.” It kind of funny that many KJV only people make fun of us for having an incomplete version of the “Our Father.”
Click to expand...
😃
 
Richard_Kastner said:
Anna, you claim to know the mind of each and every proponent of the KJV bible. How do you know this?
Click to expand...
Richard Kastner,

I did not claim to know the mind of each and every proponent of the KJV of the Bible.
Richard_Kastner said:
I am a proponent of the KJV, but I certainly don’t think that it is the only version that is the inspired word of God and I know several others that are proponents, but I don’t know any that exclude other versions as being the inspired word of God. So your original premise is faulty by a factor of several anyway.
Click to expand...
If you don’t believe the KJV is the only version that is the inspired word of God, then you are not a “KJV only proponent.”

I am not asking why someone prefers the KJV or why someone uses the KJV. I’m Anglican. The KJV is an Anglican Bible. We use the KJV at different points throughout the year in our Liturgy and in our prayers. It has great historical significance, men lost their lives because of their dedication to producing the King James Bible. Also, the language is really beautiful.

In my original post, I asked: King James Bible Only Proponents-Why do you claim the KJV is the only inspired, inerrant Bible?

There are many links to the KJV-only issue. This one contains some of the common beliefs of the KJV-only proponents: kjv-only.com/ifnew.html

"Basically, the common beliefs that define “KJV-only” are:
  • the idea that there are no errors or problems of translation in the KJV.
  • the idea that there are no internal errors or problems in the text of the KJV.
  • the idea that any changes of words of the KJV constitutes changing God’s word (and thus no other English translations are “the word of God”)
  • God promised to preserve the Scriptures word for word throughout the centuries.
  • the idea that the KJV translators were divinely guided, and thus the words they used were given to them by the Holy Spirit to be implemented without any alternates."
I’m wanting to hear from Christians who adopt this position about the KJV to try to understand their point of view.
JonNC said:
Here’s one, Richard, though admittedly he’s not much more than a lone wolf.

wkrg.com/national/article/pastor-plans-to-burn-bible-to-light-fire-under-true-believers/443303/Oct-14-2009_8-13-pm/
Click to expand...
Jon,
I remember this guy. It was all over the news.
T_More said:
Hence the word only. You admit yourself that you don’t think it’s the only version that is the inspired word of God. She’s asking those who believe that the KJV is the only accpetable translation, if I’m not mistaken. And I myself have met people that Anna is describing. So, no, I don’t believe her premise is faulty.
Click to expand...
T More,
Thank you!

Peace to all,
Anna
 
Hail_Linus said:
I actually own a photocopy of the sum and substance of the conference of Hampton Court where they laid down the ground work for what would be the KJV. I can tell you it is important to keep in mind that there was a battle between the Authentic Anglicans of the time who were still very Catholic when compared to modern day Anglicans. King James despised the Geneva Bible for its dishonest translations. To be fair, the Puritans had tried to persuade the King into compete out Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha. King James basically told them they were insane and he would not keep them out because they are inspired scripture. However, he did agree to forbid them from being used in the liturgy so that no one would be influenced into to praying to or for the dead.
My point here is that the Puritans never really willingly included the Deuterocanonical Books/Apocrypha in the KJV and never really considered it Scripture even though the Anglican CHurch did. As the Puritans gained more and more power in England and the Church of England it only makes sense they would do away with the books. The “KJV Only” people are basically offspring of the puritans.

One thing I always find interesting is the “Our Father” in the KJV of Matthwew contains the extra line “For Thine is the Kingdom, and the Power, and the Glory forever." This is not in the original version of the Gospel. This comes from Catholic liturgy. Some scribe must have said to himself while copying, “Hey, this is missing that line we say in the liturgy! I bet better add it in there.” It kind of funny that many KJV only people make fun of us for having an incomplete version of the “Our Father.”

Also, the Textual critics seem to universally consider it to be one of the worse versions (not the translation but the actual scroll).

That said, there is a certain beauty to the translation. I am even fond of the New King James version.
Click to expand...
Hail_Linus,

Very interesting comment about the Deuterocanonical Books. We still have them in the Anglican Canon. I have a NRSV with them and one without. The one without is lighter to carry. 😊

I’m aware of the “Our Father” issue. 😉

I, too, find the KJV to be a beautiful translation.

Peace,
Anna

Edited to add P.S.: I’d love to see that photocopy of the sum and substance of the conference of Hampton Court where they laid down the ground work for what would be the KJV. Great history!
 
KathleenGee said:
Anna, you referenced the word, ‘contextual’.

For me, as a Catholic, we see Scripture all interconnected, see it more a testimony to salvation of --people–, rather than phrases pulled out to draw different assumptions.

These assumptions lead to convictions, then lead to a self-righteous…my lingo here…and then people split off to form another church.

Where does the Holy Spirit then come in regarding disputes of meaning…?

Simple prepositions…an addition or a deletion…can break unity…
Click to expand...
KathleenGee,

I thought I wrote about textual criticism relating to the many variants among Biblical manuscripts.

I certainly long for unity. Please don’t misunderstand my purpose for this thread. It is simply a desire to understand the whys behind the KJV-only belief.

Peace to you, my sister (we haven’t talked in awhile),
Anna
 
Georgia said:
. . . .The biggest reason, in my opinion, is that quite a bit of theology is built up around the words. If you translate differently, you change the beliefs of a KJV church. . . . .

Georgia,
I think you hit on an important point.

There is a very interesting example of translation affecting theology involving the Latin word Lucifer (Hebr. helel; Septuagint eosphoros, Vulgate Lucifer): see The Original Catholic Encyclopedia Link to Lucifer, History of the Term: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Lucifer

It is interesting to note that there was actually a bishop named Lucifer, known as Lucifer of Cagliari. He was born in the early part of the 4th century and died in 371 A.D.
Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm

The word Lucifer is also used in Roman Rite liturgy’s Exultet chant in praise of the paschal candle and refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.”
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Catholic Link: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

The word/term Lucifer is found in the Latin Vulgate three times: Isaiah 14:12, Job 11:17, and 2 Peter 1:19 referring to Christ ; the Douay-Rheims only in Isaiah 14:12; and the word Lucifer is carried over to the KJV only in Isaiah 14:12.

This passage in Isaiah 14:12 became a “proof text” for Protestants for the fall of Satan, and one is needed since they do not accept the Deuterocanonical Books. However, the passage in Isaiah 14:12 actually refers to a Babylonian King destined to fall.

However, today, one would have difficulty finding the Latin word lucifer in an English Bible translation. I searched numerous Bible dictionaries and rarely found a connection of lucifer with Satan. The word lucifer quietly vanished from the pages of Scripture; and the connection to Satan quietly vanished from many Christian dictionaries.
King James Version:
Isaiah 14:12: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Latin Vulgate:
Isaiah 14:12: quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.**

Job 11:17:** et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer.

2 Peter 1:19: et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris.
Douay-Rheims:
Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?
Darby Translation:
Isaiah 14:12: How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! Thou art cut down to the ground, that didst prostrate the nations!
The word lucifer is nowhere to be found in the following Bible translations:

New Jerusalem Bible

Revised Standard Version

New Revised Standard Version

New International Version

New International Version - UK

New American Standard Bible

New Living Translation

English Standard Version

Contemporary English Version

New Century Version

American Standard Version

Young’s Literal Translation

Holman Christian Standard Bible
The Latin word lucifer actually became associated with Satan outside the Bible in works like Dante Alighieri’s Inferno and Milton’s Paradise Lost. Though, some ECF’s did adopt the association of lucifer with Satan.

In Isaiah 14:12, we have a story, in the KJV, of the fall of Lucifer, which actually refers to a Babylonian king. So, changing to a different Bible translation could pose a theological problem.

Peace,
Anna
Click to expand...
 
Anna_Scott said:
Georgia,
I think you hit on an important point.

There is a very interesting example of translation affecting theology involving the Latin word Lucifer (Hebr. helel; Septuagint eosphoros, Vulgate Lucifer): see The Original Catholic Encyclopedia Link to Lucifer, History of the Term: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Lucifer

It is interesting to note that there was actually a bishop named Lucifer, known as Lucifer of Cagliari. He was born in the early part of the 4th century and died in 371 A.D.
Link: newadvent.org/cathen/09410b.htm

The word Lucifer is also used in Roman Rite liturgy’s Exultet chant in praise of the paschal candle and refers to Christ as the Morning Star (in Latin, lucifer, with lower-case initial): “. . . . . .Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat:Ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum:Christus Filius tuus,qui, regressus ab inferis, humano generi serenus illuxit,et vivit et regnat in saecula saeculorum.”
Link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucifer
Catholic Link: unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/2009/04/exsultet.html

The word/term Lucifer is found in the Latin Vulgate three times: Isaiah 14:12, Job 11:17, and 2 Peter 1:19 referring to Christ ; the Douay-Rheims only in Isaiah 14:12; and the word Lucifer is carried over to the KJV only in Isaiah 14:12.

This passage in Isaiah 14:12 became a “proof text” for Protestants for the fall of Satan, and one is needed since they do not accept the Deuterocanonical Books. However, the passage in Isaiah 14:12 actually refers to a Babylonian King destined to fall.

However, today, one would have difficulty finding the Latin word lucifer in an English Bible translation. I searched numerous Bible dictionaries and rarely found a connection of lucifer with Satan. The word lucifer quietly vanished from the pages of Scripture; and the connection to Satan quietly vanished from many Christian dictionaries.
King James Version:
Isaiah 14:12: 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Latin Vulgate:
Isaiah 14:12: quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes.**

Job 11:17:** et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer.

2 Peter 1:19: et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris. . .
Click to expand...
I found a very interesting article entitled,
Isaiah 14:12 & Revelation 22:16, Will The Real “morning star” Please Stand Up…
Link: kjv-only.com/isa14_12.html

The article deals with accusations from the King James-only proponents against more recent Bible translations that do not use the word lucifer, and it addresses the origin of the word lucifer. The main issue involves the fact that Christ is called the (Bright) Morning Star, which is a translation of the Latin word lucifer.

This article quotes 4 passages in the Latin Vulgate where the word lucifer is used:

Isaiah 14:12 (Latin Vulgate) “quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes”

Job 11:17 (Latin Vulgate) “et quasi meridianus fulgor consurget tibi ad vesperam et cum te consumptum putaveris orieris ut lucifer”

Job 38:32 (Latin Vulgate) “numquid producis luciferum in tempore suo et vesperum super filios terrae consurgere facis”

Psalms 109(110):3 (Latin Vulgate) “tecum principium in die virtutis tuae in splendoribus sanctorum ex utero ante luciferum genui te”

2 Peter 1:19 (Latin Vulgate) “et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris”

Copyright © 1998-2007 by “An Irritable Gent”, except the Guest Writer Section which is © Copyright by the respective authors, and except that which is already public domain. All of the material on this website may be freely copied and distributed as long as it is not changed in any way, this website address and author’s name appears on each copy, and no charge is made for the copies. Copying any of this material to another website, without permission, is forbidden, with the exception of messageboards, newsgroups, chatgroups, etc. If you use this material on any such forum, please include a link to this site.

I had previously only found 3 occurrences of lucifer in my online search of the Latin Vulgate. I did a search for luciferum and did find it in Job 38:32 & Psalms 109:3. So, I stand corrected.
Link to Latin Vulgate online: drbo.org/lvb/

Peace,
Anna
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top