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

[Anna_Scott]

While there is no doubt the English usage is archaic in the KJV and many are willing to point out the flaws, still it communicates to me exactly the majesty of the stories contained therein. Looking back at Christmas at the church I attended that day, they read the Gospel and gone was “Glory to God in the highest and on Earth peace, good will toward men”. Some bastardized politically correct version was used. Disgusting. There are so many versions available now for people to use. Some are so watered down, confusing and touchy feely,(lest anyone be even slightly offended), yuck. For me the KJV, warts and all stands as the benchmark against which others are compared and quite willing to compare themselves. I do not claim it to be the one and only inspired translation, but it certainly is the only timelessly magnificent English translation I can think of. Absolutely one of the most important books of modern Western Civilization
How many souls were won to Christ because of the KJV? Countless.
200 300, etc years from now people won’t be talking about how great the The Good News, RSV, NRSV, Jerusalem, Living etc, etc ,etc Bibles are or were. Will they still even be in print? The KJV will be.
BTW: The excuse that young people can’t understand or relate to the KJV is like saying they are too stupid to understand that other classic of English Literature known as Shakespeare.
If a Church or group wants to use only the KJV, I say good for them. I applaud their traditionalism. They do not have to explain themselves to anyone or help anyone “understand” their thinking. For who, for what? Conversely, they need not condemn those who do no agree with them, that’s just as wrong headed.
Nuff said.

agrange,

I appreciate your comments and I agree that the KJV is a beautiful Bible and has a rich history. I’m not asking why people use the KJV or even why people prefer the KJV. And–I’m certainly not condemning anyone.

Using or preferring the KJV is not a King James-only stance. My question is for those who believe the KJV is the only Divinely inspired, inerrant Word of God, and that no other translation contains the Word of God.

The KJV is an Anglican Bible, and we still use it in our Liturgy and our prayers-though not all the time. However, we realize there were errors in the KJV and we use the NRSV in Bible studies.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition (which I have) also uses the NRSV and the RSV, which is surprising; because one might expect the CCC to use an English translation of the Latin Vulgate—but that is not the case.

As I said in a previous posts:

. . . .I would really like to know how the King Jame-only proponents come to this belief. Are they listening to a religious leader? Have they arrived at their conclusion through study of the transmission of Scripture? Are they claiming some kind of Divine Revelation? If they hold to a Bible only view of Christianity; where in the Bible do they find that one English translation of the Bible in 1611 will be the only infallible, inerrant, Word of God?

. . . .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. . . .

No doubt, the KJV was an amazing accomplishment in the English translation of Scripture. Men lost their lives for working on English translations, and there is quite an interesting history leading up to the KJV. Yet, it does contain errors.

One of the things that puzzles me the most is that the KJV is an Anglican Bible and competed with the Protestant Church’s Geneva Bible. Yet, King James-only proponents are mostly Protestants. . . . .

Again, I appreciate your comments; and indeed it would be interesting to know what translation is most widely used 200-300 years from now.

Peace,
Anna