KJV Onlyism - Why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brittany said:
I’m a minor and my parents won’t allow me to regularly attend another Protestant church, much less a Catholic church. I’d definitely go to a Catholic one if I was able… I’ll be able to once I move off to college!!
Click to expand...
It’s good that you’re doing what your parents want. I’m sure it pleases Our Lord. Another benefit is that you’ll have more time to study and learn the Faith. I spent approx. 3 years studying Catholicism before I returned to the Church. I wanted to make sure I believed 100% in everything the Church teaches. I’m glad I spent that time studying because it made my reversion far more meaningful - I understood exactly what I was embracing was ready to make a serious commitment.
 
MichaelP3 said:
This seems to be purely an American thing and the rest if the world’s Protestants have no clue about it.
Click to expand...
Some fundamentalist loonies in Brazil adopt a similar theory and say that the only acceptable translation is Almeida Corrigida e Fiel, but they’re very rare.
 
This is not a commonly held practice/belief among Protestants. The only group I’m aware of that hold this position is Independent Fundamentalist Baptist. They are not your typical baptist churches and make up only a small fraction of American Evangelical Churches.
 
That is an interesting explanation. 😉

What is even more interesting, is the fact that there are MANY KJV Bibles that disagree with one another! Over the course of time, and various publishers, mistakes, corrections, omissions, “updates” and other things have caused many variations to exist from one text to another. To be sure, generally speaking they agree, yet there are significant variations in text and meaning! This was clearly described by Mathew Carey in his 1801 KJV Philadelphia Bible preface. He compared dozens of what were then considered the MOST accurate faultless KJV Bibles in existence in the US and England/Scotland/Ireland. He notes the many discrepancies and wonders WHICH one is the correct one??! He is determined to copy whichever one is the MOST accurate, but HOW does one know?

So the KJV onlyists are rather silly in their fancy that they have some sort of perfect text…
 
One of the main reasons I have heard for KJV only, especially in Independent Baptist churches, is that the newer translations are corrupt and evil. They believe the translators of the NIV and other newer ones have evil intentions and work for the devil to lead everyone astray. There are a TON of websites about this sort of thing and the differences between the translations.
 
Last edited:
Saxum said:
They believe that the KJV is based on better and more ancient manuscripts that are no longer available. Some also believe that modern Bibles have been deliberately mistranslated to obscure doctrine.
Click to expand...
Was having dinner with some friends who asked if our pastor used King Jimmy Version, that so many churches use other perversions not versions. It just bolstered my new realization and appreciation for this one holy Catholic Church. These people are very dear to us and I had to bite my tongue but I so thought and wanted to ask “pray tell, what in the world did Christians do before 1611?” I am dying inside to become Catholic. Things are coming to a boiling point and it couldn’t actually be happening at a worse time. I just made the comment to my wife that I am starting to think I’ve been duped by our church affilliation. She senses I’m not “feeling the love”. I am going to break the news at some point before Wednesday night Bible Study. (pretty sure this will be the week we hear you are Babylon’s w@#$%). Going over to Holy Redeemer to talk about RCIA classes. They’re waiting! I still won’t touch pork but… My pastor is like a brother I never had. I honestly believe this guy would be another Scott Hahn if his eyes and heart were opened enough to consider the faith. Remember Saul! We go to church and I sit there and think ok what am I doing here? Praise time, Announcements, children’s story, Scripture reading, congregational prayer, special music, sermon, appeal, closing hymn, closing prayer, 1 & 3 Sabbath potluck. Clean up (by the way that violates Sabbath). Sermons are always good but honestly, I would rather go on and die and be done with it all til the Lord comes back. You are so blessed to already be here in the church. Sometimes I think I wish I could ring Luther’s neck but he needs the grace of God no less than I do. Please pray for me, feeling a bit discouraged.
 
Yup. I thought I stated this already but the thread still goes on…
 
Funny thing, so many of the KJV Only types promote “AV 1611”…when, in fact, they don’t use the 1611 translation of the King James. Almost invariably they’re using the 1769 Blainey revision for Oxford University.

I have the 1611 translation in eSword:

John 3:16 For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
John 3:17 For God sent not his Sonne into the world to condemne the world: but that the world through him might be saued.
John 3:18 He that beleeueth on him, is not condemned: but hee that beleeueth not, is condemned already, because hee hath not beleeued in the Name of the onely begotten Sonne of God.

That sort of English is NOT being preached from the pulpits of any church in America.
 
It’s the only version of the Bible to ever make it to the moon.
 
I wonder how many use the KJV, yet aren’t “KJV only” ? Folks that just prefer the sound of the old school bible, but don’t hold it up as a matter of faith?

I think most Evangelical types go for the NIV nowadays
 
Augustinian said:
I wonder how many use the KJV, yet aren’t “KJV only” ? Folks that just prefer the sound of the old school bible, but don’t hold it up as a matter of faith?

I think most Evangelical types go for the NIV nowadays
Click to expand...
There are certainly some who just like the KJV and prefer the language ect. Those people aren’t who this thread is about. Having a preference for the KJV doesn’t mean KJV Onlyism. Two different things.

NIV is the most widespread worldwide these days, but I’m not sure if it’s particularly favored by American Evangelicals. Use of the NASB and ESV seems very widespread amongst American Evangelicals.
 
nearlycatholic said:
I am dying inside to become Catholic. Things are coming to a boiling point and it couldn’t actually be happening at a worse time. I just made the comment to my wife that I am starting to think I’ve been duped by our church affilliation. She senses I’m not “feeling the love”. I am going to break the news at some point before Wednesday night Bible Study. (pretty sure this will be the week we hear you are Babylon’s w@#$%).
Click to expand...
It’s great that you’re becoming Catholic and I hope things go smoothly with your wife. I’ll pray that your wife converts along with you. I’m sure the Holy Spirit will use you as the instrument to help show your wife the truth and the beauty of the Catholic Faith. The great thing about the Catholic Church is that it has something for everybody - there are many different types of spirituality and I’m sure your wife will find something that draws her to the Truth.
 
deMontfort said:
Funny thing, so many of the KJV Only types promote “AV 1611”…when, in fact, they don’t use the 1611 translation of the King James.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve noticed that more than once 😃

(Haven’t had the opportunity to bring it up to any of them, tho . . . )

D
 
Saxum said:
They also claim that the Septuagint is more accurate because the Jews deliberately altered their scriptures to undermine prophesies referring to Christ e.g. the word “Virgin” in Isaiah is now “young woman” or something like that.
Click to expand...
Speak to some Greek Catholics. They’ll confirm this claim.
 
The fact that some people are KJV-only for silly reasons does not rule out some strong reasons for preferring that translation above other valid ones. Chesterton wrote that the translators of the modern versions coming out likely had a much greater knowledge of Hebrew and Greek; but the translators of the KJV had a much better knowledge of English. This version, and the DRV, communicate the majesty, and transcendence of God in verses so memorable they quite rightly were memorized.

Most modern translations look like they came out of a word processor; the wording is technically accurate perhaps, but nothing is memorable. People communicate with God as if He and they were sitting in a committee meeting. Then add on the layers of political correctness, and you have some really weak verbiage here.

Some point out the KJV’s or DRV"s “dated” language. But words like “thee” and “thou” communicate a nuance of personal relationship that English once had, and lost. But it can be explained and understood now, for a slightly deeper meaning.
 
commenter said:
The fact that some people are KJV-only for silly reasons does not rule out some strong reasons for preferring that translation above other valid ones. Chesterton wrote that the translators of the modern versions coming out likely had a much greater knowledge of Hebrew and Greek; but the translators of the KJV had a much better knowledge of English. This version, and the DRV, communicate the majesty, and transcendence of God in verses so memorable they quite rightly were memorized.

Most modern translations look like they came out of a word processor; the wording is technically accurate perhaps, but nothing is memorable. People communicate with God as if He and they were sitting in a committee meeting. Then add on the layers of political correctness, and you have some really weak verbiage here.

Some point out the KJV’s or DRV"s “dated” language. But words like “thee” and “thou” communicate a nuance of personal relationship that English once had, and lost. But it can be explained and understood now, for a slightly deeper meaning.
Click to expand...
I’ve never seen that Chesterton item; I like it. I hope some day to see what he said verbatim, because I believe that it is true. There is another factor besides decreased knowledge of (and, perhaps, respect for) the English language, and that is the fact that there are now many English translations. People making a new translation have to come up with new ways to say old things, in order to not be accused of copying from older translations, and in doing that, it seems to me that they actually get farther away from what the original actually says.

When we were living in England 25+ years ago, I read an article in the Sunday Times about modern Bible translations in which the writer referred to them as “Cabbage Patch Versions”. In the intervening years I have never come across a more apt description.

D
 
The exact GKC quote: “We know that if the authors of the Revised Version knew more about Hebrew, the authors of the Authorized Version knew far more about English”.

I was relying on memory. But I looked it up.

original source: Illustrated London News, “Arguing with Erudition”, 10/31/1908. Found in a modern book, “The Wisdom Of Mr. Chesterton: The very best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the pen of G. K. Chesterton”; edited by Dave Armstrong.
 
Hurrah!

Or, if one needs the entire source article, G.K. CHESTERTON: Collected Works, vol.XXVIII:Illustrated London News 1908-1910, pp. 205-209. Quotation found on pp.208-209.
 
It’s the version Jesus handed to the disciples at Pentecost and that all Christian’s read before Constantine made the Catholic Church and started taking the Bible from Christian’s so they couldn’t read the word of God themselves 😉 heavy sarcasm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top