KJV Onlyism - Why?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maximilian75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twf said:
I wonder how KJV-only types deal with non-English speaking Christians? Does every convert have to learn to read English if they don’t already?
Click to expand...
We had a KJV-Only pastor when I was a kid. I came home on leave from Japan at one point, and he was visiting our home town and came over to see us. I showed him my Russian-language “smuggler’s Bible”, and his only question about it was, “Is it a King James?”

😮

D
 
DaveBj said:
We had a KJV-Only pastor when I was a kid. I came home on leave from Japan at one point, and he was visiting our home town and came over to see us. I showed him my Russian-language “smuggler’s Bible”, and his only question about it was, “Is it a King James?”
Click to expand...
And he wasn’t kidding? Shows you the intellectual abilities of these groups…
 
I remember watching a casual debate on the subject on the John Ankerberg show. Ankerberg asked Sam Gipp point blank if he believed that someone in another country would have to learn English in order to be saved. Gipp said yes.
 
Darryl_B said:
The fact is if the KJV was good enough for Jesus it should be good enough for all of us?
Click to expand...
Some extremists in that movement believe the KJV was literally in God’s mind from the beginning; that the early Hebrew and Greek was merely a rough translation from the original, though people did not know the original existed until it was published centuries later. In fact, when people point out flaws in how the KJV translates some Hebrew or Greek terms, the Onlyism people say that shows the Hebrew or Greek is only an imperfect approximation, that the KJV itself is perfect.

Muslims, I think, believe the Quran is only properly understood in Arabic. Some non Arabic converts do try to learn Arabic. They generally believe the translations into other languages are adequate, though an approximation of the original.

But again, the fact that some KJV fanatics take positions that seem irrational to us does not negate the goodness of that translation.

BTW, there is no danger of anyone starting a “Jerusalem Bible Onlyism” or “New American Bible Onlyism” movement. That’s kind of depressing, when you think of it. Likewise, there’s no danger of anyone idolizing the local McDonalds as a deity, either.
 
Last edited:
commenter said:
But again, the fact that some KJV fanatics take positions that seem irrational to us does not negate the goodness of that translation.
Click to expand...
I ended up beginning my formative years in a semi-KJV only form of Christianity. I reached an age of reason and I got given in an entire random chance (though I don’t believe there is such a thing) an RSV Catholic Edition Bible, 20 years before I actually converted to the Catholic Faith. The Bible was finally readable.

I have since found that the KJV can be very open to one’s own personal interpretation, I can actually make it say, anything I want it to and I know many have done just that. RSV I cannot be afforded the same luxury.

KJV it could be saying this, or it could be saying this, or it could be saying this. Turn up the RSV, and I do not have the opportunity, it locks me in.

I think maybe the KJV onlyers are unaware that two other KJV onlyers read the same passage and it means something completely different to each of them.
 
Much of the worry of KJV-only is that the meaning of words changes over the years. A passage may mean one thing when it was written, but because of the change in the meanings of the language itself, the passage seems to mean another.
 
DarkLight said:
Much of the worry of KJV-only is that the meaning of words changes over the years. A passage may mean one thing when it was written, but because of the change in the meanings of the language itself, the passage seems to mean another.
Click to expand...
The same complaint is made against Shakespeare. In a way, the argument is somewhat valid, but…😉

I am no linguist but I have read that English has changed somewhat more slowly than other languages since Shakespeare and KJV. It is suggested that these works, which helped form modern English, were so respected that people did not want to “lose” them. As the snowflakes become our professors, I suspect there will be no effort to stay in contact with old works.
 
In the 90s there was a book titled New Age Bible Versions that sent a wave through the Protestant churches, especially Southern Baptist. The book was written by GA Riplinger and went through the various versions of the Protestant Bible (e.g., NASB, NIV, & etc.) and took a near verse by verse comparison of the different versions to the KJV. The author explained in detail why the non-KJV versions were espousing New Age tenets and why the KJV should be the only version a Christian reads. Further controversy erupted with versions like the NLT and The Message.

Some people also only use KJV because of Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance and the ease with which one can find the original Greek or Hebrew used in Scripture.

I think there are a plethora of reasons why one may be KJV only. For me, as I am recently converting to Catholicism, I was in KJV only church for many years, and my parents were (and still are) KJV only. I am so used to the KJV that I find reading other versions difficult. I try and switch out the versions that I read on a yearly basis, but find I come back to KJV - again not because of some hocus pocus belief about KJV, but rather because it’s just what I am used to and can read it easier.
 
MichaelP3 said:
40.png
Maximilian75:
commonly held practice among Protestants?
Click to expand...
It’s not.

Never even heard of it until Steven Anderson was banned to enter my country.

Not all Protestants are English so the mere question as to why it is a common practice does not make sense? Some do it. And I am willing to bet a very small fraction.
Click to expand...
This is a solid answer.

I live in the very buckle of the American Bible Belt and “KJV Only” are a rarity and the vocal ones are lightly chided for it.

Additionally, the New American Standard Bible was all the rage at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in the late 90s early 2000s.
 
Well, shucky darn… I bought an amazing leather-bound version of this bible, thinking it was just a Catholic translation with the Apocrypha missing due to the fact that it was printed by Protestants… That’s really annoying.
 
Well, that explains some weird phrasing…

I occasionally pray the Judica Me Domine, and it says ‘places’ rather than ‘tabernacles’. I understand why now haha
 
Shakespeare is somewhat different. While one can very much appreciate the bard, no one is trying to pattern their lives after his characters, or derive doctrine from them.
 
You’re thinking of the NAB. That’s the Catholic translation. The NASB is a Protestant translation through and through. Unlike the NAB, the NASB is a very formal (word for word) translation. The NAB is more a dynamic equivalency (thought for thought).
 
The KJV only…because Christianity is messy and dangerous, and we don’t like to come out of our comfort zones. It’s appealing to have a safe space. Idolatry is safe. (there are many forms, Catholics do it to).
 
I don’t think any English professor of any political persuasion would discount Shakespeare and the KJV.
 
Last edited:
Saxum said:
Which do you think is best, the KJV or the Douay?
Click to expand...
The Douay.

Almost all current editions of the KJV are missing important books of the Old Testament (like the Book of Sirach, Maccabees 1 & 2) and also missing parts of other important OT books (like Book of Daniel).
 
I briefly attended a KJV only Fundamentalist Baptist church once when I was still up in the air about my theology. It was my understanding that they believed the Byzantine manuscript tradition, which the Textus Receptus is based on, was divinely preserved by God throughout the centuries.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top