Why are some Christians obsessed with the KJV Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kouyate42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kouyate42

Guest
I’ve noticed a still-current trend among Protestant churches to hold the KJV to be the only Bible that should be used by Christians, or at the least it’s held up as the best translation in the world and that others are merely shadows of the KJV. I’ve personally challenged KJV-onlyists about going back to the Greek/Latin/Hebrew original texts and they still are very obstinate about their Bible being the only one to be used.

Seriously, what justification do people have for KJV-only?

I personally do not like the KJV as I find it difficult as someone who doesn’t speak great English to actually read it. But my prime reason for not liking the KJV is simply that I can read the original Hebrew/Greek of the Bible. Why SHOULD I then read it in translation?
 
I can’t make any sense out of this stance, either. I’ve heard some say that the prevalence of the KJV is proof that it is God’s own translation.
 
chipeto said:
I can’t make any sense out of this stance, either. I’ve heard some say that the prevalence of the KJV is proof that it is God’s own translation.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard excuses of the literary impact of the KJV, or that it was the first Bible to be read across all of English speaking Christendom, but even if this were true, what difference does it make? The Latin Vulgate was being discussed and read LONG before then across most of Europe, and before that the Greek text.
 
Ironically, the ones who hold to the KJV tradition are the same ones who criticize Catholics for holding to traditions.
 
Many Protestant Churches regard the King James version to have been “Divinely Inspired”, and therefore to be the one true and authentic version of the Bible in the English language.
 
Kouyate42 said:
The Latin Vulgate was being discussed and read LONG before then across most of Europe, and before that the Greek text.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the Vulgate is so very Catholic, you see. Some people simply cannot be argued with.
 
chipeto said:
Yes, but the Vulgate is so very Catholic, you see. Some people simply cannot be argued with.
Click to expand...
Seems that some people are so blinded, they ignore the fact that all their Bible translations came from a text preserved, read, copied and studied by Catholics
 
Kouyate42 said:
I’ve noticed a still-current trend among Protestant churches to hold the KJV to be the only Bible that should be used by Christians, or at the least it’s held up as the best translation in the world and that others are merely shadows of the KJV. I’ve personally challenged KJV-onlyists about going back to the Greek/Latin/Hebrew original texts and they still are very obstinate about their Bible being the only one to be used.

Seriously, what justification do people have for KJV-only?

I personally do not like the KJV as I find it difficult as someone who doesn’t speak great English to actually read it. But my prime reason for not liking the KJV is simply that I can read the original Hebrew/Greek of the Bible. Why SHOULD I then read it in translation?
Click to expand...
No idea. While I have an NKJV, which I like, I don’t even own a KJV. As a kid, we used the RSV. Today the LCMS uses the ESV, which is fine by me, better than the NIV we used to use.

Jon
 
A friend of mine from the States went to a KJV-only church, where the minister said, “If [the KJV] was good enough for Paul, it’s good enough for me.”
:rotfl:
 
Kouyate42 said:
I’ve noticed a still-current trend among Protestant churches to hold the KJV to be the only Bible that should be used by Christians, or at the least it’s held up as the best translation in the world and that others are merely shadows of the KJV. I’ve personally challenged KJV-onlyists about going back to the Greek/Latin/Hebrew original texts and they still are very obstinate about their Bible being the only one to be used.

Seriously, what justification do people have for KJV-only?

I personally do not like the KJV as I find it difficult as someone who doesn’t speak great English to actually read it. But my prime reason for not liking the KJV is simply that I can read the original Hebrew/Greek of the Bible. Why SHOULD I then read it in translation?
Click to expand...
I see your frustration but not your cirticism.

If you can read scripture in the language of earlier texts, you are blessed. However, it’s a bit unfair to then expect everyone else to debate with you at that level. You’ve limited yourself to debate with other academic types.
 
I prefer clear, literal translations–it exposes how simple Biblical Hebrew was (e.g., the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, is actually the Tree of Good and Bad; paths of righteousness is actually circles of justice; the apple of the Tree is actually the fruit of the Tree). KJV’s language is too archaic for my taste.
 
Bezant said:
I prefer clear, literal translations–it exposes how simple Biblical Hebrew was (e.g., the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, is actually the Tree of Good and Bad; paths of righteousness is actually circles of justice; the apple of the Tree is actually the fruit of the Tree). KJV’s language is too archaic for my taste.
Click to expand...
Do you feel that way about the DRB?

Jon
 
Tony888 said:
I see your frustration but not your cirticism.

If you can read scripture in the language of earlier texts, you are blessed. However, it’s a bit unfair to then expect everyone else to debate with you at that level. You’ve limited yourself to debate with other academic types.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, I think it’s a great disadvantage to Christians, that knowledge of Biblical Hebrew and Greek is limited to small academic circles. Fair enough, not everyone has time to learn it; and fair enough, Hebrew’s very difficult to learn once you move into advanced levels (I don’t know about Greek); but I think everyone should have some eduction in both.
 
JonNC said:
Do you feel that way about the DRB?

Jon
Click to expand...
I’ve never knowingly read it before you brought it up, but going through some verses I pulled up online, its still too archaic for my taste.
 
The KJV contains some beautiful prose, some of which has become embedded in the English Language. It also contains some schoolboy howlers like “apple of my eye”. Although it was not the first English translation of the Bible, it was the first widely available version. Those English-speaking Calvinist churches that looked to the Bible as the only source of seeking God’s word, had the KJV and built up a whole religion based upon it - howlers and all. Admitting that the KJV is actually a rather poor translation would threaten the foundations of some Calvinist churches. After all, once you’ve accepted the KJV as the immutable word of God, you don’t want to hear from some linguist that it’s not.
 
Tony888 said:
I see your frustration but not your cirticism.

If you can read scripture in the language of earlier texts, you are blessed. However, it’s a bit unfair to then expect everyone else to debate with you at that level. You’ve limited yourself to debate with other academic types.
Click to expand...
I’m not expecting every Christian to learn Greek and Hebrew to the point I did, although this would be amazing. What I AM wishing to see is acknowledgement that ANY translation is precisely that- an attempt to express the meaning of one language into another, and that translations often lost much of the nuance and subtlety of the original.
 
jimrob said:
The KJV contains some beautiful prose, some of which has become embedded in the English Language. It also contains some schoolboy howlers like “apple of my eye”. Although it was not the first English translation of the Bible, it was the first widely available version. Those English-speaking Calvinist churches that looked to the Bible as the only source of seeking God’s word, had the KJV and built up a whole religion based upon it - howlers and all. Admitting that the KJV is actually a rather poor translation would threaten the foundations of some Calvinist churches. After all, once you’ve accepted the KJV as the immutable word of God, you don’t want to hear from some linguist that it’s not.
Click to expand...
I think you go too far in claiming the KJV is a “poor translation”
  • Actually, the KJ translators did a great job with their materials - the vulgate
  • The RSV, NIV and other modern translations also contain errors and omissions.
I agree it is silly to claim it is the inerrant word of God and ignore the obvious human errors in translation and comprehension.
 
There are plenty of KJV-only churches here in the South wherein doctrine originates in the exact words of the KJV Bible. Any other translation upsets what has been set forth as absolute truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top