Why are some Christians obsessed with the KJV Bible?

[Eruvande]

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?

Speaking as someone who had a passing flirtation with KJVonly-ism, I think it holds the sway it does because of a yearning for authority. If the KJV is perfectly preserved there’s no need for other authority. It’s the ultimate, high octane version of sola scriptura.

 

[PbloPicasso]

Speaking as someone who had a passing flirtation with KJVonly-ism, I think it holds the sway it does because of a yearning for authority. If the KJV is perfectly preserved there’s no need for other authority. It’s the ultimate, high octane version of sola scriptura.

…which has no place in Christianity. I’ve been to the congregations that subscribed to KJV only. I even carried mine with the integrated ASV for authenticity among my group. But my own congregations proved solo scriptura wrong without even realizing it. It’s one of the major things that brought me home to the Catholic Church.

 

[Zooey]

Ironically, the ones who hold to the KJV tradition are the same ones who criticize Catholics for holding to traditions.

That’s true.

I think that there are a lot of variations within the KJV-only world. I know people who prefer KJV, & some of them will only use the KJV. They do NOT try to attack me for using other translations.
Then there are the crazies…& there are some really weird, even disturbed people among htem. (Someone here suggested to me that if I wanted to see the worst of KJV-only, that I google “Peter Ruckman”…. Yoicks!! What a total nut–& scary, to boot!!)

But I think that a myth I have heard about the KJV has an influence. According to this story, all the translators translated the whole Bible, & when they were done, got together to compare notes for the final edit. Supposedly, every single person had the exact same words, with no variations from one to the next, proving& its verbal inspiration. (THey also claim that each one was “divinely inspired” to omit the deuerocanonicals. But as we know, those were, in fact, included in the origianl; they were only omitted from most KJV’s in the 19th century).
The big problem is that, of course, no such thing ever happened. In truth, each man worked on parts of the Bible, they did edit & combine versions they produced, & the whole thing was produced, therefore, in the same manner as any other honest translation. Unfortunately, KJV-onylists will* not** believe you when you try to tell them this.

The KJV is a truly great piece of Englsih literature. As a Bible translation, it is far from my favorite. I like best the DRB (true word-for-word literal translation of the Vulgate); and as has been mentioned by others, the “RSV family”, of which the RSV-CE 2nd Ed. is my personal favorite.
But the “Bible in my head” is still the KJV, which is handy, since most Bible reference books are keyed to the KJV, & so I can find verses from a small scrap of remembered text.

 

[rotlex]

Cool thread actually.

Catholic here, who eh, as much as I hate to admit it, have been rather enjoying reading from the KJV for quite some time now. I have a Cambridge Cameo version with the Apocrypha, so all the books are there.

I’ve read through, and study from, a number of translations, and in the past, have preferred the DR and the RSV. What I didn’t like about the DR, was the name changes for books, people etc. Yes, I know WHY they are different, along with the Psalm number, but it always drove me nuts. I like the old English of the KJV, and the fact that the book names, numberings, etc. etc. are what I am used too from all other translations.

It reads beautifully. Yes, the archaic language is there, but it is done right. When I compare it to the DR, even though the differences are subtle, it just flows better.

So here I am. A KJV loving cradle Catholic.

 

[Kouyate42]

Speaking as someone who had a passing flirtation with KJVonly-ism, I think it holds the sway it does because of a yearning for authority. If the KJV is perfectly preserved there’s no need for other authority. It’s the ultimate, high octane version of sola scriptura.

From what I can tell, the pseudo-worship of the KJV in many churches seems to put the translation on a pedestal almost equal to that of God, or at least the actual original Bible itself.

I don’t have a problem if the belief is that the KJV is the best rendering of the original text into common English. This is pretty much the thinking of the majority who use a specific translation. But when you get the dogmatic thinking of the KJV-onlyists, that there’s no errors in their chosen version or that the English text IMPROVES the Latin/Greek text, it makes you want to cry.

 

[dcana]

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.

Where does it say that in the Bible?