Why do some believe that the KJV Bible is the only Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter john_charles
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
**Best (and most revealing) comment made to me personally by a Baptist:

“If the King James bible was good enough for Saint Paul, then it’s good enough for me.”

I think that puts it in a nutshell for most of us. :rolleyes: **
 
Hi,

I have a friend like this. Boy is she adament. She feels it is the only treu bible out there with the most accurate translation. I personally think that is what she has been taught and completely follows it. When I told her I had an NIV and NASB she cringed:eek: She told me our friendship was more important to her then fighting with me over which bible was the most accurate. I appreciated that because I wasnt going to start an argument over it anyway.😃 I have a KJV and personally I dont see a difference except the thee’s and thou’s.

AFH
I have a question for KJV Onlyism believers. If that were true, then how would they justify Early Christians who neither know English in the ancient times? The only Scripture was the Greek and Hebrew…I think that KJV Onlyism falls apart…
 
**Best (and most revealing) comment made to me personally by a Baptist:

“If the King James bible was good enough for Saint Paul, then it’s good enough for me.”

I think that puts it in a nutshell for most of us. :rolleyes: **
The bad thing about that Premise is that St. Paul doesn’t know King James of England, and King James was not even born yet…
 
The bad thing about that Premise is that St. Paul doesn’t know King James of England, and King James was not even born yet…
Also, Paul spoke Hebrew, Greek and probably Latin (since he was a Roman citizen). But English was not a language in existence at the time, so Paul would not have known English.
 
I have a question for KJV Onlyism believers. If that were true, then how would they justify Early Christians who neither know English in the ancient times? The only Scripture was the Greek and Hebrew…I think that KJV Onlyism falls apart…
KJV only believers the superiority of the majority and the received text. They believe that God’s perfectly perserved word comes from the Byzantine text which forms the Textus Receptus which form the KJV. At no time would any KJV only, in any camp, say that God’s perfectly perserved word did not exist in another language prior to 1611.
Not even a Ruckmanite would say that.
 
KJV only believers the superiority of the majority and the received text. They believe that God’s perfectly perserved word comes from the Byzantine text which forms the Textus Receptus which form the KJV. At no time would any KJV only, in any camp, say that God’s perfectly perserved word did not exist in another language prior to 1611.
Not even a Ruckmanite would say that.
Actually the believe in the Superiority of King James himself since he promulgated his version of the Bible. It’s odd though, that the earlier translation of the English Version of the Douay Rheims Bible which pre-dates the King James.
 
Actually the believe in the Superiority of King James himself since he promulgated his version of the Bible. It’s odd though, that the earlier translation of the English Version of the Douay Rheims Bible which pre-dates the King James.
**And another noteworthy bit of historical trivia - King James was long gone dead and buried by the time his bible hit the stands.😃 **
 
Actually the believe in the Superiority of King James himself since he promulgated his version of the Bible. It’s odd though, that the earlier translation of the English Version of the Douay Rheims Bible which pre-dates the King James.
So people are concerned with the chain of events leading to the translating of the KJV historically. It depends which kind of KJVO you are talking to.
 
Yeah the original King James also included the books that the Catholic Bible has today, it was later that the protestants had those books removed. Also I used to think the KJV was best till I learned that King James was a Free Mason. :eek: Why read a Bible translated by a devil worshipper? 🤷 So I now stick to the Catholic bibles. 🙂
Aw, a devil worshiper translating your bible bothers you when you live in a country founded and ran by devil worshipers? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Freemasons
 
Are you a KJVOist?
Translation discussions with Catholics is never a good idea. It is a conversation to be had with fellow fundamentalists, dispensationalists, or independent congregations. We differ too much with Catholics.
It is like… a Catholic talking to another Catholic about which Rite is preferable, a Protestant has no say in that conversation.
So, to answer your question, I am a Christian, who believes in the superiority of the received text. For discussion, services, and soul winning, we use the KJV. Some other other translations based upon the majority text for private study and research and that is not only acceptable, I think it is a good idea.
Its a long story and the background is not here on this forum for this conversaton to be fruitful.
 
Translation discussions with Catholics is never a good idea. It is a conversation to be had with fellow fundamentalists, dispensationalists, or independent congregations. We differ too much with Catholics.
It is like… a Catholic talking to another Catholic about which Rite is preferable, a Protestant has no say in that conversation.
So, to answer your question, I am a Christian, who believes in the superiority of the received text. For discussion, services, and soul winning, we use the KJV. Some other other translations based upon the majority text for private study and research and that is not only acceptable, I think it is a good idea.
Its a long story and the background is not here on this forum for this conversaton to be fruitful.
I’m undecided,can you discuss it with me? My girl is Pentecostal and I have started reading her NKJV, it seems to read well and I haven’t seen anything that could be interpreted in more than one way. I’ve read some of KJV online, it does seem to have the same translation,only the thys and thous are a headache. Is NKJV allowed in a KJV onlyist church? If not why?

Humans complied them and translated them all.
You speak of “received text”? Technically, the text is English and God did not speak English in biblical times. How do you base your claim of “received text”?
 
Most KJV only people don’t say the KJV itself is inspired, but rather that the underlying NT Greek of the Byzantine/Majority text is the most accurate and least corrupt of all the ancient manuscripts. Actually this claim is not as far-fetched as it sounds. For example the Eastern Churches use the Byzantine text not what is called the western texts or as they are called “the critical texts” of modern scholarship.
 
Most KJV only people don’t say the KJV itself is inspired, but rather that the underlying NT Greek of the Byzantine/Majority text is the most accurate and least corrupt of all the ancient manuscripts. Actually this claim is not as far-fetched as it sounds. For example the Eastern Churches use the Byzantine text not what is called the western texts or as they are called “the critical texts” of modern scholarship.
Well, is there a side by side comparison of only the differences of D-R and KJV?
 
I am trying to understand WHY some people say that the only accurate Bible is the “King James Version 1611”. It seems that these believers are so entrenched with this belief that there is no room for anything other than a literal KJV only view, nothing else can be considered.Please help me understand why.
I have a question that is sorta-kinda related to this thread.

Is the KJV translated into, say Russian or Chinese? Or would it be necessary to learn to read English in order to get the benefits of the superior KJV?
 
I’m undecided,can you discuss it with me? My girl is Pentecostal and I have started reading her NKJV, it seems to read well and I haven’t seen anything that could be interpreted in more than one way. I’ve read some of KJV online, it does seem to have the same translation,only the thys and thous are a headache. Is NKJV allowed in a KJV onlyist church? If not why?
Independent churches would have different views. In the vast majority of churches that would be KJV churches, the NKJV is not well received because they do not always adhere to the majority text.
Humans complied them and translated them all.
You speak of “received text”? Technically, the text is English and God did not speak English in biblical times. How do you base your claim of “received text”?
Here is a link, my terminology would be confusing to those not familiar.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Received_Text
 
I have a question that is sorta-kinda related to this thread.

Is the KJV translated into, say Russian or Chinese? Or would it be necessary to learn to read English in order to get the benefits of the superior KJV?
Some translations are made from the KJV and some are made from the Greek or Textus Receptus.
Views vary about which is best.
 
The Roman Catholic Apocrypha

Tobit
Judith
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch
First and Second Maccabees
Additions to Esther and Daniel

Apocryphal Books rejected by the Catholic Religion:

First and Second Esdras
Prayer of Manasses

Not one of the apocryphal books is written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament. All Apocryphal books are in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin.
None of the apocryphal writers laid claim to inspiration.
The apocryphal books were never acknowledged as sacred scriptures by the Jews, custodians of the Hebrew scriptures (the apocrypha was written prior to the New Testament). In fact, the Jewish people rejected and destroyed the apocrypha after the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
The apocryphal books were not permitted among the sacred books during the first four centuries.

The Apocrypha contains fabulous statements which not only contradict the “canonical” scriptures but themselves. For example, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanies is made to die three different deaths in three different places.
The Apocrypha includes doctrines in variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection. The following verses are taken from the Apocrypha translation by Ronald Knox dated 1954:

The King James translators never considered the Apocrypha the word of God. As books of some historical value, the Apocrypha was sandwiched between the Old and New Testaments as an appendix of reference material. This followed the format that Luther had used. Luther prefaced the Apocrypha with a statement:

“Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.”

In 1599, TWELVE YEARS BEFORE the King James Bible was published, King James said this about the Apocrypha:

“As to the Apocriphe bookes, I OMIT THEM because I am no Papist (as I said before)…”

Not only this, but the sixth article of the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (1571 edition) states:

In the name of the Holy, we do vnderstande those canonical bookes of the olde and newe Testament, of whose authoritie was never any doubt in the Churche…

Now concerning the apocrypha it states,

And the other bookes, (as Hierome sayeth), the Churche doth reade for example of life and instruction of manners: but yet doth it not applie them to establish any doctrene [sic].

Philip Schaff, Creeds of Christendom. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977, Vol. III, pp. 489-491.

The Apocrypha began to be omitted from the Authorized Version in 1629. Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Apocrypha from the Bible and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Apocrypha has been eliminated from practically all English Bibles–Catholic Bibles and some pulpit Bibles excepted.

Not even all Catholic “Church Fathers” believed the Apocrypha was scripture.

“As the Church reads the books of Judith and Tobit and Maccabees but does not receive them among the canonical Scriptures, so also it reads Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus for the edification of the people, not for the authoritative confirmation of doctrine.”

Jerome
Jerome’s preface to the books of Solomon
 
I am trying to understand WHY some people say that the only accurate Bible is the “King James Version 1611”. It seems that these believers are so entrenched with this belief that there is no room for anything other than a literal KJV only view, nothing else can be considered.Please help me understand why.
Beats me. We Anglicans made it, but the ones who make that claim are usually ardent fundamentalists. If they like our book so much and thinks it’s so good, why don’t they just become Anglicans? :rolleyes:

I have a real 1611 version, with the archaic spelling and all. It also has the apocrypha in it, but they don’t accept that.:rolleyes:

All and all, they don’t really have a leg to stand on about this. Those kind of people are usually the ones that call the Roman Catholic Church the “Whore of Babylon, blah, blah, blah…” if you know what I mean…
 
Not even all Catholic “Church Fathers” believed the Apocrypha was scripture.
Which is why we have a Church. The Church decides. Not St. Jerome, not any other individual.

By the way, Trent confirmed the minimum number of books in the bible. Certain Orthodox and Eastern Catholics have more than 73 books in their bibles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top