Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Why King James Only?


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​I do have a hard time not seeing the hand of God on the KJV.

 

in about 1588 the Spanish Armada lost to Britain, at that time the Spanish Armada was the largest navy in the world. It was a miracle that Britain won.

then in 1611 you have the KJV translated. a few years before this there was a Jesuit plot to assasinate King James, and he was uncovered right before he was about to light the fuse on some explosives that would have killed the King.

then some years later you have the printing press ready.

and then you have english becoming the dominant world langauge.

 

all these events happenning around the same time lead me to believe God's hand was in the KJV and that he preserved his words through this translation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 227
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Moderators

Another excellent book is Touch Not the Unclean Thing by David Sorenson. It gives as well a fairly exhaustive list of TR backed translations into hundreds of languages,including many native American languages, reaching back to the earlypart of the 2nd century with the Italic and Syriack, both very early TR texts, which shows that the TR New Testament was complete and common enough by that time to have it translated into other languages, in toto. Around 125AD, well before the council of NIcea, by the way, who many claim are the ones who set the canon of scripture, yet there were complete NT translations based off the TR well before it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​Absolutely. 3rd most common native tongue but a second language worldwide,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

​The Lord deals with His people according to His perfect wisdom and timing. I was a follower of Christ for nearly a decade before the Lord brought the matter of a Bible version to my attention. One day, as clear as can be, the Holy Ghost directed me to the KJB, and I wasn't even considering the matter at the time. Even so, the direction was so clear I got a KJB and the Word opened to me like never before and I've used the KJB ever since.

I know some fine men of God who use other Bible versions, some of which I find so watered down and/or hard to understand it's amazing to me they can walk with God so closely using them. All things are possible with God! The Bible they use is, ultimately, between them and God. I'll share with them how the Lord directed me. I'll share with them some of the ways I've found the KJB to be superior to the NIV (or whatever version they use). I'll show them resources or share web links on the subject. At that point, it's still between them and God. I certainly won't dismiss them as unbelievers when they exhibit the fruits of salvation.

The Bible one reads from doesn't prove, or make, them a true or false believer. Just as there are many true believers who don't use the KJB, there are also many false believers who do use the KJB. Our salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

allow me to play devils advocate here, Where was the perfectly preserved text before the KJV? Why does nOBody hold to a Geneva Bible only position?

 

... how can we say we accept by faith that the King James is perfect and preserved, and not be able to apply that to the Geneva Bible translation before it? 

The proper text was with the proper people all the time Jordan. Whether it be the Geneva Bible or before.

Tyndale's text was full of error. Yet correct doctrine still existed. God still uses mans failures to accomplish his will.

The testimony against translators, that believe wrong doctrine, could be applied to all translators, not just Westcott and Hort. Most translators have had messed up lives just like most regular people down through the centuries.

The translator matters not, but what he translated does!

The error in some bibles is clearly in the wording, or the lack thereof; not in the character behind it.

Find the proper bible amongst the proper folk, and find the proper doctrine. I hold to Geneva Bible Only, because of what Baptists hold as doctrine, and not because of the translators. Translators come and go. Bible texts that are true never go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I am interested in the answers to these questions.
I am currently trying to discern the truth of this KJV Only matter and I currently lean towards the non-KJV Only position.  My dad holds to a KJV only position and I have been in discussion with him on this issue as of late.  He holds to the position that it is the underlying Greek texts of the KJV and of the other versions that are the real issue. For instance, writing the meaning of an archaic word next to it is perfectly acceptable.

I have read the 'King James Only Controversy' by James White and have found many of the arguments put forth to be convincing.  I am currently reading 'The King James Version Defended' by Edward F. Hills.  

I, like the OP, have also noticed that many people that hold either position have not really taken the time to search this out thoroughly and have deferred to pastors or other men of God in coming to their conclusion on the matter.


Also, what do you all think of the preponderance of true, faithful Christians that use other versions such as the ESV, NASB, or NIV? Or would you say they are not true believers?  

 

Another book that will explain all of your manuscript/text questions as well as the faith in God's preserved Word perspective and likely cement your stance on it is Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. You can buy the print copy or you can read the PDF version for free at buzzardhut.net/index/htm/Forever.Settled.pdf (or google "forever settled pdf").

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

It isn't the 'archaic' words that make the KJV the most important aspect, it is that many of those words have been kept because they more completely translate what was said in the Greek and Hebrew. Like the 'ye' and 'thee', showing plural and singular, respectively: replacing them with the generic 'you' or "your' will in many cases completely change the context, or at least can hurt the understanding. One of the best examples of this I have seen is when Jesus is speaking to Nicodemas in John 3, and He says to him,
"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, ye must be born again."  Now,  understanding the plural/singular issue in the 'archaic' words, we know that Jesus is saying, "Verily, verily, I say unto THEE, (Nicodemas), YE, (everyone) must be born again.  If it was changed, all you would have is, Verily verily I say unto you, you must be born again. Okay, so WHO must be born again? Nicodemas? Just him? Or is someone else involved in this? The context would fall into question if the archaic terms were removed, unless it was written 'Verily verily I say unto you, Nicodemas, that all men must be born again. Now this would make for an acceptable translation, but its also clumsier. Wordier. And unnecessary.

Now, there are some words that are archaic that I don't see there would be a problem with changing, words that have changed in meaning, like 'conversation', which in 1611 could mean a speaking back and forth between people, OR  a term referring to one's manner of life and activities. Current language has basically removed on of them. So, when the context is conversation was we understand today, it could be left, and when referring to the other, perhaps a more fitting term could be applied, like, well, "manner of life", or something.   The danger, however, in the minds of many, myself included, is when there is a dispute of words. Like, the gap folks who believe that the PROPER translation of  gen 1:1&2 is "IN the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth, and the earth BECAME without form and void"  The insistence that it SHOULD say this, even though no other translation has ever read this way, could cause an important change into the text.

See, and its not just that-any number of accidental or intentional minor changes might be made, according to pre-conceived ideas, that could change doctrines, and that's dangerous. I would not even trust myself. Who could we trust? It was such an important thing that King James had it worked on by 50 men, all of whom would put our best scholars to shame today, and they had thousands of manuscripts, earlier translations and other writings at their disposal.  As opposed to the new versions that had TWO men, and both apostates by their own mouths, using only TWO primary texts, one questionable due to its origin, (Vaticanus) and the other questionable as to its authenticity AS an ancient text.

No, all things considered, we have an excellent translation, which has overseen many revivals and countless souls saved-better to STUDY to shew ourselves approved unto God, rather than to dumb it down and take a chance of doing great damage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I use the KJV. You have but to compare the others in English to see that other versions are detracting from basic doctrine in subtle ways. If we don't understand something we should wait on the Lord (through the Holy Spirit)  to come to a proper understanding. By looking to something besides the source we open the door to changing the basic text to fit what we can accept in our human minds or being drawn to what some one else thinks (not to say someone else does not have the right answer sometimes). We can consider what light someone else can shed on a subject but need to be convinced in our own hearts and minds to form a solid conviction about any given subject based on God's word.

If I was charged with a serious crime I would want a lawyer who knows what the law says as opposed to a para legal who just knows parts of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I use the King James Version but I don't know what edition it is. I do know its not 1611 after seeing what they look like. I had no idea the 1611 had went through so many changes over the years. I wish Cambridge or Oxford would update it again with a version for those of us in the USA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

The differences are not what they seem.  Most were to correct printing errors and spelling changes and textual changes.  As Sam Gipp says, it's been purified.

Most KJV bible's today are based on the 1769 Oxford edition.  Mine own happens to be a 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible by Scrivener.

A little over two years ago there was a fella here whose name escapes me now that was doing a comparison of changes between the two above and modern publishers reprints.  Several of us here at OB noticed that the publishers were changing some words to conform with the MVs.

I have since been watching David W. Daniels of Chick Publications excellent research regarding the Critical Text and Septuagint.  In short, they are frauds which never existed until the 1840s.  There is ZERO evidence of the Septuagint during bible times and we know that Jesus and Paul quoted from the Masoretic Text.

I am King James Only because the Holy Spirit burdened my heart relentlessly to put God's preserved Word in my hands.  Anything else will be found wanting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

There is also the 'jots and tittles' changes throughout those editions. Punctuation changes from edition to edition.

As I am not KJV only, my statements might be considered 'not constructive' - but I will say that the very reason most here use the KJB only, is the same for why I only use the 1560 Geneva Bible.

That is not a challenge nor call to battle, just a reason for why I am a 'Genevanpreacher'.

To point out any supposed flaws in the various editions of the KJB is mostly built on my opinions based upon 17 years of comparing the 1611 text to my 1560.

Many times the verses are word for word the same, being of course translated in the 1560 first, yet there are multiple doctrinal verses that say differently between the two.

Now, I know very few preachers will say anything negative about the 1560 when talking Bible history, but when you actually have a 1560 with you in Church - (as my Father in law would say - "Katie bar the door!") They have gotten quite irate when they notice me not using a KJB.

And when answering why I use it - they go about the 'battle' by slamming me personally rather than looking at the text. 

I have no problem listening to a preacher using a KJB while preaching and teaching. The clarity I experience while following along reading my Bible is great!

Many times what my text says - the preacher says, when he is explaining his text.

Never have the scriptures been so clear to me.

I just wish more men of God would consider the first study Bible in English and use it beside their KJB and see for themselves the clarity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
21 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

There is also the 'jots and tittles' changes throughout those editions. Punctuation changes from edition to edition.

As I am not KJV only, my statements might be considered 'not constructive' - but I will say that the very reason most here use the KJB only, is the same for why I only use the 1560 Geneva Bible.

That is not a challenge nor call to battle, just a reason for why I am a 'Genevanpreacher'.

To point out any supposed flaws in the various editions of the KJB is mostly built on my opinions based upon 17 years of comparing the 1611 text to my 1560.

Many times the verses are word for word the same, being of course translated in the 1560 first, yet there are multiple doctrinal verses that say differently between the two.

Now, I know very few preachers will say anything negative about the 1560 when talking Bible history, but when you actually have a 1560 with you in Church - (as my Father in law would say - "Katie bar the door!") They have gotten quite irate when they notice me not using a KJB.

And when answering why I use it - they go about the 'battle' by slamming me personally rather than looking at the text. 

I have no problem listening to a preacher using a KJB while preaching and teaching. The clarity I experience while following along reading my Bible is great!

Many times what my text says - the preacher says, when he is explaining his text.

Never have the scriptures been so clear to me.

I just wish more men of God would consider the first study Bible in English and use it beside their KJB and see for themselves the clarity.

Why do you use the Geneva Bible over the KJV?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
19 hours ago, Jordan Kurecki said:

Why do you use the Geneva Bible over the KJV?

Try to teach the doctrine of the "church" or "ecclesiology" as it were, with a KJV, and see how many countless hours you will spend de-programming the minds of the Church members about what the real meaning of the greek word ecclessia is......You'll reject wholesale the translation as "church" and all it's encumberances and nuances in English for the first several hours while explaining that it "really" means something more like "assembly" or "congregation"..........................................................(and you'd be right about that).

 

Then try to teach on the topic using a Geneva.......it goes a lot quicker.

I use KJV not Geneva.......but, sometimes.......it is better....sometimes it is worse.  It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
5 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.

It is indeed from good stock but it wasn't the finished work, the final preservation of God' perfect Word in the English.  The Authorized Version is God's preserved Word and since the two are not in complete agreement, the Geneva bible must be rejected for that which has been purified and made perfect.

For a short time I was a Geneva bible man, but the Holy Ghost was patient with me and showed me that the King James Bible is God's perfect and preserved Word.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
21 hours ago, Heir of Salvation said:

Try to teach the doctrine of the "church" or "ecclesiology" as it were, with a KJV, and see how many countless hours you will spend de-programming the minds of the Church members about what the real meaning of the greek word ecclessia is......You'll reject wholesale the translation as "church" and all it's encumberances and nuances in English for the first several hours while explaining that it "really" means something more like "assembly" or "congregation"..........................................................(and you'd be right about that).

 

Then try to teach on the topic using a Geneva.......it goes a lot quicker.

I use KJV not Geneva.......but, sometimes.......it is better....sometimes it is worse.  It's in the family of the "good" translations, it's nothing to be afraid of.  

Perhaps, but we also spend a good deal of time teaching that conversation means manner of life, not just talking, that 'to let' means 'to restrain', that ye and you are plural and thee and thy are singular-but it is the job of a pastor to do such things. And it isn't difficult, either. Besides, today you'll have to explain that 'assembly' does not mean what you do with an IKEA bookshelf. The language changes so rapidly anymore that even 'modern' words keep changing. In my own church, even the most mentally challenged person in the 'assembly' has fine understanding that the church is the people, not the building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

While I have no problem with the Geneva Bible and understand it well, the Lord directed me to use the KJB a quarter century or so ago. I've not read a 1560 Geneva Bible, but do have a 1599 Geneva Bible but the print is so small it would now be difficult for me to read from.

I keep a KJB next to my chair in the front room, one on the stand next to my computer (which is also now my church Bible...had to retire the other one as the print got smaller :-) , and another next to my bed; as well as a New Testament with Psalms KJB in my car door pocket. On my Kindle Paperwhite I have downloaded a KJB specifically formatted for use on the Kindle. Those are the Bibles I read from and study daily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 5/4/2016 at 7:47 PM, swathdiver said:

It is indeed from good stock but it wasn't the finished work, the final preservation of God' perfect Word in the English.  The Authorized Version is God's preserved Word and since the two are not in complete agreement, the Geneva bible must be rejected for that which has been purified and made perfect.

For a short time I was a Geneva bible man, but the Holy Ghost was patient with me and showed me that the King James Bible is God's perfect and preserved Word.    

I appreciate your opinion, especially about the Holy Ghost being patient and showed you that "the KJB is God's perfect and preserved Word".

How he showed you is interesting though.

Did he use it by 'convicting you'?

Or did he use the text of the KJB to 'show you'?

The reason I ask - I used the KJB for about 12 years in my preaching and teaching.  I was my Pastors right hand man, who was the one who taught our congregation the 'strength' of the KJB

But that was against the MV's.

I felt led of the Holy Ghost for all those years to be KJVO.

I was led by the accuracy of the text against all the MV's.

Then I met the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible. 

Led by the Holy Ghost by the accuracy of the text. Comparing to the KJB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

This is why I think the "ye" and "thou" plus lots of other old English words should be updated to modern English. A 1769 change, in 2016. I've read the "thou shalt not" until reading "you shall not" would be difficult for my brain. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recent Achievements

  • Tell a friend

    Love Online Baptist Community? Tell a friend!
  • Members

    No members to show

  • Recent Status Updates

    • Eagle One

      Havent been on for years, but have been studying with Jews for Jesus weekly Bible Study which has been wonderful.  Not sure any of your views on that group, but if you are from a Jewish background a great place to be grounded in the word and to learn.
      · 0 replies
    • Barbara Ann

      I am a researcher and writer at Watch Unto Prayer which I started 25 years ago. On this website there are many well-documented articles and audio programs by myself and other researchers whose ministry is to expose the endtime apostasy of the Church. Now more than ever Christians need information in order to identify and avoid the various deceptions that are in nearly all the churches.
      My husband and I attended the IFB Bible Baptist Church of James Knox a couple of years ago. We left the church after we were informed by the assistant pastor that we were not allowed to express views to other members that do not agree with the views of the pastor and leaders of the church. We were not introducing heresy but expressing our views concerning the State of Israel. We had never been in a church which forbade private conversations on issues where there are diverse opinions. This we recognized as cultlike control of church members. To inform Christians, my husband, who is also a researcher and writer, started a website on the subject: Zionism Exposed: A Watchman Ministry.
      · 0 replies
    • Free Spirit

      Jesus said:"I am the truth, the way, and the life. No man can come to The Father, but by Me."
      · 0 replies
    • Richg  »  BrotherTony

      Brother Tony, I read your reply on Anderson, I know you all think I'm argumentative but, when you don't agree.....the first thought I had is, I wish you would introduce me to the guy that hasn't sinned, maybe David, that had a man killed so he could commit adultery, yet, he was & is a man after Gods own heart, or maybe Paul the guy that persecuted and had Christians killed, or maybe Richg or Kent H, or even you ! I used to listen to personalities also when I was younger but today and for some time, my only concern is, does it line up with scripture & to me its hilarious that you think "I'm in a fix" LOL, I interpreted what we've discussed perfectly, not because I'm smart, but because with an open mind to things of God, its an easy read.
      · 1 reply
    • Richg  »  Jerry

      I thought you wanted me to stop talking to you !
      · 0 replies
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...