About KJV-onlysim

[KaphLamedh]

As my native language is not English, I´d like to ask you about KJV-onlyism. What you think of it? Why many KJV-advocates are aggressive (Texe Marrs f.ex.)?
I love to read KJV, NASB, ESV and NIV is ok too. I think they support each others.
If KJV is the only Bible, then why many NIV readers are born again christians and know God as well as KJV readers?

 

[Bad Organist]

Hi,

The KJV-only crowd makes some claims which they believe about the King James bible. Their believe is that God's Word is perfectly preserved in English in the King James Bible, and that any changes to it are straight from the pit of Hell. I suppose too, that they would only qualify the 1769 revisions of it. So at least some of them believe that the KJV is a product of progressive revelation. Because of their position, the KJV-only camp uses very strong language to defend their views. They have to view any translation that came before the KJV as inadequate, and any translation or changes that came after the KJV as an assault on the bible.

There are valid reasons for continued use of the KJV, but the KJV-only reasons are not the ones I find reasonable. Their view always goes back to what does the KJV say, not what the original says. They have essentially closed the door to any revision of the bible - forever. Better reasons for the use of the KJV are, if you believe it is more accurate, beauty of the language, easy to memorize, it has become the traditional text, etc.

There are many KJV users who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.

Certainly from a historic point of view the King James only thinking does not hold water. The KJV is the product from a long line of translations, and the translators sought to take the best of them and put it their translation. At no point did the translators claim any kind of perfection for their work. My guess is they would have welcomed revision of their work in time, as knowledge base increased and as language changed.

Relating the KJV to most modern versions, you should be aware that there are textual differences, especially in the New Testament. The NASB, ESV and NIV all use the Critical Text as basis for the New Testament. Many KJV users consider the Critical Text (Greek) as an ancient corruption. Likewise, supporters of the Critical Text view the Ecclesiastical Text (Received Text) as being inferior.

Born again Christians use a variety of texts. Their were English speaking Christians before the KJV was printed, and there are those now who came to know the Lord using some other version. God is not limited as to what He uses, in bringing people to Himself.

Personally, I find the KJV-only a tragic development in the Church of Christ. A lot of the banter lacks charity and has caused much division.

Arie Vandenberg
FCof Scotland
Toronto, Canada

 

[Steve Curtis]

In addition to the textual differences amongst the various English versions, there are also interpretive and stylistic differences. That is, some (such as the KJV, NASB, etc) are "formal equivalents" which seek to translate the precise wording from the original (whatever critical text is used) and others (such as the NIV) are "dynamic equivalents" which seek instead to translate thoughts or broader ideas than are contained in the exact correspondence between words in the original and words in English.
One of the arguments by the KJV-only crowd against the NIV, for instance, is that they believe the NIV translators took too much liberty with their translation in choosing the dynamic equivalent route. That is an argument that may have some merit, but it does not require, then, that the KJV be accepted as the only legitimate English translation, for there are other English translations that take just as "formal" of an approach as the KJV translators did (and, I would argue, with better source material than the KJV translators had).

 

[O'GodHowGreatThouArt]

When they say that the other texts are inferior, they don't realize that this includes the original Greek and Hebrew texts. It is my view that the original Greek and Hebrew texts are the infallible word of God, but since most people can't read either language, we have to resort to translations.

This is when the Word becomes "fallible" in a sense. I say that because there could have been mistranslations, context taken incorrectly, not to mention people will see a word and interpret it without referring to what the original writers meant (i.e. John 3:16), much less its history.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello KL (KaphLamedh),

There are some KJVO folks that are spiritually unbalanced, as well doctrinally off concerning inspiration and preservation. Some are aggressive as they see other versions a satanic threat to the integrity of God's word, and they deal with people who differ with them in that light. Yet certainly not all KJVO people are in this boat!

This is a highly nuanced topic, and I would refer you to some threads that delve into this area.

Of course your observation is correct that there are those who use other Bibles and are born-again just as some KJV users are. Here is a thread to introduce you to a view you might find more acceptable: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/.

And here a list of topics on textual criticism from the King James priority view.

This business of the King James Bible has been discussed many times here, and sometimes with such passion (as often from opponents as from propounders) that the forum is now moderated.

Clearly there are truth issues involved, and if these are held forth with light rather than heat, edification may ensue rather than strife.

Hope this is helpful in answering your questions.

 

[tleaf]

I always find it interesting to read well-balanced replies to this issue. This can give one such an awe-inspiring feeling for the original, no longer existent, autographs. God, in His wisdom, kept these from us, for we surely would have made idols of them.

If possible, KL, read the "Preface to the Reader" originally published with the KJV. You'll read that the translators did not want to create a new translation, but to "make old ones better".

 

[Tallen]

As my native language is not English, I´d like to ask you about KJV-onlyism. What you think of it?

I don't think much about it, although I use the KJV almost all the time.

If KJV is the only Bible, then why many NIV readers are born again christians and know God as well as KJV readers?

I would venture to say that you are not saved by a translation, but by grace through faith, and that not of yourself, but is the gift of YHWH.

 

[NB3K]

I cannot stomach those prideful KJV onlieI hve justy about every english translation of the Bible. My favorite are the ESV, NASB, and the KJV. I hate the New Century Version. THis is the one Max Lucado uses all the time. The folks who came up with the New Century Verison murdered the Word!

 

[Radical_Pilgrim]

I am another who doesn't understand the position KJV-Only readers take. In my opinion, the KJV is not even the best bible of that era, the Geneva is.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Jason,

Welcome to PB. It's probably not wise to label brothers and sisters you don't know as "prideful" just because they hold to the KJV only. I suppose it might depend on how one defines KJVO though. If they use only this version as it is the one English version they see as preserved intact (faithful to the Greek and Hebrew), and they defend their view with scholarship and humility, you bear false witness against such by your blanket statement.

We seek to discuss these things peaceably, and with mutual respect.

Myself, I defend the KJV as noted above, though I will look at other versions to see how they translate difficult passages, and they can be a great help. But the Authorized Version is, to me, the standard.

-----

Added 6/18/10: Nick, I can appreciate the views of those who did not grow up using the KJV, though there are significant issues, such as the accuracy of the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts, and the resultant superiority of its English rendering. While the NIV (or other modern versions) may be easier to read, they have glaring defects, mostly in omissions. This is true as well for the ESV, NASB, NEB and all others based upon what is called the Critical Text deriving (in the main) from the Revised Greek Text of 1881. I grant that the KJV / AV can be hard to read for some. But it at least can be counted on for accuracy. As I noted above, I at times use modern versions as aids in understanding.

It it likely that the ungodly and haughty attitudes of some KJV defenders have turned you and many others off, but there are those of the KJV priority school (my preferred term) who may be gracious and scholarly. So, please, reconsider your view of our position -- after all, you may not be familiar with our approach here at PuritanBoard. I would steer you to the link in my signature below, Textual Posts, which may introduce you to more scholarly and irenic discussions than you have previously been acquainted with.

And welcome to PB!

 

[KSon]

KL,

If I were looking for a scholarly, irenic presentation of the KJV-priority view, and the textual and theological reasons behind it (in addition to Elder Rafalsky's, Rev. Winzer's, and Thomas Weddle's tremendous contribution on PB), I would begin here:

SermonAudio.com - Liberty and Grace Reformed Church

Pastor Steven Dilday does a fantastic, thorough job of explaining why such a position is held. I would want to know this prior to dismissing with a broad-brush all who hold to such a position.