KJV "Onlyism"

[cubeus19]

Hey guys,

This has been something that has been in the back of my mind for awhile and I thought it was time to examine this thing. Many people in my area and other surrounding areas are part of what's called KJV only movement or King James Version of the Bible is the only true version of the English speaking bible or is the most accurate.

Now personally I don't have much of a problem with the KJV, I own a few copies like most people do. Also I know that many "modern" translations of the Bible like the newer versions of the NIV or fringe translations of the Bible like "the message" are not trustworthy I certainly get that. But what gets me is the people that are a part of the kjv movement tend to have a hateful attitude towards any other form of the English speaking Bible and towards anyone who may choose to read them even if they are simply for being able to read the bible in a language that is closer to the kind they use everyday in normal conversations.

The KJV only folks also seem to think that people who under King James's authority that did the translating or even King James himself is somehow infallible or holy. You need to realize that King James was like any other supreme ruler, he has agendas and it's quite likely that he may have wanted to leave some things out that would perhaps hurt his standing with the public if they were somehow able to get a hold of the bible to read and understand it.

I mean wouldn't you think if someone like president Obama were to do a translation of the Bible wouldn't he love to leave some stuff out? I mean why do these people think that God is a quartet instead of a trinity and think that King James or the KJV bible is the fourth person of the quartet? I'm not saying that King James did indeed do such things but he might have, we were not there and even if he didn't I don't think pastors and other believers should make King James out to be holy and infallible.

With me personally, I tend to both use the KJV and the new american standard Bible, and I tend to use the NASB more just for the simple fact that I don't speak in thees and thous and act like I'm a self righteous televangelist. It's in a language I can understand. I kinda think that the KJV only pastors or at least some of them like that version so they can talk in that kind of language to act more condescending towards their congregation and thus help control the emotions and possibly the pocketbooks of the congregation.

But I digress. If anyone thinks I should rethink my position on this and embrace the KJV only movement and get rid of my NASB bible (s) let me know why. And in addition, if I should do that should I also adopt their hateful and dogmatic attitude as well? #bad_day

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

KJV Onlyism is an American cultural phenomenon and its concomitant doesn't exist in either French or Spanish, two other languages I'm fluent in. KJV Onlyism is infecting other English-speaking countries and that's unfortunate because it is just stupid stoopid.

KJV Onlyism is another form of Jesus + Works. Beware!

FL

[cubeus19]

I most certainly agree.

[jlay]

If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, then it's good enough for me!!



I read from several translations, but always use the KJV as the benchmark. Many in dispensationalism hold that the KJV is a link in the chain of scriptural infalibility, and ardently oppose the use of any other translation or transliteration. I will spare you those arguments. I think it is important to understand the differences, weaknesses and other problems with many of the versions used today, particularly when dealing with transliterations such as the NLT and The Message.

I would also add that those 'thees' and 'thous,' are more important than many think. And to mock them shows an ignorance to the diligent translation work that went into the KJV in respect to strictly adhering to the original languages. Readers in the original language didnt have to give much thought to who the author was addressing or referencing.

Example;
"And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do." (Exodus 4:15)

These words of God, spoken to Moses concerning the mission he and his brother Aaron were to undertake at Pharaoh's palace are one of numerous examples in Scripture where the King James translation uses several different forms of the second-person pronoun. In this one verse, we see the words "thou," "thy," "you," and "ye," all fulfilling this function. Most modern translations would translate this sentence: "You shall speak to him ...and I will be with your mouth,... and will teach you what you shall do." Why would the King James translators use four different forms of the pronoun when only "you" and "your" are used in modem versions?

The fact is that the Elizabethan-age English was able to make much finer distinctions than modem English. That is, "thou," "thee," "thy," and "thine," were used for the second person singular, whereas "ye," "you," "your," and "yours" were the corresponding words for the plural. Different words also were used for subject, object, and possessive modifier, as is still true for first and third-person pronouns.

In our text, God was telling Moses that he (Moses) was to speak to Aaron, and that He (God) would then teach both of them, not just Moses, what they were to do. This distinction is clear in the King James English, but not in modern English. This is one of numerous examples where such fine points in the King James language are lost in modern translations.

In the Lord's Prayer, for example, "Yours is the kingdom" could suggest that many will possess the kingdom, where "thine is the kingdom" clearly recognizes one God alone. Clear words are important for clear meanings, and Jesus said, "My words shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). HMM

--From Days of Praise, Henry M. Morris. Editor

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Interesting post there, jlay. I see your point but am not moved by it. The KJV is unpleasant for me to read, so I won't change my habits.

There are parallel Bibles for those who may be concerned about the thees and thines but are unwilling to wade through Olde English. For those of you who are into hair-splitting, The Word is a parallel Bible with 26 translations...oy vey!

FL

[B. W.]

Here is a good article on Bible Translations I found...

http://biblestudymagazine.com/preview/c ... ionWeb.pdf
-
-
-

[cubeus19]

Interesting post there, jlay. I see your point but am not moved by it. The KJV is unpleasant for me to read, so I won't change my habits.

There are parallel Bibles for those who may be concerned about the thees and thines but are unwilling to wade through Olde English. For those of you who are into hair-splitting, The Word is a parallel Bible with 26 translations...oy vey!

FL

Great point, but also, in addition, can we really trust King James that he with his supreme power would at least not be tempted to change a thing or two about the bible just because he doesn't like it? I mean this wasn't a democracy or a republic but a monarchy. King James did whatever King James wanted to. Now I could be wrong, he could have been one of the nicest kings to ever rule on earth, but that's beside the point. Just because he is in the position to alter things about the bible makes me at the very least, somewhat nervous.

But surely it must not have happened because haven't there been other attempts from independent sources to re-translate the bible into English since? Surely not all the bible versions out there are just re-translations of the KJV, surely someone or someones who can speak and read ancient Hebrew and Greek as well as English have been able to translate the Bible. You would think other people since the reign of King James would do that just to have a second opinion on the bible that was a part from a iron fisted monarchy.

Again, as I mentioned in the OP, think Obama people. If Obama was a king (and in many ways I think he thinks he is) and he decided to do a translation of the bible, wouldn't certain things be left out?

I mean come on, people are people and if they get into positions of authority especially supreme authority where no one tells them what to do, wouldn't they just love to change some things about the Bible to perhaps either make themselves feel better or to keep certain things away from the common people that would, I don't know, cause a up rising and maybe cause King James's head to be permanently separated from the rest of his body?

But again, I'm not too familiar with the reign of King James or have much knowledge to what kind of person he was. If he was the nicest king to ever rule and there was no problems with him what so ever, I would love to see evidence of that.

[jlay]

But again, I'm not too familiar with the reign of King James or have much knowledge to what kind of person he was. If he was the nicest king to ever rule and there was no problems with him what so ever, I would love to see evidence of that.

And then perhaps you ought to learn a little before you make such allegations.

[cubeus19]

Well then, what do you know about King James? How good of a king was he?

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

I don't think you have to worry about the accuracy of the KJV. Trust God to have thwarted any attempts to corrupt the translation process.

Remember also that understanding of the Bible is given by the Holy Spirit, and this understanding is only available to believers: the Lord gives understanding to His own and not to others, Dt 29: 1-6; the wicked are unable to understand, Da 12:9-10; 1 Cor 2:14 clearly states that the unregenerate are unable to understand.

So don't worry about the inevitable hiccups of different translations.

FL

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Here is a good article on Bible Translations I found...

http://biblestudymagazine.com/preview/c ... ionWeb.pdf
-
-
-

A good article with good advice: have at least two translations, one functional equivalence (thought-for-thought), and one formal equivalence (word-for-word).

FL

[PaulSacramento]

The issue with the KJV is that it was based solely on the Majorial text and we have discovered far older and close to the source, sources since then ( Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for example).
Not that there was any major doctrinal changes from that.
The language can be trying at times but for some that is part of the charm, so...
Personally I have a few different bibles:
NASB
New Jerusalem
KJV
NRSV

[PeteSinCA]

This has been something that has been in the back of my mind for awhile and I thought it was time to examine this thing. Many people in my area and other surrounding areas are part of what's called KJV only movement or King James Version of the Bible is the only true version of the English speaking bible or is the most accurate.

Now personally I don't have much of a problem with the KJV, I own a few copies like most people do. Also I know that many "modern" translations of the Bible like the newer versions of the NIV or fringe translations of the Bible like "the message" are not trustworthy I certainly get that. But what gets me is the people that are a part of the kjv movement tend to have a hateful attitude towards any other form of the English speaking Bible and towards anyone who may choose to read them even if they are simply for being able to read the bible in a language that is closer to the kind they use everyday in normal conversations.

Speaking informally, I've seen two streams of thought - not mutually exclusive - in King James Only circles: those who believe the Textus Receptus of the New Testament (used for the KJV) is the best manuscript, and translations (most modern translations) based on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (and a couple others) rely on corrupt, inferior, manuscripts; those who believe the King James Version translation was actually guided/inspired by God. KJV Only folk I've seen utterly reject the New King Kames Version - which is based on the TR - because it recognizes the existence and potential credibility of Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, etc..

Your phrase, "hateful attitude" is often true, if not a slight understatement, in my experience. Some KJV Only folks would literally and aggressively question the eternal destiny of some one who uses translations other than the KJV. Others just privately shake their heads at how their brothers and sisters could be so deceived.

In modern translations - which I almost always use - I lean toward the word-for-word end of the spectrum. I use the NIV (late 70s edition), and find it generally quite good and very readable. Occasionally, I think it misses part of the meaning of a verse, but I'm not sure that couldn't be said of many/most translations. I do not like either Kenneth Taylor's The Living Bible or The Message; they mix commentary into Scripture, which I think is not a good practice. For general usage and study, I use the NASB, New English Translation and English Standard Version.

[pat34lee]

The KJV is still my favorite version of the Bible. No English version is entirely accurate, because there is no perfect translation. The KJV is an honest translation, though they should have used the LXX instead of the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. Many newer Bibles intentionally add or remove words and verses to alter the meaning of the text. The NIV, in its many forms, is the worst that I know of.

[Jac3510]

I tend to prefer the TR to the critical texts, so I always check the KJV when I'm working with an English Bible. I also prefer the MT to the LXX in most cases. With that said, I check all of them. For a normal reading Bible I like something easy, the NIV, ESV, or HCSB are nice (I'm coming to like the HCSB a lot, actually). If I'm going to really study, then it doesn't really matter. I look at all of them.

And that's my advice I give to most people. For a regular reading Bible, get one that you can pleasurably read. It must be emphasized that is absolutely a matter of personal preference. When you stop to read more slowly and really study out a passage, then you'll either need to work with the original language if you can or else look at as many translations as you can.