My thoughts on the King James Bible.

I don’t claim to be a scholar when it comes to the Word of God – but I believe every Word of it. I can’t speak Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic (or any other foreign language for that matter), but I can speak English. I can’t read any language except for English. I’ve never taken any classes or sat through any discipleship courses about the Bible – so I guess technically I am unqualified and ignorant in the scholastic sense of this topic.

I’ve never studied the original texts. I’ve never seen the ancient scrolls. But I’ve read history. I’ve talked to hundreds of people. I’ve heard countless sermons. I’ve prayed many earnest prayers. I’ve asked many, many questions – and I’ve received many, many answers supporting both sides of the issue.

I’ve read about Christian martyrs – both in history and in our present day – people who gave their lives defending and hiding the Bible so that we could have it today. In essence, God used the willing and acceptable sacrifice of their lives to preserve His Word down through the ages.

Who am I to place the King James above the original texts – the inspired, perfect Word of God? Without those texts, we would not have the Bible in the English language at all. God breathed the original Scriptures to men who did not speak English – in fact, they spoke several other languages. One cannot honestly place the King James above the original texts – whether we can find them or not.

Do I condemn or look down on people who use other translations of the Bible? No. It is their choice what they read, study, and meditate on. I prefer a Bible that is complete in doctrine. Do I believe that people can be saved if they use other translations than the KJV? Of course; to say otherwise would be very foolish. Salvation is a faith and grace thing (free gift); not a read and do thing (works-based).

Let me take this opportunity to admit that I have struggled with my position on the Word of God. I have wondered if perhaps I am mistaken for believing that one English translation of God’s Word is superior to all the rest. “Surely, the translators had good intentions…”

But good intentions aren’t enough.

I didn’t understand how one group of people could get it “so right” and another group of people get it “so wrong.” I didn’t understand why one set of translators understood it to mean one thing, while another group got something similar, yet so different out of the same job. I didn’t understand how people could take the ancient texts and derive the NIV, NASB, ESB, the Message, NKJV, the Living Bible, the NLT, and a host of others from it. All containing a similar message, but making seemingly slight changes resulting in changed doctrine. I began to question which one got it right…

That’s when I realized that I was going about this the completely wrong way. I’m not going to understand it all. I’m not going to be able to “reason” it into my mind. It’s a faith issue. By faith, I accept and believe the Bible is God’s inspired, holy, perfect, and preserved Word.

I believe the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God for the English-speaking people. Not for the Spanish; not for the Swedish; not for the Jews… but for the English. I believe my God is big enough to do that for His people. Again, I’m not at all fluent in any language other than English, but even I know that things cannot be translated word-for-word from English to another language. There are going to be differences.

Based on my above statement, many people will label me as one of two things: closed-minded or open-minded. I’ll leave that for you to decide. I’m still figuring it out for myself. So be gentle, I’m still learning… and I have a long way to go.

I’m not brain-washed. I’m not compromising my stand by any means. But I want to know more. I want to be able to give an answer for myself, instead of going about it in the “he said, she said” way. That’s why I continuously study this topic; that’s why I’ll keep reading and learning – because I want to dig deeper and know more than I already do. I know I’ve overlooked several points in this post about the matter – it was intentional. This article was not meant to be an exclusive commentary on the Word of God. This is just scratching the surface – my personal and preliminary thoughts and wonders on the matter.

If you have any articles, books, or links that you could share – feel free to do so via the comment box. The same goes for any questions or thoughts you wish to share.

Advertisements

Posted on December 1, 2010, in The Bible and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 39 Comments.

  1. Great post, and well written, Heather. I really do like and agree with your position regarding the perfect Preservation of the Bible for the English speaking people.

  2. I don’t know if I would necessarily call the KJV the perfect translation…however, being a KJV (and NKJV sometimes) man myself, I think it’s by far the best one we’ve got so far. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Most of the newer translations are aimed towards people who don’t want to work too hard to understand the text – consequently they lost almost all of the meaning and subtleties.
    That being said, there is room for improvement (I speak as both a Hebrew and Greek scholar). While the translators, by the inspiration of God, wrote the best they could, they were still fallible men and prone to error. There are some things that could have been done better simply because, through prayer and study, we know more than they did, not to take away from their great accomplishment.
    And that comes back to what you said about word-to-word translations: cannot be done and should not 😉 it just doesn’t make sense because of grammatical differences. The key lies in knowing how to word a phrase to show as closely as possible the original intent of the Hebrew or Greek (or Arabic in the case of the book of Daniel).

    Thankfully, God will preserve His Word through all time, and perhaps there may come a time when we can get together and translate a better version. But til then, KJV it will be, at least on my end.

    On a purely aesthetic level, the KJV is much more poetic than any modern translation. And since the Bible is a poem (a song, really), then to write it in a prosaic manner will strip away the cadences and beauty of the text itself.

    Good post! Good thoughts. Hope my rambling comment helps!

    • I guess I’ve never really thought of the Bible as being One giant “song” (oh sheesh… could you imagine singing it as an opera?!). I always thought of Psalms as a compilation of poems and songs – I believe it’s actually referred to as the “Jewish Hymnbook.”
      I’ve personally always pictured the Bible as being more of One giant Love Letter – from God to me. In fact, in most every Bible I own I write “Dear Heather,” right above Genesis 1:1 – then flip to the last page of Scripture and write “Love, God” after the last verse in Revelation. 🙂 It’s such a great reminder for me.

      Thank you for stopping by and leaving a thought-provoking comment – I really appreciate it!
      God bless,
      Heather Joy

      • Hi Heather, that was a beautiful last comment. And right on target, whatever translation you prefer.

        I grew up strictly on the King James Bible, but eventually tried several others, and currently use the Living Bible. My son has an NIV, and both my wife and daughter use the NLT (New Living Translation).

        To me, it doesn’t matter much which one you use, because substantially they are the same. The message comes across. And it’s the one you just described.

        Why are there differences in wording? As far as I know, two primary reasons. One is what MadDawg said – we’ve learned more about the ancient languages and as a result we can translate them more accurately now than we could in 1500 The other is simply this: our language has changed. Since the time the KJV was translated, it’s changed a LOT.

        As a result, anything written then (whether the KJV, or Shakespeare, or Chaucer) has gotten much harder to read and understand. And that’s why a lot of people, including me, prefer the newer ones.

        It’s that simple.

  3. Good thoughts, Heather. I agree that we do have the Word of God for the English-speaking people. I encourage you to get a copy of Ian Paisley’s book, “My Plea for the Old Sword.” In my opinion, Dr. Paisley handles the defence of the King James Version of the Bible in a very dignified, intelligent, and Christ-like manner.

    I hope this helps! God bless you!
    Clint Lewey

  4. Partly the reason (mostly the reason) our language has changed the way it has is because of the KJV 🙂 being the only book popularly available in a time when many laymen were just beginning to learn to read.

    Heather – That’s precisely what makes the Word so amazing: it’s both to everyone and to each of us at the same time.
    There have been recent studies revealing a hidden musical notation in the Hebrew scriptures. While the Psalms are indeed songs written by David (for the most part, there are a few by other authors) for the worship service (and therefore far more musically wonderful), even the “prose” in the Bible was most likely intended to be chanted.
    Singing is glorified speaking. Singing God’s Story makes it more glorious 🙂

  5. I have no knowledge on this matter. But I can tell you I was raised on KJV and I feel it speaks to me more that any other version. I use other versions. People prefer another version for public reading. And I have Bibles that were gifts to me that I use…one being the Amplified that I enjoy also. But by far, the KJV is my favorite as far as being clear and pointed and sharp. That’s just coming from a novice.

    • I owned a NKJV at one point, and skimmed through a few other versions in my lifetime – but I was also raised on the KJV and feel it speaks to me more than any other translation. No other one actually sounds like Bible to me.
      I, too, and a so-called “novice” despite being raised in a Christian home – so we’re in the same boat.

  6. Hi, I saw you were following my design site (My Designer Girl) and clicked on your blog!! Wow, I’m impressed! 😉 Your statement of faith is just about spot on with mine (the only difference would probably be that I believe in Election (not sure if you do, but just added that for good measure! LOL!))

    My uncle is a KJV only guy. It’s a little irritating to hear him say that just b/c our family uses the NKJV, though personally I would rather have the ESV. Why? B/c bible teachers (like R. C. Sproul) say that the ESV is the most acurate translation to date. The KJV (in the New Testament) translates the greek word “slave” to “servant” and it doesn’t give the same conotation, leading to misunderstanding of our deep commitment to Christ. He is our Master, we are His slaves bounded to Him by love. 😉 But I suppose the true point of this is, that no matter which version (KJV, NKJV, ESV) God’s Word is preserved for the English-speakin’ people. 😉 And that’s the important thing. Because all translations will have flaws. 🙂

    Just my thoughts! Hope they weren’t offensive!
    Have a great day!
    -Awel P.

    • Ms. Prince, I appreciate your thoughts. I, as your uncle, am a believer in the Authorized Version. I would encourage you to research the versions you wish to use yourself. You say you believe in election so I assume you are reformed/calvinist in theology. RC Sproul is as well. The ESV is very popular amongst calvinists because it supports their theology just as the example you mentioned with slave/servant. If you as a Calvinist believe in Total depravity and Irresistible grace then slave is the word you would rather have because slave means a lack of free will. Calvinists do not believe in free will so servant is a less preferred word to slave; not that servant is the wrong word, just less preferred. One thing you will learn is that most of these ‘new’ versions are not really new and they all claim to be the most accurate to “the Greek.” There are a few problems with this marketing line: 1) There is no “the Greek.” there are multiple editions of the Receptus line and the critical text; so which edition of which family is it more accurate to? 2) the ESV is not a new translation of either of these families. The ESV is a revision of the RSV which was was a revision of the ASV 1901 which was the American version of the RV. One thing I always challenge today’s Reformed thinkers is to get themselves a copy of a Geneva Bible and compare it to whatever they currently use. How was Calvin able to come up with these doctrines using a bible that is almost word-for-word identical to the AV if you have been taught that, for instance, slave is the correct word and not servant.

      Also I would encourage you and other protestants that hold to Sola Scriptura, even Tota Scriptura to challenge if you really believe that in two ways. 1) does your bible actually say what you believe. Example: almost nobody except the Catholic Church believes in confession to another man. If you don’t believe in that, why would you use a bible that says ‘confess your sins’ in James 5:16. Also why did no English version until the modern ones say this except for the Catholic Rheims NT? If your answer to that question is “my Pastor said it means’ or ‘the study notes say’ I would just caution that is not Sola Scriptura. 2) Also it is common thought today that no translation can be perfect and no translation can be inspired. Again, can you produce a verse that proves this for the sake of Sola Scriptura? That would be a good question for whoever taught you that. Whoever taught you that probably believe that the real word of God is in the original languages. Again, ask them where in scripture it says that you need original languages to have the full revelation of what God meant to say. The modern day original languages crowd are doing the same thing the Catholic Church did during the dark ages; instead of Latin, now it’s Greek.

      Hopefully this did not come across offensive as i did not intend it to. I would be more than happy to discuss it further with you or Heather if you so wish.

      Best regards. 2 Pet 3:13

  7. Hi Heather,
    I came across your blog the other day and I’ve enjoyed reading your posts. You think much the same as I do :). Regarding the KJV issue. I was raised with the KJV and definitely believe it is God’s true and holy Word for English speaking people. You are absolutely right when you say this is a matter of faith. We simply cannot explain an all-powerful God, but HE IS powerful enough to preserve His Word WITHOUT ERROR. It never ceases to amaze me how Christians can believe God created the world out of nothing, but they cannot believe that He would give us a Bible free from translating errors (regardless of the “human” element… that’s just another tactic of the proponents of new versions). I’ve researched this issue quite a bit mostly because my belief has been challenged repeatedly over my Christian life, and I wanted to be sure that the stand I was taking was the correct one. Sometimes research can lead to more doubt and confusion. Those on the side of the “other” versions can offer some pretty convincing arguments for why the Bible should be changed. However, the fact is that those changes DO affect doctrine, and we as humans are not to mess around with God’s Words. Despite their convincing arguments we MUST accept that God CAN and DID give us His Word. We walk by faith and not by sight. Humanly speaking it doesn’t make sense that there are no “translating” errors in the KJV. Humanly speaking it doesn’t make sense that there really is no improvement needed to the KJV.
    I trust that you will continue on this journey, and that God will lead you to an even greater understanding of the miracle that He continues to perform as He preserves His Word in the KJV. You are in no way closed minded :). In my experience it is the KJV people who extend more grace and love to our friends who use modern versions. Sadly within the KJV camp there are some extreme groups who tend to be very vocal and they’ve given the rest of us quite a bad name. Stand strong for the Lord and for HIS Word. He will bless you for it.

  8. Since you are admittedly in the process of learning, I would ask that you prayerfully consider the following study.

    Did you know that the 1611 edition of the Bible was the 3rd NOT the 1st ‘AUTHORIZED’ English version of the Bible.

    Did you know the 1611 version, has been ‘revised’ repeatedly from 1611 until 1769 when Oxford University published the Oxford Standard 1769 edition that was accepted and remains until today.

    The fact that many versions exist proves His Word no matter the translation has been preserved and will continue to be preserved until He comes and no one version is more authorized than another.
    King James Only – I’d like to challenge your thinking with some ‘facts’ you might not know.

    A deeper look –

    1.Did you know… The Latin ‘texts’ stored by the Catholic Church, were in ‘fact’ the reference and main source used to translate the Greek and Hebrew texts in 1611 King James Bible.

    2. Did you know … that even though the King James Bible is an excellent translation it was NOT the first English translation? Before the 1611 English translation the following Bible translations were available: 

    a. Tyndale’s English New Testament 1525 AD
    b. Coverdale Bible (first COMPLETE English Bible) 1535 AD
    c. Matthews Bible 1537
    d. Great Bible (the first ‘Authorized version’) 1539
    e. Geneva Bible 1560 – THE ‘ONLY’ Bible the Puritans would use.
    f. Bishop’s Bible 1568, intended to replace the Geneva Bible
    g. Douay-Rheims 1582, first Catholic version of the New Testament
    h.The 1611 King James Version with ‘apocrypha’.

    Did you know that the 1611 edition of the Bible was the 3rd NOT the 1st ‘AUTHORIZED’ English version of the Bible.

    The First completed English Bible out of England was The Coverdale Bible (the Great Bible), published n 1535 followed by the ‘folio edition of 1539 which carried the Royal license and was therefore the ‘FIRST’ officially approved Bible translation in English? The second was the Bishops Bible of 1568 and than came The start of the King James Bible 1604?

    Did you know the 1611 version, has been ‘revised’ repeatedly from 1611 until 1769 when Oxford University published the Oxford Standard 1769 edition that was accepted and remains until today.
    3. Did you know… when the King James was corrected, the translators ‘borrowed’ information and used work from those before them. This is perfectly acceptable in writing as long as credit is giving to those who have done the work. This agrees with the title pages written by the translators of the 1611 printing of the KJV: The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and reused, by his Majesties specially Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches.
     
    The translators themselves ‘testify’ that they carefully ‘compared’ their work with the work of the ‘text available to them’ and the work of ‘former translators.’ They did not supernaturally begin to write as some claim. The translators, they did not claim ‘infallibility’ or ‘divine’ accomplishment!

    Remember – that most of the text the King James Version draws upon is Latin. In the 19th century, archeology unveiled thousands of 1st and 2nd century manuscripts that were NOT available in the 1500s and 1600s.
     
    4. Did you know… The 1611 version of the KJV had 80 books when it was first published? It’s because it was published with the Catholic Apocrypha. Now this is IMPORTANT to understand – If someone ‘demands’ that the work of the 1611 translators were inspired by God and are infallible, they MUST also accept the Apocrypha as part of that divine inspiration or stand in contradiction of their own claims.

    In reality, the KJV translators were a part of the established church of the day and translated the ‘entire’ church Bible including the apocrypha. The apocrypha was not accepted as canonical but was used by the established church from around the 3rd century until the Reformation period and is still accepted in the Catholic Church today. However, the POINT to be noted is that the KJV only debate claims that the 1611 translation was infallible, yet rejects the apocrypha. Both cannot be true! If it were infallible from the beginning it would still include the apocrypha today. The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in ‘1885’. That would make this the authorized version, would it not?
     
    5. Did you know… One of the common arguments we hear today is that the modern translations are a corruption of God’s word. Ironically, this is exactly what the early church said about the 1611 version of the KJV. Some critics argued that the translators relied too much on the Greek Septuagint rather than the original Hebrew. The Septuagint was the project of 70 Jewish scholars that translated the Old Testament into Greek around 400 BC. Many called the translators ‘blasphemers’ and “damnable corruptors” of God’s word.

    6. Did you know – that In 1611, two versions of the KJV made it to press. This created a controversy that was not resolved until the Oxford Standard Edition was published in 1769. This version is the standard that most people use today.
     
    7. Did you know… In 1613 over 300 variants were corrected from the original ‘inspired’ 1611 version? One printing of the KJV had one of the 10 commandments which read, “thou shalt commit adultery. This was soon labeled the “wicked Bible”. In another printing, the error was made in 1 Corinthians 6:9, “the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdom of God,” and was soon called the Unrighteous Bible. In 1702 the England Puritan leader said that “scandalous errors” has affronted the Holy Bible itself.
     
    Note: It is not uncommon for people to refer to the KJV as the 1611 Authorized version, but this is not entirely accurate. It is based on the 1611 version, but it has been ‘revised’ repeatedly from 1611 until 1769 when Oxford University published the Oxford Standard edition that was accepted and remains until today. (1769)
     

    The following artilce is derived from: Ben Rast,Contender Ministries

    The whole issue of Biblical accuracy could be quickly put to rest if we had in our possession the original writings of the prophets and apostles, which we don’t.  These original writings, called “autographs”, have not been discovered.  Yet it is they that were penned under the direct and inerrant inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  2 Peter 1:21 tells us that “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake [as they were] moved by the Holy Ghost.”  In this verse, the Greek pheromene refers to being carried along, like a ship moved by the wind.  In other words, the Holy Spirit directly influenced what was originally written by Moses, John, Paul, etc.
     
    THE EARLY MANUSCRIPTS
    The Old Testament autographs were written primarily in Hebrew (except for Daniel, which was written in Aramaic – a cousin to Hebrew).  The New Testament autographs were written in Koine Greek.  In order for the Word of God to spread across the globe, to reach people of different languages and carry on through time, it became necessary for the autographs to be copied by scribes, and translated into other languages.  These scribes hand copied the original writings onto papyrus and parchment manuscripts.  In fact, the word manuscript means “hand copy.”  There are many early manuscripts in existence today.  The main concern with the copying and translation process was maintaining accuracy.    Among the multitude of manuscripts, we find one to two percent of the Bible has relevant variations.  However, these variations do not alter the main messages in the Word of God. God promised His Word would be preserved.  Jesus said “The scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35). 

    A ‘MODERN’ TRANSLATION – CIRCA 1611
    In 1611, under the rule of King James, a modern translation of the Bible was produced.  It was the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible.  The purpose of this new translation was to provide a version of the Bible written in the common language of the time.  It was to serve as a Bible that everyone could understand, in England of course.  As a preface to the 1611 KJV, the translators wrote a message entitled “The Translators to the Reader.”  In it, they said, “happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture and thrice happy that meditate in it day and night.  But how shall man meditate in that which they cannot understand?  How shall they understand that which is kept close [veiled] in an unknown tongue?… [Contemporary] Translation it is that opens the window, to let in the light….indeed, without translation into the vulgar [common] tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with…” (pages 3,4).  This being said, it is apparent that the KJV translators would not object to modern translations if the intent were the same – to produce a translation understandable in the common language.  The translators made no claim that the KJV was to be the only authorized version of the Bible.  In fact, they stated, “a variety of translation is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures.”  From their own words, it is apparent that the KJV translators would not be among the ardent KJO crowd. 

    EARLY MISTAKES
    Contrary to what some, the 1611 KJV was not without errors.  In fact, it took several subsequent editions to arrive at the version that is in use today.  For instance, in the 1611 edition, Matthew 26:36 said, “Then cometh Judas”.  Today, the KJV renders that verse as “Then cometh Jesus.”  This is a rather significant difference.  The first edition also contained the Apocryphal books, which were removed in subsequent editions.  The 1613 edition inadvertently left the word “not” out of the seventh commandment, thereby encouraging people to commit adultery.  This edition became known as the “Wicked Bible.”  Another edition earned the nickname “Unrighteous Bible” because it stated that the unrighteous would inherit the kingdom of heaven.  Furthermore, in using Erasmus’ TR as the basis of the New Testament, many of Erasmus’ additions of margin notes into the text of the verses found their way into the verses in the KJV.  We’ll go more into this quirk shortly.

    LATER TRANSLATIONS
    In the years since the KJV came about in 1611, and even since the most recent major revisions in 1769, some wonderful discoveries have come to light.  In 1859, Count Konstantin von Tischendorf discovered nearly 350 pages of an early Greek text containing all the New Testament works.  He discovered this volume in St. Catherine’s monastery on Mt. Sinai, and it became known as the Codex Sinaiticus.  This Greek New Testament was dated to the mid 4th century AD. The oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript – the oldest substantial book to survive Antiquity – is of supreme importance for the history of the book.

    Another discovery, the Codex Vaticanus, is a volume of 757 vellum sheets containing most of the works of the Bible, and it dates to the early 4th century AD.  Other papyri fragments have been discovered that date to the early 2nd century AD!  In fact, literally thousands of pieces of the Bible have been discovered dating earlier than the Byzantine texts that were the foundation of the Textus Receptus. 

    It is clear from a study of the earliest known manuscripts, that the NIV and NASB translations are closest to the original text.  The addition of verses and phrases in the KJV are mostly explanatory in nature, and do not cause doctrinal discrepancies.  The differences between the KJV and modern translations amount to about 1% percent of the text.  Yet the KJO proponents are often virulent and spiteful in the arguments that the KJV is the only authorized Word of God. 

    THE MODERN TRANSLATORS
    Some KJO proponents complain that the NIV translation committee was loaded with homosexuals.  They argue that this sexual sin that pervaded the committee must have skewed the translation in favor of homosexuals.  Is this true?  It is true, however IMPORTANT to note is that lesbian sympathizer Virginia Mollencott was involved with the NIV development.  However, she was NOT a translator, and had nothing to do with the translation.  She served on the literary (stylistic) committee of the NIV for a few months.  Once her sexual views were known, she was promptly asked to resign.  At no time did her work impact the translation of the NIV.  Any reasonable person reading the NIV can see clearly that homosexuality is condemned as a sin.

    CONCLUSION
    We have demonstrated that from the standpoint of accuracy, modern translations stack up as well as the KJV, and better in some areas. 

    This article is not meant to change anyone’s preference for which Bible translation they use.  The KJO debate is not about preference.  Rather, it is about claims of exclusive “authorization” of the KJV as the Word of God, and perceived heresy of modern translations.  Yet having read both versions, I can attest that no doctrine is compromised in any way in my NIV.  This controversy has split congregations and denominations…all because of 1% percent of the Bible that presents no doctrinal discrepancies.  This is akin to pummeling your neighbor for saying to-may-to, when you say to-mah-to.  Is this really a battle the bride of Christ should be fighting within herself?

    Sometimes I think that if Christians would just stop and look at the log in their own eye, rather than the speck in his brothers we might actually come to resemble Jesus and the Bride of Christ. I mean, if we are going to accuse someone of ‘heresy’ or of being in league with satan, there ought to be more to it than what scripture translation a person chooses to use! Really!

  9. You might also want to consider the validity of the following question – do you think God would was use an open practicing homosexual to ‘preserve’ his writing?

    Kings James was a murderer and known homosexual who married only because it was requirement for a King to hold his crown.

    History doesn’t lie…

    At the age of 13 James fell madly in love with his male cousin Esme Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to Esme to the consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and forced to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.

    Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr, his Groom of the Bedchamber, “The king leans on his arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to others.” (Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, from in a letter, 1611)

    Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, “I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from ‘lying in my chamber,’ notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary…Remember that (since I am king) all your being, except your breathing and soul, is from me.” (See The Letters of King James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984. Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991)- Skip Church

    As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he called his favorite George Villiers “sweet child and wife” and referred to himself as “your dear dad and husband.”

    James’s sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir Walter Raleigh joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by “Queen James.”- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne.

    King James 1 was a known homosexual who murdered his young lovers and victimized countless heretics and women. His cruelty was justified by his “divine right” of kings.- Otto J. Scott, James the First.

    Peace in Christ

  10. A few more things to think about. I have gone into such detail beause this has become such a point of division in the Church, with some seperatists groups claiming to be elite, owning the ture, pure and ‘real’ Bible.

    The following beliefs though ‘not inclusive’ of ‘everyone who prefers the KJV but is typical of those who strickly adhere to KJV ‘only’.

    Statements from pastor’s wife and the Glory Baptist Church in SD.

    1. All other translations of the bible are from ‘satan’.

    2. “my husband is a Baptist Preacher just like John the Baptist was a Baptist Preacher” and “Pastor Phillips went to same Bible college as John the Baptist (John 16:13), ordained by the Lord. Just like John, Pastor Phillips, is a man sent from God (John 1:6). Note: I assume this means he has no formal linguist trainning in the original language.

    Paul spent a great deal of time confronting the Corinthians believers, as Paul describes the Corinthian believers as carnal because they ‘followed personalities’. Some in the church would say, “I am of Paul.” Others would say, “I am of Apollos or Peter.” And the real pious ones would say, “I am of Jesus.” Paul spent four chapters of his first epistle to this church trying to straighten out this problem (I Cor. 1:12; 3:4-6,22; 4:6). Saying you are of John the Baptist is doing the very thing Paul was condemning!

    3. “in order to have a truthful conversation you need to use a ‘Real Bible’ (KJB)”

    4. “the first believers were called ‘Baptist’ – Note: In Act’s 11:26, the first believers were called ‘Christians who followed ‘The Way’.

    Statement of faith from a KJV ‘only’ Website –

    5. We believe only the King James Bible is God’s Word for English speaking people, and contains no errors. – Note: This is no different than the white supremacist view of Scripture. It is fill with self-pride.

    6. We believe only in the local church and ‘not’ in a universal church. Note: the Church is indeed ‘universal’. The universal church is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ worldwide. The term church comes from at least 2 words. One of the words has to do with the meeting together or “assembly” (1 Thessalonians 2:14; 2 Thessalonians 1:1). This word is one that pertains to the work of God in saving and sanctifying believers as “called-out ones.” When the word church is found in the English Bible, the word used is this one. The second word is one that speaks of ownership and literally means “belonging to the Lord.” The fact that there are many believers around the world is what makes the church ‘universal’. Ref. http://www.ccel.org/contrib//exec_outlines/cjb/cjb_03.htm

    The word “catholic” with a lower case “c” means “universal”, not as in Roman Catholic.

    7. Within the statement of faith – “I have yet to come across one bible verse that says a lost person must be WILLING to turn from sin to be saved! Not one!! REPENTANCE ALWAYS DEALS WITH THOUGHTS” Note: We are told to ‘put away’ our sins in Colossians 3:8-11, that involves more than thoughts, that involves action. This is not ‘works’, this is practicing an incorporating the ‘turning away from sin in our life. However, we will not be perfect and will still struggle with this and we are forgiven. It has nothing to do with adding to grace, or working ‘for’ our salvation. We are told to work ‘out’ our salvation.

    If Satan is at work anywhere it is here, with those who are dividing the Church over the KJV ‘only’. These is the most heretical statements I have heard coming from a so-called Christian Church body.

  11. Please excuse the spelling… should have done a spell check.

    • there is so many things to address Maggies posts that i will only address a couple. first of all your posts are copyied from Mark A. Copeland who is a Church of CHrist “minister” this is a cult by all means. anytime a person adds to salvation by requiring baptism for atonement and mandating communion every sunday that is cultish. ( also unbiblical. the Chruch of Christ is where the Universal Church doctrine came from. next King James was NO homosexual that is a blatant LIE. FACT:” King James I of England, who authorized the translation of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
      Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.
      At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in English, King James’ desire was that the common people should have the Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of history’s most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift that he could give them. Their own copy of the Word of God in English.
      James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in Italian and Spanish even wrote a tract entitled “Counterblast to Tobacco”,which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in England.
      Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
      The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people alive who knew it wasn’t true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying King James, would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that Christians would turn away from God’s book to a more “modern” translation.
      It seems though, that Weldon’s false account is being once again largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
      It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605.
      In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot’s victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged.
      It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.” ( sam Gipp )

  12. Wow… Thank you Pastor Steve for clarifying about King James. The homosexual lie is one of those tactics the proponents of modern versions really like to throw at the KJV people!
    One thing I get kinda annoyed with is the accusations that “KJV-onlyites” believe that God “inspired” the translators of the KJV. Absolutely these translators were human beings and prone to error. However, the fact that God kept error out of His Word during the translation process is because He’s God… simple as that. He didn’t have to “inspire” the translators to keep His Word free from error. As for all those “updates” most of them were correcting spelling errors. The example of “Judas” which was supposed to be “Jesus” was one such spelling error. Remember they didn’t have computers in 1611. Everything was done by hand, so no doubt typos were going to happen. I don’t think a simple typo constitutes an error, but that’s just my opinion.
    Another accusation I get really tired of is the one about us being the “church splitters” and “sowing discord among the brethren.” Let’s think about this one for a minute. Which Bible came first KJV or NIV? Who are the ones who have changed… KJV users or NIV users? We who use the KJV have NEVER changed. We NEVER started the debate. If the new translations had NEVER been written we would not have this “division” in the church. If we were all still using the KJV like the church did before 1881 (Westcott and Hort), we wouldn’t have this Bible version debate. Is it OUR fault the church is divided because we don’t want to change? We are just standing in the old paths like Jeremiah admonishes in Jer. 6:16. Sometimes it would just be nice for these NIV’ers, ESV’ers, etc. to admit that they fuel the fire just as much as the KJV’ers, instead of always blaming us for the debate. BTW the reason we don’t change to a new translation is not just because we are afraid of change either. That’s another accusation that gets thrown around a lot and simply isn’t true.
    As far as the discovery of “new” manuscripts that are supposedly “more accurate” and “closer to the original” that’s another lie the proponents of new versions would have us to believe. Consider… the Vaticanus is barely readable because there is a pen mark through every word of it. The ONLY argument in favour of the Vaticanus and Siniaticus is that they are “older” therefore they must be “better”. The “older the better” theory is simply that… a theory. It’s an idea that Westcott and Hort came up with, and it was nothing more than their own man-made idea. The truth and the facts completely contradict this when Vaticanus and Siniaticus are compared with the other known manuscripts.
    Here’s another thing. Do Christians really think that God would have let us go for approx. 350 years (1611-1881) with a Bible that had error? Does God still continue to give us a Scripture that has errors in it? The Bible itself claims to be perfect and yet we humans think we have the knowledge and the right to question God! Either the Bible is perfect and God is true, or it has errors and God is a liar. There is no middle ground here!
    Some recommended resources.
    Way of Life Literature has some excellent online articles about the KJV written in a good spirit and very well researched.
    http://www.wayoflife.org/database/textsversionsheader.html
    Another great book is An Understandable History of the Bible by Sam Gipp.

  13. You should not assume by stating that I copied anything from Mark Copeland for I did not. Why is is that when ever anyone gives a detailed writing the first thing stated is “copy & paste”. I’m very familiar with Copeland and he is not a resourse I turn to.

    There are however like yourself many faithful pastors who have an opposing view.

    I do not believe that baptism is required for salvation, I don’t know where you got that notion in anything I wrote. I believe we are saved by faith and through ‘grace’ , in Christ alone!

    As Far as King James I, there are many professors of history who would disagree with you!
    It could be agured just as well that there are those who want to ‘ignor’ history into order to support their personal beliefs concerning the King.

    @JessieB – what irritates me is when a person who promotes KJV ‘only’ has the audacity to say things like:

    1. “All other translations of the bible are from Satan”

    2. “There are NO conversations without a ‘Rea’l Bible”

    3. “my husband is a Baptist Preacher just like John the Baptist was a Baptist Preacher” and “Pastor Phillips went to the ‘same Bible college’ as John the Baptist (John 16:13), ordained by the Lord. Just like John, Pastor Phillips, is a man sent from God (John 1:6).

    Paul spent a great deal of time confronting the Corinthians believers, as Paul describes the Corinthian believers as carnal because they ‘followed personalities’. Some in the church would say, “I am of Paul.” Others would say, “I am of Apollos or Peter.” And the real pious ones would say, “I am of Jesus.” Paul spent four chapters of his first epistle to this church trying to straighten out this problem (I Cor. 1:12; 3:4-6,22; 4:6). Saying you are of John the Baptist is doing the very thing Paul was condemning!

    4. “in order to have a truthful conversation you need to use a ‘Real Bible’ (KJB)”

    5. “the first believers were called ‘Baptist’ – Note: In Act’s 11:26, the first believers were called ‘Christians who followed ‘The Way’.

    Statement of faith from a KJV ‘only’ Website –

    6. We believe only in the local church and ‘not’ in a universal church. Note: the Church is indeed ‘universal’. The universal church is made up of all believers in Jesus Christ worldwide. The term church comes from at least 2 words. One of the words has to do with the meeting together or “assembly” (1 Thessalonian 2:14; 2 Thessalonian 1:1). This word is one that pertains to the work of God in saving and sanctifying believers as “called-out ones.” When the word church is found in the English Bible, the word used is this one. The second word is one that speaks of ownership and literally means “belonging to the Lord.” The fact that there are many believers around the world is what makes the church ‘universal’. Ref. http://www.ccel.org/contrib//exec_outlines/cjb/cjb_03.htm

    The word “catholic” with a lower case “c” means “universal”, not as in Roman Catholic.

    7. Within the statement of faith – “I have yet to come across one bible verse that says a lost person must be WILLING to turn from sin to be saved! Not one!! REPENTANCE ALWAYS DEALS WITH THOUGHTS” Note: We are told to ‘put away’ our sins in Colossians 3:8-11, that involves more than thoughts, that involves action. This is not ‘works’, this is practicing an incorporating the ‘turning away from sin in our life. However, we will not be perfect and will still struggle with this and we are forgiven. It has nothing to do with adding to grace, or working ‘for’ our salvation. We are told to work ‘out’ our salvation.

    If Satan is at work anywhere it is here, in these statements.

  14. I heard an insightful man once say that saying you will die for the KJV is kind of like saying you will die for ice cream. It may be a nice idea, but it’s doubtful anyone cares enough to kill you for it. Okay, so maybe that was Mark Driscoll. The point I am trying to make is that within Christianity at large people really don’t care about the King James only debate. Typically it’s a small group of people who really care about it.
    Of all the people that I know who use modern versions, apart from the obnoxious smear-the-truth-in-your-face kind of people, most do not really consider KJV onlyism a hill worth dying on. The difference is for all practical purposes a minor one. In my opinion, it is an issue one needs to be convinced of, but it is not an issue that should have so much animosity tied to it. The fact is that both sides have more in common than will usually be admitted. I am a conscientious user of faithfully translated versions, and I believe strongly in the inspiration and innerrency of Scripture. I believe that all faithful translations of the Bible teach all the same essential truths necessary from our salvation. There are many accusations made about theologies that are allegedly undermined by modern versions, but that is usually little more than mud-slinging, which more than anything shows one’s own insecurity in his position.
    The facts that have to be dealt with regardless of what position you reach is that (1) the original texts were inspired by God, (2) God has preserved His Word with variations in the text, and (3) we must by God’s grace discern which is most likely the readings of the original. And this is nothing new to our generation. Despite the supposed agreement between the Byzantine type text and the Textus Receptus, if one takes the majority reading of the Byzantine type text and compares it with the readings found in the Textus Receptus, it adds up to well over 2,000 variant readings. And that is assuming that the Byzantine type text is always the original reading.
    My point is not to undermine people’s faith in the Scripture. Well over 90% of all the original texts are the same, and it is amazing that there is such an agreement between these 5,000 texts. A supernatural agreement. My point is simply to say that it is not an issue that is solved by either side with name calling or unscrupulous accusations. There are sincere and insincere people on both sides of the debate. There are some KJV only advocates that passionately love Jesus and some that are as fake as a wooden dollar. So my point is let us conduct ourselves with the grace of Jesus and think graciously and deeply through the differences we have with fellow Christians.

  15. Oh, so much to address, and love the discussion by the way. I will make a few comments now and then intend to write a post on a few thoughts concerning KJV-onlyism on my blog tomorrow, so feel free to check it out.

    To (……) who said the ESV is for Calvinist in defense of the KJV, I would like to make note that Ian Paisley, in his “My Plea for the Old Sword” states the Westminster confession and the London Baptist confession as both founded on the KJV, and he hails them as orthodox statements of the Christian faith. These confessions are thoroughly Calvinistic. Just to show you that then KJV issue is not related to Calvinism.

    Now on to the book recommended by my Friend, Clint – “My Plea for the Old Sword”
    I would just like to give a list of the chapter titles and address each just to stir you to think and research.
    (Note, the author states “English Authorized Version {KJV} of the Holy Bible” each time, I will just state KJV for brevity’s sake)
    1. “The foundations of the KJV is unsurpassably pre-eminent in the underlying texts upon which it rests” I find it odd that they still argue about the underlying texts. The TR was created in the 1500’s by Erasmus, he only had access to about 10 manuscripts and none of them were complete Scriptures. He relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate for some verses (thus translating them from Latin into Greek). Due to this, there are verse in the TR that are not found in ANY Greek manuscripts. There is absolutely no textual support for them outside the Latin Vulgate. To fully address this would take more than I’m willing to type here, but suffice it to say the TR is not a preeminent text. Even Erasmus revised it 5 times (if my memory serves me right) adding verses in his 2nd and 3rd editions that were not in the 1st.
    2. “The foundation of the KJV is unsurpassably pre-eminent in the various English versions which gave it birth and of which it is the sum and substance, the pith and marrow, the essence, cream and perfection.” It is most definitely better than the English versions before it, as scholarship was increasing. But it cannot be said to be preeminent to the English versions now, that is, if one is to be as scholarly as they like to hail the KJV translators for being. If one is to read the letter to the reader that the KJV translators wrote, they will see that they did not claim perfection in their work, that they placed alteranate readings in the margins because they were not sure of the correct translation. One can also see that they expected translation work to go on, for language changes and new translations most definitely need to be made. They knew this, and advised the reader of such.
    3. “The Translators of the KJV are pre-eminent in their saintliness, and scholarship, the providential way the were so singularly brought together, and the dedication with which they undertook and gloriously completed their mammoth task” I would be careful of saying any mere mortal is “premenent in his saintliness”. It is the words of God that have power, not the personal life of the ones translating it. They may have been upstanding men, I hope so, as I’m not wishing to engage in a smear tactick. As for scholarship, Paisley states in his book that to examine other texts and engage in textual criticism (a scholarly task that the KJV translators actually did) is to lead one down the road to unbelief. I find it a double standard to try to claim scholarship as a reason for the KJV’s supremacy and yet deny that same claim to others when we most definitely have a better grasp of the original languages and customs then they did in their day and we have a myriad of reliable texts, which they did not have.
    4. “The translation of the KJV is unsurpassably pre-eminent in the techniques it employed” He claims the KJV was translated in fidelity, fealty (servant-hood to the Word), humility, contextuality, and variety (seeking to put the meaning into English terms and shunned a slavish uniformity). I say this is all well and good, but doesn’t serve to make the KJV preeminient as the NASB, ESV, and other translation committees all had the same heart motive in their work. I also find it interesting that he quotes Dean Burgon concerning the inspiration of the Bible. Dean was not a KJV only advocate in the sense of calling it supreme. The inspiration quote was referring to the originals, not the KJV. Be sure of this when you read or it can be misleading. (by the way, while I’m on Dean, the original Fundamentalists were also NOT KJVonly, it seems this false belief originated with a 7th Day Adventist… just something to look into).
    5. “The language of the KJV is unsurpassably pre-eminent being the first from the well undefiled and indeed the very well itself”I fail to see what is really meant by calling the KJV english “the very well itself” unless he is trying to exalt the stateliness of the English used. At any rate it matters not how high class the English is in the translation, it’s merely a translation. This “proof” goes against the purpose of the KJV translators to begin with. It matters not how beautiful the translation language is, it needs to be in the vulgar tongue of the people.
    6. “The foundation of the KJV is unsupassably pre-eminent in majesty, chasity, and eternity” All this exalting it to be the best or say it is a linguistic work equal to that of the original languages is a bit much and nothing close to scholarly work. And meaning and nuances are ALWAYS lost in translation. Dean Brugon (whom Paisley quotes) even attested to this.
    7. “The doctrine of the KJV is unsurpassavly pre-eminent being couched in sound words in keeping with unwavering belief in the revealed truths of the Word of God” This seems to imply that other translations don’t teach good doctrine. Aside from this being the complete opposite of what the KJV translators actually believed about other translation, it’s plainly wrong! One can read the ESV, NASB, KJV, NKJV, and they will all come away with the same Christian system of doctrine. And I will only give one example of less than scholarly authorship that sets about to prove this point. He tries to say the NIV denies the inspiration of the Scirptures as it translates the word as it’s literall equivalent – “God breathed”. To say the NIV undermines inspiration because of this is foolish. “God-breathed” is not only acceptable, but more accurate a translation. It doesn’t deny any doctrine, actually strengthens it as 1. inspiration today is merely something we feel from looking at a sunset, and God-breathed is exactly the equivalent to “thus saith The LORD”
    8. “The reverence of the KJV is unsurpassably pre-eminent casting the hem of it’s’ holy garment over every sentence, word and syllable” He tries to smear those who use other english versions with being Romish, accusing us of saying we teach that no translation is the Word of God. This is not true, as we do not believe this. And to try to exalt one translation above all the others and say an archaic translation is the only one and people just need to increase their smarts to understand it is actually Romish.
    9. “The History of the KJV is unsurpassably pre-eminent having preserved for centuries the Word of God for the English speaking peoples of the whole world, and those evangelized by them.” I will agree that it’s history is great, not unsurpassable, as history is still being made. As for the preservation of God’s Word, the other translations, such as the Geneva Bible, would have done the same had they been popular among the people. Actually the Pilgrims who came to America wouldn’t use the KJV, they used the Geneva Bible. At any rate, the history of a translation doesn’t give one a reason to exalt it to that of the original manuscripts or to the exclusion of all other translations.
    10. “The fruits of the KJV are unsurpassably pre-eminent, being so might and so manifold that there is not room enough to receive them.” Well, I wouldn’t ascribe to this statement either. The KJV didn’t fuel the reformation, which is where protestants broke from Rome. Yes, it has been used mightily of God, but because the KJV is special, but because it contains, ye is, the Word of God. The ESV, NASB, etc also is used to bring men to Christ. One soul is just as much a work of God as 10.
    so, I want to say more, but have to go. I hope it’s evidenced that this book that has been recommended is nothing close to scholarly. It’s assertions are hyperbolic, and unfounded. KJV-onlyism is not a biblical doctrine. One is free to exclusively use it, but to defend it so adamantly is petty. I do not attack the KJV, I think it is a good translation (although it has it’s errors.. don’t stone me, Spurgeon said the same). I do find it a bit disconcerting that it is taught in this book that to use another English translation or to find out why you are KJV only by attempting to look at the textual evidence is to lead one down the road of apostasy. This is not the kind of faith Jesus calls us too… it’s more akin to Jim Jones than anything.

  16. here’s the link to some of my thoughts on the matter. I speak freely about my disagreement with the KJVO camp. Please note that although I despise KJVonlyism, I do not hate those who hold it. Most of it, I believe, is due to the ignorance and fear that they are kept in by those who teach this doctrine as if it were gospel.

    http://reflectionsandmeditations.com/2010/12/06/kjv-onlyism-fictitious-orthodoxy/

  17. Joel & Daniel, thank you both for your insightful posts. I agree that good Christian conduct laced with grace is needed when discussing the issue. Am I am sure that there are nay sincere, loving KJVO folks out there, but is has been my misfortune to come accross those of the vigilent type who who curse any version and credit it to satan. Now I don’t know if it’s true of all KJVO folks but the one’s I have met have attacked everything from watching TV, going to a movie, celebrating hoildays. It seems so far that those who embrace KJVO are staunch legalists.

    These life practices they connemn are a matter of conscious not doctrine and they judge them with piety like the Pharisees.

    I’ll check out your link.

    Thank you

  18. I like the way you approach this subject and agree with you.

    I use the KJV. When I became a Christian 52 years ago there were a few other versions available but KJV was the most accepted. I also found it MUCH easier to memorise than any modern translations. I agree there are no “perfect” versions and certainly not an “only” version but I do think God has placed His hand on the preservation of the KJV in a miraculous way and that it is more reliable than many of the more recent offerings (one of which had the goal of appealing to all faith groups)

    I have worked in childrens and teens ministry for most of my Christian life. While years ago I never encountered difficulty with the archaic wording of the KJV, I have found a shift in more recent years. Children today are unfamiliar with the language of the KJV and indeed are unfamiliar with anything to do with Bible teachings. It is no longer surprising that children have no idea who Jesus is.

    Because of this I have taken to use the NKJV when conducting Holiday Clubs where about two-thirds of the children have no Church background. It seems unwise to try teaching them new truths in a somewhat foreign language (having to explain the wouldest, hath, doeth etc)

    For myself, I love the KJV and believe it is the one God chose to preserve, but I would NEVER say it is the ONLY one. I could wish the NKJV only changed the archaic words to modern, leaving everything else as is, but there are other differences.

  19. @meetingintheclouds – I like your post and I personally would agree with most of your comments but the issue of ‘preservation’ seems to not be fully understood by most.

    The way I understand God’s Word it has not been preserved for 400 years it has been preserved since the time it was penned in the Old Testament writings, the New Testament writings and in the Completed combined Canon. It has been preserved in many languages both hand written and off the press. God never said in Scripture how He would preserve it nor did He state it would be preserved n a particular language. He just said it would be preserved and It has been through the ages for thousands of years. No where does the Scripture state that a King was authorized by God to ‘authorize’ His Word. He simply said He would preserve it, He didn’t say how and He has.

    All of God’s Word no matter the ‘translation’ is authorized not by man or King but authorized by God alone.

    Further note, if KJV 1611 was not the first Bible authorized by a King. It was Coverdales, The Great Bible of 1539. Hot off the press it was authorized by King James VIII and it carried his official Royal Seal. it was the 1st Bible authorized for Englishmen and women to read.

    I have nothing against the King James 1611, in fact I use one as well, along with other versions to parallel my studies, there is nothing sinful or evil (as I’ve been told) about comparing the versions to get a clearer picture and meaning of a word. But it no more autorized than any other, ALL Scripture is God-breathed/inspired and good for teaching.

    Those who maintain one version is ‘authorized’ and all others are of Satan are guilt themselves of idol worship, for they are worshiping a ‘book’ made of paper rather than the author of the book.

    Have a blessed day

  20. I chuckled at the end of Maggie’s last post, because I just posted on my blog an entry entitled “Bible Worshipper.” My post doesn’t deal with Bible versions. I purposely stayed away from that! However, KJV users do not claim that it is the “authorization” of the version that makes it God’s true preserved word. That’s just absurd. Calling the KJV “authorized’ is no different that calling the NIV “new.” It’s just part of the name… nothing more. There are a lot of misconceptions out there about what it REALLY means to believe that God has preserved his true, complete, and perfect word in the King James (Authorized) Version of the Bible. It’s amazing how little people really know about the stand we have taken on the King James. MOST KJV people are not anything like the statement of faith that Maggie quoted earlier. We are kind, loving, people who are concerned about lost souls. We are out passing out tracts, speaking to people about the Lord, and trying to be obedient servants of God. All the while realizing we still have much to learn and need to grow more and more in the Lord each day! I’m sure all those who have posted here and read this article understand that. At least I pray that you do! Don’t let one person’s crazy ideas about KJV-onlyism turn you off the rest of us! Also don’t let their crazy ideas keep you from really studying this issue out. There is GOOD reason to take a KJV stand. but it doesn’t make us Bible worshippers either.

    I’m not so sure all Bible “translation” is authorized by God. Satan has been corrupting God’s Word since the garden of Eden (Gen. 3:1). I’m pretty sure God didn’t “authorize” that rendition of His word, although He did “allow” it. Satan is all about attacking everything of God. Now I’m not saying all other translations besides the KJV are “of the devil.” Please don’t read that into my statements. I AM saying that if Satan can mess up God’s Word (the Bible), he’s going to do it. I think we can all agree that Satan has corrupted much of the church. False doctrine abounds within the realm of Christianity. If Satan can corrupt the church (the very Bride of Christ), he can corrupt God’s Word too. Much of Satan’s success come from the fact that Christians underestimate his power. If Satan could succeed at deceiving Eve who was perfect, he’s got some power!!! How much more should we as sinners (albeit saved by grace… AMEN), be wary of Satan’s deception.

    Let’s be careful about just going by “what we’ve been told.” Paul commended the Bereans in Acts 17:11 because they searched the Scriptures for themselves. Again I’m not saying anyone here hasn’t searched the Scriptures, but the fact remains we cannot always trust what men (or women) will tell us. We can with confidence trust God’s Word (II Tim 3:16; Psalm 119:160).

  21. Glad I make someone ‘chuckle’.

    When I am on a social network, speaking to a new believer in Christ and quote Scripture and someone comes on and identifies themselves as KJVO interjects into the conversation statements such as – “there can be not conversation without a “Real Bible”, such as the only ‘authorized Bible King James 1611, I find this rude not loving. When they continue to interrupt a conversation calling my version of the Bible, “the words of Satan” and ‘Evil’, I don’t find this loving…and I do call this worshipping a ‘Bible’ more than worshipping the creator, for they are elevating it more than God himself. I find them extremely legalist and judgmental and un-accepting of their brothers and sisters in Christ who choose to read/study another version of the Bible, or practice non-doctrinal issues per their conscious calling ‘us’ apostates. They lurk the social networks attacking and provoking rather then embracimg, loving, encouraging and building up their fellow Christians.

    The so-called ‘unauthorized’ version of the Bible I read is what convicted me of sin, showing me I was a sinner in need of a Savior, it taught me about mercy & grace is, it showed me that Jesus died for my sins… it gave me the gospel! You can bet that if Satan is going to corrupt anything it will be the very gospel, and he will never lead anybody to it. I take offense to a KJVO ‘Christian’ telling me my Bible that lead to me to a personal relationship with Christ is not the ‘Real Bible’.

    Maybe this is not how all KJVO advacates behave but so far this has been my experience and for those who do they should be concerned with the logs in their own eyes, examine themselves to be sure they are in the faith.

  22. I’ll try to not be long-winded. What it came down to for me was this question: “Did we USED to have an inerrant bible, or do we still have it today?” Only after you answer that question can you decide upon which, if any, copies or translations available today are the perfectly preserved words given to us by God. http://soulliberty.com/View.php?ID=1032

  23. Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles
    as long as I provide credit and sources back to your weblog?

    My website is in the exact same area of interest as yours and my visitors would definitely benefit
    from a lot of the information you provide here. Please let me know
    if this ok with you. Cheers!

  1. Pingback: Confessions of a RIFB Girl of 20-something {I own other Bible versions than the KJV.} « Grow Up!

  2. Pingback: Happy {1 year} Blogiversary! « Grow Up!

  3. Pingback: What’s the Big Deal About the KJV? {episode 1}: it’s just coffee. « Grow Up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: