Why is it so important to use the KJV only?

I can't answer for other's, but I use it as much (or more) as many for it is my "core" in study of His Word.

It brought to the masses His Word. The "light" had been hidden and was now all aglow, becoming brighter as it covered the earth. A few little refinements along the way, for some minor corrections (or what was meant to be corrected later) is understandable. It is my source, and I believe most of we that are older love it for it was our first love.

Each of us in whatever environment or place in life has a language and terminologies that we must understand in order to function. When learned, it comes to mind.The "Mathematician" and the "Scientist" have a "lingo" to learn for understanding; It is so with those in "Sales and Marketing", "IT", "Doctors", "Lawyers" and all walks of life. It is what we live with on a daily basis. We are "comfortable" with His Word, and have come to understand it.

One of the most confusing books (and programs) has to be Rick Warren's, "The Purpose Driven Life". No less than 15 translations used, and for what purpose we may never know. It wasn't for consistency of words, thought or clear understanding.

 

I'd much rather read from the New International Version. I'd much rather be able to understand the things I read than to have to sort through a bunch of language that isn't even the way that anybody talked. I mean, I find it quite amusing that people really think that Jesus and everybody else talked in the same manner as what is in the KJV. Do you really think they said THEE, THOU, and all that other mess? If not, then why do so many people feel that they should use these words while speaking religiously, especially when praying? If something is going to be translated for me, I'd much rather read a translation that I can actually understand. If we don't use those words today, then why are we studing them when it's not what Jesus or anybody else said? In my opinion many people wastes way too much time just trying to figure out what in the world something means, rather than automatically knowing what it means, and being able to spend that time pondering the deeper meaning, or using that knowledge to talk to other people.

 

Amy G.,

most of us KJVonly people find that when a person asks the question as you have they only want to fight about it. WE are called divisive, and yet we get called out like this by others demanding we defend our viewpoint and then casting aspersions on our beliefs simply because they didn't get a response within the first couple hours after the thread was posted. Do you see how that would make us hesitant to begin a discourse with you?

I know personally I use the KJV only because I believe it is God's written Word for the English speaking people. Hence, asking what the Apostle Paul used is irrelevant....he was not an English speaking person. That does NOT mean that we (KJV onlyers) never read any other version......it DOES usually mean that we do not hold the other versions to be purely Scripture. (There are various degrees of KJVonlyism). Most KJVonly people I know have read several other versions in comparison, and have come to the conclusion (often on their own) that the KJV is God's preserved Word. Obviously I don't know the entire universe of KJVonly, so I can only speak about my little corner.

 

First, I haven't held it against you. Second, I didn't say God wouldn't. I said He wouldn't necessarily hold it against you.

But would you learn about the idle words if you don't study the bible?
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.(KJV)

2 Timothy 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.(NKJV)

I don't believe that one cannot get truth from the NKJV. I do believe that the NKJV has been tampered with.

I realize that some people are overly harsh when they discuss bible versions. That doesn't imply that they are wrong. However, I too would like to know why some KJVO's believe that a person should use the King James when they do not believe that a Christian has anything to fear at the judgment seat.

 

Just so you'll know where I stand, I'm a KJV by preference -- have multiple versions for study, but love the traditional flow of KJV for consistency in memorization.

With that said, to what source do you go when differences in versions are noted?

Thanks.

 

Read a little on textual criticism and I believe it will enlighten you as it did me regarding the various translations and manuscript families from which they come. We don’t have the originals so we just have copies of copies which do contain minor errors.

(1611 KJV)

2Ch 22:2 Fourtie and two yeeres old was Ahaziah, when he began to reigne, and he reigned one yeere in Ierusalem: his mothers name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

2Ki 8:26 Two and twentie yeeres old was Ahaziah when he began to reigne, and he reigned one yeere in Ierusalem, and his mothers name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

 

My paradigm of Bible translations:
1. Translators are not inspired
2. The original manuscripts are not available--many copies remain
3. The Textus Receptus was used by the KJV translators to make several editions in English in the 17th century--these were not the first English translations, i.e. The Geneva Bible preceeded the KJV.
4. Other English translations have come forth since the 17th century, using various collections of manuscripts, concordants, and paraphrases.
5. The "newer" versions seem to read better to some folks; but there are certain doctrinal differences which need to be understood.
6. There are two basic doctrines which are not emphasized in modern versions: The Virgin Birth of Jesus and The Deity of Jesus. These teachings are plain in the KJV.
7. That should be enough reason to declare the KJV the best among English translations.

I am not a KJVO.

Choose wisely,

Bro. James

 

Yeah, Amy, this just doesn't emphasize that Mary was a virgin does it...

Luke 1:34 (NIV)
(34) "How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

 

or...
John 1:1
(1) The Word Became Flesh the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (NIV)

 

Or even the dreaded Message...
John 1:1
(1) The Word was first, the Word present to God, God present to the Word. The Word was God,

and

Luke 1:34
(34) Mary said to the angel, "But how? I've never slept with a man."

 

But of course only the KJV presents the idea that Jesus was born of a virgin and was God....

Hmmmmm.....

 

Amy, this is something that has puzzled me for years, too. I cannot understand the passion (and the frequent vehemence) of the onlyists. It is beyond my comprehension how they can follow a belief that limits God's power to preserve His word and seek to bring others into their fold. I guess the old saying "misery loves company" is true in this case. Those who claim to "stand on God's word" yet vehemently attack all versions of God's word but the KJV are not being truthful.

Our salvation doesn't depend on what Bible version we use. I wish that all could be like the church my wife and I attend. Although the pastor and some of the church members are of the KJVO persuasion, it is not a major issue that is dividing the church. Love, praise, prayer and soul winning are what our church is all about and there is no "Bible inspection" at the front door. My version of preference is the NKJV, but I carry a KJV to church most of the time. The print in the KJV I carry to church is larger than the print in most of my other Bibles (the old eyes just aren't what they used to be) and it is a little easier to follow along with Scripture reading when you have on your lap the same version the preacher is reading. If the KJVO belief ever becomes a major issue at our church, my wife and I will seek God's will in finding a church that believes in the holiness of God's word in its various translations and versions.

 

I don't understand the reasoning behind prclaiming any version as God's only preserved word.

However, I think I can somewhat understand the fervency exhibited.

IF the KJV were the only word of God, the only Bible. IF all other versions were nothing more than poor imitations. IF God was limited to one translation. IF the KJVO theory were somehow correct.

With all those "ifs" I can see why people would support it with fervency. Some of them truly believe that every one else is missing the word of God and that GOd has given them the responsibility to correct what they see as error.

Of course, the other side would also be fervent is exposing what they see as an unbiblical teaching. They would also seek to deliver people from what they see as error.

Sadly, far too many Christians confuse fervency with mean spiritedness, ugliness, and anger.

We are supposed to be Baptists here. We are supposed to believe in liberty in Christ. We are supposed to respect the views of Christians who differ with us on these fringe, abiblical areas. We are supposed to manifest the love of Christ in all our discussions.

Tragically emotion far too often overrides our responsibilites toward each other.

 

TT and Amy had some verses from other versions which declare with clarity the doctrines of the diety of Christ . I have 15 English versions , and they all are clear on these and other fundamental doctrines . In fact it has been demonstrated by James White and others that the KJV is rather weak in transmitting these truths as well as most of the other newer versions .

I do not know why people say things that are so easy to refute .

BTW , my Pastor preaches from the KJV but I think it is wise to read along in another version to catch things which may be missed otherwise . Most of the other congregants read along in their NIV Explanation Bibles . A few are reading from the NIrV which I gave them .