Is it just me, or do some Christian's believe that the KJV is the ONLY Bible to be read?

Question

Call me crazy, but I have increasingly encountered a number of my fellow Christians who frown upon the use of any other version of the Bible except the KJV. The reason? I'm not sure, but I suspect that there as some who really believe that the KJV was written in the days of Jesus and the early apostles and that they all spoke English!!! Can anyone either confirm or contradict my suspicions about the KJV hangup? I don't really care what version one reads, but I think there's a problem with this.

Answer 1

I highly doubt that the number of people you meet that are KJV only actually is increasing; it is much more likely that you are becoming more observant of this. No, these Christians do not believe that Jesus and His apostles and disciples spoke English; they know that, generally, they spoke koine Greek and Hebrew, maybe even Latin. As for the KJV being written in Jesus' time, well, have you ever wondered about the 1611 in Its name. The KJV is also known as the Authorized Version because King James I (Queen Elizabeth's heir) authorized Its translation into English in A.D. 1611. I am not saying that this is the first translation of the Holy Scriptures into English, for there are others such as William Tyndale's translation. The KJV translation is the most accurate translation because King James I had several Bible, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew scholars work together on this.

For those of you who find the KJV difficult to read, the KJV was translated in 1611; Old English, which is what Shakespeare wrote and spoke in, tends to be a little bit harder to understand than regular English.

BTW, here's a quote for y'all: "It doesn't matter if you are KJV only if you don't ever read the KJV Bible."

Hebrew Scared, read John chapter 1. According to Itself, the Bible is God. The technicalities of this would take to long to exlpain, and I highly doubt you want to even know. Just from reading your answer, you strike me as a close-minded individual when it comes to religion.

Answer 2

Only two contradictions of the New Testament have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin and Atonement are reviewed.
How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, and Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, one unknown and the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; and yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God.
I looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary and learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. I think human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible.
From the brief points mentioned above, and the fact that Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature and human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The Old Testament: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian’s mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God’s word.
As a side note to this subject, let me mention that some Christians believe that the Bible was dictated to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by a Christian monk, and that is why some of the biblical accounts are in the Quran. After some research, I found that this could not have happened because there were no Arabic Bible in existence in the 6th century of the Christian era when Muhammad (SAW) lived and preached. Therefore, no Arab, not even Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was absolutely unlettered and unlearned, would have had the opportunity to examine the written text of the Bible in his own language.

Answer 3

I've encountered that sentiment among some Christians. I personally find the KJV version hard to get through. I read the NIV because I think the fundamental message is the same, but its far easier to understand. I think most student bibles are NIV, as well. Maybe the KJV thing has to do with elitism among Bible readers. My religion professor, who is an atheist, always recommends that students by the KJV translation at the beginning of the semester, because he thinks its more "proper"...whatever that means. Either way, I hope that there aren't too many Christians who think that Jesus and his apostles spoke English!

Answer 4

I have been around these people and they are usually very fundamentalist in their thinking. This particular heresy is King James Only-ism and the main problem with it is that it elevates the Bible to being equal to God because they say that salvation depends upon believing in the KJV translation. They are also strong supporters of dispensationalist thought and take it to be read literally all the time.

My dad is one of the supporters of KJV and he gave me a book called New Age Bible Versions by G. A. Riplinger. The theory of this book is that all the Bibles will eventually lead to a one world church under the Anti-Christ because they keep watering down the language of the KJV to become more and more Satanic. Riplinger's book has caused some churches lots of grief. She is of the opinion that apostate Christianity and New Age thinking are the same. Of course I think that this idea is absurd. These people are also against any kind of ecumenical movement.

I believe that this is one area where one can be friends with them without having to change one's Bible. I realize that they mean well and are truly concerned about your soul, which is more than I can say about some other groups.

Answer 5

I've run into that. Some believe that newer translations stray from the original intent and meaning. Most differences are small and minute, but others are... larger. And probably some people DO believe that the KJV was written in the days of Jesus and it was English. I've actually run into a person like that or two...

But most of the KJV people just think it's a truer form, not as 'watered down'. And because it's 'harder' to read, it must be more authentic!

Answer 6

Oh yeah............there are those who say just that.
And truthfully it isn't very flattering for them.

The Kings James Version is just that: A VERSION of a translation.

There have been many spurious Scriptures found in the KJV that had to be corrected over time.

Also, there is the issue of the difference between the KJV and the NEW KJV which completely removes the Divine name from the 4 places of which is appeared in in the original manuscript.

There are many good translations our there and I find myself using www.biblegateway.com to compare versus so that the true understanding can be known.

Personally, as a Witness I favor the New Word Translation. Many great things have been said about it and it's fresh language and resoration of the Divine Name.

Notice a few of these from years ago:

A Fresh Translation

When the first volume of the “New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures” was published, Alexander Thomson, a British Bible critic, wrote: “Original renderings of the Hebrew Scriptures into the English language are extremely few. It therefore gives us much pleasure to welcome the publication of the first part of the New World Translation [of the Hebrew Scriptures], Genesis to Ruth. . . . This version has evidently made a special effort to be thoroughly readable. No one could say it is deficient in freshness and originality. Its terminology is by no means based upon that of previous versions.”—“The Differentiator,” June 1954, p. 131.

“A Text With Instant Vocabulary”

In “The Classical Journal,” Thomas N. Winter of the University of Nebraska wrote a review of “The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures” in which he said: “This is no ordinary interlinear: the integrity of the text is preserved, and the English which appears below it is simply the basic meaning of the Greek word. Thus the interlinear feature of this book is no translation at all. A text with instant vocabulary more correctly describes it. A translation in smooth English appears in a slim column at the right-hand margin of the pages. . . .

“The text is based on that of Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort (1881, repr.), but the translation by the anonymous committee is thoroughly up-to-date and consistently accurate.”—April-May issue of 1974, pp. 375-6.

The Opinion of a Hebrew Scholar

Regarding the “New World Translation,” Professor Dr. Benjamin Kedar, a Hebrew scholar in Israel, said in 1989: “In my linguistic research in connection with the Hebrew Bible and translations, I often refer to the English edition of what is known as the ‘New World Translation.’ In so doing, I find my feeling repeatedly confirmed that this work reflects an honest endeavor to achieve an understanding of the text that is as accurate as possible. Giving evidence of a broad command of the original language, it renders the original words into a second language understandably without deviating unnecessarily from the specific structure of the Hebrew. . . . Every statement of language allows for a certain latitude in interpreting or translating. So the linguistic solution in any given case may be open to debate. But I have never discovered in the ‘New World Translation’ any biased intent to read something into the text that it does not contain.”

Now, that last sentence from a Hebrew Scholar says a lot!

Answer 7

Yes. I'm a Catholic, and I'll read any Bible. In fact I prefer to read and compare several versions as this reminds me that ANY English Bible is *by definition* a translation. Declaring that any one version is more "divine" or more the "Word of God" than any other, is ascribing divinity to human translators. King James I of England was not "divine", and the team of translators he commissioned may have been great scholars, but they also were not "divine", nor had any more claim of "divine inspiration" than the Douai College that produced the Douay-Rheims Bible, or the translators of the NIV, nor any other human translators. Or let's put this another way. Do people really believe that ANY translation into English carries more "divinity" than a translation into French, or Japanese, or modern Greek? A book is a human artifact. A translation of a book is even more obviously a human artifact. So worshipping a human artifact as divine is essentially idolatry (does the First Commandment ring a bell?). -----

Answer 8

There's no real difference and its not going to cost you your salvation.

What's important is whether you believe and live for God.

I read the KJV (80% of the time), but I started off with the Good news, then the NIV & RSV. Nowadays, I also use the TEV.

I've read the bible 5 times in my life. Each took about 3 years. And I can tell you that if your heart is right with God, it doesn't matter which version you read.

Answer 9

Sad but true. I think it has to do with Americans being so insular. We don't think. That is why the image of American tourists yelling english louder in another country will make them understand.

They do believe the prophets and Jesus all spoke with "thees and thous" and can't see any different. That is what the oldest people they knew used, grandparents even great-grandparents.

There are over 40 translations now probably more Ican think of. Each one has it's good points. A comparison of several will help get the proper sense of what the original writers were trying to get across.

Answer 10

Maybe it goes back to the days that the US was a British colony and people still honor anything that was authorized by the king of England. The fact is that while the KJ translation was a great accomplishment in its time it is now becomming more and more irrevalent as a English translation. There is the difficulty of understanding of the Elizabethan English and the translation errors it contains that makes its use a stumbling block for many, especially young people. But, there will always be people who use the translation that they are used to and has become a tradition for them to use.

In Christ
Fr. Joseph