why kjv only and not other versions?

Question

just now i read about this issue from a website.
why kjv only and not other versions?

any and all sort suggestions are welcome.

i really expect atleast 50 answers on this issue.

my cordial thanks

Answer 1

From a historical standpoint: For many years, the KJV was the only widely used version by Protestants. As a child in the 1960s and 70s, it was simply THE Bible.

Beginning in the 1970s (at least this is when I became aware of it) there was an expansion of the versions/translations available that has continued to this day.

The only serious rival that I was aware of prior to the 1970s was the Revised Standard Version and its predecessor the Revised Version. Both of these stirred up a lot of controversy in their day. (Today I was reading an 1880 Indiana newspaper from Jeffersonville. And it had a multi-part article about the Bible revision.)

One reason there was controversy was simply change--The Revised Version was an unfamiliar challenge to the beloved KJV.

A more serious reason, and one that enters into discussions of new translations to this day, is that the revisers were beginning to question the received version of the text of the original Hebrew and Greek.

In Hebrew, the Massoretic Text was being supplemented with new discoveries of Hebrew manuscripts and a new respect for the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible called the Septuagint. The so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament was being supplemented by newly discovered Greek manuscripts.

This, along with new understanding about Hebrew and Greek grammar and lexicon, resulted in unfamiliar translations that in some cases challenged some theological positions based on the KJV's English.

Personally, I think the KJV is an excellent translation---for its day.

There is a lot of paranoia about the motives of modern translators and textual scholars. In my opinion, the vast majority of textual scholars are honestly trying to recover the original text of the documents that make up the Bible. And the vast majority of translators are honestly trying to make the Bible speek to the English language reader.

Answer 2

A lot of Americans think the King James Version was handed down by God. They are mistaken. It's not even the first English translation, much less the best one. (Americans tend to think anything they do or prefer is the BEST, regardless of what else is going on in the world.)

I’d avoid the King James Version . . . unless you’re used to reading Middle English like Shakespeare. Also, a lot has been learned since 1611, (the Dead Sea Scrolls found in 1948, for example) and the KJ version has major translation problems. Even the New Revised King James Version is pretty poor.

There's an International Version and the New Living Version, and they aren't much better.

I’d avoid The Living Bible and The Message, which are both so poorly translated they loose all the nuances and ambiguity.

Of course the Bible isn’t THE WORD OF GOD . . . it’s translated into a language we can understand.

But the Bible is God’s Word . . . meaning the message, not the medium or the method, is what God tries to tell us.

The Bible is a collection of 66 different books, some history, some poetry, some songs, some letters, as well as the rules of an ancient religion . . . written over the span of thousands of years. The Bible is an Anthology, not a single book.

People tend to focus on the words in the Bible, and miss the message behind the story. The words of Genesis 1, for example, are poetry, the message is that God is powerful, neither of which is a history lesson.

The Bible is a fantastic collection of stories written by, about, and for the followers of the God of Abraham, and the followers of Christ.

Each translation allows new knowledge and information - archeological discoveries for example, to help to spread new light on old translations and interpretations.

The people translating the Bible in 2005 knew a lot more than the people who translated the Bible in 1610, for example.

I use the NRSV, published last year. But I also like looking up OT references in a good Jewish translation of the Tanakh - the "Jewish Bible.”

Godspeed.

Answer 3

Im a fan of NIV personally. To me it reads better in a modern language. Also when the KJV was originally written they did not have some of the oldest manuscripts such as the Dead Sea scrolls and others that have been unearthed since. It didn't change much but I think the newer versions have had much more research put into them because of the availability of the material now.

Answer 4

"Variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the scriptures." - the translators of the King James Version to the readers

Note the following heresies of "KJV-Onlyism," as set forth by most members of this cultic philosophy:

(1) Only ONE English translation ["A.V. 1611"] is the preserved Word of God. BUT — the KJV edition being used today is actually the 6th revision since 1611 !
This bias is contrary to the views of the King James Translators themselves and ALL professing Christian denominations, including all Baptist Confessions of Faith, and is plainly a modern innovation — except, of course, for old-line Roman Catholicism which taught that the Latin Vulgate was the "one-and-only" Bible. Thus, this "one-&-only" theory is Romanism under another garb — so-called "Bible-believing" (KJV-Only) churches, papers and preachers.

(2) No one has any "right" to do any further study of the Hebrew and Greek Manuscripts and to make any new translations, not even any "improvements."
We are told that "God closed the book" on any more translation from Hebrew and Greek into English as of 1611. Any further translation since 1611 is "of the Devil." [Peter Ruckman] Such an idea is even contrary to what the KJV Translators themselves stated in their "Translators to the Readers" preface printed in the older KJV editions, not to mention the fact that there is no "authority" for such an idea other than the "KJV-Onlyite" cultists themselves — kinkos like "Possel" Peter Ruckman who claims he "corrected 1600 years of scholarship" and "restored the missing link" of "Final Authority." The "final authority" for such quackery is "quack" Ruckman and his fellow "quackers."

http://www.kjvonly.org/
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/kjv.html

Answer 5

I answered your question before and said that I prefer the KJV. I'm an atheist, so my reasons were obviously not religious. I posted my reasons for preferring the KJV before, so I won't repeat myself. However, I will say that if you don't want to read the KJV, don't do it. Read the version that interests you and/ or fits you best.

Answer 6

I like every version.

Answer 7

I don't know, but the poor translations sure make my arguments easier.

Answer 8

Because many christians don't like or can't except change...