Why do people only attack King James Bible believers?

Question

Believing the KJV is NOT a cult but believers in Christ who believe that the King James Version of the bible is superior in accuracy to copyrighted paraphrases currently being marketed. Most have been raised to memorize the beautiful Elizabethan language and do not want to waste time relearning the now familiar bible verses. Others have studied long and hard about how different versions were translated and want to have an accurate translation of the Word of God.
We do not worship the bible. The bible is not kissed, bowed to or prayed to. The scriptures are the words of the God we love.
We reject all other bibles because there can only be ONE word of God. While many churches have forsaken reading the bible out loud because of the different wording of different versions, KJVO churches often read the bible together. This is only possible if you share the same book. Why do some criticise the KJV and no ohter version? This just cements in my mind that the KJV is the right bible for me

Answer 1

The truth is always attacked.

The KJV is a 100% accurate Bible.

Answer 2

There can be only one word of God and that would be written in the original Hebrew and Greek. Everything else is just a translation. Until you take it on yourself to learn Hebrew and
Greek you aren't even getting the original words. I often read the KJV but it is not the only version that I read from. Some of the meaning of the words used in the KJV have changed since 1611. That is why at least 1/4 of the sermon is devoted to what the KJV is really saying. I agree that some of the Bibles that have been put out lately have an agenda other than being faithful to the original language, but most of the mainstream Bibles in use today do not meet that standard. And what about people who speak Korean? Should they learn English just to learn to read the KJV. So the Korean Bible is not 1611 English. Do you think that that matters to God and Jesus? KJV only people often believe that the only way a person can be saved is by believing the KJV is the only version that a Christian can be believed in. And this is hogwash. What about all of the Christians in England before 1611?

The bottom line is that language usage changes over time and the new translations are just doing their best to keep up with the changes. Oh, and by the way I know a little Hebrew and know that there were several different versions of the Hebrew Bible in different regions of the world. There was the Alleppo Codex and the Lenningrad Codex. Alleppo was considered best but the muslims burned part of it after Isreal became a nation. So even in the ancient world there were differences in the good book. I guarantee that God is not as concerned about this issue as you are.

Answer 3

I do believe the KJV to be accurate. I'd don't think people are specifically attacking KJV believers, If they are then I'd say they're wrong. The KJV has been around for along time, there's nothing wrong with believing the KJV. I think with so many new versions coming out people want to argue their accuacy. To help the argument people want to argue against the KJ version. With how widely accepted and used the KJV is it's a good basline for aurguments.

Allot of people resist change, and since the new versions sometimes give a different outlook on the stories they've learned as a child they want to believe that these new versions are wrong. Not that they could be wrong in their understanding of the bible.

Translating the bible has been done with the utmost care to be as accurate as humanly possible. As new information is found(IE the dead sea scrolls) Translations are adjusted to incorporate the new information. The KJV was a very controlled version of the bible and a word for word translation, therefor in allot of ways it doesn't take into account the context of the words used. allot of newer translations try to translate context as well as words.

I've been studying the contexts of certain parts of the bible and although I find that my understanding is very limited, I think the overall point in the bible is preserved. I'd recommend reading and studying more then one translation for that will give you a better understanding of the story.

Bible translation isn't to give a new word of God, and I think you made a good point 'We do not worship the bible. The bible is not kissed, bowed to or prayed to. The scriptures are the words of the God we love.' The point of studying the bible is to better understand the bible, Improving the translation for todays English is one way to improve your own understanding of the bible.

Answer 4

The attack that you refer to is a resistance to the concept that the KJV is a better, more accurate translation of the word of God. However the word of God was written in Hebrew in the Old Testament except for 6 chapters written in Aramaic, and written in Greek in the New Testament in its entirety.

I have known people that have read the King James Version and then been exposed to another more modern version and have responded with 'Now I get what that passage was all about, I never understood it in the King James Version.

Jesus did not speak Elizabethan English.

I have a copy of all of them and I do not fault the King James although I find it harder to read then the NKJV that I teach from, or the New Living Translation that I read for personal enjoyment.

Enjoy the KJV, but don't put down the other versions of the Bible. After all, it is about applying the principles in your own life, and believing in the Lord Jesus the Christ, and His Father in heaven.

I am retired, but our current pastor uses only the NASB because it is the most accurate 'word for word' translation, although it is hard to recognize some of the often loved phrases of the KJV.

cvo..... Acts 8:37 was not in the earliest manuscripts, it was added later.

grace2u

Answer 5

You'll notice that most people who don't consider the King James Version to be an accurate translation don't consider any version to be particularly accurate. Which is fair enough since the Bible wasn't written in English and consequently no English translation can match the original meanings (different languages have different words, anyone who thinks a translation of anything is 100% accurate is insane).
So how did you come up with the idea that only those who follow the King James Version are 'attacked'?
Of course if criticism only convinces you that you're right then there's really no point talking to you. You're clearly not at all open to anyone's point of view but your own.

Answer 6

I agree. Although, as a evangilist, I have come to terms with this problem and this is how:
I read the KJV. You read the NIV, NASB, ECV, Message, TNIV, NWT, NKVJ, RV or whatever other acronym I left out. If I am talking to you about the Bible, and you can stay with me and follow along with all the verses, which those Bibles can't...they just leave out verses (23, 24, 25, 27, 28..etc), then I say you get a better Bible. If you can, then more power to you. I don't care what Bible you read, just so long as you get the message God is trying to communicate. You can, however, misinterpret the Bible by reading a different version and finding out that's not what God said. This has been done in certain Bible versions.

Answer 7

As an extremely well-known rule, the extra cutting-ingredient the BIble, the extra effective the scholarship, and the closest to the certainly originals. Of your record (seems plenty like the single in Bible Gateway!) the NIV is possibly between the final. It leans in direction of an essence based translation, somewhat than be conscious for be conscious, yet, it has magnificent scholarship, and, the wording makes it a fairly ordinary examine. The KJV is the single all of us is conscious approximately. on an identical time because it nonetheless sounds super, even 4 hundred years after it replaced into revealed, our language has replaced, and individuals get many incorrect recommendations analyzing it. And, even notably much as good scholarship for it fairly is day, this is loaded with blunders that cutting-ingredient scholarship can certainly coach. If memory serves, the NLT is the single used via Jehovah's Witnesses. It has approximately 6 or 7 ameliorations from all different Bibles, and, on those ameliorations the JW's based plenty of their doctrine. Many propose this is a translations made to in advantageous condition their ideals, no longer any incorrect way around. The Message is a paraphrase, employing language intentionally chosen to be unsettling. this is enormous to improve our scope on an identical time as analyzing different variations, yet, it fairly is no longer a great translation via any potential. The RSV is reported - the NRSV (no longer right here) is an magnificent translation - between the final, whether it fairly is variety of dry to make certain. The others i be attentive to much less approximately.

Answer 8

They attack many others.
There is a problem with believing it's King James ONLY.
It is a position that cannot be defended.
So basically, God only gave the Bible to people after 1611?
And then, only to the English speaking people?
The missionaries that labored as translators to bring the Bible to people, did they waste their time? Should they have instead been teaching Old English to native peoples?

The King James is, I believe the best English translation we have, BUT- it is still only a translation. It certainly does not capture the exact meanings the Greek gives. The original languages were far superior.
So if, as you say there is to be only ONE word of God, why not the Bible in the original Hebrew and Greek?

Answer 9

For myself I prefer a more accurate translation in a language that is easily understood. Nothing froward about that ;) I like the sound of the KJV but it butchers Hebrew Names. I am one of those who believes in Aramaic Primacy vs Koine Greek.

A note for the KJV Only camp... the 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha ;) Also the 1611 KJV was written in Early Modern English which is very different then the English of today.

Answer 10

I am a KJV only bible reader too.

NIV and some other bibles are literally butchered and words and meanings have been dramatically changed.

Good example is the missing verse of Acts 8:37 in the NIV and the other new bibles.

All proof that KJV is the most complete and accurate!

Answer 11

I never attack ANYONE!

I prefer the NIV,m for it's ease of reading.

I claim this verse for continuing to use it, even though I get a lot af "flack" for it:

Isaiah 55:11 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society



11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.


I believe that whenever I use God's Word RIGHTLY, this promise is true.