“King James only” a dangerous sect of false Christians

400-year-old translation still commands a loyal following.

Bible Baptist Church in Mount Prospect in Chicago.

On its 400th anniversary, the King James Version of the Bible is universally recognized as a literary masterpiece that profoundly shaped both modern Christianity and the English language.

But at the Bible Baptist Church in Mount Prospect, it’s accorded a much higher level of reverence.

“Using anything but the King James Version,” said Chris Huff, the church’s pastor, “is like shaving with a banana.”

The northwest suburban church belongs to a loosely defined denomination known as the “King James Only” movement. Members believe the King James Version is not just another translation but the indispensible underpinning of a Christian’s faith.

“When I’m looking for a church, the King James Bible is non-negotiable,” said Sandra Maio, after a Wednesday-evening Bible study class there.

Source: Chicago Tribune

My comment:

One pastored walked into my office with a Bible under his arm. He claimed I was on my way to Hell, because I was using a corrupt version of the Bible.

After an hour or so, the Pastor left my office in anger. I have never seen Him again.

He was from the sect “King James only”.

I asked the Pastor:

Did Jesus speak English?

It became a hard pill to swallow for the young chap. That the King James version of the Bible was not the original scriptures.  That the team of Bible translators in London in 1611. A.D, might have done some few mistakes. And that these mistakes has been corrected in the New King James version.

When I started to expose the faults in this pastors Bible version, He got read faced.  One of the errors was the word “Easter”, that the Londoners had used to replace the Hebrew Word “Passover”.

When the youth leader was told that even the Word “Hell” had replaced the Word “Sheol” on certain verses, and twisted the original message of the Jewish Bible authors, the sectarian pastors could not sit in my cabin anymore.

May God bless Him wherever He might be today, and may Jesus have mercy on His soul.

Written by Ivar

Advertisements

71 thoughts on ““King James only” a dangerous sect of false Christians

    1. Dear Inge.

      Shalom, and thanks for this comment.

      I have 11 Bible versions in my office. I like to cross check disputed matters. My favorite Bible is NIV 1965 edition, even do I know there are errors in this version.

      1. i heard the niv had lots of scary errors, then what is wrong with king james i havent heard of any other bible thats older. tell me what bible contradicts god words so i dont have to use it, we need to figure out now which one is ok to read, there is people out there that dont know jesus and now we are going to confuse them to what bible we should read, like i used too say back in the day and now sometimes ,this is bullshit now we are arguing about what bible we should read, i myself have the king james,and sometimes i use niv cause is my language and thats what i understand better. i stay away from what the mormons and jehova witness read, we need to cut the bullshit and get are shit toghether this is not a joke or something to play with . get it toghether ivar. tell me whats wrong with king james. i read from it and i havent find and error like in the niv, help me out here . now we are left with nothing to read, i hope you dont go to the wrong side ivar, and start taking people with you too, this is the best website i have been to, and so far its been pure,dont ruin what god is doing with this website,the word of god should be first priority , then the news if we focus in the news more than gods word than we are screw,the news are great on this site keep up with it, people need to know the false stuff that is outhere in the world, but god word first. am tired of brothers arguing over stupidity. why dont you spend your time writing an article about which bibles we should be careful of and read, thank you and god bless you and protects your heart and soul.

      2. I really think the NIV is handy for those who speak modern English — if you’re an author and pen in various genres of horror; a KJO is fodder for a Twilight Zone style story in there There are bibles older than the KJO as I write in my book which is my testimony and talks about my career in the industry a year I got ousted on lulu.com. I don’t think there are errors in the NIV because they were very careful in the process of editing this. The New Living Translation was done right here in Illinois; in neighboring Carol Stream, Illinois Bob Beeman did a reading of the KJV on audio to keep people guessing because you’d never guess he’s read that translation as he’s down to earth and very candid. When did my copyright page on the namesake anthology I used The Message translation for my project. When I wrote my testimony out I used The NIV, CEV, The Voice and The Message then paraphrased the NIV and CEV to add some very blunt traits. I had been photographed with a Gideon’s NKJV when I was 21 years old from what I brought back when I was 18 — I write with the archaic voice as I learned how to do this when I was Gnostic.

      3. So are you saying that the KJV is not reliable? Because it sounds like you are attacking the bible. You are probably not but when believers are spending time attacking other bibles I find that disturbing. I think I have moved on past bible translations. I love the kjv personally. But I also enjoy reading other bible translations like the Amplified bible. What are some words of wisdom to avoid these movements? Thanks brother!

      4. Dear Cameron McElroy

        Shalom, and love in Jesus.

        Do I attack the Bibel?

        Absolutely not. I have 11 Bible translations my self. I just got anoid when I encountered a pastor from the cult called “King James version only”. A man who claimed that people who do not read KJV are on their way to hell.

        I have pointed out a copule of errors in the KJV, which have been corrected in NKJV. (New King James version)

    2. The kjv Romans 6:22 calls us servants of Christ while nkjv calls us slaves of Christ. Slaves are not free and do not choose to serve Jesus. So very wrong. It is also in Corinthians where we are called slaves. The nkjv also took God’s name Jehovah out . Why? They take th word he’ll out like 22 times. What is so hard about the word hell. They also just use other Bible version verses in place of the Kjv. They nkjv use a sign they call the trinity that is a pagan sign used in witchcraft.

      1. The sign that the nkjv used for the trinity IS NOW GONE!!!! They do not use that symbol anymore!! So the nkjv is OK to use!!

    3. Colossians 1:14 King James Version (KJV)
      14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

      Colossians 1:14 New International Version (NIV)
      14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

      Colossians 1:14 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

      THROUGH HIS BLOOD

      1. HI GREAT VERSES:)GOD CANNOT LIE BUT EVERY MAN A LIAR. GOD IS NOT CONFUSED ABOUT HIS WORD. THE KING JAMES IS THE ONLY TRUE WORD OF GOD. IT DOESNT MEAN YOU WILL GO TO HELL. WHAT SPIRIT IS IN THE FALSE BIBLES, NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT, HOWEVER GOD CAN USE ANY FALSE VERSION AS HE USED A DONKEY TO REBUKE BALIM THE PROPHET. PEOPLE WAKE UP AND BURN THOSE FALSE BIBLES. JESUS LOVES YOU ALL.

    4. I havent got “read faced” in a while LOL, whoever wrote this article might should have got hos face in reading the bible before being eager to “correct” it. KJV got it right with easter you need to read the whole Bible and seek God. Feast of unleavened AFTER passover so was Herod going to hold Peter a year then kill him? Or did KJB get it right in saying easter, reffering to the pagan holiday?
      Leviticus 23:5-6
      In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord’s passover. [6] And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord : seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
      Numbers 28:16-17
      And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord . [17] And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
      Acts 12:3-5 KJV
      And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) [4] And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. [5] Peter therefore was kept in prison: but prayer was made without ceasing of the church unto God for him.

      1. You’re absolutely correct about that. This guy is talking about errors in the Bible, but can’t even correct his own errors in his writings. I’m not one to argue with fellow believers about the Word, however this is one thing I must take a stance on. The KJV is the Word of God, and the other translations are watered down commentaries. If you can’t read through the KJV as quickly as other versions, I believe that to be a helpful thing. It makes you slow down, and STUDY the Word, which we are called to do. There is no denomination that I’m aware of called KJVO. Some Churches identify with wanting to use the KJV only, but most of them are Baptist, or Independent Fundamental Baptist. Another huge mistake in your reporting. Go do some homework, and pray that the Holy Spirit will give you understanding of the ONLY authorized translation, the KJV. I guess I’ll go back to my cult now. Way to attack fellow believers, and men of God. 11 versions huh? No wonder you can’t get it right!

  1. The NIV just came out with a new “gender-neutral” version this week and apparently will stop printing the older version. If women can’t figure out they are included in the plan of salvation without needing it spelled out with a special bible they need to get over it. Stop being oversensitive ladies.
    Sue

  2. Veldig viktig det du tar opp! Velsigne deg for det!Jeg var Gammel Pinsevenn og så begynnelsen av dette.Vi trodde dette var begynnelsen på en fornyelse/vekkelse i 70 åra i Norge!Hvor feil vi tok.
    En teori jeg har:Grunnlaget fra Azusa Street i 1906 i Los Angeles med “Tungetale” som “Tegn” på at du var døpt i Den Hellige Ånd må ha vært feil!
    De bare hvordan dette ble ingangs billetten for Den Katolske Kirke? De er like delaktige i dette i dag.Også New Age folk kommer til! Ser ut som det “Samler alle”! Dette er en tankevekker?
    Tenkte vi på:Kornelius sitt Hus? Hvordan kan vi nekte dem “Vannet” (Døpes til Menigheten)? Når Gud har “Gitt dem” Den Hellige Ånd!? Ja,”De taler jo i -Andre Tunger”? Her tror jeg vi sov i klassen! Nå betaler vi prisen.På tide å rydde opp!?

  3. NIV er den je er mest skeptisk til! Så i et foredrag av en tidligere Katolikk og Evulosjonist.Han sammenlignet den med en til og KJV (NKJV er vist ikke like bra) Jeg har selv klaget til Bibelselskapet i Norge 2 ganger.Først på den Grusomme 78 Oversettelsen! (I dag kalt 78/85) Så lang tid tok det å selge den gamle med 350 feil! Gunnar stålsett var oversettelsessekretær da! Nå er det den nye som kommer i år fra Bibelselskapet.no Der valgte de å oversette Profesien om Jesu JomfruFødsel med : “En ung Kvinne skal bli med barn”..men hvem gjorde ikke det i Mittøsten? De forsvarte det med at i Ny Testamentet var det oversatt med Jomfru! Det hjelper IKKE etter min mening.Neste gang sier de bare at sitatet fra profeten IKKE inneholder det! Det er slik NIV har gjort etter denne DVD en og.Noen vers er urelatt.Noen er halvert od så andre hvor meningen er forandret! Det går på Jesu Gudommelige Natur FRA Faderen:”Unnfanget Ved Den Hellige Ånd”! De vrir det (RKK)(RCC) til at han er “Hellig fordi maria var født Hellig! Katolsk & Islamsk lære faktisk! Skal finne linken.Ellers har jeg alle Bibelversene fra testen her!RSV-KJV-NIV:
    http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/127/214c-100K/

  4. Han siterer fra Niv ofte men det tror jeg er for å appellere til Katolikkene!Tanken rundt at KJV er bedre er at det er mye mere kopier i omløp.Tolkes som at det er den folk vil ha.(Der Den bibelen er oversatt fra)Niv bruker Den Katolske Kirke og Argumentasjonen er at den er eldre! Dvs Noe er eldre en god del.Også Alexsandria versjonen men det ser ut som den bare har vært skult og er det samme som Rom utgaven! Tar med noen få eks. ti sammenligning:Matt.17,21. 18,11. 23,14. Apg.9,5-6. 24,6-8. Gal.3,1. 3,17. Ef.3,14 og 1.Tim.3,16.God lesning!

  5. Etter min mening trenger vi en totalt uavhengig! Den må være tro mot Grunnteksten og De Hebraiske henvisningene og Navn! Her ligger MYE skult Visdom! På Norsk er etter min mening 1988 Bibelen Den hellige skrift mest tro mot Grunn txt! Bruker mye E-Sword. Ord for ord!Viser iallefall de Hebraiske røtter!Guds fred og God natt Ivar!

  6. Good day Ivar,
    Regarding your comment concerning the word Easter being used in Acts 12:4. Easter was translated from the Greek word pascha, which occurs in the NT 29 times. Twenty eight of these times it was translated as Passover, only in Acts 12:4 was the word Easter used in the AV1611. Jewish Passover occurs once a year in the month of Abib on the 14th day of the month. The following 7 days are the days of unleavened bread. See the following passages for confirmation of the above: Exodus 12:13-18; Numbers 28:16-18; Deuteronomy 16:1-8; Ezra 6:19,22. The key to understanding the use of the word East in Acts 12:4 is in the previous verse. Acts 12:3 “And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)” The Passover always proceeded the days of unleavened bread, therefore the use of the word Easter in Acts 12:4 indicates a day (celebration) entirely different from that of the Jewish Passover, since Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread. Herod was a Roman pagan and I would venture to say that Easter was used in referrence to a “holiday” celebrated by Romans at that time which would have happened not long after the days of unleavened bread.

  7. Obviously you do not even know the first thing about the Bible when you spout error as grave as this mr.Fjeld.

    Study the subject come back after that, until then just be silent on the Bible issue, the god you serve is so confused that he in those 11 versions you have contradict himself with his versiosn.
    The funnies thing about it all is that these modern “Bibles” you use are all based on ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, that cracks me up, you’re totally against the Roman Catholic yet you use the Bibles that are based on the Roman Catholic tampered manuscripts, and you think you have a Bible?
    Talk about deception.

    If you had studied the subject you would have seen how faulty your article is, but instead you talked before you had studied the matter, shame and folly to you.

    Here’s for you to start studying the subject:
    http://jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1611_authorized_king_james.htm .

  8. Ansvaret,

    How can you come on this site and bad mouth a brother? Take the plank out of your own eye first. I have gone to your site before and you have discouraged me from visiting again.

    1. The Bibles you guys use are all based on ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, that cracks me up, you’re totally against the Roman Catholic yet you use the Bibles that are based on the Roman Catholic tampered manuscripts, and you think you have a Bible? And who put in the verses and chapters??? They put in by Catholic scripture scholars!!! Ansvaret is right……….you guys never research your information or the Christian history!!

      The Catholic version of the Bible contains all of the books found in the KJV plus 14 books and some extra chapters of Ruth that Protestants have removed from the Canon. All of these books are in the Old Testament and were originally included in the King James translation. The Roman Catholic Lectionary (the scripture that is read in all Catholic Churches on a given day is the same and the Lectionary is a book that has it organized in the proper reading order) uses the New American Bible translation in America. The actual official Bible of the Church is the Biblia Sacra Vulgata as translated into Latin by St. Jerome about a thousand years ago. In America the second choice of most Catholics for the English translation is the New Jerusalem Bible.

      1. The King James Bible is actually the WORST translation because it comes from the Textus Receptus ,which ain’t as old as the Manuscripts found in Alexandria Egypt. And yes the manuscripts are codex sinaticus and codex vaticanus. Catholics are Christians and baptists should really stop talking bad about them. The King James Bible is not a bad translation, it’s just out of date and nobody speaks Elizabethan English anymore. it’s still reliable to use as a main bible anyway. The best bible translation is the NASB a real serious translation in English. 2nd would be the ESV and the third NIV. These 3 English translations are better than the King James Version. The King James Bible is harder to understand for others but for some it’s not hard to read at all with a good IQ.

  9. Oh please already, your all just nutts sometimes!! God’s Word transends the error of men so what on earth is everyone all worked up about?!! You either believe God is soveriegn and will preserve his Word or you dont. Cant say you believe that when at the same time your worked up about different bible versions. It’s God’s Spirit that illuminates the minds of His children, not the intellect of our own minds. NIV NASB ESV or King James,,,God’s perfectly able to convey what he will.

  10. But everyone knows that God only hears prayers in the piety of thee’s, thine, thy etc

    anything else is evil…..

    I’ve asked many, and gotten angry responses, why they speak English to me and then get all sanctimonious in their prayers. God knows your heart. Maybe they would actually get answers if they REALLY prayed a daddy prayer to the father….

  11. The KJVO myth is phony as a $3 bill. It’s derived from a CULT OFFICIAL’S book, that book being “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated” (1930) by Dr. Ben Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official.
    In 1955, one “J. J. Ray” published”God Wrote Only One Bible” in which he heavily plagiarized from Dr. W’s book, Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller published”Which Bible?” in which he copied heavily from both W and Ray, while carefully concealing W’s CULT AFFILIATION. These boox jumpstarted the KJVO myth!
    Plus, there’s not one quark of SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT, for KJVO, proving it’s NOT FROM GOD.
    KJVO’s cultic, dishonest, man-made origin, and its lack of Scriptural support prove it’s from Satan, not GOD.

  12. The KJVO myth is phony as a $3 bill, totally MAN-MADE, with NO Scriptural support. Here’s its origin:

    n 1930, a 7th Day Adventist official, Dr. Benjamin Wilkinson(1872-1968), published a book he named Our Authorized Bible Vindicated in response to a squabble within the SDA cult. This book is a collection of snippets in favor of the KJV of God’s holy word, and is full of goofs, such as the “Psalm 12:6-7 thingie”. Apparently, Wilkinson didn’t bother to check 0ut the VERACITY of any of the info he gathered. And he copied PARTS of Dean John Burgon’s writings, omitting anything that was critical of the Textus Receptus.

    He obtained a Scottish copyright for this book, which he apparently allowed to lapse many years ago, as interest in his book was mostly limited to the SDA cult, and for only a short time.

    There’s no doubt that SDA is a pseudo/quasi-Christian cult, and that Dr. W was a full-fledged SDA official, teacher, and preacher, who often argued for the inerrancy of Ellen Gould White’s writings. Several SDA buildings and libraries are named after him.

    In 1955, someone named J. J. Ray of Eugene, OR discovered that book, and wrote his/her own book, God Wrote Only One Bible. Ray copied much of Dr. W’s book verbatim in GWOOB without acknowledging him whatsoever, copying many of the goofs in Dr. W’s book.. Whether Ray obtained Dr. W’s permission to use his book, or simply plagiarized it is unknown. But at any rate, Ray used the power of modern media to publicize his/her book, thus starting the idea of KJVO among some of the general public.

    Now, try Googling “J. J. Ray” in the Eugene, OR. area. The only one I’ve found whose lifetime fit the 1955 timeline was a used-car salesman, now deceased, who apparently never published a book. Ray’s company, Eye-Opener Publishers, only published that one book. Apparently, “J. J. Ray is a pseudonym. Now, why would any REAL MAN OF GOD use a pseudonym? Apparently, “Ray” was concerned that Dr. W might speak out about his plagiarism.

    Then, in 1970, Dr. D. O. Fuller, a Baptist pastor, published Which Bible?(3rd revision, 1972), a book which copied much from both Ray and Wilkinson, including many of the original goofs. Like W and Ray before him, he didn’t bother to check out the VERACITY of the material he published. And, while he at least acknowledged W, he made absolutely NO mention of W’s CULT AFFILIATION. It was this book which brought the public’s attention, especially in Baptist circles, to the other two boox, and to KJVO in general. Soon, a whole genre was developed of KJVO boox, all of which drew a large portion of their material from those first three boox.

    Now, I have not forgotten Dr. Peter S. Ruckman’s 1964 works, Manuscript Evidence and Bible Babel. These goof-filled worx was derived largely from Wilkinson’s and Ray’s books, repeating many of their goofs, such as the “Psalm 12:6-7 thingie”. and copying an erroneous chart from Ray’s book. Ruckman referred to the title of Ray’s book as “God Only Wrote One Book”, which hints at the inaccuracy of Ruckman’s work. However, Ruckman’s works was not among the “foundation stones” of the KJVO myth, as were Ray’s and Fuller’s boox, both derived from Wilkinson’s book.

    Virtually every current KJVO author, from Riplinger to Bynum to Melton to Grady to whomever, uses material from those first three boox in their own work, often re-worded, but still the same garbage in a different dumpster. About the only newer material in any of these boox is their criticism of newer Bible versions as they came out. We see a pattern of DISHONESTY in KJVO authorship, as many of its authors copy from each other without any acknowledgement, all of them drawing from a KNOWN CULT OFFICIAL’S book! HOW CAN ANY CHRISTIAN, SEEING ALL THIS DISHONESTY AND ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL OR JUSTIFY IT, BELIEVE KJVO IS FROM GOD?

    These facts are easily verified, either on the Internet or in most public libraries. Unlike KJVOs, we Freedom Readers deal in VARIFIABLE FACT, not fishing stories, opinion, and guesswork. All the boox I mentioned are available online legally, or are for sale at various sites of religious book stores.

    I challenge any KJVO to show us any book written before 1930 that is largely about KJVO, and which can be traced to having started the KJVO doctrine.

    1. It’s true that a lot of these authors are not credible. But the problem arises when you have 3 different Bibles that all say something different. So which one is right? The one that almost all English speaking Christians used for 400 years, or the ones taken from modern archaeological discoveries that disagree with the one that’s been around for 400 years? Has God preserved his word or was it buried in a garbage can in a monastery, or in Alexandria?

      There is a glaring difference between all modern Bibles and the KJV. I used the NIV and NKJV for years. The difference is not in the thees and thous, though that does help differentiate between second person singular and plural. The difference is the philosophy and manuscripts. The modern manuscript discoveries used to edit the Bible are overwhelmingly Catholic influenced. Find Acts 8:37 in your Bible if you can, which says you have to believe with all your heart before you get baptized. See if Mary is the only one that errantly called Joseph Jesus’ father in Luke 2:48, or if the author of the Bible also calls Joseph Jesus’ father in Luke 2:43. Find 1 John 5:7, the strongest verse on the trinity, and see if it has been altered.

      The philosophy that drives the modern Bibles is that the word of God was only inspired in the “original autographs”. Thus, we don’t really know what the Bible says, as the original autographs are long gone. So man then becomes the judge and jury of what’s right. The KJV went with the majority of manuscripts available, thinking the anomalies were a result of the errors of transcription. The new Bibles place all their weight on the oldest manuscripts, thinking they are closer to the originals. The problem there is the Bible says there were people corrupting Gods word in Paul’s day. So how does one know if the older manuscript is corrupt or not?

      Anyway, you can call us a cult or whatever. I don’t follow any man but Jesus. I’m confident the KJV is the word of God. I’ve got people saved by preaching verses out of it. And salvation is crystal clear in the KJV, there is no muddy water of works salvation, it’s “believe on The Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved”. I challenge any person using a modern Bible to go get someone saved using it. Is it a sharp two edged sword? The Bible is not just something you sit and read, it’s the sword of the Spirit. Can you fight spiritual battles for the souls of men with your Bible?

      1. So far the most intelligent post I’ve read. I believe God is perfectly capable of preserving his word. The modern perversions change important doctrine like the deity of Christ, virgin birth, and salvation by grace through faith.

      2. Historically the KJV was taken mainly from the discredited Bishops Bible and was written by around 40 people also using some Greek, but not much as King James instructed them to leave the Bible as much near too the Bishops Bible as possible.
        Going back even further in the Old Testaments there no mention of hell until man got hold of the new testament.

    2. So, you are saying the KJV issue started with Wilkinson? If such is the case, then you are way off base and way off the timeline. I have quotes and works from before that time which are KJV Only. These people were KJV Only before the SDA cult ever begin. Many of them were Lutherans or Anglicans. So, where did they get the doctrine from if the SDA cult was not in existence?

  13. Did Jesus speak English? Yes, he’s God he speaks all languages. Do you pray in Aramaic or think he needs a translator? It’s not the language, it’s the manuscripts and philosophy. ALL modern Bible versions use Catholic manuscripts, and remove verses from the Bible. Catholicism is false Christianity. And all people that use modern Bibles believe it’s just a translation. Therefore, it has no real authority unless some pastor gets up and speaks in an unknown tongue (Hebrew or Greek), in violation of the Bible, and then spoon feeds his congregation. Sound familiar? What other church has historically preached in Latin and then told people what the Bible “really means”. KJV only isn’t dangerous, we believe that God preserved his word in English and that the scriptures are Gods actual words, every jot and tittle. So when some false teacher gets up and teaches works salvation or some other false doctrine, all I have to do is look at my own Bible and know they’re wrong. I don’t have to wonder if it was translated right and ask some Protestant priest what the Bible says. Also, KJV only Christians are the only ones I’ve ever seen go out and preach to the lost instead of trying to entice people to church. That’s why churches are filled with lost people today.

    1. Small problem with this assertion of the KJV being the “best” English version, or the only accurate one. It was NOT the first translation into English of the Bible, as it had already done in 1382 by John Wycliffe from the Latin Vulgate version. So that’s over 200 years before the KJV in 1611. The main reason why I, and many other Christians do not use the KJV is because it is written in a version of English that is no longer in use. I should know, as I am English myself. As such it is very difficult to understand. Had the same translators been around today, I’m pretty sure that they would be using modern English, not 400 year old English that only the Shakespeare company still use.

      1. Wait, did you say the English used is no longer in use today? Really? Okay, can you please explain where you get that idea? But before you respond I would like to offer my credentials as a major for my M.A. in English with Specialization in Rhetoric. I think I would like to hear your attempt to show the English used in the KJV is no longer in use.

        While I could allow you a few small examples just for the sake of leeway, you would not get too far. Sure, you could argue the endings on some words are outdated. You might ably argue the usage of thee, thine, thy and ye as well. You could also perhaps put forth a small handful of terms used as being somewhat outdated in our present society.But you will end up with over 90% of the KJV being relevant to society today.

        You also claim it is hard to understand. Why is that? I have used it to teach men who cannot read how to read in order to pass G.E.D.’s. It also uses a vocabulary of just around 6,000 words. Many passages use single-syllable words almost in entirety. Arguments like yours only serve to make yourself look foolish, and I say that with sincerity as a teacher. Why would you admit you could not read a work with a vocabulary that small?

        By the way, the Vulgate was not the first attempt at a translation into the English either. So, that point is just fodder and invalid. Why even mention the work? When you look at the texts used through the translation process you find the KJV retains roughly 76% of the OT and 84% of the NT which Wycliffe translated. The other translations which fall in the same family line show similar faithfulness in their representation of the text.

        Before I go, I think I will mention one thing. You could be partially correct on the idea that the KJV English is no longer in use. I know it may seem to contradict what I already said about the English in use and the English of the KJV, but what I am about to say will clarify that it does not.

        The KJV English was not even spoken in the days when the KJV was translated. It was a high church version of English. It was intended to be English, but a branch of English meant to be used in church so that the people would understand the work they dealt with was separate from vulgar English. Nobody was using thee, thou, thine, and ye in the 1600’s unless they were writing plays (Hint: Shakespeare!). Everyone else spoke the vulgar mother tongue which is not much different from what we speak today, other than all the slang.

        Just because you are English or speak English does not make you an expert able to critique the language or texts produced therein. And, just in the off chance I might be called into question as regards my credentials, I am more than able to present witnesses of far more credentialed backgrounds than myself to attest to that which I state. I can present the testimonies of linguists, scholars, professors, and teachers of various fields and disciplines, both Christians and non-religious, who can attest to the truth of what I have stated regarding the KJV.

        Please be sure whereof you speak next time before you so do. The Lord says for a man to speak before he hears the sum of the whole matter is a fool. A man who speaks without knowledge is also a fool. Sometimes men such as myself are called of God to study these things, and sometimes we see posts such as yours.

      2. A few times it is a bit hard to under stand kjv. But even I, a norwegian, understand it. It has been som much more giving to read, than newer translations. There is a norwegian translation of the english KJV. I really love it. And the great information provided by Ian, justifies this norwegian KJV, which has really been worked hard on to be true to the original KJV. As far as i have seen, they have succeeded. But of course I check things with the original. The NIV is truly from the devil. It has removed more than 64000 words from the Bible! Look at examples and interesting info here; remnantofgod.org/B-BIBLES.HTM. Another exampel is Mark.1:41where Jesus has compassion for a man in KJV, while he got indignant in the NIV! I love the KJV, although I have a background from the pentecostal and carismatic movements, where many people like the NIV better.

      3. Thanks for the insult Charles. If you’d read my first comment you’d know that I live in England so 4th grade English doesn’t mean much to me. I have the KJV, the AISV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, the ERV and the MSG versions of the Bible. So saying I’m stupid is not very Christian of you and is also completely false. God said that he preserves his word, God did not say that the KJV is the best English version. That is merely an opinion. My opinion is that the KJV is not the best English translation of the Bible and that’s because I’ve read a lot of English translations that I prefer over the KJV.

      4. I don’t find it hard to understand at all, also the whole point of the KJV was to translate OT from Hebrew texts and NT from Greek texts accurately using the best translators and scholars superior to any today. no latin translation here.

  14. Of course the KJVO “sect” will argue that it’s not about the language, it’s about the accuracy. But the accuracy matters little if I cannot read it! Using that logic I might as well study Latin or Greek, that way I can read a translation that predates any English translation.

    1. The language is important. Why would we say it is not. However, any scholar worth his weight will tell you the KJV preserves a pure English terminology as opposed to the mongrelized and bastardized modern terminology. Where do we draw the line? Must we meet the requirements of each person as an individual in order to provide a proper translation? What happened to the idea that people should have a desire to learn? Did you know that the vocabulary of the KJV could be known by a child by fifth grade. So, what hinders you other than being too lazy to look up a new word and learn it? I mean, I did not grow up using the KJV. I was not always an advocate thereof. It was not until I studied the issues in-depth for myself when I saw the truth was far more than these petty thoughts raised by you or the author of the blog.

      The heart of the issue is language and communication, not our understanding. We cannot understand without the Spirit. And, in some instances in the scriptures we see that the Lord sends men into our lives to help us understand what the scriptures mean. Following your idea of what is required is why we have over 200 different English versions of the NT. No other language has this phenomenon. No other religious sect faces this kind of challenge with the book they hold to be their mainstay of faith. Why is this if any translation will work, or if many translations are equal? I am just going to close with the statement that the majority of English scholars have always recognized the superiority of the KJV through history, and that includes the 20th Century; the 21st Century is just beginning, so we will have to keep looking to see if they alter their stand.

    1. I agree Phil that it is a bit harsh to call KJVO “a dangerous sect of false Christians”, but I think that what the KJVO are telling their fellow Christians who choose not to read the KJV is also not right. The KJV was the right version for it’s time, but the insistence on using it in the 21st century is one of the reasons that church attendance is falling in the UK, because no-one can understand it. I have tried to read it many times, but it is a language not used anymore so why must I read an out of date translation?

      1. Have you asked God to enlighten you as you read His Word? Have you asked Him to clarify things you do not understand? If you believe He is all-knowing and Creator of all things, and serve Him as your heavenly Father, then you are putting limits on Him, if you do not ask Him to reveal His Word as He intended it.

    2. Hi – I’m new here, but not new to the controversy over KJVO v.s. all the other Bible versions in print. I have seen so much very nasty, sarcastic Bible verse wars where ad hominim attacks are vicious and standard. I thought a decent person conversing without all the nasty sarcasm would be warmly accepted. NOT!! Even though I was decent and loving to them, I was treated like a raw steak dripping blood all over a pack of starving wild dogs. I did not have a Bible verse war. I just took John 15:12, nailed it into the ground and stood on it.

      I see this behavior on both sides of the fence. However, I refuse to sink so low as a Christian. I could mention names in this reply, but am trying to stay away from name calling. I will say that I was involved in a local ministry that was also a TV ministry. This was a cult. It was kept in line by fear – fear of not getting to heaven if I didn’t stay loyal to that church and ministry. You do not need to have a gated and locked compound to bind up people and lock – keeping them from leaving. This is true of the KJVO phenomenon as well. After I left that other church, I went to the library in my town. I looked at several books about cults, but could not pick up any book. I was that terrified that I had lost my salvation. It took me 6 months before I could take out a solid book about cults. That church answered yes to every single danger sign indicating a cult.

      I see many of the same cult signs with the KJVO. I think it is a loose-knit cult. As with a cult ministry in my town, you don’t have to lock people behind fences and gates if you do firmly scare the willies out of them for even questioning the KJVO stand. As a Christian we know we must not tamper with the Bible, making it say things that are not there. Yet in many of the books I read that were KJVO, every single page had either 1 mistake on EVERY PAGE, or a blatant lie, or both, or more. Splicing and dicing Bible verses was a favorite way to create new KJVO doctrine. One of the ones that is really crazy is this one: because the NIV editors used the original Hebrew in Isaiah 14:12 and the name of Lucifer was not used: KJV “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” NIV: “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!” Because the NIV editors removed Lucifer’s name in this verse, Lucifer tricked every body and showed up in Rev 21:16 “I JESUS have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and THE BRIGHT AND MORNING STAR.” If you can believe this twisted thinking, Lucifer was able to insert himself into Rev 14:16 and fool everyone he was Jesus the Bright and Morning Star — and Jesus had been disappeared from the NIV!! I have been told so many times that Lucifer is behind the NIV. And if you read the NIV, you are going straight to hell.

      Keeping this heavy fear mongering stoking their fires of paranoia white hot, most of the KJVO are terrified to even allow a friend to open their NIV in their presence. Lucifer might just jump from the NIV into your KJV.

      What is the real issue here, as I see it, is the destruction of all versions of the Word of God, all Holy Scripture. There are so many people on all sides slinging mud at the other guys, proving their Bible is pure and the other side Bible has so many errors. I have read so many people totally confused because they don’t know what is true, and what is false, what is God and what is Lucifer? Do you see what I mean. Twisting those 2 verses in Isaiah and Revelations does not even follow the grammar rules. It does not even follow Scripture in Hebrews where it declares the blood of Yeshua on the cross is “preeminent over all other sacrifices,” Nothing can sneak in on Jesus! He has declared Himself to be Jesus- who can stand against the power of His Name, and the power of the Blood of Jesus Christ? This is really an outrageous for the lies it portrays about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

      Sorry I went on and on, but this is really very important. People who are part of the KJVO ministry are just as Christian as I am. And I am equal to them in the Salvation Christ bought and wrought for me in 1983. I use the KJV myself for specific understandings of the Greek.

      Why aren’t we loving one another?

  15. “The King James Version (KJV), commonly known as the Authorized Version (AV) or King James Bible (KJB), is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England begun in 1604 and completed in 1611. First printed by the King’s Printer Robert Barker, this was the third translation into English to be approved by the English Church authorities. The first was the Great Bible commissioned in the reign of King Henry VIII (1535), and the second was the Bishops’ Bible of 1568. In January 1604, King James VI and I convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans,a faction within the Church of England.

    James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy.”

    So, this translation was done to make the Church of England look good?

    “By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars. With the development of stereotype printing at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford.”

    So the KJVO are not even using the original translation from 1611? And they’re telling everyone else that their bible is wrong?

    1. Mark, Mark, Mark. Why is it I have to keep correcting your misgivings? I do not know you on a personal level, but I bet I would like you because we could discuss things to the extent you would make me work to prove everything to you. I do like that aspect of what happens here. The issue of the editing in the 1769 edition by Blaney is not as you might think.

      When the first editions of the 1611 appeared only the King’s printer’s were allowed to make copies. When they fell into debt they sold the right to print copies to other publishers. Since everything in those times had to be hand set sometimes a book could come off the printer with an error. As time passed companies outside of England also printed copies of the KJV which they would smuggle in. As these might be rushed to meet demand, the standards were not high. Errors could appear often.

      Before I progress further I wish to sidetrack with one simple thought. I admit an error in an edition here or there. That does not mean the word of God had error. As an example let’s say that perhaps a batch of NIV’s were printed. If they left a whole page out I would not fault them as erroneous because this is a printer’s error, not a translator’s error. When the KJV advocate speaks of a perfect KJV they mean a translation without error, not a translation that could never have an imperfect printing. That ought to be stated to ensure the ideas are kept on the right path.

      As time went on believers made much ado about things which might be amiss in their editions. This meant the believers throughout England helped to ensure the purity of their Bible. The Church of England chose Blaney to work on editing an edition which would be able to ensure the purity of the KJV. After all, the KJV is copyright of the crown, and Oxford and Cambridge have high publishing standards. However, even Blaney’s edition had some printing issues. Two other times prior to Blaney’s attempt certain translators attempted a similar endeavor and had similar results. Again, the process of printing was tedious and meant hand-setting each page letter by letter. Even the first two editions of the 1611 which were set and printed at the same time differed from one another. This is, again, printer’s errors. It has nothing to do with the text. In the 1900’s Cambridge went through another attempt to weed out print errors, and some call this the PCE KJV, or the Pure Cambridge Edition KJV.

      I went through all of that to state that the KJV we use today is the same as the one from 1611. I have a replica 1611 and it reads the same as my Cambridge. The difference is the 1611 has different spellings, uses v’s for u’s, and vice versa, uses Gothic font instead of Roman, and a couple of other such small issues. So, the idea is all an illusion of propaganda promulgated by those who are reaching for anything, grasping for straws, in an attempt to discredit the idea that God can preserve a translation.

    2. By the way, if you want a good book on this issue that is not KJV Only, and is not necessarily religious, then you should pick up Adam Nicholson’s book called God’s Secretaries. It has gone under other names in the UK as well. I think you may be able to find his BBC special on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CCevwHUIOU if you want to watch it. I found his positions and knowledge interesting. He is not on my side, and he is not against my side. All he wants to do is present what he has found in his studies. I hope you check them out.

  16. Easter is not a mistranslation of Passover. It is a translation of the word Pashua, a word from Chaldean, brought into the Hebrew language for Passover. The word means High Holy Day and is always defined philologically; by the text where it is found. Please stop using that failed and misleading argument.

  17. I was just directed here, and although the post is 3 years old I believe I should leave a comment. The idea that is espoused here is shallow, misleading and ignorant. I see a few things stated which make little sense. Some make no sense.

    First, what does KJV Only mean? I have found it depends on the person defining the term. I am King James Only by some definitions. However, I also use a Spanish translation of the scriptures. I also study the Greek and Hebrew texts. Am I King James Only? Again, it depends on the definition of the one applying the term. I believe I am, as it applies to the English language. But, over a decade’s worth of personal research in the matter, including a doctorate degree in Biblical Studies and a present M.A. in English with Specialization in Rhetoric, focused on the issues of translation matters led me to the decision.

    Second, a cult? Really?! While I might say some of the more extreme believers who make salvation hinge on the translation are cult-like not all of us are. And in this area I can append the third violation wherein the charge of false Christians is made by the author. Does my standing or state as a Christian fail because I stand for the idea of a purity in translation? I thought the issue of being a Christian hinged on the acceptance of Christ as personal Saviour upon acknowledgement of His death, burial and resurrection. Did the fundamental salvific doctrine get altered between the days of the apostles and when the author of this terrible hit piece published his work?

    I am not going to get into any argument or deep conversation on the matter. I have other issues I must attend to. However, the issue of KJV Only believers is not a new issue, and we have been hated or despised just like the writer of the author reveals in his own attitude towards us via the headline. In the 1800’s some wished to push the KJV believers out of the Church of England, but certain divines would have none of it. Their response was that the KJV Only brethren might be zealous, but they were good for the body.

    So, what is the issue at hand here? The issue is ignorance. There are as many flavors of believers who are KJV only as there are flavors of Charismatics,Pentecostals, Baptists, [insert group here], ad nauseam. If we pain everyone with a broad brush we are destined to be fools.

    To be labeled a cult and false Christian when there is no proof only because I hold that the Lord preserves His word in one perfect English translation of the Bible is unscriptural and unfounded. On top of this, I already attest I hold to and use a Spanish translation. I believe it to be perfect in the Spanish tongue. God can preserve His word in many tongues, and they can be perfect in those tongues. The difference between the KJV Only believer and most other believers is the idea that God chooses one translation as the final authority in a language. Some men cannot handle this idea because it flies in the face of so-called logic. However, a studious man of the word can show proof for their position.

    If anyone has questions for a rational thinking, and educated, man willing to take the time to explain his position, then I am willing to do my best. I am not one to debate or argue. I do tend to be blunt and often come across as sardonic or caustic even though I mean the best. It is just who I am, and have been all my life.

  18. I would just like to ask you what translation you think is correct and without error? Are all the translations in error? Because God said in psalm 12 he would both purify and preserve his Word from generation to generation forever. If you dont think God is able to preserve his purified word then how do you think he is able to preserve and purify you? I agree that the contention and argument is uncalled for between brothers and sisters in Christ. Are we not all part of the same body with Jesus being our head? Idk how you would get off on calling people who believe God’s Word is exactly what he said it was. And the rendering of Easter in the KJV is not a mistake, the pagans worshipped their goddess on Easter and thats exactly what they was talking about a pagan holiday not the passover.

    Acts 12

    King James Version (KJV)12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.

    2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

    3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

    4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

    Notice how in verse 3 it says then was the days of unleavened bread the passover was done and over with the feast of unleavened bread was a 7 day feast immediately after passover they are talking about the pagan holiday of Easter not passover!

      1. Sorry Chad I was directing my comment to the writer of this article. Not you I never post on these threads but felt compelled to this time for some reason. I just dont understand how someone can claim that a person is in a cult for cleaving to the Word of God and believing that God will both preserve and purify his word for all generations just like He says. Its an attempt to distract the believers from truth to half truths or lies. There is so many contradiction in the new versions its pitiful. That said I dont agree with some who say you will go to hell for reading an NIV because people get saved all the time from the lesser corrupt version’s God will lead them to truth if they truly seek but why try to bash the Word over mans mistakes idk? Sorry again for miss posting bro.

  19. “But the accuracy matters little if I cannot read it!”…..lol….dude, the KJV is 4th grade English according to Fleush Kinkade……kids can read it today and understand, so I wouldn’t be saying that I could not read it very loud cause it makes you look stupid.

  20. This is really SAD…

    Instead of correcting each other with theological and historical “knowledge”, why not pray more and actually allow the SOVEREIGN
    God we serve teach us all?!
    Knowledge puffs up…

    Shalom to all.

  21. Thanks for the insult Charles. If you’d read my first comment you’d know that I live in England so 4th grade English doesn’t mean much to me. I have the KJV, the AISV, the NIV, the NASB, the ESV, the ERV and the MSG versions of the Bible. So saying I’m stupid is not very Christian of you and is also completely false. God said that he preserves his word, God did not say that the KJV is the best English version. That is merely an opinion. My opinion is that the KJV is not the best English translation of the Bible and that’s because I’ve read a lot of English translations that I prefer over the KJV.

  22. I am shocked to read that KJV only users are considered to be in a cult. I have never heard of condemning another to Hell because they use another version, never heard of anyone saying any of the things that are accused. I only use the KJV because other versions take away from the divinity of Jesus. I also do not believe the churches sprang or morphed into the Catholic religion then came out again. The KJV is translated into English from very reliable documents that are not Catholic. That’s it. No cult type beliefs, plus I can’t understand the other versions. They don’t seem to make as much sense.

    1. Hi Vi,

      I think the ‘cult-like’ behavior mentioned refers to people who do exactly that; condemn people to hell for using versions other than the KJV. See http://www.jesusi….. External links not permitted. Editor…..le/easy_to_read_lie.htm , where the author states that the other versions are a deliberately misleading pack of lies designed by Satan to infiltrate churches.

      I’m glad you haven’t met them though, I haven’t either!

  23. I do not go against the King James Bible but it seems to me kingjames bible followers are so in touch with their bibles that I can see that this very same as idol worship. Most of this followers hate the other bible translations specially the new international version bible. But what is the very a shame is the King James followers say The KING JAMES BIBLE ONLY. This is not true because the bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the only way. You might not even read the bible but it’s about your persenal relation ship with Jesus Christ and also praying is worshiping JESUS CHRIST ONLY. The other thing I argue about this statement that if you say only English that is false but what is even worse is that they say only if you say only you are saying the all of the other lanuages bible versions are false and not true. That is very sad they say this, because the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and in Greek. Which is more accurate and better the the King James Bible. another thing I argue againts the King James Bible is the term Holy Ghost. I do not blesemy the holy sprit but the Ghost part is wrong which the king James uses. The meaning of a Ghost would be someone who died but is somehow alive in another form. I see that ghost could be the term for those who are in hell since they died from the sprit. So how dare somebody call the holy sprit a ghost, Since he is and was and is to be who lives for ever and ever and has never died. King James Bible in my opinion is A decent good bible but has grammar mistakes and other mistakes. The other reoson I believe all bibles that are English are equaled since with them many come to faith. NIV bible might have some mistakes is doesen’t mean it doesen’t make you have faith because some read this bible and they learn because this bible has the very same concept of God within it.

  24. Lets go for the words…

    In Acts 19:4 says
    (NIV) Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

    (KJV) Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

    So if you read at the end, the NIV is not saying Jesus is the Christ.

    Do you remember this quote of the bible? (The real one, the King James)

    (KJV) 1Jn 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

    Si the NIV, the new international version, is THE BIBLE OF THE ANTiCHRIST!!!!!

    Bunch of liars. The King James is the word of God.

    Ps: Read acts 8:37 in the NIV (hahaha), is not there… do you remember what God says in Deut 4:2?? You nee to be a fool to use that satanic bible made by the roman catholic church, the church of the devil, the big whore of Revelations 17-18

    1. Amen Final Redemption, I’m glad someone gets it. Praise God for the King James version. Notice it used to be called the Holy Bible since it was the only version and understood to be God’s word. We are in the end times and many will come and deceive.

    2. We found a live one, a certified nutter kjv cultist. He fits the description of the young lunatic so-called “pastor.” Let’s stop the histrionics and hyperbole, anyone can cherry pick a text and show weakness in a translation All you have done is distorted the truth by using one example, you should be proud with your theatrics. Stop worshiping your Bible it’s become an idol to you. Anything that you love more than Jesus Christ is an idol. The kjv cultist is the most puerile, absurd and ridiculous reasoner I have ever come across. In fact, they don’t use reason. Thousands of scholars have more information and more MANUSCRIPTS to work with than the translators of the kjv. I’m not saying it’s a bad Bible it just has weakness. Just one example: ebed (Hebrew) doulas, (greek) means slave which appears a couple hundred times in the Bible. Modern translations are now using the honest translation ‘slave.” In the kjv slave appears only once. You ever notice lunatics use pseudonyms like FINALREDEMPTION. How about it cupcake whats your name?

  25. Final redemption you are sick in the head.
    You really need to read your KJV Bible and you’ll realise you are off to hell.

  26. In my humble opinion, the NASB is the best Bible translation bar none. I read the NASB 1977 Edition. Anyone have thoughts on this ?

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