HOME | DD
Nilopher — KJV only?
Published: 2014-06-07 04:44:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 2041; Favourites: 38; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
Is the King James Bible the only and true word of God? Are the other translation Satan’s work?
What is the “KJV only movement”?
KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. To them the KJV (published in the year 1611) is the most accurate and reliable translation in the English language today.
I am not a KJV only advocate. Why? The more simple reason is: my bible is in Spanish.
But what happens when you encounter a KJV only advocate that takes their belief to an extreme?
Someone sent me a document with an examination of some bible translations, the person used different verses and compared them with the KJV, and if they were different it meant that they contained lies.
There were three things that person said to me that worried me, because it can be detrimental to people that are new in the faith. I’ll be dealing with these:
---“The KJV is the word of God and all other translations are a Satanic counterfeits filled with lies and contradictions”
---“The Holy Spirit can only teach from the KJV”
---“So before you think you can be saved using other translations think again”
I’ve been reading different sources with different points of view regarding this “issue/topic” and I reached this conclusion:
“Deviations from translation in other bibles are lies. Deviations from translation in the KJV are justifiable”.
I don’t need to look for words out of place in bibles, nor do I need to search for supposed lies to prove or disprove that the KJV is the only word of God.
The verses in the KJV can easily disprove this.
“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” ~ John 14:26
Would a teacher teach in English when its student only speaks Chinese? Or how will a Hungarian remember something in Spanish?
English language has changed to the point where many people have trouble understanding it. Also not everyone reads English fluidly; in fact, not everyone can read.
What positive effect can these people get by reading a bible written in a style they don’t understand very well?
All other translations are a Satanic counterfeits filled with lies and contradictions
If Satan is indeed using every other version, as in every version that is not KJV, (there are over 100 bible versions), then he is foolishly dividing himself. (Matthew 12:26).
I haven’t read all the other versions so I can’t vouch for every single one of them; I’ve only read a few English and Spanish versions. I cannot say Satan is using every other version, nor can I say he isn’t.
But you have to keep I mind that Satan doesn’t need other bible versions to fool us; he even uses the KJV, as I’ve seen people spread lies using the KJV.
It is not the bible he uses but the person.
If a person “holds fast the faithful word as he hath been taught” (Titus 1:9), “sanctifies the Lord in his heart” (1 Peter 3:15), and “searches the scriptures” (John 5:39) he will come to the “truth” (John 14:6). It doesn’t matter what bible version he’s reading. If a person doesn’t do this, he won’t know the truth even if he’s reading from the KJV.
Satan can use any and every bible to fool people if the person is not focused on Christ.
I will use the KJV to answer my following questions:
Does God only speak in English? No
Will God only use the English language to save people? No
Can you only be saved reading a bible in English? No
Can you only be saved reading the KJV? No
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” ~ Matthew 24:14
“And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people” ~ Revelation 14:6
God promised that His gospel would be preached in the entire world, to every nation, and every tongue. The KJV falls short, because the KJV is in English. The KJV is just another translation following this promise.
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:” ~ Ephesians 2:8
The word of God is only one.
There is one God (1 Timothy 2:5) and He presents Himself to us in different ways:
He was fire in a bush with Moses (Exodus 3:2)
He was a small voice with Elijah (1 Kings 19:11-13)
He was a traveler with Abraham (Genesis 18:1)
If He presents Himself to us in different ways, why can’t He present His message in different translations?
God used different men to write the bible, kings, prophets, fugitives, soldiers, fishermen, man that did not speak the same language, nor did they speak in the same way. Why would he only use a bible of one language now?
Before you think you can be saved using other translations think again
It is not the bible that saves, in fact nothing we do can save us. Salvation is a gift that only comes from God (Ephesians 2:8)
What about those who can’t read?
What about those who can maybe read a bit of English but can’t understand all the words in the KJV?
I can proudly say I can be saved using other translation, I use the Reina Valera. It’s not even in English. Because the God I serve is not limited by language.
Remember: I am NOT dealing with the entire “KJV only position”. They believe the KJV is the only bible in the English language. But this “KJV only movement” is taking a more extreme path when some of them put the KJV above every other language.I am not here to start debating about which version or translation is better, because it is a pointless debate. It's ok if you want to support the KJV, just don't push that belief into others telling lies as this person did to me.
God bless!
Related content
Comments: 128
it's ok, we just have to agree to disagree 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well, its like this...We know there is one Lord , Jesus, so there is one Bible that was inspired by the Holy Spirit...All these other versions have twist in them, that they would change the Holy Word of God, yet the English bible, that is to say the Authorized Version does not glorify man's pockets as the new versions do.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True, Only one Lord. And true, the Holy Spirit inspired men of different backgrounds to write God’s word. All the bible versions are translations of that inspired word. Some translations are more reliable than others. But there are translations that fulfill God’s promise of reaching out to every tongue (Matthew 24:14, Revelation 14:6)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There's only one, the av is the only one accurately translated, in English, and ised in other languages... the new age versions are deinspired . If I can use that word... because be they are changed from what the Bible tells us is true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have the Amplified Bible, do you know it? I'm German and I need it sometimes to translate the word! Should I buy me the KJB?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The KJB is a great english translation, if you're fluent in english and have no problem understanding old english, or if you want to learn old english it could be useful to have one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Grew up KJV-only, after doing some research on translations and how they were put together I left that mindset.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I was the same way, then I researched and compared versions and settled on the NASB.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I usually use the ESV these days.
How have you been?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Trying not to stress out over things, doing pretty well other than that. How about you?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Kinda same...I'm trying to balance several things at once and kinda failing at it
Life is pretty stressful, I guess?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice stamp, There's also a Catholic equivalent called the Douay-Rheims Version.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It makes me sad that people can be so xenophobic they think that a holy book's original language(s) are "less godly" than their own. Then there's the Klu Klux Klan, who don't seem to understand that Jesus was not white.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have a NLT bible, although, I do would like to get KJV as my bible collection.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The KJV is a great bible translation (:
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
The Old English used by the KJV is beautiful, but the KJV itself is one of the worse translations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Not so much, really.
The KJV is mostly based in Erasmus´ faulty Textus Receptus, which means that the manuscript tradition underlying it is very POOR... to say the least. Erasmus based his work only in a handful of late Middle-Age manuscripts, and in some parts (John´s Apocalypse, for example) where he didn´t had any Greek manuscripts at all, he simply took Jerome´s Latin Vulgata and translated it "back"into greek!
Since 1650, textual scholars have always critized this error-ridden Bible translation (the Textus receptus, which is the base for the KJV translation, as well as for 90% of our modern english and spanish Bibles). Proffesor John Mill was the first one, and in his Novum Testamentum Graecum (1700) critical apparatus, he testified the existence of more than 30,000 TEXTUAL VARIANTS between the Textus Receptus and multiple, older Greek manuscripts. For practical reasons, he omitted those "lesser" variants that included variants of small importance, such as the order of the words in well-known biblical verses.
Since then, the modern estimation of textal variants between the Textus Receptus and our best biblical manuscripts available (namely, the II century Greek fragments we possess, as well as the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae) has became huge through the years. The minumum is estimated to be 200, 000 textual variants, and some scholars even testify of up to 500,000 variants!
That makes our modern Bibles quite.... faulty, in terms of textual reliability. And the KJV is one of the most terrible translations out there.
SOURCE:
Ehrman Bart D., "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", 2005, Harper Collins.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hello, vi que me escribiste otros comments en español so espero que no te moleste que te conteste este en español xD (maybe spanglish) porque mezclo mucho jaja
Cuando escribí que es un "great bible translation" no me refería a la calidad de los manuscritos utilizados para la traducción.
Solo me refería y quería enfatizar que la KJV es una "traducción" ya que los ‘KJV-advocates’ dicen q es la palabra de Dios perfecta e incambiable plasmada en ingles y es la única biblia que ellos consideran "biblia".
Yo no soy ‘KJV-advocate’ y pienso que como traducción tiene errores, pero el mensaje general o en su totalidad no cambia. Y pienso que es una buena "traducción" ya que hay otras biblias que si cambian el mensaje, le añaden y le quitan etc.
A eso me refería con "it's a great translation"
En cuanto a tus otros mensajes, los leí, los voy a contestar pero me va a tomar tiempo ya que estoy en unas semanas fuertes de estudio y exámenes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
" los ‘KJV-advocates’ dicen q es la palabra de Dios perfecta e incambiable plasmada en ingles y es la única biblia que ellos consideran "biblia"."
Osease que... ANTES de que la KJV surgiera.... nadie tenía acceso a la Palabra de Dios? Esa es una postura "Cristiana" muy extraña, jeje! Comparto contigo esa opinión, amigo mío! (rechazo a los "KJV-only").
Espero platiquemos pronto. A juzgar por tus posts, pareces ser un Cristiano BIEN informado y atento por defender tu fe. A este mundo Cristiano de Occidente le falta DEMASIADO eso, jeje.
Saludos!!! Suerte con esos exámenes!
ÁNIMO!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Así mismo es, hay varias respuestas en cuanto a eso pero si mal no recuerdo la mayoría de los ‘KJV-only advocates’ coinciden en que se encontraba en los manuscritos en Hebreo y Latín utilizados para crear la KJV.
Por cierto soy mujer jaja no se porque la mayoría piensa que soy hombre o.O
Muchas Gracias!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It is, despite old English.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
well done. i personally prefer to use a mix of the messianic bible, the Geneva bible, and the esv (English standard version). alot of people forget its not the bible or God that is changing, it's the English language.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The fact that the KJV was rewritten several times, had many writers working on it, and didn't even use the original Hebrew are also big warning signs...that and the fact that you make a good point that not everyone (and that's a big part of the world) speaks english, not to mention anybody can make the claim that any version of the bible is divinly inspired and that claim would just make as much sense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
TRUE!
The KJV is mostly based in Erasmus´ faulty Textus Receptus, which means that the manuscript tradition underlying it is very POOR... to say the least. Erasmus based his work only in a handful of late Middle-Age manuscripts, and in some parts (John´s Apocalypse, for example) where he didn´t had any Greek manuscripts at all, he simply took Jerome´s Latin Vulgata and translated it "back"into greek!
Since 1650, textual scholars have always critized this error-ridden Bible translation (the Textus receptus, which is the base for the KJV translation, as well as for 90% of our modern english and spanish Bibles). Proffesor John Mill was the first one, and in his Novum Testamentum Graecum (1700) critical apparatus, he testified the existence of more than 30,000 TEXTUAL VARIANTS between the Textus Receptus and multiple, older Greek manuscripts. For practical reasons, he omitted those "lesser" variants that included variants of small importance, such as the order of the words in well-known biblical verses.
Since then, the modern estimation of textal variants between the Textus Receptus and our best biblical manuscripts available (namely, the II century Greek fragments we possess, as well as the Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae) has became huge through the years. The minumum is estimated to be 200, 000 textual variants, and some scholars even testify of up to 500,000 variants!
That makes our modern Bibles quite.... faulty, in terms of textual reliability. And the KJV is one of the most terrible translations out there.
SOURCE:
Ehrman Bart D., "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", 2005, Harper Collins.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So they didn't even have the originals of the COPIES?!? Jezz this is bad...and again they can only assert 'divine inspiration' which any translation can do, so they can't claim that this is inerrant...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The ORIGINAL texts of the Bible´s books are called "Autographs", and.... NO, we do not have them. We only have COPIES of them. Copies made CENTURIES later than these "originals".
I´ll send you a book with this issue via PM, bro. Right now, I´m a bit sleepy and can´t explain it properly.... hahaha.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There are so many Bible translations these days, it is amazing. God's word has been made available to so many. Whatever translation people use, so long as it isn't taking or adding to God's already perfect Word, it is good.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
*The entire point of the KJV was to put the Bible into modern phrases and terminology.
*While the KJV was indeed the most accurate translation of it's time, we have sice discovered more biblical-era writings which have further increased our understanding of ancient greek and hebrew.
*This is the only version of the Bible that mentions unicorns. All the others say "wild ox." need we say more?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There should be a new translation of the Bible made about every century, because language is almost significantly different at that point.
God bless!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
These KJV-Only Protestant Fundies don't also seem to realize what they say is almost the same as what Muslims do: Every other translation of their scripture that is not written in the language they know and speak - English for the Christins and Arabic for Muslims - has been corrupt in their narrow minds and hearts.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I asked my mom about this once and she answered my question similarly like this
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I've noticed one of the main KJV only people that has a site that pops up early in almost all christian searches isn't even a christian as he admitted it. He's also either in prison or in the process of the punishment being decided as he's been found guilty already. It was for child abuse and assault.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Holy crap. Just goes to show that KJV-only people aren't as legit as they think.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If I were you I would not get bogged down in what a bunch of nutters say. This distracts us from our commission of healing the sick and preaching the gospel, concentrate on that in these end times. They will be judged in due course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
For some insight into the less extreme KJV movement, take a look at the Trinitarian Bible Society. They publish high quality material Bibles, and while the KJV is the only English version they produce, they also produce Bibles in languages from Afrikaans to Xhosa(Incidentally both South African languages). *Checks* That includes a Spanish Gospel of John for evangelism, using a revised(To account for changes in the language*) Reina Valera. You should be good.
*The KJV uses Early Modern English, which is similar enough to current English that a full revision is unnecessary. If you want one anywway, there's the NKJV.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have no problem with the less extreme KJV movement. ^^
I normally use the KJV, and sometimes the NKJV. But I prefer to read in my language, so to read I use the Reina Valera.
Thanks for the info! I’ll look it up! 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Someone made a stamp countering this stamp. They believe that people should basically just accept other people's word. I am sorry. That is very illogical to say the least. If was born into another language I would not follow someone blindly. I would want to be able to read it for myself. You are basically spot on with your stamp.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly!
God tells us to search the scriptures (John 5:39) and to be “ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). We can’t do that if we don’t understand what we read 
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Exactly. At one time no one but the appointed ones could read the bible. Then they started translating it but the translations were forbidden. Then they wouldn't let women read the bible and now they do. I just don't understand why someone would want someone to just have to follow someone blindly.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was saved and directly drawn to the Bible. I believe everything the Bible says and I can proudly say that I'm not a "Bibist" (solely supporting of a single translation)
I agree that there needs to be many different translations for the sake of the nations. I also agree that anything can be accused of being satans' work if used in the wrong context.
The one translation I would avoid, as I've only heard a single scripture from it, is the NEW AGE version; it's not a widely known version just yet, but it starts off with "In the beginning, there were gods". That's all I needed to hear to know that is not the word of God.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I use NKJV for 95% of my reading, referring to the KJV the other 5% when I need specific words or syntax for whatever reason. That said, though, not every version is created equally, and some are more reliable than others. I will say that the KJV is the most reliable while others like the NASB and the NLT actually do possess some incorrect verses and words in them- I encourage people to steer clear of those two especially.
I think we dishonor God by possessing, using, or creating an improper version of His message, but that's the thing. Translations are not inspired. At all. The message is inspired, and translations are just a medium through which the inspired message can spread throughout the world. This is all just a matter of accuracy. My tl;dr is that you shouldn't cling to one Bible version just because it has a reliable name. Instead, you should look for the most reliable translation, whatever it might be, and cross referencing never hurt anyone, either. I think God deserves that we put that effort in.
As a side note, I read a few years ago about a Bible manufacturer switching the pronouns to gender neutral ones unless it was in reference to a particular person. That's a great example of an unreliable version and a manufacturer subtly weaving in their own beliefs. Do you perchance which version I'm talking about?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Yup, definitely some versions are more reliable than others
“The message is inspired, and translations are just a medium through which the inspired message can spread throughout the world”
True! but I also believe that God can use the translators doing the work
And yes, I know of a few bible versions that have that gender neutral thing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well as far as I'm aware God can speak through any translation he wishes to and I always thought KJV-only activists to be those stubborn people that sit in pews that grew up on the KJV and are highly suspicious about other translations since it's not what they were taught. You know what I'm on about? The ones that don't seem to have any faith of their own but spend their time criticising those that do, but I could be wrong and I feel I ought to at least try and hear them out. I don't think the KJV is wrong by any means, I just prefer to read things in English.
I definitely agree with you on cross-referencing, and you made an interesting point on looking for the most reliable source. Is it then fair to say that just because a lot of people tell me the KJV is the most accurate that doesn't mean it is? (Not that I'm suggesting it isn't, I'm sure it is)
Also I don't know which Bible version or manufacturer you were on about but I will say to be careful of rumors. I heard one rumor about the NIV being published by Harper Collins which also published the satanic bible, when Harper Collins published neither the NIV nor the satanic bible, Hodder & Sloughter published the NIV and Avon Books published the satanic bible. The only connection between Bible, Harper Collins and satanic Bible is that Harper Collins published the KJV and later on bought out Avon (but never published the satanic bible)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>