Is the King James only Position Heresy?

[Andrew1]

Here's a question for those who hold that the King James Only position is a heresy: Can you prove from scripture that believing that a translation of the Bible is 100% without error including in regards to the specific words, italics, grammar and punctuation is an unbiblical teaching and therefore heresy? Remember I'm looking for scriptural proof that this view point is heresy. (By Heresy I mean contrary to the teachings of the Bible). [Also in case it is not apparent I hold to the King James only position]

 

[MarcR]

I do not think it is sufficiently egregious to be considered heresy. I am content to consider it mistaken.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Here's a question for those who hold that the King James Only position is a heresy: Can you prove from scripture that believing that a translation of the Bible is 100% without error including in regards to the specific words, italics, grammar and punctuation is an unbiblical teaching and therefore heresy? Remember I'm looking for scriptural proof that this view point is heresy. (By Heresy I mean contrary to the teachings of the Bible). [Also in case it is not apparent I hold to the King James only position]

I find the KJV to be a good version I like it a lot. I find no heresy in it. I am not KJV-onlyist though. It is useful for comparison to other English translations. I would think being KJV-only would almost render it meaningless since it came about only a few hundred years ago. Other translations depend on the KJV just as it depends on other translations. And all the translations depend on the actual history and truth of the Bible narrative itself. Personally I just like the KJV style better, but as a mere book translation it maintains to the overall story and plot and point of the Bible and so is not heretical.

 

[T_Laurich]

I consider myself KJV only, but not for the reason that the bible says "ONLY READ KJV!"

I only read KJV for a few reasons...
First there is no copy-right on the version: which means that there is no major financial incentive to publish it. I find that a huge issue plaguing the bible is the same issue that is plaguing American Colleges. There is no new material on the matter, so to make money you change some verbs and tenses and use a new copy-right to make your fortune.

Second there is a new version of the bible every time I turn my head... Society's comprehension of literature is not changing rapidly enough to need a new translation so often. With some effort anyone can read the KJV, and with time you can become extremely proficient at it.

Thirdly for quotability, example, when I ask what does John 3:16 says, everyone will quote the KJV. Whereas if I quote an obscure new version of the bible many people will see it contradicts with their version that they are reading or remember and then you have another issue on your hands. Likewise: If I was to use a verse to give clarity on an issue I will quote the KJV because everyone knows it. And it is easily accessible.


I am KJV only because of logic... There might be more accurate translations now a-days with all the new documents we have found. However, I can quote KJV and then further explain it like a footnote.

 

[MarcR]

I do not think it is sufficiently egregious to be considered heresy. I am content to consider it mistaken.

I use the King James as my primary Bible. It is certainly the most beautiful and most literary translation.

I see no evidence of unique inspiration; and linguistically, it has as many errors and awkward translations as any other version.

I concede that compared verse by verse, some of the modern versions, considered by some to be more accurate, seem to dilute the majesty of Jesus. A thorough comparison, IMO, seems to indicate that this if true, is not deliberate.

IMO, both the Holman and the Amplified are as solid as the KJV in refraining from seeming to dilute the majesty of Jesus.

 

[atwhatcost]

I consider myself KJV only, but not for the reason that the bible says "ONLY READ KJV!"

I only read KJV for a few reasons...
First there is no copy-right on the version: which means that there is no major financial incentive to publish it. I find that a huge issue plaguing the bible is the same issue that is plaguing American Colleges. There is no new material on the matter, so to make money you change some verbs and tenses and use a new copy-right to make your fortune.

Second there is a new version of the bible every time I turn my head... Society's comprehension of literature is not changing rapidly enough to need a new translation so often. With some effort anyone can read the KJV, and with time you can become extremely proficient at it.

Thirdly for quotability, example, when I ask what does John 3:16 says, everyone will quote the KJV. Whereas if I quote an obscure new version of the bible many people will see it contradicts with their version that they are reading or remember and then you have another issue on your hands. Likewise: If I was to use a verse to give clarity on an issue I will quote the KJV because everyone knows it. And it is easily accessible.


I am KJV only because of logic... There might be more accurate translations now a-days with all the new documents we have found. However, I can quote KJV and then further explain it like a footnote.

You might want to reconsider your first argument. The reigning monarch of England has been the copyright holder since it was created. (The Queen Mum owns it.) No idea if she makes money off the copyright, but they're really nice about how many verses we can use without seeking permission.

 

[Nick01]

I consider myself KJV only, but not for the reason that the bible says "ONLY READ KJV!"

I can appreciate that you may well be saying these things because you yourself prefer the KJV, and do not necessarily think other Christians 'should' read onl the KJV. However, I do not agree it is necessarily more 'logical' to be KJV only.

I only read KJV for a few reasons...
First there is no copy-right on the version: which means that there is no major financial incentive to publish it. I find that a huge issue plaguing the bible is the same issue that is plaguing American Colleges. There is no new material on the matter, so to make money you change some verbs and tenses and use a new copy-right to make your fortune.[/quote]

It is technically still copyrighted in the UK (under Crown Patent administered by Cambridge College), but the reason the text of the KJV is copyright free everywhere else in the world (not necessarily any given published version using the text - there is a diffrence) is not because of some magical quality of the text, but because it is old. In Most Western countries, anything published before the 20th century is in the public domain.

Second

there is a new version of the bible every time I turn my head... Society's comprehension of literature is not changing rapidly enough to need a new translation so often. With some effort anyone can read the KJV, and with time you can become extremely proficient at it.

Sure, I agree there is such a thing as translation bloat. It does not follow, of course, that therefore the KJV is the best translation. And, of course, the same can be said for the "KJV can be read by anyone given enough time" argument. Even if it did follow, the exact same thing can be said about reading the Bible in Latin, or indeed in Koine Greek.

Thirdly

for quotability, example, when I ask what does John 3:16 says, everyone will quote the KJV. Whereas if I quote an obscure new version of the bible many people will see it contradicts with their version that they are reading or remember and then you have another issue on your hands. Likewise: If I was to use a verse to give clarity on an issue I will quote the KJV because everyone knows it. And it is easily accessible.

I don't quote John 3:16 as per the KJV. It very much depends on who you are talking about or to. Similarly, when I say the Lord's Prayer from memory, I do not do so as per the KJV. This is an entirely subjective argument, that may well explain why you 'do' read only the KJV, but does not justify why anyone else 'should' read only the KJV.

 

[T_Laurich]

You might want to reconsider your first argument. The reigning monarch of England has been the copyright holder since it was created. (The Queen Mum owns it.) No idea if she makes money off the copyright, but they're really nice about how many verses we can use without seeking permission.

"In 1604, King James I of England authorized that a new translation of the Bible into English be started. It was finished in 1611, just 85 years after the first translation of the New Testament into English appeared (Tyndale, 1526). The Authorized Version, or King James Version, quickly became the standard for English-speaking Protestants. Its flowing language and prose rhythm has had a profound influence on the literature of the past 400 years. The King James Version present on the Bible Gateway matches the 1987 printing. The KJV is public domain in the United States."

The only place on earth where copy-right laws play effect on the KJV is in the United Kingdom itself. And only in the United Kingdom.

And if you want to get technical, there are no copyright laws in the United Kingdom that says you cannot print the book without royalties to the Crown. There is only a royal prerogative to keep it in the Crown. Sustained by CDPA s171(1)(b).

In the rest of the world you can print the KJV with no copy right laws.

 

[T_Laurich]

I can appreciate that you may well be saying these things because you yourself prefer the KJV, and do not necessarily think other Christians 'should' read onl the KJV. However, I do not agree it is necessarily more 'logical' to be KJV only.


It is technically still copyrighted in the UK (under Crown Patent administered by Cambridge College), but the reason the text of the KJV is copyright free everywhere else in the world (not necessarily any given published version using the text - there is a diffrence) is not because of some magical quality of the text, but because it is old. In Most Western countries, anything published before the 20th century is in the public domain.



Sure, I agree there is such a thing as translation bloat. It does not follow, of course, that therefore the KJV is the best translation. And, of course, the same can be said for the "KJV can be read by anyone given enough time" argument. Even if it did follow, the exact same thing can be said about reading the Bible in Latin, or indeed in Koine Greek.



I don't quote John 3:16 as per the KJV. It very much depends on who you are talking about or to. Similarly, when I say the Lord's Prayer from memory, I do not do so as per the KJV. This is an entirely subjective argument, that may well explain why you 'do' read only the KJV, but does not justify why anyone else 'should' read only the KJV.

1.) I never argued that it was public domain because of "magic". I only said that it being public domain gave it many advantages. What you used was a strawman argument. And to further expand, only in the United Kingdom do the "copy-right" laws play effect.

So to restate my point. This makes the KJV financially the worst decision for a corporation or printing company to publish. Unless you are in the United Kingdom.
This in-turn deters corruption.

2.) You made another logical fallacy. Let me address it.
A.) It does follow that since there is translation bloat that the best version is the one without bloat. But why is this? Well, I shall explain: See in order for companies such as Tyndale to make money on the bible they cannot simply print the KJV due to competition. So they create a "new version" whether it be better or worse, and they copy-right it. This allows them to hold the money firmly in their hands and corner a market E.G. I was told as a new Christian that the NLT was the best version to read for ease. So the NLT cornered the market. They will also do deals with famous pastors to write commentary bibles only in their translation to get another piece of the market. As you can see the incentive is not Christ, but profit. I was NLT as an example I am not making any claims on their relationship with Christ.

B.) The same thing could not be said about latin or greek. The reasoning is the KJV English and modern English are the exact same language:English. I can read every word in the KJV without extra schooling or teaching. I cannot do this with Latin or Greek. Secondly the differences in cultures from "old" English to modern English are slight. Where as the differences in cultures from Latin or Greek to English are gigantic. As you can see you made a non-sequitur. Because, these things are dissimilar.

3.) If you do not quote John 3:16 as KJV then you are in the minority. The argument is not subjective... You are acting like me being "KJV only" makes me see the world in KJV colored glasses. This is not true.
Majority of people who have been to church have gone heard the KJV verses said to them. For many reasons... What happens is that person assimilates the Bible with that terminology. People are creatures that are predictable. We create symbols to represent things.
An example of Quoting KJV to a person would be to say McDonalds slogan as "I'm Lovin' It"
An example of quoting non-KJV to a person would be to say McDonalds slogan as "I Fancy It"

Both examples carried the same meaning... HOWEVER, the "KJV" rings a certain bell in someones head and conveys a certain meaning. Where as the "NON-KJV" is alien and makes the person question your understanding of the slogan and McDonalds.



The problem with your argument is when you apply it to anything else even you can see that it fails. Yet, you hold it with the bible...

 

[posthuman]

believers who don't read English never have this discussion.

 

[Kefa54]

This is an interesting topic. NOT starting a fight but I ignore King James only law.

I can say Good Morning1, or I can say Ohayo! Japanese for Good Morning!

God used a donkey to rebuke Balaam. Numbers 22:27-28....When the donkey saw the angel of the LORD, it lay down under Balaam, and he was angry and beat it with his staff.
And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said to Balaam, What have I done to you, that you have smitten me these three times?

The Holly Spirit can use other versions of the bible to teach us. The Holy Spirit is the key.

Kefa

 

[eternally-gratefull]

KJV Only is not heresy, But the toppic can get crazy from those who judge others who do not use it, or say it is infallible, which is not true.

I use the NKJV regularly (have since I upped from the KJV to NKJV as a teenager when dad bought e a new scofield NKJV reference)

I was brought up KJV and could read it, because I learned "king jimmy-ese" (the language of KJV) however when my mother passed away, and I saw her bible. I took it (it was an old KJV) when I tried to read it I was dumbfounded, It was hard to read, because it had been so long since I used it.

why do I say this? It is ok to use, But I would not recommend giving it to a new believer. It is written in outdated english, many of the words have not been used in years or have changed meanings.. why confuse a poor baby in Christ when their are just as good bibles out there with modern english?

 

[wattie]

Yeah there are churches like mine- independent Baptist that actually believe the kjv to be re-inspired Word of God.

I cant accept that because i know king james had his own church of england influence on the translation. For eg using 'church' instead of assembly or congregation.

But i still read the Kjv as my main bible because of its preciseness and majesty when reading. The thees and thous can appear odd but actually give more specific context.

 

[peacefulbeliever]

I use the King James as my primary Bible. It is certainly the most beautiful and most literary translation.

<snip>

That is also why I like and use the KJV primarily - but I have and use others for comparison - NIV, NRSV, ESV - I gave my Amplified Bible to my daughter - I don't know why but I just didn't care for how it was written

 

[dcontroversal]

First of all there are about 500 threads give or take about the King Jimmy....

Second, it is a translation, transliteration with the majority of it being copied verbatim and or compared to other English versions..

Third, it has numerous words that have been skewed, transliterated and or modified so as to protect the heads of the 54 Episcopalian priests who transliterated/translated it...

At the end of the day it is nothing more than a translation/transliteration...period!

And for the record.....I use a Cambridge King Jimmy in Berkshire leather with wide margins, black letter edition and for sure I study EVERY word from the original languages........

There are many who worship the version over the God of the version and have gone to seed on this issue in a most ridiculous manner!

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yeah there are churches like mine- independent Baptist that actually believe the kjv to be re-inspired Word of God.

I cant accept that because i know king james had his own church of england influence on the translation. For eg using 'church' instead of assembly or congregation.

But i still read the Kjv as my main bible because of its preciseness and majesty when reading. The thees and thous can appear odd but actually give more specific context.

Yeah I hear ya.

It is not the thees and thous though. those never did bother me

We mess around sometimes and say, thee and though, and people ay we have masterd king jimmy language..lol

I wish we would have a more complete interpretation. the greek is so poetic. But the bible would probably be twice as large if they did that.

 

[tanach]

I have been using the KJV more often recently. It was the Bible I was brought up with, apart from the RSV we used in School.
Back then they were the only none Catholic Bibles you could get. Modern translations are OK up to a point. I feel there are too many of them, but it is useful to have at least one other than the KJV to compare verses. As for KJV only people its their choice
perhaps they are of my generation. You tend to get set in your ways as you get older. The way I feel at present I should change my nickname to Ancient knowledge but its already taken!

 

[Willie-T]

The saddest thing about KJV Onlyists is that they honestly DO seem to think Elizabethan English was the language Jesus spoke... so much so, that they get indignant if the "Thee's", "Thou's", "wouldst's", "shouldst's" and any other .... "ist's" aren't included in quoting Scripture.

 

[posthuman]

The saddest thing about KJV Onlyists is that they honestly DO seem to think Elizabethan English was the language Jesus spoke... so much so, that they get indignant if the "Thee's", "Thou's", "wouldst's", "shouldst's" and any other .... "ist's" aren't included in quoting Scripture.

i wonder if anyone feels the same about "אַתְּ" and "σοῦ" ?
((hebrew/greek for "you"))

i guess there may be hebrew-roots people who are so needlessly picky, but are there even any greek-roots people out there?

 

[dcontroversal]

The saddest thing about KJV Onlyists is that they honestly DO seem to think Elizabethan English was the language Jesus spoke... so much so, that they get indignant if the "Thee's", "Thou's", "wouldst's", "shouldst's" and any other .... "ist's" aren't included in quoting Scripture.

Brother, I agree and will say...I have heard deacons, church members and even preachers say stuff like the following....

1. Paul used the King James
2. If it was good enough for Jesus and the apostles then it is good enough for me
3. Jesus quoted the King James

etc......

A few words I would use to describe the above...ignorant, stupid, moronic.......did I say ignorant?