HOME | DD
Nilopher — KJV only?
Published: 2014-06-07 04:44:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 2074; 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: 129
Thank you for your words, and I agree with what mbrsart said. If you are going to say KJV only, than what about the early Christians? They didn't have benefit of KJV either. It's a silly argument. Jesus is my salvation and the Bible is one of my guides. It's like getting a piece of complicated electronics with instructions in French and you don't speak it. What good is it to anyone else. When the Holy Spirit descended on Jesus followers at Pentecost they were talking in many languages so that all could understand. Reserving one language that wasn't even a Biblical tongue is just inexcusable. I volunteer time a a children's Christian camp during the summer and I cringe when I see small children trying to understand the old English of the original KJV. We just don't speak that way anymore. I'd rather they understand what the Bible says. It's almost like going back to saying we should only read Latin Bible text so only the clergy can understand and interpret as was true before the Reformation. Praise the Lord we are free to read the word of God ourselves.
That's not to say one doesn't have to be a little careful about what translations are used. Some of them are more true to the original Hebrew etc translations than others. I was never fond of some of the liberties the original Living Bible took with the translations. Bible translations should never be the words of one single person but should be review heavily by those that know the intent of the original text to make sure what is being said isn't merely the opinion of the translator.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I did not realize there was such a debate going on. I have 5 versions of the Bible that I cross-reference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
yes, unbelievably but there are debates about this :/
I also do cross-reference 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
NIV, NASB, NET, Holman's, and even "The Message", NLV I think it is...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Now this is a very nice, and thoughtful, take on the KJV only debate. In my own experience, those who advocate the KJV only have presented to me some very good reasons why they believe what they believe (the LESS extreme reasons anyway). I'm thankful that I looked at the "evidence" and decided myself if I'd stick to one Bible version or not.
I really like your take on this. Too often, people get caught up on what is right or wrong that we tend to take things to extremes. Is the Bible important? Definitely! But what is MORE important is OUR relationship with Jesus. It's all about Him. It's not what you know or what Bible version you use that will get you into heaven, it's WHO you know. That relationship with Jesus is what saves not the Bible version I'm using.
Keep up the good work and God bless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
exactly my thoughts ^^ we should focus on strengthening our relationship with God then everything will fall into place
God bless!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I totally understand ya i get so irratated when i hear the KJV Version is the best but the thing is if you don't have translations for it then how are you going to understand it but i mean i think that you should have both though
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And i cant even understand Old english terms
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Those who adopt a "KJV only" mentality might as well cut out the middle man and say, "Hebrew OT and Greek NT only". Either that or say, "Returning to the original languages opens the door of interpretation, and we can't have that; the KJV is the only version anybody should ever read, anywhere, in any time period."
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
...
Excuse mr, do I understand it well: there are people, who think that every other translation of Bible, including the ones in other languages than English, is Satan's work? =='
From what I know, nobody in my country (Poland) had such arguments against Millennium Bible (1965), when it started replacing Jakub Wujek Bible (1599).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sadly yes :/ some people are taking the "KJV only" movement to the extreme.
Here in Puerto Rico we have different versions of the Reina Valera and no body complains. In my church people use different versions and we have the same doctrine
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
...
Why people act in such way? It seems that it's an another reason for losing faith in humanity
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's why I keep my faith on Jesus
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's a good idea 
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I like the KJV, but I'm not against other versions of the Bible. God's Word is God's Word.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People make the mistake of tryingg to label KJV supporters as cultists, when in reality they're only supporting the Bible translated closest to the original texts, preserved by the church at Antioch.
I do believe that recently a tract printing ministry strictly supporting the KJV, startedproducing a spanish bible based on thesame manuscripts as the KJV.
Many overlook the fact that the KJV translators, translated directly from the source, while newer translations drop whole verses and change the whole meanings of the verses. The texts the newer bibles were translated from only account for 5% of the whole deal, while the KJV is derived from 95%.
One place I read suggested the 5% were corrupted texts of gnostic origin. Gnostics were a group of people who did not believe in the full deity of Christ, and denied the Trinity, they also believed that God in the OT, was a different oe from God in the NT.
I've lived my whole life with the KJV, and it literally turns me off when another version is used, because it doesn't have the same power as the good ol AV.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I don't want to sound condemning here, but if you are literally being put off by God's word because it's in a different translation, then perhaps you need to rethink your outlook. People who are not yet followers of Christ should be the only ones put off by God's Word, if any at all. If you really don't like seeing his Word in other translations then just take the verse and translate it into KJV, it doesn't need to ruin the talk or your day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
my reasons for staying away from newer versions are not that simple. Too many try to sugarcoat newer versions by saying the only difference are how its worded, but that's not the case. Anyone comparing them can see the differences.
Research has been done that shown that many churches that did not change to newer Bibles, kept the same doctrine for 30 years, while the ones thatdid change, their doctrine and ways altered drastically.
The newer versions come from 4th century texts that were altered by heretics(Arians, Gnostics, ETC), and then conglomerated by two 19th Century psuedochristian spiritualists(Westcott and Hort).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Which is fine, you can stay away as long as you want, but that shouldn't throw you off a good sermon or talk just because they referenced it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It is better to be divided in truth, than compromised in a falsehood, is it not?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Jesus said we should be united, not divided, so both of those are equally wrong.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Depends to me on what one is divided and united on. I don't think true should be united with people of other religions and radical cults (I.E. Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses), but we shouldn't be divided over ridiculous things (who was Cain's wife).
I do believe one should take a stand for the Word of God, on the Truth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It’s ok, I do think the KJV is a great translation. But I believe God works using other translations. It doesn’t matter if the translation is closer to the original if it’s used to spread lies as some people do (thankfully not everyone does this). That’s why I think that instead of focusing in which bible version others read, we should focus in becoming better Christians, and helping others to do so too, that way it won’t matter what bible translation we read, we will know the truth, regardless of how it’s written or presented.
I have no problem with the KJV supporters, but when a KJV supporter tells me I cannot come to Christ if I don’t use the KJV, or that the Holy Spirit is not with me because I read a Reina Valera (Spanish bible), they’re stepping over the line.
God bless👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My Pastor pointed something out in a message soley supporting the AV1611. English and Spanish are the most spoken languages in the world today, similar to how Greek was the main language in the day of the apostles. That may be why God chose to preserve his word in one of the most spoken languages, to get his word out to all nations.
To me the KJV will always be better. Its NT source, the Textus Receptus, was translated from 5000 virtually harmonious manuscripts, while its modern competitor, the Nestle Aland abd UBS Text, is loosely derived from 5 hardly used texts that don't even agree with each other(one was found in a garbage can at a monastary).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
God is preserving His words in every language, not only in English and Spanish.
English speaking people are not the only ones with the knowledge of the gospel, so the command of “preaching the gospel to all nations” (mark 16:15) doesn’t only apply to us.
The KJV is a great translation, but it’s only that, a translation. It may have less variation, but it still varies from the original texts and from the copies of those texts.
For you the KJV is better, but other people read from other translations and still have a sound doctrine, and know the gospel how it truly is.
If KJV works for you, then keep using it. Just don’t push it to others, remember not everyone has the same reading skills.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Like I've said I have done studies on this stuff. the difference in bible versions aren't as simple as, for example, different variations of the same sentence. Most actually have different meanings
Some drop whole verse, based on alterations found in early heretic corrupted scriptures.
Someone did a statistic, comparing churches that kept the using the KJV to churches that switched to the NIV. In a period of 30 years, the doctrine of the KJV churches remained unchanged, while in the same amount of timethe NIV churches developed a drastically altered doctrine from the KJV churches.
There is a difference no matter what pro-alexandrians say.
I'm a history and research buff, I prefer to know everything about something rather than just go with the flow.
Remember, not everything that glitters is gold, and not everything called godly is of God.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It’s ok, even though I don’t agree entirely (I have also done my research) I have no problem with the KJV movement as I’ve said. Nor am I interested in debating about it. But the KJV only movement is supposed to be about the English version, and those who are saying that bibles in other languages are satanic are doing a great damage. Like this person that told me that I couldn’t be saved because I was reading a bible in Spanish (because it’s not the KJV). That’s what this stamp is about.
About those statistics you mentioned, I would like to see them, so if you have a link available it’ll be great.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Me, I might be a liiiittle open on the subject scripture and salvation, after all, it was an Alexandrian based Bible that sprung Martin Luther into starting the Reformation, though he did still have doctrinal flaws.
I can't remember exactly which article it was...It was either this one www.biblicalresearchreports.co… or the condensed version... www.biblicalresearchreports.co…
I read so many of these things I forget where I find stuff
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
haha yea I understand, I also forget where I find stuff sometimes XD
Thanks for the links! I bookmarked them, that way I won't loose them
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
My dad actually grew up in a church that preached from 2 different bibles. He said his pastor would go to one podium and read from one bible, then go to another podium and read from the other bible, and then preach amessage unrelated to either passage.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The pastor was the problem then, not the bible version.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
With all I've learned about newer english versions, I can't help but wonder.
I still think that Bible version makers should try to make their what they're creating as close to the original texts, rather than utilize dynamic equivalence.
Did you know there is accounts from church fathers from the 3rd and 4th centuries that suggest that the texts newer bibles are based on were edited by cultists?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, I also think they should be written as close as the originals.
What you say about the editors of the new versions… I can’t find any info on it. So if you can provide me with the name of the editors and their religion/beliefs it would be great.
I think the church fathers would consider anyone who doesn’t believe like them as cultists, to me it sounds as rumors to diminish the new bible versions.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Some articles on Westcott an Hort, the fathers of the modern Bible versions, successors to the gnostics before them.
www.chick.com/information/bibl…
www.chick.com/reading/books/15…
www.chick.com/reading/books/15…
This last link is a multi-page article, and exposes the letters and writings of the duo themselves as ungodly.
These articles show the proponents for the alexandrian Greek texts were not in the least Christians. Hort actually denied the scriptural teaching one must be saved by Jesus's Atonement, and believed that we are all born Christians. He considered Heaven and Hell to be figments of man's imagination, but shockingly believed in the unbiblical place of Purgatory. Hort also didn't believe in the infallibility of God's Word.
Westcott believed Moses and David were just myths rather than actual people, and that Heaven was a state of living, not a place like scripture taught.
Both men shared beliefs in purgatory, communism, Darwinism, Mariolatry, and in a fallible word of God.
What Westcott and Hort did by saying their text was older and better, was create a very clever deception. Many of the Textus Receptus manuscripts are from the same era as the Alexandrian Text, and are in far better condition.
The Alexandrian Text was an exclusive text, found only in the confines of Egypt, and later, the monasteries of Rome. Constantine, when he declared Christianity the new state religion, ordered his scribes to produce a state Bible. Rather than going to the true Christians, the scribes went down to Egypt, and from there they created Codex Vaticanus, the basis for the Roman Catholic Bible, and later the 19th-21st Centuries new versions
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks for the info 
But the KJV is not the only bible derived from the Textus Receptus, and not every bible is derived from Westcott and Hort (not even the one I read is from W&H).
There are other more important things for a Christian than to argue whish bible version is better to read. I repeat I don’t read form the KJV and won’t read from it unless I’m writing stuff on the internet, because English is not my native language and there is so much more I can learn from a bible in my own language. I don’t know if you’re trying to convince me of the ‘KJV-only’ movement or you’re just sharing info with me…if it’s the first then you need to know that you’re wasting your time, if it’s the second then it’s ok, since I love to read, but you must know I won’t enter a debate about the ‘KJV-only’ movement with you or anyone else. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Me,I'm more of a 'Textus Receptus only' type. I like sharing information, to help people understand where I'm coming from. O course...a lots of times that leads to debates/arguments...
With the Textus Receptus only like a couple of its 5000 texts suffer from the Alexandrian texts.
I found this article going over the possible gnostic influences,
www.studytoanswer.net/biblever…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I believe any translation of the Bible can bring individuals to God, but not all versions should be used for doctrinal teaching. There are a lot of paraphrases out there (The Message, Clear Word, etc.), which are quite literally the author's personal interpretation, which may or may not be accurate, thus potentially leading some into an erroneous understanding of Scriptural doctrine.
Simply put: for devotionals, paraphrases are great. For in-depth study, KJV or NKJV, because they are the closest English translations to the originals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
People who prefer the KJV Bible I'm perfectly fine with, we all have a preference, and if they prefer it because that's what they're used to, or they grew up with, or just prefer the writing style, then fine.
But people who think it's KJV or nothing prove only that their faith is in man and not in God. For starters off, God wouldn't have allowed the NIV to be published if it was that wrong, and second of all, believe it or not, that the NIV is corrupt and any other lies about it are just more of satan's tactics to get you to stay as far away from the Bible as possible. He wants you to believe it's corrupt, because then you'll stay away from it, away from God's word. You may think "but I have the KJV, I'm reading plenty of God's word", but a wise Christian should consider reading the Bible in more than one translation every once in a while, because a different phrasing will give you a different mindset, and you'll view something in a slightly different light to what you read before, so God can show you things you'd never even thought about before, and if you believe that the NIV or other versions are corrupt, you're letting satan rule your life, not God. It's not even only you that you're hurting. You're seeding doubt in the minds of perhaps the spiritually weaker Christians and making them stay away from a Bible version that made sense to them, as well as putting off new Christians or those thinking of looking into Christianity or looking for Jesus. If they think KJV is the only version they can read when they can't understand it, it will deter them. They may feel hopeless, incapable of being saved. The Bible is confusing enough and when it's in a translation that you don't understand, it can be really off-putting, which means you're creating a stumbling block for them, as Paul says (1 Corinthians 8:9), and you're leading them in the opposite direction of Christ, which is, after all, your mission here on earth. (Paul takes that dead seriously by the way, he even goes as far as to say that if eating meat causes his brother to sin, he will never eat meat again (1 Cor 8:13)
Not to mention every single accusation of the NIV I have ever seen I have been able to disprove with merely nothing more than a bit of common sense and Google (and faith, of course).
(I'm using the NIV as an example here, because I've only seen accusations against that version so far, but this can apply to all other versions)
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I have used the KJV all my life, and I never had trouble understanding it, I do not understand WHY we need more than one newer translation anyway, when only one would do to fill the need in the English language, and then shouldn't that version be translated as close as possible to the original? That's what the KJV does. It translates directly, rather than a loose equivalent like ALL the newer versions do.
Then there's the missing verses, that a good many of the newer bibles drop.
How do you explain the missing verses, like 1 John 5:7?
KJV
1 John 5:6-9 6.This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
NIV
6 This is the one who came by water and blood--Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.7. For there are three that testify 8. the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.9. We accept man's testimony, but God's testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.
The NIV DELETES a key verse about the Trinity.
Shouldn't we be more concerned with what God really said than "I like how this translation sounds"?
Seriously using the argument why would God allow Satan create the NIV? May I remind you Satan has a way of appearing as the 'good guy' sometimes.
Look at the Catholic Crusades. They were done in God's name, but I seriously doubt God was in them. Look at the inquisition that killed close to 70 million people by 1800. That too was done in God's name. Was God in that mass slaughter? no.
Remember what Paul said regarding the understanding of The Word.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Which is better, a bible that gets its NT from thousands of ancient manuscripts(KJV), or a bible that gets its NT from a 20th century eclectic copy of 2 incomplete manuscripts (NIV)?
A bit of info on the NT sources for the NIV, the Codex Sanaiticus, and Codex Vaticanus. The collection is called The Nestle Aland and United Bible Society's Greek text or the NU Text.
Sanaiticus:
"This codex is an Alexandrian (Egyptian) manuscript dating from the fourth century (350 AD; around 275 years after most of the New Testament books were originally written). The scribe has many careless and transcriptional errors. Letters, words, and whole sentences are written twice or begun the second time and immediately struck out. There are 115 times in the N.T. where a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause before it. It has had many alterations to correct the careless mistakes. Dean Burgon, who has studied it, says that eleven different persons have made revisions and corrections on the manuscript itself down through the ages. It was discovered in a monastery trash can."
Vaticanus:
"This codex is also an Alexandrian (Egyptian) manuscript dating from the fourth century (350 AD; around 275 years after the most of the New Testament books were originally written). It has been held by the Vatican since the mid 1400's but was not released to Protestant scholars until the late 1800's. The Vatican will not let scholars study the original. Only a few have been allowed to see it, and then only for short periods. Scholars have only had photocopies to work from. There are literally thousands of omissions, additions, and other changes in each of these manuscripts. What is significant is that where they differ from the way the majority of the Greek manuscripts read, the omissions, additions, and other changes are not the same in both manuscripts. These two manuscript do not read the same, they are not identical"
One site I got on displayed the differences between the few supposed manuscripts behind the the above mentioned codex collections with a quote from Shakespeare:
"To illustrate the diverse readings in the Alexandrian Manuscripts, Burgon draws the following analogy using the quote from Shakespeare "To be or not to be, that is the question": "What would be thought of four such diverse copies of Shakespeare?... Why, some of the poet's most familiar lines would cease to be recognizable: For example, A might read, Toby or not Toby; that is the question.B might read, Tob or not, is the question. N might read, To be a tub, or not to be a tub; the question is that. C might read, The question is, to beat, or not to beat Toby? D might read, The only question is this: to beat that Toby, or to be a tub?"
The Textus Receptus is derived from 5000 manuscripts that are virtually 95% harmonious. Unlike the Nestle UBS Text, the majority of the differences are spelling and punctuation errors.
God forbade anyone adding to, or taking away from his word, which is what the modern Bible translators have done.
Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>