To the "KJV Onlyists" Please Read Your Preface by the Translators

[Comradio251]

For my whole life I've been around KJV Onlyists who are Christian Fundamentalists by the way. Trust me, they will start attacking their fellow Christians with things like this for those who don't use the KJV translation:

"KJV is the one and only best Bible translation, fool!"

"We will not conform to the NKJV, ESB, NIV, AKJV etc. because the KJV one is perfect and the other ones are satanic!"

Let me ask you, how are you peaceful when acting like this? Well, I implore you to read the KJV Preface by the very translators themselves and let them REALLY open your mind to the truth of their own translation and work.

Excerpts from the KJV 1611 Preface:


The Translators To the Reader

1. The translators acknowledging other Bible versions can be just as good. Like the two Geneva Bible translations 1560, 1599 and the Bishop's Bible, 1568.

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem.

2. The Translators acknowleging that their work is NOT perfect and that the hand of infallibility rests on the apostle's hands only. Not the KJV translators.

[There is] no cause . . . why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [“circulated”], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

Well, that sums this argument up pretty well. Here's a link to the very long KJV Preface. I want to also note that it doesn't make much sense to be an advocate for the 1611 KJV Bible as the Geneva translators did a much better job at creating their Geneva Bible. It was even the first Bible to have numbered verses which came about over half a century before the KJV! It also had pictures and footnotes which the KJV never did surprisingly.

The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to hit the U.S from the Mayflower Journey 1620-1648 so I hear, to Plymouth. The Mayflower Puritans never chose the KJV.

 

[Brickjectivity]

For my whole life I've been around KJV Onlyists who are Christian Fundamentalists by the way. Trust me, they will start attacking their fellow Christians with things like this for those who don't use the KJV translation:

They have become pretty rare. I haven't seen many KJV-only fans online not for a long time. There are still churches that have this as a rule, but I don't think they have a strong online presence.

Aren't there worse things though than sticking to a particular translation?

 

[Mark La Buda]

For my whole life I've been around KJV Onlyists who are Christian Fundamentalists by the way. Trust me, they will start attacking their fellow Christians with things like this for those who don't use the KJV translation:

"KJV is the one and only best Bible translation, fool!"

"We will not conform to the NKJV, ESB, NIV, AKJV etc. because the KJV one is perfect and the other ones are satanic!"

Let me ask you, how are you peaceful when acting like this? Well, I implore you to read the KJV Preface by the very translators themselves and let them REALLY open your mind to the truth of their own translation and work.

Excerpts from the KJV 1611 Preface:


The Translators To the Reader

1. The translators acknowledging other Bible versions can be just as good. Like the two Geneva Bible translations 1560, 1599 and the Bishop's Bible, 1568.


2. The Translators acknowleging that their work is NOT perfect and that the hand of infallibility rests on the apostle's hands only. Not the KJV translators.


Well, that sums this argument up pretty well. Here's a link to the very long KJV Preface. I want to also note that it doesn't make much sense to be an advocate for the 1611 KJV Bible as the Geneva translators did a much better job at creating their Geneva Bible. It was even the first Bible to have numbered verses which came about over half a century before the KJV! It also had pictures and footnotes which the KJV never did surprisingly.

The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to hit the U.S from the Mayflower Journey 1620-1648 so I hear, to Plymouth. The Mayflower Puritans never chose the KJV.

I do have a KJV that I use occasionally as a reference. It was presented to me sometime ago and the "preface" had been removed. Regardless of this, the edition I have (edition/printing date unknown) has the name of "God" in only 7 places: Genesis 22;14; Exodus 6;3, 17:15; Judges 6:24; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12:2' 26:4. Modern/updated editions have removed the name of God and replaced it with "lord" or some other solemn title.. If you know, what is the purpose of this?

 

[Tomef]

For my whole life I've been around KJV Onlyists who are Christian Fundamentalists by the way. Trust me, they will start attacking their fellow Christians with things like this for those who don't use the KJV translation:

"KJV is the one and only best Bible translation, fool!"

"We will not conform to the NKJV, ESB, NIV, AKJV etc. because the KJV one is perfect and the other ones are satanic!"

Let me ask you, how are you peaceful when acting like this? Well, I implore you to read the KJV Preface by the very translators themselves and let them REALLY open your mind to the truth of their own translation and work.

Excerpts from the KJV 1611 Preface:


The Translators To the Reader

1. The translators acknowledging other Bible versions can be just as good. Like the two Geneva Bible translations 1560, 1599 and the Bishop's Bible, 1568.


2. The Translators acknowleging that their work is NOT perfect and that the hand of infallibility rests on the apostle's hands only. Not the KJV translators.


Well, that sums this argument up pretty well. Here's a link to the very long KJV Preface. I want to also note that it doesn't make much sense to be an advocate for the 1611 KJV Bible as the Geneva translators did a much better job at creating their Geneva Bible. It was even the first Bible to have numbered verses which came about over half a century before the KJV! It also had pictures and footnotes which the KJV never did surprisingly.

The Geneva Bible was the first Bible to hit the U.S from the Mayflower Journey 1620-1648 so I hear, to Plymouth. The Mayflower Puritans never chose the KJV.

People like to believe they got at least one thing right in their life.

 

[Glaurung]

I understand the impulse behind the idea even if it's misguided. Having a single, authoritative translation makes for a rather neat and tidy state of affairs. The KJV is also beautifully composed with its thees and thous giving an almost sacred aura to the text.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Birthed between Shakespeare and John Milton, the KJV arrived in a golden era of English letters. Whatever else it is, it’s a literary masterpiece

 

[Niatero]

I haven't seen many KJV-only fan.

I’m a KJV-only fan. When I quote from the Bible, I only quote from the KJV.

 

[Niatero]

The KJV is also beautifully composed with its thees and thous giving an almost sacred aura to the text.

Exactly. Bingo. I knew there was a reason for my preference, but I didn’t know how to explain it.

 

[Niatero]

Tha

Birthed between Shakespeare and John Milton, the KJV arrived in a golden era of English letters. Whatever else it is, it’s a literary masterpiece

Thank you.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I’m a KJV-only fan. When I quote from the Bible, I only quote from the KJV.

I think though that the OP is asking about people who believe the KJV is the only acceptable version for churches to use. There are or were a lot of such people. I don't remember when, but at some point I became aware of some people claiming it was divinely protected from error.

 

[Kathryn]

I always wonder about non English speaking people.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I always wonder about non English speaking people.

Greek speakers would be at a natural advantage when reading the NT, and Hebrew speakers with the old, I’d imagine

 

[TiggerII]

Some KJV-only fans don't accept "Jehovah" as an acceptable name for God. They may insist on "Yaweh" or even "Yehowah" as preferable. Please send them to Ps. 83:18 in their KJV.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One of the most highly acclaimed translation of the Hebrew Bible is that by Hebraist Robert Alter. He has praised the KJV for its elegance.

 

[paarsurrey]

Whatever translation one may read of NT, it was neither written by Jesus, nor he ever read it even the original of it, nor he ever dictate it to any body nor he ever implore the people to read it, right, please?
It was an anonymous narrations, with many errors and contradictions, it does not present the deeds and teachings of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah exactly, please, right?

Regards

 

[Tomef]

Whatever translation one may read of NT, it was neither written by Jesus, nor he ever read it even the original of it, nor he ever dictate it to any body nor he ever implore the people to read it, right, please?
It was an anonymous narrations, with many errors and contradictions, it does not present the deeds and teachings of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah exactly, please, right?

Regards

As with the Koran and other religious books, there were numerous different written accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings, but as with those other books, some group of people decided what would go into the final version, generations after Jesus’ death. So it might be based on his teachings, but no, it probably isn’t very accurate.

 

[paarsurrey]

To the "KJV Onlyists" Please Read Your Preface by the Translators​

paarsurrey said:
Whatever translation one may read of NT, it was neither written by Jesus, nor he ever read it even the original of it, nor he ever dictate it to any body nor he ever implore the people to read it, right, please?
It was an anonymous narrations, with many errors and contradictions, it does not present the deeds and teachings of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah exactly, please, right?

As with the Koran and other religious books, there were numerous different written accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings, but as with those other books, some group of people decided what would go into the final version, generations after Jesus’ death. So it might be based on his teachings, but no, it probably isn’t very accurate.

it (Quran) might be based on his teachings, but no, it probably isn’t very accurate.

And one's reasoning, if any.

Regards

 

[Tomef]

To the "KJV Onlyists" Please Read Your Preface by the Translators​

paarsurrey said:
Whatever translation one may read of NT, it was neither written by Jesus, nor he ever read it even the original of it, nor he ever dictate it to any body nor he ever implore the people to read it, right, please?
It was an anonymous narrations, with many errors and contradictions, it does not present the deeds and teachings of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah exactly, please, right?


And one's reasoning, if any.

Regards

What?

 

[Tomef]

To the "KJV Onlyists" Please Read Your Preface by the Translators​

paarsurrey said:
Whatever translation one may read of NT, it was neither written by Jesus, nor he ever read it even the original of it, nor he ever dictate it to any body nor he ever implore the people to read it, right, please?
It was an anonymous narrations, with many errors and contradictions, it does not present the deeds and teachings of (Jesus)Yeshua- the truthful Israelite Messiah exactly, please, right?


And one's reasoning, if any.

Regards

I’m not sure where you got this from: 'it (Quran) might be based on his teachings’.

My point is that all ancient religions came into text form via a similar process; lots of divergent writings edited down over a process of centuries into an official version, with no way of knowing how accurately this reflects what the ‘holy person’ involved actually said.

 

[paarsurrey]

I’m not sure where you got this from: 'it (Quran) might be based on his teachings’.

My point is that all ancient religions came into text form via a similar process; lots of divergent writings edited down over a process of centuries into an official version, with no way of knowing how accurately this reflects what the ‘holy person’ involved actually said.

Absolutely wrong about Quran, I would suggest one reading from a short treatise " An introduction to the study of Holy Quran" by Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmood Ahmad, its chapter on "Compilation of the Quran" from pages 259 to 271:

THE COMPILATION OF THE QURAN 259
Devices Adopted To Safeguard the Text of the Quran 260
Instructors of the Quran 261
Reciters of the Quran 263
The Quran Committed to Memory 263
The Quran Collected in One Volume 265
Standardized Copies of the Quran 266
Practice of Committing the Quran to Memory Continued 267
Arrangement of Chapters and Verses 269
Some Prophecies of the Quran 271

Alislam View -

Official website of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community

www.alislam.org

https://www.alislam.org/library/books/Introduction-Study-Holy-Quran.pdf

Right?

Regards