HOME | DD
Nilopher — KJV only?
Published: 2014-06-07 04:44:48 +0000 UTC; Views: 2070; 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
Well, I'm no expert so I won't claim knowledge on that, but as far as I'm aware those verses were supposedly omitted because they didn't appear in the original manuscripts, and vital though they may be, they felt that they'd be sticking more closely to God's word by not adding more to it. You have to remember that in all translations of the Bible, God has been with them, this hasn't just been a bunch of people writing a new translation because they felt like it. To answer why we need new translations, because God never deals with the next man the same way as he did the first. Some people might get on better with a different translation, why take that away from them? And while I believe God could use any version of the Bible should he wish to, language evolves, so to do we update the Bible to the current lingo, otherwise we'd all be reading the Bible in Latin like they did in Catholicism where Latin was believed to be the only worthy translation.
I'm aware satan could make it look like it's a good thing, that's why I said he'd lead you astray by telling you that some versions of the Bible are corrupt. What a better way to lead God's people away from him by leading them away from the Bible? That would certainly do more harm than trying to corrupt God's word itself. The NIV and all other translations will still tell you that Jesus is Lord, that there is only one God, that we can only reach Heaven through Jesus, that he came to earth to remove our sins, that satan is the tempter who will try to lead us astray. God still speaks to me through the NIV, he still sends me to verses in that translation, he still uses it, so why should we throw God's precious word away like trash over a few silly rumors?
And to answer your first question, it ultimately doesn't matter what version you use. It's better to stay as close to the original as possible, it's also better to have a paraphrase that puts it into a context you can understand. The version doesn't matter. You can be like the pharisees and memorize every verse in the Bible exactly as it was when it was first written, but without God's love, or talking to him, that's all completely and utterly worthless. My God is not limited to translation. I'll read the KJV if it's around, I'll also read the NIV, sometimes the Message, but I don't feel compelled to read the KJV just because it's supposedly more literal.
Just to clarify, I'm also not saying the NIV is the best translation, nor am I going to make you read it. I don't mind what version any person uses, God speaks to us in many ways and I'm not going to take that away from anyone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm sorry, but the NT manuscripts the new versions are based on are not the originals. They are copies from at least 250 years after the originals were completed, some up to 500 years later.
The verse I mentioned that was removed(1 John 5:7) was referred as scripture by 3rd century church father Cyprian in 251 AD, 100 years before Sinaiticus or Vaticanus came to be, so to say this verse was added by 16th century translators is a lie. 95% of the texts that do not have that verse are from the same eras that the ones that do contain it (post 9th Century). Some attribute the removal of the verse to a heretic named Nestorus, who taught that Christ's divinity and humanity were separate while on earth, rather than 100% God, 100% man the Bible teaches.
Jerome in his writing spoke how the verse was being removed from Greek manuscripts in his day(the same era as the sinaiticus and vaticanus)
The quote from Jerome himself
"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested"
Did you know that the NIV removes the name of Jesus over 2400 times, even though the Greek manuscripts do not?
Whenever the KJV translators added a word to the scriptures(usually so the language could flow more fluidly) they would indicate so with italics. The NIV has at the most a 25% difference from its own greek manuscripts, adding and removing words in several places, without a blink of an eye as to mention the difference.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Amen the New age bibles follow closely to the man made Greek of Wescott and Hort.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes, it's different, but God still uses it. Like I said, I can't really answer that, I really don't know anything about original manuscripts and translations, dates and all that sort, because I'm much more interested in getting to know Jesus that arguing over history. My God is so much greater than translations.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I love researching history than just 'going with the flow' on things. If we do not learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
The ends do not justify the means most times.
What irks me the most about is its similarities to the cultic Jehovah Witness Bible.
God considered His Word to be greater than his name.
Psalms 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not saying we shouldn't research history, I'm just saying it's not really my thing. We all have different parts to play in God's plan.
Anyway, sorry if I came of as 'preachy' or self-righteous, I didn't mean to, I just think that it's not wrong to read another version, but perhaps I'm wrong, maybe KJV is the only version worthy. I can't say for sure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
From things I've looked up and researched, the KJV is the closest thing we've got to the originals, in the english language, intact and unaltered by the ideals of corrupt man. The NIV, though not the worst translation, is among the top 5. One that might be worsw is a Bible paraphrase based on the early doctrines of the Seven Day Adventists. It inserts stuff about the Sabbath where in the Bible there wasn't any, and also making Michael the Archangel and Jesus the same person.
It's okay. I probably came off the same way. All my life, I've been taught the KJV is God's Word, and the others are inferior counterfeits. Thanks to various websites and books, I'm now able to learn the reason why, not just the excuse of 'that's what my pastor said'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The NIV is an on-going project taken on by various people, from what I know, and they admit they're not perfect but they do keep updating it. I'm a bit confused as to what you mean there. Do you mean to say that the NIV is in the top 5 best translations, or the top 5 worst translations?
I don't read any paraphrases, although I have on occasions just to see if they give any extra insight. I wouldn't say the rest of the translations are inferior counterfeits, I'd say they're a work in progress and some are just less literal but they keep the meaning in tact. At the end of the day the KJV was just another inferior counterfeit of the original Jewish one, it's just perhaps a more literal counterfeit than the rest of the translations, if you want to look at it that way, but to me God's word is God's word.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The NIV is in the top 5. If they wanted to create a really good update to the NIV they would include the missing verses and phrases found in the bulk of the texts.
The NIV and KJV are not cut from the same cloth, and in many cases teach different things. I happen to have a 400th anniversary edition KJV Bible, copied directly from the first edition. The key difference between the KJV back then, and the KJV now is how the words were written and the letters were constructed. For example son was spelled sonne, and lion was spelled lyon. Lower case 's' looked a lot like lower case 'f', and upper case 'I' and 'J' were virtually indistinguishable. That plus some misprints and the deletion of the pseudo-scriptural Jewish Apocrypha, are the only changes between KJV back then, and the KJV now.
The same cannot be said for the NIV and the NIRV, now can it?
Look at the difference of 1 John 5:6-9 between the NIV and the NIRV
mobile.biblegateway.com/passag…
The NIRV changed the passage to be about Baptism!
To me, the greatest proof of Satan's work is the inconsistencies between translations, which seem to ring of the words he tempted Eve with(Yea, hath God said...?). Did God really say that, or did he mean something else like in so-and-so version?
Here's an interesting article about the missing verse in 1 John 5, and how more evidence points to its inclusion rather than exclusion.
av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1j…
Man may not be perfect, but God's power is. If God's power is truly behind the NIV, like is evident with the KJV, then why do the translators change what the words say so drastically? Satan can inspire perversions as well false books(I.e. the jewish apocrypha books, the gnostic gospels, the Book of Mormon) to deceive the very elect of God.
There are several places the NIV stumbles all over itself. For example, the NIV credits Isaiah as the sole prophet quoted in Mark 1:2-3. This is false.
The prophets quoted here are Isaiah and Malachi.
Verse 2 is quoted from Malachi 3:1, while verse 3 is quoted from Isaiah 40:3.
The KJV accurately renders it as 'the prophets'.
Mark 1:2-3
2 As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
The NIV also removes Hell, changing it simply to 'the grave' in the OT, or to 'Hades' in the NT. The grave is not the same as Hell, and Hades in many pagan cultures, was practically like Heaven. No wonder we have a generation today denying Hell's exitence.
Also according to NIV commentaries, Mark 16:9-20 do not belong in the Bible, because they are only found in 'late manuscripts'. The same is said for John 7:53-8:11
Here is a full list of the missing verses.
www.jesus-is-lord.com/nivdelet…
In whole, the number of words that are removed from the NIV are the equivalent to someone removing 30 books from the Bible.
It should be noted that when tested using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Study, the KJB averaged as being understood at a 5.8 School Grade level, while the NIV averaged at an 8.4 Grade.
More accurate? No
More understandable? No.
More ungodly? Yes.
A good example of the difference between the KJV and post 19th century English versions, is the two variations of the Ulfberht, a type of sword used by viking warriors.
True Ulfberhts were made of high grade crucible steel, and forged in a way that made them superior to other swords of the day. They were inscribed with what many consider to be the maker's mark, '*cross*Ulfberh*cross*T'. The fashioning of these swords gave them flexibility, so they wouldn't break during battle, and their smooth edges allowed for quick cutting through wood and steel.
Shortly after these swords started appearing on the scene, copies made of lower grade metal began to show up. These swords, despite having the same name on it (inscribed incorrectly as '*cross*ulfberht*cross*'), these swords were inferior to the true ulfberhts. Specimens of these swords have been found broken, as if shattered from battle, something the true ulfberhts, were not found to do. Historians believe these ulfberhts were made by swordsmiths trying to mimic the real ulfberht, but were unable to do so due the lack of access to crucible steel.
The KJV is like the true ulfberht, made out of the highest quality of manuscripts, and forged in God's purifying furnace. This sword can be used to refute scoffers and battle the attacks from the Devil and his cohorts.
The other versions are like the false ulfberht, made to look as good as the original, but lacking the power and quality of the preserved scriptures. This sword has flaws, and ofttimes shatters when confronted by scrutiny of unbelievers, or an attack from the Devil.
How can a Bible be trusted when the same company that publishes it is the same one that publishes the Satanic Bible?
Jeremiah 8:8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
Jeremiah 23:36 And the burden of the LORD shall ye mention no more: for every man's word shall be his burden; for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.
My dad when he was a kid went to a church that the pastor would preach from 2 new versions. The pastor would read from one bible at one podium, then read from the other bible at another bible, then preach a message unrelated to either passages.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lot of words, sorry, I'm not that smart so I kind of skim-read a bit.
And LOL at the last part. Yeah, some Churches have really dry sermons.
As for the question you raised, "How can a Bible be trusted when the same company that publishes it is the same one that publishes the Satanic Bible?" that was exactly what I was referring to when I said about satan making people believe in silly rumors about the Bible in order to make them stay away from it. I heard that rumor, it is false, or at least the one I heard.
The rumor I heard goes like this: Harper Collins published the NIV, which is the same company that published the satanic bible.
Here's why it's false.
Biblica are the publishers of the NIV, who license their publishing rights to Zondervan in the US and Hodder & Stoughton in the UK.
Avon Books published the satanic bible.
What does Harper Collins have to do with any of that? Nothing. They published the KJV and they bought out Avon Books, but they never published the satanic bible and certainly never published the NIV.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think I read how the two companies are connected somewhere...ugh I always research too much.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, they're not. I did my research when I responded to somebody who commented that, I spent about 2 hours trying to re-find that comment but to no avail. Ah well. If I find it I might link you, but I doubt I will now, it's lost out there somewhere in the great sea of cyberspace.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Here's the article I found that linked Zondervan to the printers of the Satanic Bible.
It also points out things contextually wrong with the NIV when compared to the KJV
www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/…
Warning: the guy likes the word peversion.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Last time I did the research, Zondervan wasn't linked to the satanic bible either, but like I said, I can't find that comment, sorry.
Is that the website that guy made that's all angry and is literally just page after page after page of "everything is wrong", the guy that got arrested for pedophilia or something? I can't actually reach that website, my ISP blocks it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you might be getting him mixed up with someone else. Last I heard David Stewart was having neck problems. Of course I haven't studied him.
He does have some things I don't agree with, fo example, his denial of Jesus as Lord in salvation. Jesus is not just our saviour, but our lord and saviour.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah ok, must have been someone else then. Dunno why the page is blocked though.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I checked it out, it is the same guy's site, but that particular article was written by someone else.
One article I read even connected his sin and the falsehoods(I.E. lordship salvation) he proclaims, to his neck pain, based on a verse...Ugh I just forgot which one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice work. I made my own artwork questioning KJV Onlyism some time ago. artngame215.deviantart.com/art…
I've been studying the KJV Only movement lately and knew something wasn't right about that movement when I looked at the different people representing that movement. I mainly noticed not just the excuses they use, but their personalities/characteristics in how they treat others. Also the ways they study, read other languages, research and come to conclusions isn't taken seriously by real Bible scholars.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks! I'm gonna fav your artwork so I can read it later (I'm still studying for my finals *cries*).
I haven't look at the people representing the movement, just the claims and what they say. I will look that up later. ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I just prefer Bibles that have the Textus Receptus as its source. It's possible for people to be saved regardless of the version of Bible they have, but one needs to be wary about what doctrines are being taught. This is especially the case since some versions have verses rewritten or removed in order to teach specific doctrines that have no bearing in the original.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That’s nice
Yea, there are religions that have rewritten the bible to fit their doctrines. I don’t consider them to be bible translations because they change the meaning of the verses entirely. But with any bible translation and a proper and deep study of the word there shouldn’t be misunderstandings. I say this because I always look up the original texts to clear up words, and at the end the meaning is the same.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I have a KJV and an NIV. Both are New Testament only, but I've finished the NI version, and I'm going to read KJ version.
Also, there is a verse cut in the version.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
After 4 years what did you find out about the KJV?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Thank you so much for this. I ran into someone who believe KJV was the only credible version of the Bible, and that is just not true.
Especially when you bring up the fact that not everyone understands English. So they can''t learn about God's ways and be saved because they can't read English? Nonsense.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People even use the KJV to introduce false doctrines, so instead of fighting over which version is better we should help to facilitate the bible study for others. It’s God’s work to give them understanding and lead them to the truth.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
<= Prev |