ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

King James Only Christian

Are you a "King James Only" Christian? If you are, should we teach people of different languages King James English before they get to hear the gospel? If not, then why emphasize King James only when our culture doesn't use that form of English anymore?

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---J._Nonymous on 12/5/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (11)

Post a New Blog

I like the KJV, along with other translations.

Sadly, the KJ "ONLY" folks overlook how the English language has changed and they run the risk of missing some of the beauty of God's word that a comparison of translations and a look at the original languages can provide.

Also, taking a KJ only position makes it necessary to argue in favor of mistakes like the word "Easter" at Acts 12:4. A mistranslation of the Greek word Pascha, which means "Passover."
---scott on 6/3/08

Scott: thats interesting, why confuse yourselves with so and so english when it simple says what it meant..still, the kjv is very simple to understand..and I will continue to use it..this is not a competition on who is more knowlegable of the english and hebrew language, but a race to get a hold of God before its too late..
---doctor on 6/3/08

Doctor it's incorrect to say that KJV English has the same meaning as when it was translated. Right on page one-Genesis 1:28- it's wrong. In the Hebrew the word is 'male' which means 'fill' but the KJV has 'replenish' which today means 're-fill' which led to the gap theory heresy. It needs changing to 'fill' to bring it back into line with the meaning it had when first translated.

It is a good translation but needs revising to keep it accurate as English is a changing language.
---Warwick on 6/3/08


Do you recall which passage got rewritten, and what it used to say, and what it says now?
---StrongAxe on 6/3/08

Emcee is right, there is only one truth. It is the Bible. The Word of God. I just watched that movie "Luther" with Joseph Fiennes, what a great movie! I highly recommend it. Amazing that Papal Rome at times taught that there is no salvation outside of the RCC, that you could pay money or look at relics to take years off of purgatory, that the Pope is a higher authority than the Bible, that people should not have scriptures in their own language.
---Todd1 on 6/2/08

"They have ADDICTED themselves to the ministry of the saints."
1 Corinthians 16:15 KJV
---scott on 6/2/08

Some of the KJ language is either no longer understood or the meaning of certain words has changed:

"They are SOTTISH children.." Jeremiah 4:2

"Let no man seek his own, but EVERY MAN ANOTHER'S WEALTH. Whatsoever is sold in the SHAMBLES, that eat." 1 Corinthians 10:24, 25

"They have ADDICTED themselves to the ministry of the saints."
---Scott_not_a_doctor on 6/2/08

Doctor cont
Notice how the meaning of the word "Let" has changed:

"The mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now LETTETH will LET, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed." 2 Thess. 2:7, 8

Did the apostles allow or "Let" apostate Christians remain in the Christian congregation?

No. In the days of King James the word "let" meant hinder, just the opposite of what it means today.
---scott_not_a_doctor on 6/2/08

I am a kkv, hebrew,greek christian..because I like that translation and on reading the hebrew bible, it is the same as kjv..No, anyone can use whatever translation agrees with them. Kjv english is still in use today..most of christiandom use it so where did you get your nonsense that it is not? so use whatever suits you..
---doctor on 5/31/08

Emcee - while Roman Catholics view their denomination as being the one Christ commissioned, history simply does not support that contention.

1-2 Specifically we would expect to see Peter as the undisputed head & ruler of the early church, acknowledged by the other Apostles and playing a dominant role with the clear & unanimous testimony of the early church, but we do NOT.
---Lee1538 on 5/31/08

Emcee -

2-2 Secondly, we would also expect to find an acknowledgement of the bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter & supreme ruler of the church with ultimate authority in all matters of faith, morals & discipline and a submission to him in that rule but again we do NOT.

You really need to read history from a more critical perspective rather than believe what you were taught without question by those who have their own agenda.
---Lee1538 on 5/31/08

We should be thankful for the believers of the past and present who have faithfully translated scripture into our present language, and other languages around the world.
---Ken on 5/30/08

So, there I was, in my Catholic Church with my Roman Catholic Missal. But the priest was reading from the altar and suddenly the meanings between what he said and what was written in my missal departed ways. His new message was the opposite of my old Missal. Then I googled the passage and found that the American Bishops had rewritten the Bible. To suit the needs of Bush and company. Now victory was to ensure an earthly kingdom (Zionism). But don't be fooled. Most Jews are against Zionism.
---frances008 on 5/30/08

StrongAx - totally agree that this is an area we can avoid arguments as there is a world out there very hungry for God's word no matter the version. But the spirit of divisiveness has always been in the church.
---Lee1538 on 5/30/08

All:: You may notice from these few replies Why Jesus made it imperative that he would send the Holy Spirit, acts 1:8 to guide The teachings of HIS CHURCH and protect His Holy word in Matt16:17-19 sorry to be repetitive.But there is ONLT ONE TRUTH.Look alikes are therefore counterfeit IMHO.with no intent to offend.Those of us who REALLY love god MUST Follow HIM.
---Emcee on 5/30/08


So right!
People who have heated arguments over this and that translation getting this and that verse wrong (even though 99 44/100% of the verses are substantially the same) is like a bunch of chefs arguing over whether they should throw the stew out because there's too much or too little pepper in it, while people are starving outside saying "We don't care HOW much pepper there is - just give us SOMETHING to eat!"
---StrongAxe on 5/30/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements

Nope ~ not part of the KJV cult..:)
---melanie on 5/29/08

Instead of being contentious about what version of the Bible one should or should not read,would it not be more beneficial to encourage them to simply study & read whatever version they like?

One cannot often win an argument not based upon rationale thinking anyhow particularly with those whose minds are closed.
---Lee1538 on 5/29/08

*Now you know exactly who I serve...The God of Abraham Issac and Jacob...Jesus is My Lord and Savior...

And how ones does that is almost entirely dependent upon ones personal prospective as this is a relationship not a religious philosophy.
---Lee1538 on 5/29/08

Emcee, Now you know exactly who I serve...The God of Abraham Issac and Jacob...Jesus is My Lord and Savior...I don't read anything that is not Jesus.Yes I have many different translations but they all contain the Word of God.My fav's are KJV,AMP.NLT,CEV,Weymouth,Original Greek and Hebrew.I have KJV Ps.151 from the dead sea scholls...etc.etc.on and on.Show me in Scripture where one is not to read a certain translation of the bible and I will research that.In His Love Emcee.
Shanah Tova
---Elisabeth on 5/28/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


The blog question is about "King James Only" Christians - people who believe that the KJV is the ONLY inspired bible on the planet - a matter of black and white. This necessarily also excludes the inspiration of any other versions in any other languages. (Some even think KJV is superior to the individual Greek and Hebrew!)

People who believe that the KJV is the best English version (while admitting that other versions may have validity) don't fall into this category.
---StrongAxe on 5/28/08

I thought the question was about which English Bible was best, not which Japanese or Chinese. And talking of those, you never can tell exactly what they have written, and what has been lost or changed in translation. It is always better to keep as close to the original Greek and Hebrew as possible. If the foreign Bibles are translations straight from Greek or Hebrew, then fine. The KJV is closest to the Greek/Hebrew. The NIV sometimes dramatically differs from the KJV.
---frances008 on 5/23/08

The explaination was even more brilliant I have read it but dont recall its details the only difference was it was his Sergeant Major who got converted.Each card from ace to2 represented some happening in the Bible.He called it HIS BIBLE.something (similar to the 12 days of christmas.)
---Emcee on 5/23/08

Elisabeth::Having acquiredall the bibles you could lay your hands on which in your opinion and your belief is the TRUE CHURCH .Did you ever find out it was different to matt16:16-19.Id sure love to hear from you.OK?
---Emcee on 5/23/08

Locate Houseparents Jobs

Alan,ha ha,thats good! Did you ever hear the old song about the soldier who had been on the battlefield in WWII and had no Bible but had a deck of cards? He was at a meeting when he came off the battlefront and the Minister got onto him for bringing a deck of cards to the service. The soldier ran through every card and told him how each one represented something in the Bible,he had no Bible so he made what he had a Bible,his heart with God. Makes some humans look very foolish,doesn't it?
---Darlene_1 on 5/23/08


What does English have to do with Christianity? There were Christians around for centuries before English existed. Just because many English speakers happen to revere the KJV, that doesn't make it "God's Own (and only) Translation". There are more Christians in non-English-speaking countries than English-speaking ones. For English-speaking Christians to recommend non-English Christians learn English to properly learn God's word is would be very egocentric on their part.
---StrongAxe on 5/23/08

My father use to tell me that the KJV was the only Bible...And so I said to him ---Well, Show me that in the KJV...And of course he couldn't...!That just made me go out and get every translation of the Bible that I could possibly get my hands on.And I have...And I am all the more happy to read any Word that Comes from God...Attacking any version of the Bible is still attacking God and His Word.
---Elisabeth on 5/23/08

Is the KJV the original version of teh Bible?
I didn't know Jesus was English!
---alan_of_UK on 5/23/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores

It is better for Christian unity that everyone use the same version of the Bible, but if it is not the original one, then better that we should have free choice. People who for instance do not have English as a first language would be better to get instruction on the faith from simplified versions of the Bible, which are not Bibles, but specifically for new believers without much English.
---frances008 on 5/22/08

Those who know English well should have no difficulty looking at the concordance, notes, list of words at the back, etc, to find out any changes in meanings. There is also the internet. Depending on one translation which is a derivation from an original seems to be a dangerous thing since so much can hang on one verse, and even a comma in a different place changes the meaning greatly.
---frances008 on 5/22/08

The next thought after yours would be, slang, dialect, thousands of years, the usage of land marks, and parables fiction stories to teach truths, that made us all hear, and see, as much as ten thousand years ago should be considered to as to what they really new NASA. I would say any bible is a good one, but in the nation against nation or teems of denominations small fish trying to eat the big fish and used car salesmen ship you hit the nail on the head: good thought there.
---michael on 5/22/08


2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching...for correction, for training in righteousness so that the man of God may be...equipped for every good work." NASV

Could it be that the confusion comes from a Christian's lack of genuine understanding, or even interest, in God's word?

While there are all kinds of translations available, often it appears that people ignore what God with His holy spirit has inspired for their benefit.
---scott on 5/22/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training

It is amazing that we have "The Good News Gospel" but yet we have thousands of very confused Christians? There is Father God, Jesus,and the Holy Spirit...And for the one's who are "Truly Spirit-filled the Holy Spirit teaches us the very same thing...Look, the Holy Spirit does not teach another Gospel.Could it be that some have not received the "Holy Spirit"?You have to receive something in order to have it...Jesus said, Believe and Receive...This is very discerning...
---Elisabeth on 5/22/08

I agree with your feelings about various translations. A comparison of several provides a full and balanced view. Bible translation, as I'm sure you know, is challenging because Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic don't translate word-for-word into English, (or other languages), so theological preference can and does come into play. And those theological views can affect the words and phrasing.

Looking at the Original text provides some insight as well.
---scott on 5/22/08

I am not a KJV only Christian, but I trust the textus receptus that the new testement of the KJV and NKJV are based on more than the siniaticus and the vaticanus manuscripts (one of which was found in a pile of garbage outside a monestary) that the NT of the NIV and other Bibles are based on. That being said, I believe almost any translation of the Bible can be used to bring us closer to God, I would however refrain from paraphrase Bibles which are completely subject to the author's interpretation.
---Todd on 5/21/08

Warwick, On the topic of 'Being Coy'

When the Scribe told Jesus at Mark 12:32- "Well, Teacher, in truth thou hast spoken that there is one God, and there is none other but He," and then Jesus in verse 34 saw that the Scribe answered wisely said "You are not far from the kingdom of God," was he in fact being COY? Hiding from him the fact that the "He" the Scribe referred to was standing right in front of him?
---scott on 5/18/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Software

Scott don't be coy tell us what you believe: Is Jesus a god or God?
---Warwick on 5/7/08

Remember too that Jesus certainly understood what that "Oneness" meant between him and his Father and he was the one who prayed that the disciples be- one "JUST AS THEY, (He and his father), were one.

Question: If they're all sharing the same "Oneness" are they all, including the disciples, part of the Godhead?
---scott on 5/6/08

Please explain how God can be WITH God and yet we still have only ONE God. Can you be WITH yourself?
---scott on 5/6/08

What your not addressing is the fact that Christ uses the very same language in reference to the Father/Son relationship, as he does in describing the relationship he prayed the disciples would have with God. (That they may also be ONE with us).

If "I and the Father are one" means Jesus is equal and part of a trinity, then using the very same language a few chapters later should carry the same significance. Your adding trinitarian theology to one and not the other.
---scott on 5/6/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

New Catholic Encyclopedia- "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even REMOTELY APPROACHING such a mentality or perspective." New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 299

(emphasis added)
---scott on 5/6/08

Whether you view my humble opinion as right or wrong is of no great consequence to me. My interest is in God's word and the original biblical languages. Again, the point is, as it relates to this thread, that many translators have rendered John 1:1 as "A god", or some qualitative word like "Divine" or "Godlike."

If you feel that rendering is problematic for trinitarians, your argument is with them and not me.
---scott on 5/6/08

Thanks, AlanofUk, for clarifying that. Jesus WAS God because he was with God from the beginning, as was the Holy Spirit. I liked Warwick's description yesterday. Three entirely different time space and matter, all vital but totally different in their job.
---frances008 on 5/6/08

Scott ... Jesus was not talking about his dicsciples when He said "I and the Father are one"
He was talking about Himself and His Father. And stating that He and His father were one (now that is two parts of the Trinity, but we are not discussing that)
If His Father is God, and He is one with the Father (a true mystery this, but He did say it) He must also be God not just a god.
---alan_of_UK on 5/6/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

Then if you are correct Scott Jesus is both a god, and God! Scripture clearly says that Jesus is God, as he Himself does.
---Warwick on 5/6/08

Alan of UK Re: "I and the Father are one" makes no sense.

This topic is being tossed back and forth on other threads discussing the Trinity. But I might at least offer:

Jesus prays on behalf of his disciples at John 17:21,22 "That they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that THEY ALSO MAY BE ONE in us." KJV

Clearly Jesus disciples share a oneness of purpose with the Father and Son but are not equal or the same as them because of that unity.
---scott on 5/6/08

At the beginning of this discussion it was stated: "Certainly there is no grammatical basis for "the word (logos) was a god." And it was suggested that only the NWT had such an abhorrent rendering.

While we could discuss the theological implications of such a rendering and whether we're comfortable with it, the fact remains: Translators other than the NWT apparently are in agreement that there IS a grammatical basis for "A god."
---scott on 5/6/08

Scott ...Jesus' words "I and the Father are one" make no sense if He (he Word) was just a god.
---alan_of_UK on 5/6/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages

There are at least two points regarding the 'a god' idea. The first being that it creates a caste of Gods, the A class capital G God and the B class lower case god. That isn't supported anywhere in Scripture that I have seen. Is there also a C class tiny g god lurking somewhere?

Secondly throughout the NT Jesus is described as God so it's a sounder case to go with the flow of Scripture and accept that Jesus is indeed God.
---Warwick on 5/6/08

Alan of UK,
Many translators, as indicated below, have either rendered John 1:1c as "A god", "Divine" or "Godlike." The citations were posted as a response to someone who thought that only Jehovah's Witnesses NWT rendered is as such. Whether or not individuals agree with that rendering it's good to note that, at the very least, they are not alone with their take on that particular Greek verse.
---scott on 5/5/08

John t ... thanks forthe eplanation!

I'm not sure who here says that "The Word was a god"

As far as I am concerned The Word was God, and was also "with God"

And that gives a certain "double individuality" to the One God.

Which makes sense (for me) of the fact that The Word became "flesh" (ie, Jesus the human) whilst at the same time remaining God the "Father", to who Jesus prayed.
---alan_of_UK on 5/5/08

That kind of thinking is witchcraft.

However, it doesn't work with God. I don't care how long you repeat a prayer in the form of a curse over someone else, it will not work against the Christian. A Christian has protection and safety in Jesus Christ.
God will not allow a curse to touch a Christian.
---lisa on 5/5/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

Prayers in the form of witchcraft, thoughts projected towards others in the form of witchcraft and any rebellion towards God is as the sin of witchcraft.

God doesn't answer those prayers and He also does not allow the mind of a Christian to be influenced by witchcraft - when that Christian is led of the Holy Spirit.
---lisa on 5/5/08

Those that are in rebellion against God, praying witchcraft prayers or even trying to use mind control - repeating falseshoods, over and over - You know not what spirit you are of.

But the Holy Spirit led Christian does know the difference. Curses and witchcraft prayers will be returned back onto your own head, it's a dangerous thing to fall into the hands of a living God.
---lisa on 5/5/08

Regardless of the culture of the day, God's Word is inspired of the Holy Spirit.
The best translation is as close to the original, all further translations water God's Word down until it's lukewarm. The original meaning is lost in translation.
---lisa on 5/5/08

Frances: "If you repeat something often enough and believe in it strongly enough, you can produce the desired effect of having the people drop their previous convictions and adopt a totally brainless idea." Is that what happened to you with all those conspiracy theories?
---jerry6593 on 5/5/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


I just looked at the official Mormon scripture site, and it says "the Word was God" in John 1:1. I'm not really familiar with what version(s) they use, or whether they use multiple ones.

On the other hand, the official Jehovah's Witness's Watchtower scripture site says "The Word was a god" (as I remember it having also done 30 years ago).
---StrongAxe on 5/4/08

If you repeat something often enough and believe in it strongly enough, you can produce the desired effect of having the people drop their previous convictions and adopt a totally brainless idea. frances008
---frances008 on 5/3/08

Ahh..... ---james was created by an evil man and woman.....
Maybe you should clarify your statement.
All of the Bible writers were sinners. But, when I take a pencil into my hand it writes what I tell it to.
God can do so much more with the things He uses. Even sinful people penning the Bible.
---Elder on 5/3/08

I want to say kudos to whomever submitted this question. I was raised in a King James only church/home. I remember growing up how frustrated I became with personal devotion. I couldn't understand what they were saying enough to get much out of it. As an adult, I now rely on several versions for my own personal study and reflection. I believe that God wants us to understand him above all else so that we will know what his love letter to us really says!
---Amy on 5/3/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

If you are kjv only, do you belive God stopped guiding english translators after the 1600's? and why did he pick that time period? as far as non-english translation, what other ongoing translation is being translated into language used 400 years ago? Non-english countries are getting translations in their modern language. Are those translators not guided and blessed by God?
---ginpari on 5/3/08

Alan: Stick with the King James, it's easier to understand than John t, and a great deal more accurate. My Jesus is "God" - not "a god."
---jerry6593 on 5/3/08

Well, I compare all translations. If someone uses King James exclusively, it is ok. As far as the language goes, people have been using the translation for a very long time even with school children and they seem to understand it. I believe it is because, God quickens the Word to anyone with any translation and even in OLD ENGLISH. It is not difficult to understand if you are reading it in the Spirit.
---jody on 5/3/08

Alan, and others:

In grammar, a predicate nomiative is the exact same thing as the subject. e.g. "Sam is my father."

It is also correct to say "My father is Sam."

A predicate nominative renames the subject, and is the same exact thing.

That is what John uses in John 1:1. Therefore, "The Word was God" not The Word was a god."

---john_t on 5/3/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

John t ... Can you say that in English, please?
---alan_of_UK on 5/3/08


"And the Word was a god" - translated from Greek by Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D.), 1694.
---scott on 5/1/08

When you have a definite noun in the subject (The Word) separated by a form of the verb "be" the noun in the predicate (God) is also a definite noun, for it is actually a predicate nominative.

Your MD was not an exegete, nor Greek scholar
---john_t on 5/2/08

Ktisophilos cont

"[A]nd a god was the word", (interlinear translation): GOD (for the Father, Jehovah,) God (for the Son) in the regular English translation.The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson, 1863 and 1864.

"[A]nd a God (i.e. a Divine Being) was the Word"Concise Commentary On The Holy Bible, Robert Young, c. 1885.
---scott on 5/2/08

Ktisophilos Cont

"And the Word was a god" - The New Testament in an Improved Version, 1808.

"The Word was a God" - The New Testament In Greek and English, Abner Kneeland, 1822.

"As a god the Command was" - A Literal Translation Of The New Testament, Herman Heinfetter, 1863.
---scott on 5/2/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

Ktisophilos cont

"[A]nd a god (or, of a divine kind) was the Word." Das Evagelium nach Johnnes, (German), Siegfried Schulz, 1975.

"[A]nd godlike sort was the Logos." Das Evangelium nach Johannes,(German), Johannes Scheider, 1979.

"[A]nd the Logos was a god." Thompson, Gospel History According to the Four Evangelists, Baltimore, 1828, 1829.

"And the Logos was a god." Leicester Ambrose, Final Theology, Volume I, NY, M.B. Sawyer, 1879.
---scott on 5/2/08

Ktisophilos cont

"The Word was with THE DEITY, and THE WORD WAS DEISTIC", [=The Word was with THE GOD and THE WORD WAS GODLY] - Gospel of History, Charles A.L. Totten, 1900.

"[A]nd was a god" - Zeitschrift fur die Newtestameutlich Wissencraft, (German Biblical- Articles in various languages ), J.N. Jannaris, 1901.

"[A]nd (a) God was the word" Coptic Version of the NT, George William Horner, 1911.
---scott on 5/2/08

Ktisophilos, Re: "Certainly there is no grammatical basis for "the word (logos) was a god"

While I am not a JW, I find comments like that interesting and yet clearly biased. Perhaps you are unaware that they are not entirely alone in their view of the original Greek of John 1:1c and how it should be translated.

"And the Word was a god" - The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from Greek by Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D.), 1694.
---scott on 5/2/08

I think more accurately I should have said "could be" translated" rather than "should be" translated. These other translations, (and there are many, many others that render the verse "The word was Divine" rather than "God"), provides evidence that, at the very least, others have viewed the Greek at John 1:1c similarly.

Just a point to perhaps add some perspective.
---scott on 5/2/08

Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing

Ktisophilos, Re: "Certainly there is no grammatical basis for "the word (logos) was a god"

While I am not a JW, I find comments like that interesting and yet clearly biased. Perhaps you are unaware that they are not entirely alone in their view of the original Greek of John 1:1c and how it should be translated.

"And the Word was a god" - The New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ, translated from Greek by Reijnier Rooleeuw, M.D.), 1694.
---scott on 5/1/08

James, how about giving us your resources that the NT was created by evil men.
---evangelistjerry on 5/1/08

jAMES ... "...the new testament was created by evil men"

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter,James, and the others (and Jesus Himself) EVIL ????
---alan_of_UK on 5/1/08

Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.