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

Worship The King James Bible

Is there anyone out there who worships the King James Bible?

Join Our Christian Friendship and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---shira3877 on 1/12/11
     Helpful Blog Vote (5)

Post a New Blog



I already read about Stott on Wikipedia.

By "official Church of England", I meant those in direct communion with Canterbury as opposed to various "continuing Anglican" groups that seem to always fragment.
---Cluny on 1/18/11


Donna66:

There are many ("KJV-onlyists"), who treat the KJV as if it descended directly from heaven, and all other translations as corrupt and imperfect. Some even say the KJV is more reliable than the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves.

Such an attitude places the KJV on a much higher level that just being the Word of God - it puts it on a pedestal to be worshipped, and this is a distorted an dangerous idea.

It is one thing to believe the KJV is closer to the original Word of God than other translations, or to prefer its use over others. It is quite another to think it is the ONLY uncorrupt translation and all other bible translations come from Satan. The first is opinion. The second is idolatry.
---StrongAxe on 1/18/11


I think most Christians don't really "worship" the KJB. But I think sometimes the Bible (any version) is not cherished by us as it might be. It is truly prized in countries where Christians are lucky to own even a single page of scripture. Who knows, we may be in the same situation someday?

I remember that as a young teen, the only Christian in my family and small school, I was often mocked because of my beliefs. I slept with my Bible at night, just for the comfort of having His Word close to me.

I didn't "worship" the book, but what(Who) it represented to me.
---Donna66 on 1/18/11


I thought he changed his view on annihilationism.
---John on 1/18/11


John ... No I have not been there.

Cluny ... I don't know what his views would be about recent developments and challenges within the Church of England.

But you may be interested in this information about him (from Wiki)

Stott has publicly considered the idea of annihilationism, which is the belief that hell is incineration into non-existence,[13] rather than eternal conscious torment (the traditional Evangelical approach). This led to a heated debate within mainstream evangelical Christianity: some writers criticised Stott in very strong terms whilst others supported his views

I'm not sure Cluny what you mean by "the official Church of England" Is there an unofficial one?
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/18/11




\\Alan have you visited John Stotts Church in Langham Place,London.\\

I'd be curious to know his opinions on recent developments in the official Church of England.
---Cluny on 1/18/11


I imagine there are some nice manuscripts in Winchester.

Alan have you visited John Stotts Church in Langham Place,London.

He's one of my favorite authors.
---John on 1/17/11


Shira, I suppose that there might be people who worship the Holy Bible, but if so it may be because they have a superstition that the written word is somehow the same thing as God himself.
---Eloy on 1/17/11


Worship the KJV?
No, I worship Christ is God.
I enjoy reading the KJV. I love its peotic verses. It seems to sing to me the word of God.
But worship it...no way. Only God deserves my worship because he is the only one who came down from his glory, put on flesh and died for my sins to be pardoned. The KJV just tells the story of it.
---ginger on 1/17/11


1 Corinthians 10:12
Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.

Genesis 27:9
... and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth:

1 Samuel 1:28
... as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. ...

Genesis 38:13
And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep.

As we can see, in the KJV, the -ETH ending is third person SINGULAR, and does NOT pluralize.

Only sinuous dissers with no light in them who call evil good and insist on being stupid won't see this.
---Cluny on 1/17/11




Donna ... Yes Winchester is an one of the oldest cities in England. If you google "Roman Winchester" you will find the following information "Winchester began as a Roman town. It was built about 70 AD. The Romans called the new town Venta Belgarum which means the capital of the Belgares (who were the local Celtic tribe before the Roman conquest)

The Cathedral was started in the 7th Century, and is still there! It has been am important Christian centre ever since.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/17/11


alan of UK -- Is Winchester a place in England? It sounds like it.
Pardon my American ignorance, but to most people where I live, Winchester is the best hunting rifle available.
---Donna66 on 1/17/11


eloy, In what are you referring? I can't believe people will squabble over singular and plural. God help us all.
---shira3877 on 1/17/11


Even when shown the evident truth, some souls will still choose to remain stuck on stupid.
---Eloy on 1/16/11


Cluny ... Eloy has said all along that 'est' refers to the singular.

John ... I don't think Manchester had anything to do with it. I wonder whether they mean Winchester, which is far more likely?
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/16/11


I grew up with the KJV & love its poetic language. One tract I had years ago, but lost stated that only the KJV was translated from the textus receptus & all others were translated from less accurate manuscripts & it listed hundreds of important omissions of those translations. Does anyone know if any other translations use this text?
---Hope on 1/16/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Depression


People actually worship their bible?

Sample from the letter originally included with the KJ from the translators--The translators say of themselves-they are but men and can make mistakes. They admit that they are not always correct on the translation of every word and they admonish the reader to seek other sources to help translate them

..."Preface to the King James Version 1611
THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER"

..."Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left ...
---char on 1/16/11


And "thou/thee" is the SINGULAR form of the second person.
---Cluny on 1/16/11


KJV English samples to Current English:

What thinkest thou?= What think you
If thou canst believe, all things possible to one the bellieveth= If you can believe, all things possible to one that believes.
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.= fear not to take onto you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.= You believe that there is one God, you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
---Eloy on 1/16/11


KJV English samples to Current English:

What thinkest thou?= What think you
If thou canst believe, all things possible to one the bellieveth= If you can believe, all things possible to one that believes.
fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.= fear not to take onto you Mary your wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Thou believest that there is one God, thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.= You believe that there is one God, you do well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
---Eloy on 1/16/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Study


And it's STILL wrong, Eloy.

\\Luke 22:34
And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.\\

Behold, an -est ending that is CLEARLY singular!

And this is merely one of many.

Besides, you broke your promise that you would be ignoring my postings.
---Cluny on 1/16/11


Thank you Mark,

Alan, I had the impression tha somehow Manchester was involved in this project. But I cannot find anything on it. Do you have info on this?
---John on 1/15/11


See how the unregenerate foolishly say that the righteous are wrong: "Woe to them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to the wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, because they have no light in them."
---Eloy on 1/15/11


The KJV is a very good translation.

KJV Old English to Current English:

suffix -est,-st= singular (i.e. drop the -est or -st)
suffix -eth,-th= pluralizing "s" (i.e. drop the -eth or -th, and add "s")
shall= will (occasionally means should)
thine= yours
thou,thee= you
thy= your
ye= you all, all you
---Eloy on 1/15/11


Send a Free Father's Day Ecard


mark .... Thank you for confirming my correction to John's statement
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/15/11


\\KJV Old English to Current English:

suffix -est,-st= singular (i.e. drop the -est or -st)
suffix -eth,-th= pluralizing "s" (i.e. drop the -eth or -th, and add "s")\\

Eloy, this was wrong the first time you said it and it's wrong the second time you said it.
---Cluny on 1/15/11


\\Cluny, we do not believe in infant baptism. No where in my bible does it ever mention infant baptism.
---shira3877 on 1/15/11\\

Nor is it repudiated.

There is just baptism--by water, btw--which can be administered to the children of believers, as the Bible clearly teaches.
---Cluny on 1/15/11


to elaborate the KJV English for the uncomprehending:

KJV Old English to Current English:

suffix -est,-st= singular (i.e. drop the -est or -st)
suffix -eth,-th= pluralizing "s" (i.e. drop the -eth or -th, and add "s")
shall= will (occasionally means should)
thine= yours
thou,thee= you
thy= your
ye= you all, all you
---Eloy on 1/15/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bible Verses


John. .... Wikipedia says that the University of Westminster was established in 1838

The Wiki statement about the KJV does not refer to a University of Westminster.

Read carefully the Wiki statement: "The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster"

What it says is that there were six committees, two based at Oxford University, two at Cambridge University, and two based in Westminster. It does not say the Westminster committees were based at a university there.
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/15/11


alan8566_of_uk: Though the University of Westminister did not exist (as far as I know) there revisors were BASED there, just not in what we now know as the university
---Mark on 1/15/11


cliff and shira, a well worn Bible bears witness to the fact of how much time you have participated with the word of God. Therefore a well worn and tattered Bible is an excellent thing. I have one that gets used daily, and is written in, and I have other Bibles that are referred to occasionally.
...I remembered to use my spellcheck, I typed an extra "s" in the last word "occasionally"...Thank you ieSpell.
---Eloy on 1/15/11


Cluny, we do not believe in infant baptism. No where in my bible does it ever mention infant baptism.
---shira3877 on 1/15/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Arthritis


\\It was ordered to conform to the escclesiology and reflect the espiscopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. \\

Not accurate.

While the C of E has episcopal/hierarchical polity, about half the translators believed in a presbyterian polity or structure for church government.

But one thing they all had in common: belief in infant baptism in the name of the Trinity by pouring.
---Cluny on 1/14/11


cliff, I wouldn't be appalled. Mine is the same way with writing, notes and is very used. I bought a new one today that is clean and fresh. I will probably go back to the old loveable one. not an idol tho as some suggest...just God talking to me.
---shira3877 on 1/14/11


Using 3 universities to produce the revisions(Oxford,Cambridge, Westminster)

The University of Westminster did not exist at the time the KJV was prepared,
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/14/11

FROM WIKI..
The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster
---john on 1/14/11


Scott ... " Funny story the orginial KJV, first few hundred copies, left the not out of the "Thou shall ___ envy your neighbors wife."

I don't think it was the original version, but in a subsequent printing. But, yes, it was an "oops"!
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/14/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Asthma


Scott your reference to the error of leaving out the word not in the KJV is foolish.
The error you are speaking of was a printer error.
It is also plain to see that many don't know the difference between a translation, paraphrase or a copy.
---Elder on 1/14/11


I do not place anything on the Bible myself.

The Jews would bury the bible that is old. Also Orthodox jews would not touch the word of G-d, rather use a pointer.
---John on 1/14/11


Shira, You might be appalled at the appearance of my bibles, all dog-eared with marginal scribblings, when it gets too bad I just buy a new one.
The information is reverenced not the book!
treating it as an object of reverence is borderline idolatry!
---1st_cliff on 1/14/11


The King James Bible or Authorized KJV is an English translation done by the Church of England. There were 47 scholars and they all were Church of England members,all but one were clergy. It was ordered to conform to the escclesiology and reflect the espiscopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. Eighty percent of the KJV Bible is unaltered from William Tyndales translation. Americans adopted the Church of Englands Bible as our own.
---Darlene_1 on 1/14/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Cholesterol


\\John ... You say:
Also the KJV was the 1st secular produced Bible.\\

The Great and Bishops' Bibles were produced by royal order too.

And remember that the Universities were under the direction of the Church of England.
---Cluny on 1/14/11


\\ Steveng, I think it is because we do not speak Old English today. But I
agree, the KJV is easier to understand than most people think:
KJV Old English to Current English:
suffix -est,-st= singular
suffix -eth,-th= pluralizing "s"\\

Once more he displays his erudition.

KJV, as I've frequently said, is NOT in Old English, but an early form of MODERN English.

The ST ending is second person singular verb ending.

The ETH is third person SINGULAR verb ending. It's not pluralizing.

In neither case does it apply to nouns, or ever change a number.
---Cluny on 1/14/11


The idea of not letting anything be put on a bible reminds me of how one of the young men in our church was truly shocked to find out that I would write in my Bible.

I asked him (and anyone holding to the don't put anything on the bible position): How much Scripture has to be present to be treated in such a way? The whole book? What about just the NT? How about a single book? What about some hand written pages or for that matter scripture in another book like a commentary in which the whole or part of scripture may be present?
---Bruce5656 on 1/14/11


John ... You say:
Also the KJV was the 1st secular produced Bible.

Can you explain what you mean?

Using 3 universities to produce the revisions(Oxford,Cambridge, Westminster)

The University of Westminster did not exist at the time the KJV was prepared,
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/14/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


I cannot read the KJV i get lost in all the thees and thous and the old English. Funny story the orginial KJV, first few hundred copies, left the not out of the "Thou shall ___ envy your neighbors wife." oops. So yes the KJV can have errors sorry all of the KJVonlyites.
---Scott on 1/14/11


Steven, The KJV is easy for me to read and understand. There are lots of word studies that are great. I also love reading the olde english kjv. It is hard to read until you get use to it. very different.
---shira3877 on 1/14/11


alan8566_of_uk--- You are correct. And in today's schools (in the US) the classics of literature are barely mentioned. If the English is archaic, they are considered too difficult and not interesting to students. So young people often have no exposure to that style of English.
I love the Authorized version for its' poetic quality,as well as its truth. I find it easier to memorize. I often refer to modern translations like the NAS in addition, when studying.

shira3877-- As a child, I never saw anyone in my family read the Bible. But we had one. And my mother insisted nothing be placed upon it. (She would say this is showing "respect"). She certainly did not "worship" the book. It is a custom few people have kept.
---Donna66 on 1/14/11


Steveng, I think it is because we do not speak Old English today. But I 
agree, the KJV is easier to understand than most people think:
KJV Old English to Current English:
suffix -est,-st=  singular
suffix -eth,-th= pluralizing "s"
shall= will (occasionally means should)
thine= yours
thou,thee= you
thy= your
ye= you all, all you
---Eloy on 1/14/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


There is a myth that the error in using the name James (as there is NO such name in scripture)was due to King James commanding that the KJV should honor him by changing Jacob(proper Translation) to James.

NEVER HAPPENED.

The name existed prior to the KJV. The Great Bible under Henry VIII contained the name and since the KJV was only a revision of the Great Bible the name continued.

Also the KJV was the 1st secular produced Bible.

Using 3 universities to produce the revisions(Oxford,Cambridge, Westminster)
---John on 1/14/11


British English is my native tongue. I love the language of the Authorised Version, which you call the KJV.

But Steveng is wrong to make a blanket statement that it is easy to understand.

There are many differences in word meanings and sentence structure from modern English.

Unless you were brought up on it (and on Shakespeare) it is difficult, and it is difficult for today's younger people
---alan8566_of_uk on 1/14/11


Reading the authorized version of the KJV gives a better reading, bringing a person to the truth.

Besides, the bible or the words themselves is nothing. It's what you get out of the book spiritually. Most christians read the bible using worldly knowledge. The bible is only a stepping stone to having a true persoanl relationship with God.


(for those who think that the old English version is hare to read, then you must have failed in school when learning another foreign language)
---Steveng on 1/13/11


\\It was subsequently revisied 7 other times and toss out in 1879 by the Brits. \\

The ERV of 1881 (NOT 1879) went over like a pregnant pole vaulter. It never replaced the KJV in official liturgical books of the Church of England, including the Lectionary for daily Morning and Evening Prayer published in 1922.

It, too, used Tudor diction.

And like the KJV, the ERV included the Apocrypha, which the Anglican translators accepted for liturgical reading, contrary to what some people here have said about it.
---Cluny on 1/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


Shira,using the Word of God isn't the burden, The KJV is my favorite Bible,the one I use most. The burden is the Pastor ordering the people in the church not to use anything but the KJV and forbidding them from bringing another version to church. The way I see the people being misled is by adding rules they must follow which aren't in the Bible but giving those rules the same importance as the Bible. Yes Satan does pervert the Word of God but so do men when they add rules people must follow or else,trouble. there is nothing in the Bible about only using the KJV,it didn't exist. Shira I can see you love the Lord and evidently have a good church. Sadly some churches make silly rules which have nothing to do with being a Christian and saved.
---Darlene_1 on 1/13/11


It was suggested to me that the KJV was my idol. I really don't have an idol except my Savior. The truth is continuing from the previous blog. Lee, I don't worship the KJV but it is sacred. I don't allow anyone to lay anything on my bible. If they do, I get up and remove it. Darlene, I am not misled by my pastor or others as you suggest. I have just done my homework. Satan tries so hard to pervert the Word of the Lord doesn't he?
---shira3877 on 1/13/11


aka, I totally agree with you. I did ask the most stupid question I have ever seen but the fact is, I was accused of the very thing I ask and I just couldn't let it go without defending myself. Cluny, I don't know what kind of cult you are in but my faith is no cult. Maybe you need to know more about your faith because you certainly don't know anything about mine.
---shira3877 on 1/13/11


You don't worship anyone or anything but God. For some, the King James Bible is the only accurate Bible, but I disagree. The King James Bible was great for the folks in King James' time but it's not the best for today. My favorite is The New American Standard Bible. ANY Bible that is a TRANSLATION is a good manual for spiritual instruction, and it's is the word of God, but it's not to be worshiped.
---wivv on 1/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


The best Old Testament scriptures is the "Aleppo Codex", being the most authoritative manuscript of the Massoretic text of the Bible, the most accurate, and sacred source document, both for the biblical text and for its vocalization, cantillation and Massorah: a hebrew copy can be purchased, called, "The Jerusalem Crown". The best New Testament scriptures are the "Constantinopolitan MSS": a copy can be purchased in the book called, "The English Hexapla". And the best English translation is the "1560 Geneva Bible" which was translated according to the Hebrew and Greek, and conferred with the best translations in divers languages, and dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I.
---Eloy on 1/13/11


\\And I have seen some Jewish Bibles that are studded with many colorful precious gems on their outer covers.\\

Orthodox and other Eastern Christians so adorn the Gospel book.
---Cluny on 1/13/11


My first Bible was the Scofield King James Version and I read it from cover to cover.

For the educated who love Shakespeare and the language of that age, it is a version that is loved by many.

This year 2011 is the 400th anniversary of that version and I suspect it will be celebrated particularly in those church that are King James Onlyist.

As to worshipping it, we must realize that it should not become the paper pope as some would charge and realize that it is but one version that had to compete with other earlier versions.



---leej on 1/13/11


There are many Bibles(all vying to be the number one translation) and while I did not intend to be KJv version only I have just about come to that position.
---mima on 1/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


Your line of question only proves the condition of your heart before God Almighty. The Holy Bible, regardless of the language or version cannot prevent God's Truth from going forth into the fallen world and mankind.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." Genesis 1:3

Light overcomes darkness, and unless God shines His blessed light on the heart of mankind - which is in total darkness after the fall, the result is the very question posted here.

Take it one step higher, Jesus declared, "It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63 - The Word of God is Spiritual!
---christan on 1/13/11


Darlene, I would like to know how using the unperverted Word of God a burden to anyone. Why is it a covenant? Just curious
---shira3877 on 1/13/11


The KJV was not really a bible but a revision of the Anglican Great Bible. King James never approved it because of all the errors.
In the UK it was call the Authorized Version (AV). It was subsequently revisied 7 other times and toss out in 1879 by the Brits.

In short it was a real mess. Those who are KJV only cults(See Darlene/Cluny posts) are impressed by the Olde English words Thees/Thous etc. Thinking G-d somehow talks like that. The Brits were never impressed by their obsolete English. So they tossed it. It is the most inaccurate Bible, since it does not have discoveries for the last 400years (i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls).

NOTE: James is NOT a Name in Scripture. It should read Jacob in English.
---John on 1/13/11


I do not worship the kjv, but I like it better then others. All of the Bibles are good for teaching. Is there one that really is close to the original? Which one is it? I know many here have experienced one better then another.
---Bob on 1/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


We may worship the WORD of God (Jesus) but not a particular translation from the original.
---James on 1/13/11


I know of no one who worships the KJV Bible. As Cluny said there are some who believe KJV Bible only,I see them as very misled by their Pastors and denomination. This is another example of man trying to pile more ordinances on God's people when God himself removed such burdens from them. Matthew 15:9 But in vain they do worship me,teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. My daughter attended a church like that. When she was baptised I gave her a lovely women's study Bible with inserts with wisdom for a womans life,not KJ. A deacon in the church,a relative,gave her a KJV,knowing I had given her the other one. It was like saying the Bible your mother gave you is trash only use this one. I was very displeased and disgusted by what he did.
---Darlene_1 on 1/13/11


nope. I like using the kjv,but have others as well. I like worshiping Gods word. To me any translation works,as long as God is getting his word to me & I am learning from it.
---candice on 1/12/11


I worship the Author & Finisher of the Bible. I worship the King of Kings the LORD of Lord's I worship God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Spirit. The three in one Creator of all.
---Reba on 1/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Not the book itself but the OBJECT of that book. Which surely is the OBJECT of every translation of the Bible.
---CraigA on 1/13/11


I treasure the Holy Bible (Gods Word) I worship God!
---a_friend on 1/13/11


The Holy Bible is a treasure. And I have seen some Jewish Bibles that are studded with many colorful precious gems on their outer covers. But I have not seen anyone bowing down and worshipping the written Bible, because the written Bible is not God, but the Bible is the record of God, it is not the Holy Spirit, but the words written are Spirit.
---Eloy on 1/13/11


I don't know anybody who does.

But there ARE KJVOnlyites, and this is clearly a cult.

Please understand I'm saying nothing against the KJV itself or any other standard translation of the Bible.
---Cluny on 1/13/11


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


I worship God, The One who provided His Word for us to read - study etc.
---Lawrence on 1/13/11


shira,

your question is about as silly as when i asked a KJV only person when was the authorized KJ of 1611 written and she replied that it was from the beginning.
---aka on 1/13/11


I cant say I worship the book or books.
I can say I worship the words that are found in them.
Or even they that come out from them.

Behold, I make all things new.
Write: for these words are true and faithful.

It is done.
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.
I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely.
---TheSeg on 1/12/11


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