Lately, on Facebook, I have been posting bible verses of various translations, not to have contention, but to draw out a conversation from those that do not believe in God, and frankly, in any media we should share the Gospel. In doing this, I intend to reach people where they are at – and as far as I know, know one is living in early 17th century England.
I thought that I might get laughed at by some of my more liberal friends, or even questioned as to my sanity for believing in God (that imaginary superhero in the sky) – yet it is not the liberals who are standing against me, but my own supposed bothers and sisters who attack me for using anything else but the KJV.
Below is a recent conversation in response to posting, of all things, ‘So then, let us aim for harmony in the church and try to build each other up. Rom 14:19 NLT’, names removed, of course:
Commenter: revelations 22:18-19 KJV, of course… while ur over in that region of the bible u mite check out 2 Pet 1:19-21… paying close attention to the 20th and 21st verse. i hardly believe the men creating new translations of the bible were led by the holyghost
Me: You realize that you just condemned the KJV, right? Considering that the KJV was a new translation in 1611, a revision of the Bishop’s Bible, itself a revision of a revision, all following in Tyndale’s steps, right?
Revelation 22.18-19, if taken as the way you suggest, would prohibit the use of the KJV as they added words – which is set off… by the use of the italics. The KJV added English to the Hebrew/Greek, thus using your understanding of that passage of Scripture, we are condemned if we use anything else but the same Scriptures which the Apostles themselves wrote. And they did not write in Elizabethan English – they wrote in Koine Greek.
Further, the passage in 2nd Peter concerns Prophecy, specifically the prophecy of Christ and His Church. This prophecy was given in Hebrew. A translation of the Bible is not a prophetic word, but a translation.
The KJVO argument is based in part on the premise that for nearly 400 years, the KJV has not changed. This is a lie. First and foremost, when the KJV was first printed, it included between the two Testaments the Apocrypha. This was removed in the 1830 printings. Further, there are three differences between the Cambridge KJV and the Oxford KJV, but originating in 1769.
Of some importance to you and me, is the addition in later additions of the KJV of the word ‘the’ in Matthew 16.16, in which Peter calls Jesus either Christ (in 1611) or THE Christ (later printings.)
For more changes, please see: …
I have no need to discuss this issue – as this issue is a mute issue because it was never discussed in the Bible, which was written in Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek. I seek to further the Gospel, and to reach people where they are at, and no one that I know sit at the Court of King James in the year of our Lord, 1611.
Let me further speak of Revelation 22.18-19, which reads:
For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19 NKJV)
The claim that this is a defense of the KJV is laughable at best, and a lie at worst. John was not writing the final chapter in the Scriptures, but the closing words on the book of prophecy that he was writing, hence the words ‘the prophecy of this book’ and ‘the book of this prophecy.’ The βιβλίον of this verse refers to the Book of Revelation (Rev. 1.11), nothing more. Not once in Scripture does Scripture refer to itself as a ‘book’. What we call Book (or bible) today is rightly calling ‘writings’ or ‘holy writings.’
Does this matter, whether we call it ‘Bible’, ‘Book’ or even Scriptures? Not really, I guess, as long as you understand that the Bible has it’s own way about speaking of things. ‘Book(s)’ is generally used for a specific writing, such as the ‘book of the generations of Adam (Gen. 5.1) or the ‘book of life’ (Rev. 22.19), yet when we speak of the collection of holy writings, we find another term. While our vernacular tradition holds that we may say ‘bible’, we must not let that confuse us as to what the difference between ‘book’ and the ‘Scriptures’ are.
The same is said in confusing the Word of God (namely Christ) and ‘word of God’ (words from God, i.e., what we have in our hands).
I have recently been asked on why I continue to stay in the congregations which teach this matter, that the KJV-1611 is the only version of the Holy Bible. I have a difficult time answering, really, except to say that I believe that the KJVO myth is a trivial matter when it comes to the issues of Doctrine. It is a false doctrine, but believing it does not hinder the salvation of the soul. Neither then does reading another Translation send a person to hell or in any way takes away from that person’s walk with Christ.
I intend to grow in the Lord, and rid myself of all false doctrine, including the myth of the King James Only.
But, if some one wanted to take the time to show me where I was wrong, or why it is wrong to rid ourselves of false doctrine and the Traditions of men, then I will repent and recant.
There is something to be said of those hold to the KJVO idea, not that they are evil, or hell bound, or even salvationally wrong. Indeed, many are earnest and sincere, fine people, well mentioned – but nevertheless they are wrong on the ‘Only’ part. A KJV preferred, fine – these people do not make it a salvational issue. As a matter of fact, I could care less if people believed the KJVO position, as long as they do assume that I must because I fellowship this or that.