Why do Christians practically worship the King James version?

[NathanH83]

I mean, it’s not the Bible that was used by the early church. In fact, it’s radically different than the Bible of the early church. Why should this 17th century translation be placed on such a high pedestal? Shouldn’t the Bible of the early church be the revered translation?

 

[Lamb]

Not all Christians do and some denominations have their own translations of the Bible.

 

[Josiah]

I mean, it’s not the Bible that was used by the early church.

The KJV translation was done in 1611. So DUH, Christians from 33 - 313 AD didn't use it. Isn't that obvious? The year 313 is before 1611. And no one in those 3 centuries spoke, read or knew English.

I know of no one who worships any tome.

I suspect most of the world's Christians have never read the KJV or seen it or probably heard of it since most of the world's Christians don't speak English (at least as their first/preferred language).



I've never owned a KJV. I've never read from it. It's one of HUNDREDS of English translations, THOUSANDS of various translations. I learned in some English class that it's largely responsible for the creation of a single English language and so is very important for that reason; before that, English varied widely around the country, so much so that people often just miles away could hardly understand each other..... as people read from ONE English book, that changed. Schools adopted that English as something approaching official, national English. But I've never read it.




.

 

[Castle Church]

KJV Onlyists, styled KJBO or KJVO (King James Bible Only or King James Version Only) or AV1611 Only, don't base the belief that the KJV is the ONLY Word of God on it being the original Bible or texts used by the Early Church.

It is based on an unfounded belief that the translators were inspired by God to make the translation into English as the new renewed perfect version of scripture, second only or equal to the original autographs.

They have a number of misguided arguments for this belief, and willfully ignore or shout down anyone with valid contradictory information.

 

[tango]

I mean, it’s not the Bible that was used by the early church. In fact, it’s radically different than the Bible of the early church. Why should this 17th century translation be placed on such a high pedestal? Shouldn’t the Bible of the early church be the revered translation?

Why do people called Nathan paint with such a broad brush? You might as well ask "Why does everybody make irrational choices?"

 

[Faith]

I’ve never read the KJV except if I look something up online and a verse pops up now and then. I own and read the NIV.

 

[NathanH83]

KJV Onlyists, styled KJBO or KJVO (King James Bible Only or King James Version Only) or AV1611 Only, don't base the belief that the KJV is the ONLY Word of God on it being the original Bible or texts used by the Early Church.

It is based on an unfounded belief that the translators were inspired by God to make the translation into English as the new renewed perfect version of scripture, second only or equal to the original autographs.

They have a number of misguided arguments for this belief, and willfully ignore or shout down anyone with valid contradictory information.

You got that right.
I mean, I’ve found some things that the KJV gets right that modern versions get wrong. But nonetheless, it’s still vastly different than the Bible of the early church.

 

[NathanH83]

Why do people called Nathan paint with such a broad brush? You might as well ask "Why does everybody make irrational choices?"

Did I say everybody?

 

[tango]

Did I say everybody?

You said "Why do Christians practically worship..."

That's a pretty broad brush, no? Not every Christian even reads the KJV and of the ones that do the majority don't "practically worship" it.

I quite like the KJV because sometimes I enjoy the more formal language. Sometimes I read the GNB or the NLT for the more colloquial language. My translations of choice are usually the NKJV and ESV.

 

[Forgiven1]

It would have been better to ask, "why do SOME Christians . . . " I started out with the RSV, then NKJV, then NIV and now the ESV and the ESV has been my to to one for about as long as it has been out there. The LCMS uses it in the catechism and also have a Study Bible out using it.

 

[pinacled]

I mean, it’s not the Bible that was used by the early church. In fact, it’s radically different than the Bible of the early church. Why should this 17th century translation be placed on such a high pedestal? Shouldn’t the Bible of the early church be the revered translation?

While the KJV is a later rendition far as language is concerned.
Its nearly verbatim in comparison to the TaNaKh in english.
The accuracy proficiently relates The Most Highs Torah so that there is no confusion unlike later english versions.

Especial clarity concerning consensual and nonconsensual relations are found in the KJV.
Where as other versions have contradictions and errancies beyond logic.
Heretical even.

Worship?
No.
Respect is the proper affiliation attributed to those whom prefer The KJV.

And i can only think of one reason why an entity would attack The Torah accuracy held in the english version known as KJV.

 

[kiwimac]

While the KJV is a later rendition far as language is concerned.
Its nearly verbatim in comparison to the TaNaKh in english.
The accuracy proficiently relates The Most Highs Torah so that there is no confusion unlike later english versions.

Especial clarity concerning consensual and nonconsensual relations are found in the KJV.
Where as other versions have contradictions and errancies beyond logic.
Heretical even.

Worship?
No.
Respect is the proper affiliation attributed to those whom prefer The KJV.

And i can only think of one reason why an entity would attack The Torah accuracy held in the english version known as KJV.

Rot and nonsense.

 

[pinacled]

While the KJV is a later rendition far as language is concerned.
Its nearly verbatim in comparison to the TaNaKh in english.
The accuracy proficiently relates The Most Highs Torah so that there is no confusion unlike later english versions.

Especial clarity concerning consensual and nonconsensual relations are found in the KJV.
Where as other versions have contradictions and errancies beyond logic.
Heretical even.

Worship?
No.
Respect is the proper affiliation attributed to those whom prefer The KJV.

And i can only think of one reason why an entity would attack The Torah accuracy held in the english version known as KJV.

For example
Devarim/ deuteronomy 22
כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ נער [נַעֲרָ֤ה] בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃
If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,

וְ֠נָתַן הָאִ֨ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִמָּ֛הּ לַאֲבִ֥י הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה] חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וְלֽוֹ־תִהְיֶ֣ה לְאִשָּׁ֗ה תַּ֚חַת אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִנָּ֔הּ לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל שַׁלְּחָ֖ה כָּל־יָמָֽיו׃ (ס)
the man who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.

KJV
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

NIV
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


Above in the niv the word rape is wrongly used in what is a consentual relationship.
And not only is this a jeeringly obvious error it is a condradiction to the verses before that state a rapist will be put to death.
So as far as im concerned the NIV along with any english version that uses the word rape in this instance is heretical against The Most High
and Torah.

 

[kiwimac]

For example
Devarim/ deuteronomy 22
כִּֽי־יִמְצָ֣א אִ֗ישׁ נער [נַעֲרָ֤ה] בְתוּלָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־אֹרָ֔שָׂה וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ וְשָׁכַ֣ב עִמָּ֑הּ וְנִמְצָֽאוּ׃
If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered,

וְ֠נָתַן הָאִ֨ישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵ֥ב עִמָּ֛הּ לַאֲבִ֥י הנער [הַֽנַּעֲרָ֖ה] חֲמִשִּׁ֣ים כָּ֑סֶף וְלֽוֹ־תִהְיֶ֣ה לְאִשָּׁ֗ה תַּ֚חַת אֲשֶׁ֣ר עִנָּ֔הּ לֹא־יוּכַ֥ל שַׁלְּחָ֖ה כָּל־יָמָֽיו׃ (ס)
the man who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her.

KJV
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

NIV
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.


Above in the niv the word rape is wrongly used in what is a consentual relationship.
And not only is this a jeeringly obvious error it is a condradiction to the verses before that state a rapist will be put to death.
So as far as im concerned the NIV along with any english version that uses the word rape in this instance is heretical against The Most High
and Torah.

Once again, nonsense.

 

[pinacled]

Once again, nonsense.

The verbatim english between the KJV and mechon mamre hebrew to english TaNaKh is evident as I mentioned before.
Below in brackets is an excerpt from

Deuteronomy 22 / Hebrew - English Bible / Mechon-Mamre

[ If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;]

Compared to the KJV
How close is the english?

KJV
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

 

[pinacled]

Once again, nonsense.

What from my words/testimony are "nonsense"?

I can show the hebrew meanings of consentual and nonconsentual if that would help clarify The Torah.

Blessings Always