Tag Info

It's really not a denominational issue, per se, but a doctrinal issue or a simple preference. The King James Only movement are people and churches that believe that the King James version is the only one to use. They have various reasons for this. James White has broken it down into five primary reasons for sticking with the KJV: "I Like the KJV Best" - ...

The King James (KJV) was translated from a different Greek text than most modern translations. In the early 1500s, Desiderius Erasmus took the best copies of the Greek New Testament available to him, and compared and collated them to create the Textus Receptus (TR), the first Greek New Testament to be printed rather than hand-written. The TR was the Greek ...

The King James Version or Authorized Version as it was originally known, was translated by a group of 47 scholars. It was actually a thought-for-thought translation, rather than word-for-word translation. The idea is that they tried to take the original meaning of the text (not just the individual word) and translate that into the (then) common language. ...

This is a sign of honesty on the translators' part. The italicized words are interpolations, words that were not in the original documents but were added to the English text. Many of them are there to make things make better grammatical sense in English, but a few of them can actually change the meanings of the passages, so they ought to be examined ...

Some major problems with "KJV-onlyism" lies in the assumptions it makes and some of which you enumerated. From an evangelical perspective, we accept the idea that the Bible is, indeed, the word of God. Specifically, "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from ...

The usual criticism is readability. The KJV was originally translated in the 1600's, and even though it's been updated several times since then, there are still words that have different meanings now than they did in the English of the time. The literary style is clearly less modern than more recent translations. Another criticism is based on the ...

Since one of the reasons for the English Reformation by King Henry VIII which lead to the creation of the Church of England was divorce, I doubt King James I would have needed a new translation. From Wikipedia, it sounds like the main reasons for the commissioning of the KJV 70 years after the reformation were around translation errors believed to be in the ...

A quick Google search turns up an overwhelming amount of information, mostly blogs. Of the ones the I skimmed, I found this one to be somewhat informative. In addition to this, I think that it's probably also somewhat of a social phenomenon in that it was the first English translation to really gain mainstream adoption (only slightly younger than the ...

The KJV has been the 'standard' English translation for a very long time - in fact literally for centuries. It had no real rival for popularity until the publication of the Revised standard Version in 1952. This means that in the early part of the 20th Century a huge number of Christians formulated their doctrine based almost entirely on the KJV. When the ...

To begin with, that statement is logically flawed as the Bible does not condone divorce — KJV or not. As far as your actual question, according to Wikipedia it seems like a new English version was proposed "[...] in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England." PS: There also seem ...

As a KJV Onlyer I guess I can at least answer what my view is. I go a little stronger than the only English translation. I believe it is the Word of God for this generation. To try to concisely answer the reasons for that view: Psalm 12:6-7 says that God has promised to preserve His Word unto all generations. Inspiration without preservation doesn't make ...

There are differing groups throughout the United States that argue (quite vehemently) about solely using the King James version. It seems to be divided (very roughly) based on the culture of the area. In the South, for example, some denominations tend to preach out of the King James version more often than churches from the Northern parts of the US (or ...

No, actually you're mistaken, the King James version was translated much closer to being literal than most translations today(which tend to try to impart the meaning more than the literal word for word). It's not a literal Word for Word, but it's closer than most. It was translated from Greek and Hebrew, but the Latin Vulgate was consulted. ...

This may not be the best answer, but, as @warrend pointed out, I don't think that there's any definitive reasoning. However, looking at the original Hebrew for the passage, we see: (from the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible) The original Hebrew here for that phrase "expected end" is achrith uthque. The original wording appears to have two words ...

See the original KJV 1611 online at: http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=77 Click on the radio buttons in the upper right to enlarge the image. Enlarged, you can see the Blackletter type (called Old English today) that all early English Bibles used. The KJV, called the Authorized Version back in ...

English has a long and venerable history as a language. Over time the meaning of words shifts. Different words come into common usage for the same meanings. Words can in fact REVERSE meanings. The King James Version, originally translated some 400 years ago, has seen all of these things happen to its words. One commonly cited example is the word "charity". ...

Whenever you deal with translation from one language to another, there are some expressions that just don't make sense in the language into which a text is being translated. For instance, Russian has no articles (a, an, and the). So, if we translated from Russian to English, we have to add articles in to make sentences sound right, even though they aren't ...

I fully believe in the Bible as the perfect word of God without any error whatsoever. I also like the KJV. However, there is no Biblical basis for believing in an inspired translation, from one language to another. This would put translators at the same level as prophets and apostles for they would need a special anointing that determines what scripture is. ...

The best answer I can think of is that when you look at the usage of those words ~400 years ago, they had [somewhat] different connotations than they do now. Excepting someone finding the translators' crib notes for the passage in question, it will most likely remain a point of speculation.

I think this is a perfectly valid question- but the answer is no. While there is a danger of the "Chinese Whispers" scenario about the way the KJV (and NKJV) made their way into English (though whether you could still call the old KJV's language English is perhaps another discussion), the meaning imparted in most if not all KJV passages is fully consistent ...