3

Are there any advocates of "King James Bible Only" today who insist using only the original 1611 version? What reasons do they give? For example, do they reject the Young Literal Translation that is also faithful to Textus Receptus?

The real old English is extremely hard to understand.

Improve this question
17
  • 5
    I've used the KJV myself since I was a child (I am now in my mid seventies) and I have never yet found anyone who uses the 1611. Everyone that I have known of has used the 1769. The NKJV was supposed to be an improvement. Sadly, in my own judgment, it has not been, as it leans towards the Critical Text rather than being truly faithful to the Textus Receptus.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Oct 3 at 19:53
  • A better question than simply asking the existence of such Bible readers is this: "what reasons would a KJV-only believer give for rejecting a faithful rendering of Textus Receptus into modern English such as the Young Literal Translation?" Another worthy question: "Do KJV only believers reject a faithful translation of Textus Receptus into a language other than English, and if that is so, how would they evangelize to the ends of the world without first enrolling them in ESL courses?".
    – GratefulDisciple
    Commented Oct 5 at 13:57
  • 2
    @GratefulDisciple I am not a 'KJV only' person. I commonly refer to YLT and the EGNT interlinear (Englishman's Greek New Testament) both of which translate the Textus Receptus.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Oct 5 at 15:35
  • 2
    @GratefulDisciple I am fine with the TR being translated into other languages. I am also fine with the KJV being improved as it is not perfect by any means. But the Revision of 1881 subsituted another Greek Text and did not actually do as was intended - improve the KJV. The NKJV is not an improvement as it, also, leans to the Critical Text. I am also fine with the Masoretic and for the Masoretic to be translated into other languages. I do not think the KJV to be 'inspired'. It is scripture that is 'God-breathed'. I looked at your question and felt no urge to answer it. I may do so later.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Oct 5 at 15:54
  • 1
    @GratefulDisciple EGNT (1896) Third Edition is what I use at home and online. I don't know of any later edition. I would doubt there is.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Oct 5 at 19:44

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
2

I am a King James Only (as is my church) and I use the Original 1611 along with the 1769.

The spelling is different, but the words are the same. The original 1611 is not that difficult to read. Just because the spelling is off, that does not mean that you cannot understand it.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    It would be great if you could give the reasons, and also on whether you approve of using YLT.
    – GratefulDisciple
    Commented Oct 5 at 14:43
  • 2
    May I ask who you are with ? It is very unusual to use the 1611. I am most interested.
    – Nigel J
    Commented Oct 5 at 15:36

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .