16

Yes there is. And like the KJV-only movement, it is not monolithic. For English speakers, it's important to recognize that the Reina Valera (RVR) is a group of Bible translations that continues to dominate the Bible translation market in Spanish-speaking countries. They primarily rely on the Textus Receptus, like the KJV, not modern critical Greek texts, ...


11

All languages change over time, all aspects of it are subject to change from basic orthography to fundamental meanings of words. It is highly unlikely that even you are actually using the KJV as published in 1611. Given the spelling and choice of words used in your question, you don't speak King James era English, you speak something quite a bit more modern....


10

There are many reasons, but here are two: Most Christians don't speak English. This is obvious, but there are millions of Christians around the world who can't understand even basic English. Asking them to use the King James Version is folly, which is why there are Bible translations in every major language and why Bible translators work tirelessly to ...


10

One acceptable approach to KJV-Onlyists is to make a foreign translation based on the English text of the KJV. For example, this is from Peter Ruckman: The only LIVING BIBLE on earth today is the AV (1611), or translations made from it. And from Brian Donovan, writing in Peter Ruckman's publication: Any effort to translate the Bible into other ...


10

Opponents to the KJV-Only position generally don’t disparage the King James Version (KJV) or treat it as necessarily inferior to contemporary English translations, but instead point out that it faces many of the same challenges and errors that face any English translation. Depending on the opponent you ask, each will probably tell you one of any number of ...


8

You will find the among some KJV-Onlyists the assertion that the 1611 KJV Bible was directly inspired by God. That cuts away any need for them to explain why the KJV can be considered the infallible word of God while its immediate predecesors should be viewed with scepticism. For example, Peter Ruckman: The text of the A.V. 1611, in Genesis 27, is the ...


8

Today's "King James-only" movement, and its argument that the KJV is itself inspired, does indeed have historical precedence, though it's debatable if the 20th-century movement can claim a strong link to similar thinkers in previous centuries. There are two major precedents to today's movement, so we'll look at those first: Pre-KJV elevations of ...


8

Interesting question (which gets an up-vote from me), and although I am not a “King James Version Only” Protestant, I was curious enough to go looking for a possible answer. Here is part of what I found... King James (VI of Scotland and I of England) authorised his translation in 1604 and it was completed in 1611, 85 years after the first translation of ...


5

There is nothing to suggest that those many scholars who combined to produce the King James Version ever claimed to have produced divinely inspired, inerrant work. The background of events that led to the KJV is known, and this of itself mitigates against such a claim. Even by the time of the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, Parliament spoke of the need to ...


5

First, I’d like to give a bit of background on the different OT manuscripts. The OT in English Bibles is almost always based off the Masoretic text and the Dead Sea Scrolls, but some use the Septuagint. The KJV uses the Masoretic. There are some discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Masoretic; nineteen times out of twenty, the Dead Sea Scrolls agree ...


4

Many people use the KJV in order to read a translation of the Textus Receptus, the Received Text, rather than the Westcott & Hort/Nestle-Aland Greek Text which gives great preponderance to the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Most, today, will be using the 1769 translation of the KJV rather than the 1611, whose English is very archaic. Good as ...


3

The contents of the KJV Preface seem to me to make neither any claim to inerrancy, perfection or divine inspiration nor to make any apology for any imperfection. The preface does make it clear that the remit was to provide : ... there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue ... but the preface does not admit to ...


2

I can think of one example. Matthew 21:16 (KJV) And said unto him, Hearest thou what these say? And Jesus saith unto them, Yea; have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise? Psalm 8:2 (KJV/following Masoretic) Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine ...


2

The question is less the "inerrancy of the King James Bible" than it is the reliability of the Word of God. One either believes that God is God, that He, in effect, "manufactured" us and that the Bible is the "owner's manual" for how to properly maintain the life He gave us, or one does not. Assuming we do so believe, we are ...


1

Where does the idea come from that the KJV is the proper bible to be used? People have various reasons for preferring the KJV. There is no copyright so it can be used without worry that someone will sue them. Some people believe that it is supernaturally "preserved" by God to be the accurate translation. Some prefer that the language contemporary with ...


1

The KJVO position is nonsensical. They claim that God MUST have a perfect translation in every language and that translation will not fail per that preservation. Where then, in the Hebrew or Greek, is the perfect word of God? How about the Latin? Surely the Church could have identified the perfect word of God in that respective language and with the same ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible