What is the King James Only Movement?
|
|
The King James Only Movement refers to a growing movement, particularly in conservative Christianity, that promotes the King James Bible Version (KJV) as the only acceptable text from which to interpret the word of God. This movement began in the 1960s as modernized texts of the bible, some with translation corrections, began to appear to appeal to a newer audience of bible readers. Some welcomed these new bibles, like the New American Standard Bible as better and more authoritative, and especially more accessible than the language in which the King James Bible is composed, a language comparable to that of Shakespeare.
While there is an inherent beauty in the King James Bible due to its use of language, many readers find it inaccessible, and not exactly in tune with modern language. Those versions of the KJV that were essentially copies of the original had not updated translation with more modern scholarship on ancient languages; so there are noted mistranslations. Other versions are updated to reflect more modern translations of certain words and texts, but the King James Only Movement may reject even this. It should be noted that the King James Only Movement is restricted to those Christian religions, which accept the KJV as authoritative. Catholics, though they may possess a KJV will usually also have a catholic Bible, which includes the Apocrypha.
The movement to reject modern interpretations and use the KJV only gained impetus with the 1993 publication of Gail Riplinger’s book New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation Exposing the Message, Men and Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion . Riplinger’s views can be condensed in the following way. The KJV is the only authoritative text, its translation was divinely inspired, and the manuscripts used for translation are perfect. Moreover occultists and satanists attempting to lead Christians away from God are duping people who don’t support the King James Only Movement.
Due to the King James Only Movement there are now some churches, which can usually be described as the most conservative ones, that teach on the basis of the original KJV, and accept no other alternative. Though these churches attract some serious biblical scholars, other similarly serious biblical scholars refute the King James Only Movement as incorrect from a textual interpretation point of view and also because the movement appears needlessly divisive in Christianity. Since KJV churches may claim satanic conspiracy is behind all other biblical interpretations, this would place most mainstream Christians in the midst of practicing faith that is really led by Satan. It also refuels controversy between nominally Protestant faiths and Catholicism.
There are a number of less divisive reasons why people may prefer the King James Bible. It does contain some of the most examples of 17th century English, and it may be the version that people are accustomed to reading from childhood. This preference doesn’t necessarily make the leap that people using a more modern interpretation are somehow practicing a corrupt form of Christianity. It is merely preference without prejudice toward other Christians.
|
Related wiseGEEK articles
Category
wiseGEEK features
Subscribe to wiseGEEK
|
4
To 47578: You are kidding? You are saying that God inspired King James and his bishops and you are sure that they were trusting solely in the Holy Spirit to direct them? You also imply that God is unable to guide anyone to later update the English words used? Thee and Thou and mete and other outdated terms are required for the writings to have significance?
The only way to purity is to read the scripture in the original language in which it was written. I will say that depending on King James and bishops you do not know is true faith. - anon51515
3
The KJV is by far and foremost that most accurate Bible in the English Language. It is not difficult to understand (far off from the difficulty of Shakespeare)and as matter of fact it is considered (through research) the easier Bible to read compared to the vast majority of modern versions. Furthermore, I would rather read a Bible that is a little harder to understand then an inaccurate and dishonored one, that can mislead me.
God promised He would preserve His pure word for *all* generations: Psalms 12:6-7 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”. Modern versions are anything but pure or preserved.
First, *all* modern versions are based on two corrupted manuscripts (New Testament): Sinaniticus (found in a garbage can) and Vaticanus (found in the Vatican City, hence the name). These manuscripts were used to write the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament. This is a most corrupt text, written by two unbelievers and heretics. On a side note; both the above mentioned manuscripts contradicted each other in thousands of areas. This leaves no doubt to the massive confusion surrounding modern versions.
Second, what additionally makes these manuscripts dishonoring to God and His Word, is the nearly 200 verse omissions (either in totality or partiality), the omission of over 5,000 words, and the addition of countless words. Furthermore, the vast majority of all modern versions were translated utilizing the unfaithful and disgraceful dynamic equivalence methodology (textual criticism). There are many, many more problems with the modern texts, yes to numerous to mention here.
The King James Version on the other hand was translated from the faithful Erasmus Greek Text, which was based on over 5,000 manuscripts. It was translated by faithful piteous men of great knowledge, who trusted solely on the Holy Spirit in direction and guidance, and they translated utilizing the faithful methodology of word-for-word translation.
I believe history itself reveals quite clearly and plainly what Bible God has honored above and beyond any other Bible, even outside the English language. - anon47578
2
The problem with this movement is that there were at least four major, accepted English translations before the KJV was published. The KJV is Authorized, true. Authorized by King James and his bishops, that is. In fact, the KJV takes about 80 percent of its content from the Tyndale Bible, published in the early 1500s. The Geneva Bible, in fact, was the most popular English translation until the mid-1700s or so. The Geneva Bible was the Bible the Pilgrims used, often called "The Britches Bible" because in the story of the Fall, it says Adam and Eve made "britches" for themselves of fig leaves.
And no, anon25133, all people were not lost before 1611. Thank God. The KJV is a beautiful, lyrical translation. However, there is no doubt that those who have a hard time understanding Shakespeare will have an equally difficult time understanding the KJV. If people cannot even comprehend the Scripture they are reading, they may as well be reading it in Sanskrit, for all the understanding it will impart. My personal, preferred translation is the New American Standard. I find it to be a clear translation, and still maintains a great deal of the beauty of the KJV. The King James Version certainly has a unique place in the history of the Protestant faith, to say nothing of its place in the history of the English language. It was a milestone work. Nevertheless, to say it is the only divinely-inspired, authoritative English translation is, in my opinion, short-sighted at best. - anon44964
1
If KJO is only true translation were all people lost until 1611? - anon25133
|
Written by
Tricia Ellis-Christensen
Last Modified: 06 November 2009
copyright © 2003 - 2009
conjecture corporation
