Anyone grow up believing the KJV was the one true version?

[Wertbag]

I talked to a Christian online who was one of the many who believe the KJV is the sole correct bible.  His reasoning seemed weak, but perhaps there are more good reasons to think the KJV is or isn't the only version that should be considered?  He said:

"Ecclesiastes 8:4 “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” This verse is one of those definitive verses on the Authorized Version (with Ps 12:6-7; Ps 138:2)

If you want a Bible with ”power” , then you need one translated under ”a king”. Better yet; get one translated under a king with a Jewish name (James — Jacob in Hebrew). And if all that is not enough, you will want to get a Bible connected with absolute time (Greenwich England), absolute measurement (British Thermal Unit), and absolute location (latitude and longitude) The NIV, RSV, NASV, NKJV, etc don’t even qualify . So naturally they all change the verse so you will not connect it with your King James Bible."  

 

Ecclesiastes 8:4 isn't even talking about the bible, so that is some cherry picking magic, and to think that being English somehow makes it better?

 

Growing up our bible studies were all about the KJV, but it wasn't put forward as better, the others were simply never mentioned at all.  It was many years before I even realised that other versions existed, and when I asked I was told "those are newer versions, not as close to the originals" or "simplified for younger readers".

Did anyone come from a KJV only upbringing?  How was it justified and was the reasoning better than what I've been told?

[nontheistpilgrim]

My fundie church (1950's to 1960's) used KJV as the reliable Bible - never saw another translation. But it wasn't discussed so far as I remember, it just WAS.

[pantheory]

On 8/15/2022 at 1:45 AM, Wertbag said:

I talked to a Christian online who was one of the many who believe the KJV is the sole correct bible.  His reasoning seemed weak, but perhaps there are more good reasons to think the KJV is or isn't the only version that should be considered?  He said:

"Ecclesiastes 8:4 “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” This verse is one of those definitive verses on the Authorized Version (with Ps 12:6-7; Ps 138:2)

If you want a Bible with ”power” , then you need one translated under ”a king”. Better yet; get one translated under a king with a Jewish name (James — Jacob in Hebrew). And if all that is not enough, you will want to get a Bible connected with absolute time (Greenwich England), absolute measurement (British Thermal Unit), and absolute location (latitude and longitude) The NIV, RSV, NASV, NKJV, etc don’t even qualify . So naturally they all change the verse so you will not connect it with your King James Bible."  

 

Ecclesiastes 8:4 isn't even talking about the bible, so that is some cherry picking magic, and to think that being English somehow makes it better?

 

Growing up our bible studies were all about the KJV, but it wasn't put forward as better, the others were simply never mentioned at all.  It was many years before I even realised that other versions existed, and when I asked I was told "those are newer versions, not as close to the originals" or "simplified for younger readers".

Did anyone come from a KJV only upbringing?  How was it justified and was the reasoning better than what I've been told?

 

Many of my time studying the bible I read the KJ version only. I have an original KJ bible here at home: folio size (12 x 19,   8" wide) third edition printed in 1640, The first edition was printed in 1611 -- nice fairy tales   -- old-English language.

[♦ Fuego ♦]

No, but my brother became part of several small fundy Baptist KJV churches while working in rural areas. He subscribed to a newspaper (remember those?) called Sword Of The Lord, all about why they were right. I didn't buy the concept at all. But he likes conspiracies so that one was easy to digest. 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Oh yes, don't you know that the KJV is the only inspired translation of the Bible? Everything else is but mans interpretation (These days I laugh at the irony.)

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Absolutely. The churches i attended were adamant that the KJV was the only version to be used. They would bring up differences in certain scriptures that they felt changed the meaning or watered it down. 

 

But then I discovered the original 1611 version that was the actual version written under king James and I honestly couldn't understand it. The people that say KJV is the one true Bible don't even understand that even today's KJV is updated to a newer old English that is more understandable in today's time. 

 

Its really kinda funny. But even now when I do crack open the Bible I prefer the KJV. Its what I studied and its what I'm used to. 

[duderonomy]

On 8/18/2022 at 7:38 AM, LogicalFallacy said:

Oh yes, don't you know that the KJV is the only inspired translation of the Bible? Everything else is but mans interpretation (These days I laugh at the irony.)

 

He who laughs last laughs best, thou doubter. 

 

[nontheistpilgrim]

What I don't understand is that what St Paul wrote (i.e. the KJV) is the true Bible but people don't accept that.

[Chicken0Life]

I never understood this. Wouldn't the original physical documents be the one true Bible? This also lead me to one of my major concerns about Christianity: translation errors. 

 

How did we know the Bible was translated correctly? People translated it and, as we all know from what the bible said, people are imperfect. We make mistakes all the time.

 

When I started reading other translations, I noticed both subtle and major changes in the meaning of certain scriptures. How could we know which meaning was the "correct" meaning? As a Southern Baptist, being correct is the most holy thing a Christian can do (maybe not officially what they believe, but it's the impression I always had). If you're wrong about anything, then you're believing wrong. And if you're believing wrong, then you can't be a true Christian. It's like the devil was behind the confusion, because "God is not the author of confusion" (this verse began to bother me as well. In Genesis, God "confused" the languages. God literally authored confusion. Which leads to another problem, because the Bible stated clearly in a verse prior to the great confusion that people of differing nations had different languages.)

 

To answer your original question, the pastor would always preach from the KJV. The older pastor we had swore it was the best translation we had without giving any good reasons. I think it was just what he was used to. Some of the other pastors who came after him started incorporating other translations like ESV and NASB because they were supposed to be closer to the original texts. The old folks hated it. 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 hours ago, Chicken0Life said:

I never understood this. Wouldn't the original physical documents be the one true Bible?

Unfortunately there are no "original" documents. Especially the old testament. They do have ancient and very old documents. But the only way to preserve them was to re-write them when a copy was needed or the existing copy was getting to old and at risk of being lost. 

 

Because of that,  its pretty safe to assume that things were changed through the various copies. Whether it was a inadvertent mistake while copying it, or blatant changes because of a personal disagreement with it. 

 

I was just talking about the woman caught in adultery to a co-worker today. I watched a debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace. Both biblical scholars. One Christian and the other a former Christian. The most interesting part I saw was that both agreed that in the earliest known fragments of the Gospel of John this incident is never mentioned. My theory is that someone.... possibly a pastor or some other church leader, added it in to either keep himself or someone else from being kicked out of the church or worse. Here is the link to the debate. Bart Ehrman is probably my favorite scholar. His videos and books really helped me to solidify my deconversion. 

I believe it was in this debate that its talked about. 

 

[duderonomy]

17 hours ago, nontheistpilgrim said:

What I don't understand is that what St Paul wrote (i.e. the KJV) is the true Bible but people don't accept that.

 

I know, right?  I mean, if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul, it's good enough for me.

[TABA]

14 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

Bart Ehrman is probably my favorite scholar. His videos and books really helped me to solidify my deconversion. 

I can’t recommend Bart Ehrman highly enough.  I learned about him after I’d already deconverted, but it was eye-opening to learn how Jewish thinking about God evolved over the centuries and how Christianity was influenced by both Jewish and Greek thinking.  Troubling and/or puzzling parts of scripture started to make much more sense.  Truth be told, the world as a whole makes much more sense to me now than when I was a believer.