What is KJO ?

[civic]

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).got?

hope this helps !!!

 

[Fred]

I think I prefer the KJV when it comes to about 90-95 percent of the Bible.
I do enjoy how it reads and feel too many (certainly not all) modern versions weaken what is expressed. (my opinion)

I do prefer the modern versions when it comes to some of the archaic language of the KJV and in several other passages such as Ephesians 5:21; Colossians 3:22; 1 Peter 3:15; Jude 4; Revelation 14:1, etc.

 

[Rockson]

I like the KJV but if we can't understand that there are ways words are being said in it that somehow for today's readers can be counter productive, then I think we're amiss. Even on little things ....example,

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. John 10:10 KJV

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10 : 10 NIV

A new person not knowing Elizabethan English would think cometh not means he doesn't come for that reason. So do we really have to do that to people? So updated way words can be used can be fine and perhaps better. Not allowing it can also be considered a hindrance to good spiritual growth, in other words stop making it hard on people.

Another things for the KJO group. Why shouldn't they have said then a few hundred years ago forget even using English! Nope you've go to teach everyone Greek or Hebrew. That is the language it was written in! Why make English speaking people feel they get to define their Bible in their language as the gold standard.

What about all the other languages of the world that the Bible has been translated into?? Nope you've got to stay with the King James! All must learn this Elizabethan English! So has God shown favoritism in giving English speaking people a break....and not all people having different languages? Doesn't that in and of itself make English people look rather like elites or God's special exclusive people. So I really don't think KJO people have thought through on what they're saying.

 

[civic]

I like the KJV but if we can't understand that there are ways words are being said in it that somehow for today's readers can be counter productive, then I think we're amiss. Even on little things ....example,

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. John 10:10 KJV

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10 : 10 NIV

A new person not knowing Elizabethan English would think cometh not means he doesn't come for that reason. So do we really have to do that to people? So updated way words can be used can be fine and perhaps better. Not allowing it can also be considered a hindrance to good spiritual growth, in other words stop making it hard on people.

Another things for the KJO group. Why shouldn't they have said then a few hundred year ago forget even using English! Nope you've go to teach everyone Greek or Hebrew. That is the language it was written in! Why make English speaking people feel they get to define their Bible in their language as the gold standard.

What about all the other languages of the world that the Bible has been translated into?? Nope you've got to stay with the King James! All must learn this Elizabethan English! So has God shown favoritism in giving English speaking people a break....and not all people having different languages? Doesn't that in and of itself make English people look rather like elites or God's special exclusive people. So I really don't think KJO people have thought through on what they're saying.

Thanks for sharing your insight brother much appreciated

 

[Obadiah]

I'm fine with anyone that wants to be KJO. New King James is my preferred Bible. But I actually like all the translations. To me the best translation is the one you pick up and read regularly. One thing about KJO is if you're in a remote village in China it's not going to be a lot of help. Even if you learn how to speak English it would still be quite difficult.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

As with most things, the true and accurate situation is more complicated than it seems. But the most important thing and the mercy of God is that His salvation message still comes through no matter the muddled mess humans have made of His word.

The actual details and hidden truths do not become evident unless one understands the full historical picture. This is not tied to Church tradition, scholar assumptions and western Church arrogance. I've had to choose my words carefully because with any more detail, all sorts of pointless arguments result.

 

[Rockson]

I'm fine with anyone that wants to be KJO. New King James is my preferred Bible. But I actually like all the translations. To me the best translation is the one you pick up and read regularly. One thing about KJO is if you're in a remote village in China it's not going to be a lot of help. Even if you learn how to speak English it would still be quite difficult.

Exactly. People can use the KJ and only that if they like....but to come across as God gave the KJV as some type of unique revelation without question and people from other language cultures wanting to have the equivalent in their languages well they're out of luck.....God only cares about English speaking people I think that really is being rather pretentious, and full of pride.

 

[Obadiah]

Exactly. People can use the KJ and only that if they like....but to come across as God gave the KJV as some type of unique revelation without question and people from other language cultures wanting to have the equivalent in their languages well they're out of luck.....God only cares about English speaking people I think that really is being rather pretentious, and full of pride.

Thou thinketh Rightly.

 

[Frank Russell]

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).got?

hope this helps !!!

The original KJV was released in 1611. However, it went through so many corrections until it's final version in the late 1700's that it's pretty easy to see that it was full of errors.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I'm fine with anyone that wants to be KJO. New King James is my preferred Bible. But I actually like all the translations. To me the best translation is the one you pick up and read regularly. One thing about KJO is if you're in a remote village in China it's not going to be a lot of help. Even if you learn how to speak English it would still be quite difficult.

I've found that KJVOism can be very damaging to believers. We must live in reality. Most of humanity live in their "imaginations". That is what KJVOism is..... "imagination". It promotes the English empire and sensibilities above God.

In many ways, the British/English Empire is just as bad or worse as the Roman Empire.

 

[Frank Russell]

I've found that KJVOism can be very damaging to believers. We must live in reality. Most of humanity live in their "imaginations". That is what KJVOism is..... "imagination". It promotes the English empire and sensibilities above God.

In many ways, the British/English Empire is just as bad or worse as the Roman Empire.

American Imperialism can be just as damaging. It's hard to find a church that isn't prioritizing republican politics over the gospel.

 

[praise_yeshua]

American Imperialism can be just as damaging. It's hard to find a church that isn't prioritizing republican politics over the gospel.

Or Democrat politics over the Gospel. There is no such thing as a social Gospel. It is all about power and most everyone is guilty.

 

[Frank Russell]

Or Democrat politics over the Gospel. There is no such thing as a social Gospel. It is all about power and most everyone is guilty.

And when this bias moves outside of the US, and there is no perpetual fear of being taken over by communists, it sounds more like returning to the root of the gospel teachings.

 

[Clifford]

There's no way you can dictate to someone what Bible translation they should use. I like it when I know some of the words to a scripture and look it up online and the page I get gives me the verse in every single translation they can come up with. So I can join myself looking through them. They all pretty much say the same thing in one way or another.

 

[praise_yeshua]

There's no way you can dictate to someone what Bible translation they should use. I like it when I know some of the words to a scripture and look it up online and the page I get gives me the verse in every single translation they can come up with. So I can join myself looking through them. They all pretty much say the same thing in one way or another.

They do? I very strongly disagree. Translation have bias. Every single English translation has bias. You can find it in the words they choose to use in translation.

Here is a perfect example from the KJV.

Heb_13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Heb_13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Heb_13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

This translation dishonors Jesus Christ. There is ONLY ONE ruler. There is ONLY One King. The KJV false translation ἡγέομαι as rule/ruler.

King James did this. He believed in the "Divine Rights of Kings". He believed he RULED the Church of God. He did this in opposition to Bible of the Reformers. The Geneva Bible

Heb 13:8 Remember them which have the oversight of you, which haue declared unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering what hath been the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ yesterday, and to day, the same also is for ever.

See how they cut Jesus Christ out verse 7/8 in Hebrews 13:7/8 and made it ALL about themselves.

This is what men do. Deceive others.

 

[synergy]

King James did this. He believed in the "Divine Rights of Kings". He believed he RULED the Church of God. He did this in opposition to Bible of the Reformers. The Geneva Bible

History is funny so many times. Here is King James, a Scottish Calvinist/Presbyterian, allowing his KJV Bible to take precedence over the Geneva Bible that had strong roots in Calvinism. Goes to show you that his interests were heavily towards uniting his kingdom much like Emperor Constantine and the Nicene Council.

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

They do? I very strongly disagree. Translation have bias. Every single English translation has bias. You can find it in the words they choose to use in translation.

Here is a perfect example from the KJV.

Heb_13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Heb_13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Heb_13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

This translation dishonors Jesus Christ. There is ONLY ONE ruler. There is ONLY One King. The KJV false translation ἡγέομαι as rule/ruler.

King James did this. He believed in the "Divine Rights of Kings". He believed he RULED the Church of God. He did this in opposition to Bible of the Reformers. The Geneva Bible

Heb 13:8 Remember them which have the oversight of you, which haue declared unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering what hath been the end of their conversation. Jesus Christ yesterday, and to day, the same also is for ever.

See how they cut Jesus Christ out verse 7/8 in Hebrews 13:7/8 and made it ALL about themselves.

This is what men do. Deceive others.

This is the best example you can come up with? I don't think "ruler" means what you think it means.
The Greek word they translated:

1. to lead
   1. to go before
   2. to be a leader
      1. to rule, command
      2. to have authority over
      3. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
      4. used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
      5. the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

Paul says elsewhere very clearly:
[Col 3:22 LSB] 22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but with integrity of heart, fearing the Lord.

 

[Wrangler]

Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology.

I am in this camp.

Putting aside the FROM part of the translation debate, which I hold KJV to be much weaker, is the TO part of the translation. People don't talk that way today. More than most people, I consider the KJV unreadable.

Adherents of KJV-only-ism kept me from reading the Bible for decades. Sad IDOLATRY.

 

[praise_yeshua]

This is the best example you can come up with? I don't think "ruler" means what you think it means.
The Greek word they translated:

1. to lead
   1. to go before
   2. to be a leader
      1. to rule, command
      2. to have authority over
      3. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
      4. used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
      5. the leader in speech, chief, spokesman

Paul says elsewhere very clearly:
[Col 3:22 LSB] 22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters according to the flesh, not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but with integrity of heart, fearing the Lord.

The best? I have many many more examples of how badly the KJV was translated.

Jesus Christ alone has authority over me. King James sought authority. Just like any ruler. You need to provide a definition from 1611. Not so modern sources. They translated ruler as an absolutely authority.

Would like to name someone that has authority over me?

 

[EclipseEventSigns]

The best? I have many many more examples of how badly the KJV was translated.

Jesus Christ alone has authority over me. King James sought authority. Just like any ruler. You need to provide a definition from 1611. Not so modern sources. They translated ruler as an absolutely authority.

Would like to name someone that has authority over me?

Read my post again. Paul tells you exactly what you should be doing in order to "fear the LORD".