Question re KJV Only

(Monty Dicksion) #1

I have several reference books on Bible interpretation. In each, the authors recommend several well-chosen translations to consult for different situations.

Yet a couple of years ago I attended a church where the pastor endorsed the KJV1611 as the only accurate translation. The church’s by-laws even required new members to declare the same.

Plus, I attended a para-church Bible study group organization’s new member orientation which allowed only the KJV, and even prohibited the use of commentaries.

I’m wondering what is the general feeling of RZIM Connect participants on the subject of the KJV only point of view? Thanks. I look forward to hearing all perspectives.

(Cameron Kufner) #2

Great question. My only answer would be: What did people do before the KJV? I don’t get tangled up in the translations, there are many, but there is one intended interpretation.

Here is a chart of the different translations and what makes them so different from each other.

Also, if we’re going by reliability and accuracy, many h
Historians/Bible Scholars say that the NASB is the most accurate to date.

I don’t take anything away from the KJV, I in fact read out of a NKJV Minister’s Bible. But, I recognize that it’s not the only reliable translation out there. NLT is reliable, although it is a thought-for-thought translation, still reliable. If I were to do a Bible Study, I wouldn’t use a paraphrase translation of the Bible.

Hope this helps. God bless!

(SeanO) #3

@MontyD In addition to @CamKufner’s good response, here is another thread on Connect that discusses the issue of Bible translations, and specifically KJV only, in some detail.