Why You SHOULD NOT Promote KJV Only 

My pastor would say the "best version is the one that is open and read". I tend to agree with him.

You should ask him what God views to be a greater sin. Not using the King James version, or the great pridefulness of your friend's attitude toward those who don't?

Brother Frisch, I am a nkjv reader.However. I am a dispensational believer therefore I truly believe Kjv is correct on Tim 2:15..The word "dividing" means dividing truth from error.. The scripture shows Paul is "the" apostle to the gentiles, not "the 12"".. kjv, niv, and nlt recognizes this. My nkjv gets it wrong. Says Paul was an apostle. Thank you and God bless.

@@tonimccoy9778 Your NKJV gets it right. "Dividing" the word of truth was a farming analogy and means to handle accurately. It doesn't mean to divide the Bible up for different people at different times. I am a traditional dispensationalist. OT teaches us things but we don't follow the mosaic law. All of the NT is for everyone today.

My KJV only friend says if you use any other Bible it's not Christianity it's another religion... Might be time to find new friends

@@allanp3065 Yes find new friends. It's a sad affair but often time kjvo are so entrenched in their belief of kjvo that they will never see the light.

But most importantly, understand.

wrong modern day translations are watered down Like the NIV and the living bible

@@darilcaldwell31 The NIV is a highly accurate and readable translation. The Living Bible is just a paraphrase and has ever claimed to be anything but a paraphrase.

@@guymontag349 the New international perversion version is a mistranslated version and is not accurate

They also said their work was to be one with authority

KJV can go to hell! I will read another Bible version! You can't stop me!!

@@tdickensheets geesh.... I guess you like evolving bibles that keep on changing

Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, *nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,* (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in some sort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in stead of wine, with whey in stead of milke:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, *not justly to be excepted against;* that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke. The "bad one" being catholic. Their translation (King James Authorized Version) is not to be excepted against. The poorest translations that the translators spoke of were previous Protestant English versions which all came from the Received Text. All the King James Translators were either Puritans or the Church of England.

@@chadmeidl1140 one principal good one. Means authority

Nothing wrong with that. Kjv isn't my main choice. I prefer the Nkjv and Esv, but I still occasionally use the kjv! Its a beautiful translation.

I don’t use KJV but sometimes I will read King James Easy Read. It even has Jesus words red in the Old Testament.

Scholars might know the issues but we are not all scholars. I wonder how many people misunderstand or don't understand certain words, there by not understanding parts of scripture. Fear God for He is a terrible God. If you don't know the kjv meaning of 'fear' and 'terrible' it has no use to try to read something you don't understand. The use of every day English is already a problem for some. The younger generation, not exposed to kj words, could start with the kjv easy read. At the same time making notes in a wide margin kj so that one day they can read the kjv, together with other translations.

@@johanneshendrikus6644 Good points. Thank you. Just a few comments… I was not attempting to evangelize anyone to the KJV. I was just describing the factors that drew me, and hold me, to it. I love that we have so many wonderful “modern” translations that fill the spectrum of translation of target equivalence from formal to dynamic. I love that some translation teams have chosen to retain as much as possible a faithful word-for-word translation, and have still been able to create a “readable” text. I also love that some translation teams have chosen to abandon the formal translation in an effort to represent a more “relatable” experience to the authors original intent, to attempt to draw in the marvelous wordplays, for example (compare Amos 8:1-2 in the NASB versus the NIV). Second, no matter which translation a person chooses to read, the meaning and impact of the text is likely to not be fully realized without a trusted, competent guide to help them. Reading Leviticus for the first time on your own, compared to studying it under the loving mentorship of a competent Bible teacher is a fundamentally different experience. My personal preferences in translation are undoubtedly influenced by the fact that most of the teachers I have benefited from used the KJV in their work. God’s grace and peace brother!

It’s funny how when someone post the reasons why they personally love and prefer the KJV people will comment and ramble on about how others can’t understand it. Almost feels like some are pushing for KJV NEVER. I primarily read the NKJV and NASB 95 but let’s stop trying to push people away from their King James. Well said Grampy Rick.

Yep. There's a weird idea that there's something inherently more right about a particular translation when another synonym might have been accurate as well. Now that I've learned a bit of a few other languages, and have experience of reading something and trying to translate it in real time, that's just silly.

And indeed, I'm not KJVO and I happen to speak 4 languages (some better than others).

True. It’s a movement that is anti-intellectual at its core

That's awesome 👍

you are making a mistake KJV is the only option

@@spencershaw2407 please take me through your line of reasoning starting with the history of how we got the Bible from the beginning till now

@@spencershaw2407 So people In other countries have to learn kjv-English to read the real word of god?

@@randywheeler3914 the new versions do not follow the TR

Something I have thought about quite a bit, while wishing for a modern reading in my Bible, is why aren't there more modern Bibles based on the TR or the MT? I think I came to a sort of conclusion. A large percentage of those who believe the MT or the TR are the best text, are using the KJV, and they don't want the KJV to change. And I think naturally, that leaves those who don't feel that the MT or TR are the best, as the ones who are doing modern translation work. And in time, I see that leading to the older text types being the ones that will become main stream. And I think it at least partly stems from the MT and TR people losing sight of Tyndales desire to give the plow bow a Bible he can read in his plain language.

@@hayfieldhermit9657 why use a TR catholic Bible?

@@jwatson181 I don't think people need to. I just think that the people crying about all the newer translations being based on a different textual basis than the KJV, have only themselves to blame for that. They are the ones who don't want a single word of the KJV changed, and so they will not accept even the New King James, so naturally, the text underlying the KJV will slowly fade as the language continues to change. Unless at some point the KJV only movement fades, and there's a new push from somewhere to use the TR.... My whole point, is that it is the fault of the KJV only movement that most new translations are not based on the TR.

@@hayfieldhermit9657 great point!

The issue for many is the Textus Receptus which the KJV NT was translated from. So, as long as those people are reading from a Bible that the NT was translated from the TR then they should be good. I'm not KJVO, but I believe that is what they would say. Now there are some that are extreme and they might say KJVO for all people, but that again would be extreme.

I knew a man who was not only adamantly KJV only. He purposely blotted out the italics, because they were added by the translators later.

Dang that’s a good comment brother Pete, I too have got caught up in superficial bible matters that stunt my growth. Always remember to just read your Bible! (I know sounds weird, but its key, I’ll get caught up in cross references way too much sometimes)

@@davidklocke6976 pride

@@barnabusredeemed9107 Absolutely. My favorite thanks to Tim now is the CSB. Perfect balance of Literal and Dynamic. So much of my life wasted on the conspiracies and "politics" of bible translations. Thank the Lord for his grace! And thanks to Tim Frisch, Mark Ward and R Grant Jones... because I legit love bibles. If you're down for a bible check out the Spurgeon (sometimes called the Prince of Preachers) CSB, and actually Tony Evans CSB is phenomenal. Not overloaded with commentary. And they're great.

You sound so stupid.

I actually opted for "Be studious" in my own translation.

That greek word has 3 definitions. 1. Be diligent (used in that verse) 2. Do your work quickly (used in other places in the bible) 3. Be efficient (not used in the bible this way)

The KJV can be read by a child, it's not hard.

Then there are the words you think you know the meaning, but they changed from what they meant from them to now.

@@chucklandreth478 That's funny. I have asked several older pastors the meaning of some choice words from the KJV, and not one could give me the correct definition. Example: 'besom.' Of course, you can do a quick word search and figure out the meaning, but be honest, do you know the word besom without looking it up? Another that surprised me was girdle. Some were close, answering sash, or garment, but not one got it right. There are scores of false friends in the Authorized Version, but the problem is that if you don't know that a word is a false cognate, how would you know to look up the contemporary meaning? For example, the word prevent regarding the rapture. In the Elizabethan era, prevent meant to go before. That was always puzzling to me a s young Bible reader, because the modern meaning is to stop, or head something off before it can happen, like Fire Prevention. We were advised to look up difficult terms in older versions of Daniel Webster. But Webster himself did an update to the KJV in the early 1800s. Webster understood that many of his day were confused by archaic terms. One of my pastors in South Korea stated flatly that every believer, in every part of the world should study Elizabethan English so that they could get God's pure Word. Several members of our church tried for months to get a grasp on the text, but most gave up. One brother was a university graduate in law, with an excellent command of English. He worked for the South Korean Gub-mint. One day he presented me with a very expensive KJV Bible from England. He told me that he had given up on trying to master the KJV. This whole situation reminds me of other, well meaning people that affirmed the old ways. "You must read, speak, pray, and meditate in Arabic to please Allah." Or the Catholics that demanded that adherents use the Latin Vulgate. "We have been using this for eleven-hundred years! Why would you want to modernize the Word of God?" Why exactly. Take a moment to compare contemporary Italian with Latin. The difference is stunning. Saddling Christians with text that needs to decoded slows the intake of Scripture and stunts the growth of the individual. Playing right into the Devil's hands.

"and rail against the Roman Catholic church".... This makes me shake my head every time I hear a KJV only advocate bashing "Catholic Bibles", when Erasmus was a Catholic, along with Tyndale, and the church of England, until they split from Rome, so King Henry could have his divorce..... Massively hypocritical, and ignorant. I realized after reading Tyndale, and the KJV translators own words, why I heard them so little if at all in my KJV only church, and my KJV only materials..... They don't support the KJV only position.

@@hayfieldhermit9657 I had completely forgotten about Erasmus and Tyndale. It makes my blood boil when I hear the constant Catholic bashing by the IFB about the King James Version, I sometimes want to confront those preachers who do that and tell them to knock it off.

KJVO's will make paradoxical claims: (1) That the modern translations and their Greek texts are too Catholic, and (2) that they deny the virgin birth and the remove references to the blood of Christ. However, two of Catholicism's heresies go against this. First, they teach the perpetual virginity of Mary, so they actually carry it to an unbiblical extreme. Second, the false doctrine of transubstantiation similarly emphasizes Christ's blood to an extreme. You can't have it both ways.

@@sbs8331 Here’s the main thing that KJVOs forget, the Greek text behind the NT of the KJV was compiled by Erasmus, who was a 😳 Roman Catholic priest! So, when they support the TR as the base text, what are they doing? They are supporting the Roman Catholic Church, the same church they bash.

@@netdude21 Erasmus even dedicated his Greek New testament, to the Pope, in his preface...... The TR began by being dedicated to the pope by a Catholic priest.

Melisa Daughtery had a good video on KJOs. Yes, the KJV even fixes defects in the Greek and Hebrew! Yes, they really are out there.

There is a guy at my weekly Bible study who is KJVO. Several times he has read from the KJV and then went on to explain. “I know that sentence sounds weird but what it really means is this and that”. I’m looking at my Bible and it already says what he explained the text is actually saying! It’s hard to remain quiet but I know it will just cause arguments if I say it. So frustrating.

Its really not that hard to understand. Everyone pretends that it is but it's not. God commands us to study... takes very little effort to learn what a few words mean. Comon guys

@@frustratedmajority851 First of all, Check out Mark Ward's videos about the KJV, in which he lays out false friends and other issues. There are too many words which do not mean the same thing today as they did in 1611. This has been a stumbling block to many people, including myself. I was in a KJVO church for nearly a decade as a youngster, and I can tell you now that I had a VERY improper understanding of several passages due to the archaic language of false friends and other translation problems. Ward himself has pointed out that many KJVO pastors don't even recognize their own inability to parse false friends properly. Second, we should be doing EVERYTHING in our power in translating the Bible to eliminate potential misunderstandings and difficulties. The slavish and unfounded devotion to the KJV (and I would also ask, WHICH KJV translation, as it has been revised since 1611) is unreasonable and borders a near idolatry of language. Christians should not have to "switch idioms" from the Bible to modern speak; they should be able to quickly and easily relate the Scriptures without having to stop and realize that "conversation" does not mean the same thing nowadays as it did 400 plus years ago. Nor should they risk the peril of a misunderstanding which can lead to false doctrine (I John 3:6, for example, which gives the impression of teaching the doctrine of perfectionism in the KJV, when the Greek clearly does not).

@@frustratedmajority851 Oh, one other thing: the word "Study" in the KJV does not mean the same thing as it does in modern language.

@@Outrider74Does the NKJV fix the KJV language and meaning that changed over time or would it be best to get a different modern Bible than the NKJV? What translations would you recommend for me as a Marine and Country boy that don’t have a high education I ask this in love thank you in advance ❤

How can you call that amazing using mistranslated translations of the bible

@@darilcaldwell31 exactly…

@@darilcaldwell31 It's not a translation issue. It's a manuscript issue.

@@Beleeuer sure it is the living bible is translated by a group of homosexuals NIV has changed the meaning of the word and the old Elziabethion language is often taken out because people claim that they can't understand and modern translations are usually used in a Watertown message

The most important question is: clarity vs truth. I want to like the new king James but there’s so many places that have been changed and updated to take away the deity of Christ.

What's wrong with infant baptism? In the Bible the Apostles baptized entire families, which surely had women, children, and babies in them.

If you will look at the concordance of your Bible one will not find a single verse or verses showing babies were baptized.Some will refer to Luke 2:22-24 were Jesus was brought to the temple.This passage show that Jesus as an infant was presented not baptized.And when Jesus became an adult John the Baptist baptized Jesus.The prophet Samuel in the Old Testament was also presented to the Lord by Hannah and Elkanah his parents.As far as I know only protestant churches like Anglicans,Lutherans,Presbyterians and Reformed Churches except Reformed Baptist because Reformed Baptist baptized only adult man and women.I have no quarrel with church who baptized babies or infants but if you want to follow the examples of the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles then one should baptize only adult believers.

@@charlene2377 The Bible clearly states that we are to believe, and be baptized. How can a baby understand and believe the Gospel Message? Acts 2:38 admonishes us to Repent and be Baptized. Have you ever heard of an infant repenting?

Best comment in this section.

@Robert Shirley The should accept The suggestion willingly. Otherwise I think the strength or stress upon using other translations should be directly proportional to their KJVO-ism. (The rest is a joke) We deny the cult-ists any and all access to their “drug.” (The KJ TRANSLATION). Disallow them to say anything remotely unpleasant in reference to modern translations to any users. Doing will result in 8 hours a day of Modern translation audio*. In the extreme cases we feed their space 8 hours a day the audio of modern translations. This continues until, at a minimum, they’ve heard each of the more vilified translations* at least 5 times. *from Gen 1:1 thru Rev 22:21

It’s just the author of confusion back again. These same people who can’t understand a kjv (the only one that’s attacked) learned Shakespeare to graduate. No complaints then. Nobody complaining about this so called archaic language being on jayz shirt while he quoted aleister crowley.

But God said man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY WORD of God. How can multiple translations that say different things all be the same thing? They cannot.

@@ariel9302 Since no translation can perfectly and completely translate every grammatical detail and nuance of meaning, no single translation of the Bible in the English language (or any other language) can make the exclusive claim of being the Word of God to the dismissal of all other versions in that language. Whereas one translation may not convey something, another translation may do so. This is one reason for comparing various translations. This does not, however, mean that all translations are equally accurate. Some translations are very accurate and reliable (like the KJV). Some are much better than others. And some are so poor that it would be wise to avoid them. I do read the KJB regularly, but not exclusively. Which edition of the KJB do you use and recommend that I read exclusively? (They are each slightly different, as I am sure you know)

Learn Greek stupid 🤣🤣🤣 That's good!

But the KJV is in English

*_But go ye and learn what that meaneth,_* I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Matthew 9:13 KJV The entrance of thy words *_giveth light; It giveth understanding unto the simple._* Psalm 119:130 KJV The law of the LORD is *_perfect,_* converting the soul: The testimony of the LORD is sure, *_making wise the simple._* Psalm 19:7 KJV Get a dictionary, learn what those "archaic" words mean, memorize the meanings, and be done with it. It's not that hard. Go ye and LEARN what that meaneth, you're not incapable.

A Legalistic excuse riddled smokescreen

@Dawn Michelle I don’t use KJV but sometimes I will read King James Easy Read. It even has Jesus words red in the Old Testament.

use the King James its perfect the other translation are watered down and corrupted .

In fact, that's how you can tell a lot of people who claim to be "Textus Receptus only" are bluffing; because they group the NKJV with the NASB, NIV and ESV against the KJV, showing they aren't really "TR-only" but "KJV-only".

@@fnjesusfreak that is so true I encountered a few people like that and was just like they are from the TR so why deny the NKJV same manuscripts just no thees and thou. And then some crack me up thinking the NASB is not a good translation and not the most literal I’m like come on now really. 🤦🏾‍♀️

​​​@@Meg.A.DarkAlienWriter The NASB uses different manuscripts than the KJV. They use the alexandrian texts, not texts receptus. A good translation of a bad manuscript doesn't make it a good version of the bible. I prefer (a translation of) the TR because that's what the ancient church fathers used. Nothing good happened in Egypt in the bible and Alexandria was in Egypt. I can't see how God would let those manuscripts be buried for centuries. And the nkjv isn't "just" a newer version of the kjv without the thees and thous. To get copyright you need to change ag least 10% ... that's a lot more than just "thees" and "thous".

@@fnjesusfreak I agree with you. They criticise the NKJV despite that it uses the textus receptus, so does the Modern English Version and the 21st Century KJV, and they criticise those too.

@@mgt3905 plenty of strong early church fathers were from Egypt. That’s a weak argument

Well, he was trying to discourage people from using the Geneva Bible, so...

What the hell are you talking about?

Even without any reading disabilities, it can quickly become clear that there's not enough literacy to understand. I grew up KJV only and during congregational responsive scripture reading, the leaders which were just the laymen of the church would often stumble painfully through the text like a first grade who had been asked to read aloud. The way they would stress different words or syllables gave the impression that they were sounding it out without fully comprehending all of it.

@@tayh.6235 I grew up in a Baptist church that had responsive readings in the hymnal too. The old deacons and ministers weren't very literate. But they loved volunteering me to read scripture.

Same experience here. The other versions will show you another way of seeing or hearing a verse. Go back to King James, and you see what was being said. I was not seeing it prior. The Kjv only, osas, no need to repent, and say a 1 time prayer, and you're done crowd are the most confident. Yet they will berate you and tell you that you are going to hades because?????

I totally agree. If KJV-Only people, for instance, just read James White's book, the King James Only Controversy, it would clear up so much confusion, ignorance and misinformation on the topic.

Name one thing you can understand better in a modern version than the KJV.

@@ariel9302 Well, in most modern versions, the text is accurate and faithful. In Revelation 1:8 the KJV omits the word God. Do some research on the words. The underlying Greek reads "LORD God."

@@ariel9302 Alright. In Isaiah 14:23 in the KJV we encounter the term besom. Wouldn't be easier to understand the modern word broom? When have you ever heard a person say the word besom?

Why are we in error? Be nice to cite something instead of hit and run.

@@ariel9302 hello friend I’m moving closer to KJO! I recant this comment from last year

@@ryangutierrez5354 yes! Listen to this: God said man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God. So the question for these modern version losers is this: did the people of the 1800s NOT have an EVERY WORD Bible because they didn’t have the NIV? No! They had every word of God because God promised heaven and earth will pass away but His WORDS shall not pass away. Logic proves the KJV is the Word of God just by the fact it has stood the test of time. Also, the big argument from this crowd is how much easier the modern version is to read so they grow closer to the Lord. So a challenge i never get a response to is I’ll ask them: cite the verse specifically that is so hard to read in KJV that you can’t understand but in the modern version you just get the light bulb. Never answered. Because when you hold them to the fire on this they realize all they’re doing is proving how unintelligent they are because they can’t understand thou means your and believeth means believes and ye means you. Then the most obvious reason the KJV is the Word of God is the contradictions and changes in context and meaning in the modern versions. Look modern version crowd- if these books ONLY updated the thees and the thous, maybe kjvo would calm down a degree. But they don’t! They take critical text and CHANGE THE MEANING! They specifically promote false doctrine such as lordship salvation, the deity of Christ, and the sinless nature of Christ. Modern versions sound like effeminate, childish garbage and belong in the trash next to the Book of Mormon. Complete trash!

NASB says David didn't kill Goliath

@@thefellowheirs That's a lie. 1 Samuel 17 in the NASB has the David and Goliath story intact.

It was a farming analogy and simply means to handle accurately.

If someone thinks you are going to hell because you do not read the KJV. Then that truly sounds another gospel, Unbilical and indefensible. Also what did people read before 1611? Also what about those who do not speak English? Let alone the archaic English of the KJV. What about the apostles and other new testament writers. Did use King James English. KJV onlyism is nothing more than a damnable heresy Thank God he has blessed us with more accurate modern translations in contemporary English.

Verily have I explained unto thee. He who hath ears to hear, harken unto mine explanation.

I lacked preparedness, Sir Frisch. Grace and peace be upon you.

@@DearWokeChristian LMAO, you beautiful weirdo!!

@@AFrischPerspective that's funny 🤣

For me it's NASB 95, 20, and NKJV, HCSB, and sometimes NET.

I like NASB 95/LSB, ESV, NiV for n/t and Septuagint or Peshitta for o/t

At least we KJVO have rage. You effeminate cowards in the modern version crowd do nothing for no one.

Given that the antecedent of "he" or "who" *is* "God" in the previous verse, I don't think it actually matters, though I think "God" (Θ̅C) is more likely than "He" (OC). (And now you know how that change happened)

@@fnjesusfreak I agree that it don't matter. I was just thinking of textual variances and differences in manuscripts as "God" seems to be more forceful. Thank you!

@@tabasco7915 Yes, and I actually tend to lean into a TR _preferred_ stance myself over stuff like that - but my favorite translation is actually based on an older edition of Nestle-Aland... 😜

@@fnjesusfreak Oh I agree. I'm just always trying to promote the deity of Christ to/with the Unitarian without being inaccurate. No matter what you show them, it's always a challenge as apologetics is always simultaneous. It seems that many complications can arise because of the variances between the T.R. and the critical text.

@Coyote Creek Yeah, I think he's joking...

Yea. Paul loved the NLT.

Hahahahha