There some Christians who consider, for various reasons, the KJV to be the only legitimate translation of the Bible.**I am wondering if there are any movements like that surrounding another translation, whether to English or some other language.** To be specific, I'm not asking about the *textus receptus* but rather the translation specifically, as some "KJV-only" people defend it for no other reason than that it is a translation of the *textus receptus* and would accept other translations of TR (at least theoretically). I am also not asking whether any of these people or movements are correct.

For the first 74 years of the KJV (including most notably the 1611 version) the KJV included the apocryphal books. So if the 1611 version is inspired why don't the Protestant KJV-1611-Only crowd consider them canonical?

Given that [proponents of *Textus Receptus* Only](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#Variations) are still influential today and that the majority of Bible translations today are using the [*Nestle-Aland* edition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) , I wonder whether there are Bible translations that cater to **both** Greek editions by *consistently* providing the original Greek text **as well as** the translation of the variant *not* used in the main text. **CONSISTENTLY** is the operative word here, so that [*Textus-Receptus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus) only Bible readers can benefit from non-KJV translations to help them understand Scripture better (by using a modern translation) **while trusting** that the *Textus Receptus* manuscript version is always present to them. It makes sense from the Marketing perspective. Although of course one could consult *Wikipedia* or a list of differences in a [web article](https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Differences_Between_Textus_Receptus_and_NaUbs) , or use a tool such as *BibleGateway* to display it side by side, it is a lot more user-friendly to see the variant as a footnote that is available **offline**. My preliminary research shows that alternate manuscript footnotes are sporadic, not consistent. For example, for [Matt 19:16-17](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019%3A16-17&version=KJV,YLT,CSB) CSB only shows the *mss* variant in v. 17, but not in v. 16, and *not* show the Greek itself. [*Bible Hub*](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/19-16.htm) *does* have links to alternate manuscript but it's not indicated in the main text as an alert. Given that such a dual-manuscript translation is not available easily today, what is the easiest way to read the Bible **and be consistently alerted** when a *Textus-Receptus* variant exists? I know I can use tools like the [Logos software](https://www.logos.com/) to do side by side interlinear translations of both CSB and KJV/YLT, but it's not that easy to spot a variant. So I will also accept an answer that can provide a recipe for using a software like this to read a Bible normally but has footnote, color codes, etc. to alert me that a **meaning-altering** *Textus Receptus* variant exists. ----- **NOTE** (after feedback in comments). Of course I wouldn't want any variants that don't make a difference in meaning. My Question has to do with making sure that the 3 text traditions (let's also add the Eastern Orthodox text tradition whose OT is based on Septuagint) are well represented in footnotes that **should include a judgment from within each tradition on how that variant is likely**. Each translation based on a particular text tradition already winnowed out meaningless variants BY THAT tradition, so in my ideal Bible those variants don't need to be mentioned at all. So I just want the 3 tradition text critic (TR, NA, and EO) to do their job well *within their text-tradition*, and the Bible publisher would present their 3 works in a single Bible volume with the main text coming from one of the 3 (the rest is in the footnotes). **So 3 Bible committees consulting their respective text-critic experts, and 1 publisher.**

One core reason of the "KJV-only" tenet that I often encounter when speaking to its proponents is their insistence that the original-language textual basis for the NT **MUST BE the *[Textus Receptus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus)*** as opposed to the [*Nestle-Aland*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece) . An example they often give is that the latter text is more susceptible to Trinitarian and Christological heresies because the textual basis for both doctrines is "weaker". There are also other doctrines that could be affected, not relevant to the question here. As far as I know, they are fine with the common use of *Masoretic Hebrew* text for the OT translation. The obvious question is what to do with evangelism. **Is it okay to do Bible translations to Chinese Mandarin (to use an example) when using *Textus Receptus* as the basis for NT while using KJV 1611/1769 for translation guidance?** Otherwise, evangelism would necessarily involve teaching them English *first*, although I can foresee how they would spread the gospel in Mandarin first. But would they insist that proper Bible study can only be done in English using KJV 1769? **Can Bible Study by people who have low proficiency in English be done, in principle, with non-English translations that has been "certified" as faithful to *Textus Receptus*?** Or Bible studies using those Bible translations will forever be deemed as having a "second class citizen" status? Or do they adopt the position of most evangelicals today, that proper Bible study should be done by consulting the original texts (thus studying Greek & Hebrew in seminary) although lay Bible readers can profit from reading a translation? **P.S.** From reading [*Wikipedia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#Variations) it turns out there are 5 variations of this movement (by apologist James White). It would be helpful for the one answering this question to identify which group's perspective they are answering from. This question is primarily interested in the answers coming from either the "*Textus Receptus* Only" group or "The Inspired KJV Group".

Are there any advocates of "King James Bible Only" today who insist using only the original 1611 version? What reasons do they give? For example, do they reject the Young Literal Translation that is also faithful to *Textus Receptus*? The real old English is extremely hard to understand.

Among many (good) arguments against KJV-onlyism, I have heard the following argument: > The idea that “preservation” requires us to have 100% accurate knowledge of the original words of scripture is a standard that was not demanded by Christ or the Apostles. To bolster this argument, it is suggested that Christ or the NT authors will occasionally base an argument on a textual variant from the OT (probably from the Septuagint) where the original reading actually says something different. Thus, the argument goes, it is possible to acknowledge that we do not have 100% perfect accuracy in our copies while still holding to a doctrine of preservation... one defined by the belief that the message of the Bible is perfectly clear, even though some meaningful and viable textual variants exist. I do not remember any specific **passages** cited where Christ or the NT authors did this sort of thing (made applications based on textual variants). Does anyone know of any?

I cannot understand why people think they need another version of the Bible besides the King James Version.

As you know, there are Baptist and Protestant sects throughout the English-speaking world that believe that the King James Version is the best - or only - completely trustworthy theological resource. They believe that the translators behind the King James Version were not mere literary scholars, but Spirit-filled saints who were placed by destiny to create a completely perfect Bible for the people of their place and time. It's just now occurred to me that those people had their own thoughts and opinions about their place in history. What would they say, if we could ask them? Conjecture aside, are there any historical quotes from those men regarding whether they believed their work was inerrant? Did anybody working on the King James Version ever say something to the effect of, "We are filled with the Holy Spirit and we believe that the work we created is perfect" ? Or conversely, "Even experts make mistakes, we gave it our best shot" ? It is of course very unlikely that committee members could independently "leak to the press" their personal opinions, and have their words preserved in history. But did the government of James I's own time or the Church of England of his time make any official statements regarding the inerrancy of the King James Version?

Many Christians believe that [the King James Bible is the *only* correct translation of the word of God](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/284/11471) . And they say that all other versions of the Bible are *not* inerrant. What is the historical origin of this way of thinking?

I have an interlinear Bible, called the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, that presents the New Testament (along with the Old Testament, from the Septuagint) in Greek and English. Of the Complutensian Polyglot, the NT Greek source for the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, Wikipedia says, > Theodore Beza's Greek NT Text was used primarily, along with Erasmus' Greek NT Text and *with various readings from the Complutensian Greek NT Text to form the Textus Receptus* published by the Elzevir Brothers in 1633, and Erasmus' later editions were a secondary source for the King James Version of the New Testament. *The Complutensian Polyglot Bible was a tertiary source for the 1611 King James Version.* What arguments do KJV-only proponents give against the authority of Bibles like the ABP that share, and even indirectly lend, source material to the 1611 KJV? What about the authority of the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus originally used for the Textus Receptus? Do KJV-Onlyists hold at least those manuscripts in high esteem?

Some people believe the King James Version of the Bible is the only version English-speakers should be using, as it is the only inspired translation. (This is referred to as "KJV-onlyism.") Basically, the KJV-only position is that: - The Bible is God's word - God promises to preserve His word * E.G., [Psalm 12:7 (read this article)](http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/does-the-second-them-in-psalm-127-refer-to-gods-words) - This preservation is accomplished via a perfect translation (one per language) - The KJV is His perfect, preserved translation in the English language - The reason other English Bibles differ from the KJV is because those other Bibles have been tainted by sin and error **What are the main counterarguments to this view?** I am specifically looking for answers which would be convincing to an English-speaking Protestant with a high view of Scripture.

**How does King-James-only-ism apply to other languages?** As far as I know, the King-James is an English specific bible, and the King-James-Only standard is an English specific subject, which if I am not mistaken might even make a claim of divine inspiration on behalf of the translators. ---------- **Clarification** In the comments it was suggested I clarify the question: The King James version is an English Translation. King James proponents elevate the KJV over all other translations, saying it was given by God at that time, and often it is asserted (and this typifies the KJO movement) that to date there is no other bible translation that is of the same validity as the KJV. I've made a sincere assessment of the King James Only view, and a very important question manifests (the question of this post) **how does this view apply to other languages?** Obviously God has not called only English speaking people. Not all languages are equal, or have the same capacity or way of expression. Hence, one would think that a convert would have to learn English (older English, in this case) to properly understand the bible. But there is the rare case of those who need no other translations, those being able to read the original languages - one might think they too should read the KJV, by the modern standard of KJO. On a related note, modern translations (Such as my NET) exist not merely for reasons of "profit" but range of use, besides the necessity to update the language for the benefit of the user. Some KJO proponents assert that all other translations are from the devil, obscuring doctrine - but considering that languages (or language variants) cannot be sharply classified, a translation that exists for a language or language variant is asserted,by default, to be "from the devil" by some KJO proponents. The entire issue, really, reduces to this simple question: How does KJO apply to other languages? Even an evolved language (such as our English) can be to some extent called "another language".

When the KJV translators set out to do their translation, they gathered all existing manuscripts and translations they could, to make sure they had everything absolutely right. I am curious, which Latin scriptures did they use? I am aware they had some, but not which.

This question actually centers on the KJV translation itself. It's not hard to find a church in America (particularly in the south) where they believe that the KJV is the one true translation and that all others are inferior. Why is it the KJV in particular that has achieved this status? Is it because it was the primary translation used for centuries?

I am looking for urdu translations that are reasonably close to the reconstructions of the Hebrew Masoretic text and/or Greek Textus Receptus, being a literal translation. Like how despite the KJV translators deciding to translate the first verse "In the beginning created God, the Heaven and the Earth," because the Context clearly shows that the firmament is called "the Heavens," and the Schlachter 2000 translates it "Im Anfang schuf Gott **die Himmel** und die Erde --" the "heavens." Not Young's Literal translation, because words can have different meanings, but obviously not "correcting" Luke 5 where Jesus tells Peter to let down all of the Nets, but Peter being a word the Bible says I can't say, and I agree, decided: I know better than you, I'll let down just the one net, like the N.I.V. does. Technically it does not have to be close to the King James, but just as close word-for-word to an english Bible. Unfortunately even then, they might contradict each other, like the Spanish and English K.J.V.'s... Pray this isn't that confusing...

I'm aware of the King James (KJV) only movement , but is there also a similar movement for the Spanish Reina-Valera (RVR) bible? My father, who is Puerto Rican, told me that RVR-onlyers were a thing.

I'm a non-native English speaker living in Europe myself, so I honestly couldn't read the KJV as my primary Bible and all I know about its popularity in the USA is hearsay. I'd like to know more about the different levels of KJV advocacy. I've heard that some Christians consider the KJV the only correct English translation of the Bible. From what I read on Wikipedia about "King James only movement" , I gather there are varying degrees of this. However, the article doesn't tell me very much. I'd like to know: * What different KJV-advocating views are there? * What are they based on? * How common are they? I personally hold the KJV in high esteem because of its beautiful, poetic language, but it's still in a foreign language to me. I also occasionally read ESV, NASB, NIV and NLTse; I mostly check them when I want to check the translation of a specific passage and versions in my own language disagree. I don't mean to insult anyone, so please edit if some of the terms that I use are inappropriate.

I have heard (mostly from the older generations) that the KJV is the only bible to be used, and all the other ones are changing the bible. Where does this idea come from? Is it a churches teaching or the individual opinions of people? I have learned from my studies that it is probably the least reliable bible, so I was wondering why people set their minds so much upon the KJV.