282 thoughts on “Lots and Lots of (KJV) Bumper Stickers”

      1. Def. “non-sequitar” — Tar does not follow. e.g. “PuhLEEZ don’t throw me in the briar patch!” ๐Ÿ˜†

    1. Ahuh. So were a lot of the guards at Auschwitz, I understand. Nice guys just following their beliefs.

  1. “etc.” isn’t in the Bible or is that a loophole for any other catholic words he might think of later?

  2. “This book right here in my hand is over four hundred years old”

    He cannot poffibly be ferious. He fhould not fay things like that.

    1. If it is, he should be wearing clean cotton gloves and being a lot more careful with it.

  3. Acts 16:31

    (KJV): “and they said, Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.”

    (ESV): “and they said, Believe in The Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    (NIV): “they replied, Believe in The Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved – you and your household.”

    (NKJV): “so they said, Believe in The Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved, you and your household.”

    (GNTD): “They answered, Believe in The Lord Jesus, and you will be saved – you and your family.”

    How can anyone honestly say that these verses do not say exactly the same thing?

    1. I’ve heard preachers say that there’s a difference between the “on” in the KJV and the “in” in the other versions. I don’t know how true that is.

    2. Funny how the “and thy house” is routinely omitted. According to his logic, he has to believe that because that is what the KJV says. So if I get “saved” as head of the household, my entire family goes to heaven. Bonus! (BTW – he cannot dispute that according to this Youtube video)

  4. Also, first translated into English it 1611? Didn’t Tyndale publish the first English translation in something like 1526?

    1. And Wyclif in the 15th century. Bible translations are not new. And there’s nothing particularly holy about the Jacobean language/dialect.

      (Also convenient is the elision that James I was bisexual… a ‘holy’ translation still? If the NIV can be faulted because it is printed by Harper Collins, the the KJV is also damned…)

    2. Dear Nick:

      Tyndale final version came off the press in 1534. That shows that Tyndale knew that his earlier work was flawed. Never mind that the King James has undergone six major revisions and hundreds of minor ones.

      Christian Socialist

  5. If I were to ask this fellow, who seems quite nice, “How did St. John’s Apocalypse make the cut, while the one attributed to St. Peter did not” I wonder what he would say?

    1. He’d say, “If God didn’t direct that it be included in the King James 1611 version, then God doesn’t want us to read it.”

    2. I think most of us don’t have to wonder what he’d say, it’s a reasonable guess that he’d say the same thing the KJV nitwits many of us know would say:

      Psalm 119:89 : Forever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

      Please ignore the rest of the text around it, and any kind of study of what that means, He’s going with with 66 books in your KJV Bible as found in 2013 were written down before creation.

  6. There are probably a couple of us hiding out here who love and use the KJV and yet believe that life is too precious to squander even a moment of it reading anything written by Peter Ruckman.

    In any case, as much as I hate to agree with anything any of the mean-spirited nuts within the KJVO crowd have to say,it should be admitted that the 1769 revison of the KJV has been used by God to bring more people into the kingdom of Heaven and to transform more lives than any other English language Bible. Add to that that the KJV is a literary masterpiece and it’s not hard to understand why it’s still in use.

    The Spanish speaking peoples have the 1569 Reina-Valera, the 1909 Reina-Valera, and the 1960 Reina-Valera the last of which, to the best of my knowledge, is a trustworthy and reliable modern Spanish language translation which uses the same source texts as the KJV. For whatever reason, we don’t seem to have a modern English successor to the KJV that utilizes the same source texts and which is translated with the same skill and methodology as the original 1611.

    A life-long friend of mine is turned off by the Elizabethan language and another friend came to faith in Christ largely as a result of reading the ASV.

    1. Perhaps in 2257 it will be said that the RSV, or the NASB, or the ESV will have “brought more people into the kingdom of Heaven” and transformed “more lives than any other English language Bible.”

      You see, we are 244 years removed from 1769 and we don’t know what will transpire in another 244 years.

      Our God is much bigger than our petty squabbles.


    2. “For whatever reason, we donโ€™t seem to have a modern English successor to the KJV that utilizes the same source texts and which is translated with the same skill and methodology as the original 1611.” We do. All modern translations use the same ancient documents as the translators of the KJV used. However, they also use a huge number of ancient texts that were unavailable to those earlier translators. And, like those earlier translators, they pray and compare their workings-out as they go along. There is nothing unusual or super-holy about the production methods of the KJV – that’s all down to the cultus that has grown up around them, and that’s only in recent decades.

    3. “it should be admitted that the 1769 revison of the KJV has been used by God to bring more people into the kingdom of Heaven and to transform more lives than any other English language Bible”

      I have no idea how this would be demonstrated. It seems to me to be nothing other than a guess.

      1. Fairly easy really. The amount of time that has passed from 1769 to today (2013) is 244 years. The NIV was originally published in the 70s, so about 40 years ago. If both bibles impacted the same amount of people for each year that they have been published, the KJV would have affected more people just because it’s been published longer.

        Of course, now that the English language has evolved greatly since 1769, I predict that less and less people will be affected by it just because the language gap is growing wider.

        1. “Fairly easy really…If both bibles impacted the same amount of people for each year that they have been published, the KJV would have affected more people just because itโ€™s been published longer”

          no, not at all easy. You see, this is where the guesswork (assumptoins) comes in.

          1. How can one assume that translations “impact” (how would you deifne that?) the same number of people per year?

          The world’s population has udergone a boom in the last 50 years, as has the world’s christian population. Around 15 or 20% of the world’s christian population spoeak english as their first language. Assuming only 20% of “christians” are practicing, that gives us 66 million english speaking christians.

          10 years of recent history could outwiegh (numerically) 50 to 100 years of history in the 17th and 18th centuries.

        2. Fair enough. I was just assuming that that’s how they worked out their theory, that it was based on years alone rather than any version being superior.

    4. I have nothing against the KJV. I believe in having as many translations as possible to get a better view of the depth of language.
      Having said that…..your argument that the KJV has been used by God to bring more people into Heaven is an odd one.
      Are you saying God chooses to only work through the KJV?
      What if the KJV is the only translation those people had access to at that time? If they had the NIV instead it might be different. My family were never KJV only people–in fact my grandparents were Methodist. But they all had KJV when I was younger. The opportunity to read another version simply was not available readily. Lack of other translations available can very well explain your statement.
      Today my family has other versions in the house–we’ve gone deeper in our faith with versions other than KJV. Does that mean the KJV brings people to Christ but the NIV or NLT are the ones which help God make disciples in the contemporary setting? Are you willing to go there?

      Second, your argument sounds a lot like “I follow Paul.” “I was baptized by Apollos.” Paul called it petty then. It sounds quite petty now. Who cares who or what was used? Truthfully, it was God using whatever or whoever was present at the time to draw the person to Christ. If there was another version, I believe God would have used that to bring the person to faith.

      1. Now, I know many on here equate a person’s defense of the KJV as being a rabid IFBx! It could just be possible that Ben/Bebn was only making the observation that the KJV ain’t all bad! It has been used in marvelous ways for around 400 years (I know, I know… in its various and sundry editions). It is, in fact, a literary masterpiece.
        Not every opinion advanced in favor of the KJV is necessarily an attack on anyone who isn’t a KJVO. I realize the many (if not most) defenses of the KJV are exactly that, but I didn’t get the sense that Ben/Bebn was trying to attack anyone. He was just stating his preference for and admiration of the KJV.
        I have a friend in Idaho who used to be extremely KJVO who has now switched to using a multitude of versions. He is still reaching people with the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have many friends who use only the KJV and haven’t reached anyone outside their church family in years! I think their results (or lack thereof) are probably tied more to their level of outreach (you know, sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ with unbelievers aka the “unchurched”).

        Might I go out on a limb and say that the Great Commission (in all five of its iterations) never once said that we are to go into all the world and get copies of God’s word into the hands of unbelievers. As a matter of fact, a Bible (in any translation) in the hands of an unbeliever will most likely confirm him/her in his/her unbelief. The word of God is not only grammatically and historically understood (although these are vitally important); it is also spiritually understood. Without the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, a person will read the Bible and see it as a book full of superstitious nonsense, fairy-tales, and myths! Even a hopeful person who approaches the Christian Bible with an open mind needs a Christian to distill the Gospel message for him/her. As the Ethiopian eunuch told Philip (when asked if he understood what he was reading (Isaiah 53)), “How can I [understand] except some man show me?”
        We, as priests between God and man, to be vehicles (or vessels, if you prefer) of the Holy Spirit. When we share the gospel as Spirit-filled believers, His Spirit shines in the heart of the unbelievers granting them faith to believe if they will!

        End Sermon
        Begin playing soft piano music.
        Everyone come forward and kneel on the steps er… altar er… by the communion table (used once a year or two) er… whatever!

        1. By the way, I pastored in WV for a while and my adult S.S. taught on the Ethiopian eunuch (pronounced ee-nutch). He shared how that he was sure that when the ee-nutch got home, he shared with his wife and kids what God had done for him! I know for a fact that he used the NIV for his personal Bible study and used a pew Bible (KJV) when reading the scripture for his S.S. lesson. He was devastated when I told him not only how to pronounce eunuch, but in fact, what a eunuch was!
          He was a great guy, though. I believe he really loved the Lord with his whole heart!

        2. You really know you’re in trouble when a Baptist preacher steps in and tries to defend you.

    5. Dear Ben Padraic:

      I know a Syrian/Egyptian guy across town who reads the Peshitta.

      Christian Socialist

  7. The previous post was interrupted.

    Since both of these individuals are far better Christians than I ever expect to be, I would have to disregard as utter nonsense the idea that people who come to Christ through the use of other English versions are in actuality false converts. At the same time, this doesn’t mean the the 1769 KJV is “hopelessly archaic.”

    One further thing, the entire BJU wing of fundamentalism is almost entirely non-KJVO.

    1. Please don’t play the martyr. You joined the conversation and have used the logic of the King James Version has been used by God to bring more people to Christ.
      People are just pointing out that the new translations have come to be within the last 50-60 years. To say the KJV has been used to bring more people to God, by simple default by how long it has been around, that is true but an unfair statement. Its like saying a person who is 100 has more life experience than a 20 year old. Duh. But that is not the 20 year old’s fault.
      God uses what is available to reach us. To applaud the KJV for people coming to Christ is like applauding a fork for my eating. Any fork would have done, I just happened to have that particular fork.
      Don’t play the martyr just because people are pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

      1. Dear Leanne,

        Hoo Boy! I should’ve known better. for those of us who have experienced adventures in Fundyland, mentioning the KJV is going to strike a nerve one way or the other.

        Just for starters though, let me tell you what I hate. I hate it when people with a smile on their face and a twinkle in their eye will pronounce a brother or sister in Christ an heretic or a reprobate for preferring a different Bible translation than their own. It’s also shameful when people feel they are contending for the faith by ignoring God’s command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

        With that said, may I politely ask if you read my comments in their entirety? If you had, your question about whether I thought God could use other English translations would have been answered. The fact is, about two years before I came to Christ I was under deep conviction as a result of reading in an old Douhay Version. Back then John 6:37 seemed too good to be true. If I remember correctly,the wording was identical,or very nearly so, to the KJV.

        As to your comment about playing the martyr, I really don’t know what you’re talking about. Being dragged into the street and stoned to death for faith in Christ is an example of being a martyr. Having someone comment about how much they vehemently dislike something you’ve written doesn’t quite make the grade.

        Also, I think believers fit better into your fork analogy than scripture does. In whatever language is being used, an accurate and reliable translation of God’s word is still essential. You and I on the other hand can be replaced. One last thing (forgive the nitpicking) making a statement is not the same thing as making an argument. For example, saying Dwayne is taller than Bob is not the same as saying that Bob is incapable of playing basketball, or even necessarily that Dwayne should be chosen over Bob for the basketball team. Frankly, you may have drawn some conclusions I did not intend. That’s probably in part due to the low quality of the writing.

        Wrapping things up here, initially I thought about commenting in a little more detail about what I believe regarding English language Bible translations might be in order. But, I don’t really want to write a short essay and no one else in all liklihood would care to read it. Instead I’ll make maybe a few quick points that I hope will clarify things and if you’re still mad when I’m done, at least we’ll both know why.

        1.)Translations- Pilate wrote a title which was placed on the cross: “JESUS OF NAZARETH KING OF THE JEWS”. This was written in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Three languages, they all said exactly the same thing. The point being, a faithful translation carries the same meaning, weight, and authority as the original document. That is to say, if we started with God’s word and if the manuscript was accurately and reliably translated, we still have God’s word. This is true whatever language we’re dealing with.

        2.) Most of us have been in churches where we sang musically trite and maybe even doctrinally suspect older songs while ignoring beautiful, edifying newer music. Admittedly, this may have as much to do with the fact that maybe the composer associated with someone who associated with someone who associated with someone who thought that Mother Theresa was saved as it was to the age of the music. The point is, just because it’s older doesn’t necessarily mean it’s superior. In my understanding, the same is true of source texts.

        3.) Is the KJV without question superior to any paraphrase– absolutely! Lastly the KJV is a long, long way from being a linguistic relic. It played a big part in my coming to Christ and for reasons other than superstitious numerology or other nutbaggery. I think it’s a better translation than the other currently available English translations. Others have examined the evidence and decided otherwise.

        God Bless You!

        1. “In whatever language is being used, an accurate and reliable translation of Godโ€™s word is still essential.”

          Oh? Really?

          Why then do the Scriptures Jesus and the apostles often quoted from not square with the Massoretic text? They used a translation (there is some argument about whether they actually used the Septuagint or not), and we find in some of the quotes used that they do not actually exist as such — in the Massoretic. The Massoretic is what was used to translate the Old Testament in the KJV.

          What if a few words were missing? Or if a diacritical mark changed one thousand to fifty thousand?

          Mind you, I would like as accurate a translation as possible, but given the New Testament example of translation usage, it seems that we just have to be content with some flaws, and recognize that.

          And that doesn’t begin to talk about other problems one could find, even in the uncontested Scriptures themselves.

          The Scriptures were written by men, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. They were given for teaching, for correction, for admonition, and instruction. Nothing in the Scripture says they had to be accurate in every detail on everything they touched on. THAT is a wholly man-made doctrine.

          Some would say that without certainty in the Scriptures, there is no ground for faith. But that mistakes what faith is about. Abraham had no Scriptures. His theology was riddled with difficulties. Yet he knew God personally.

          It is carrying on in the lack of certainty that faith is about. It is seeing when you can’t see, trusting when there is no proof (or proof text). It is knowing God loves you and won’t destroy you for not understanding a particular doctrine the way everyone else says you must. It is understanding that every prophet saw God differently, understood Him differently, and knowing your understanding of God will be different as well, unique to your own experience. And that will be okay.

          If a little child can come to Jesus without understanding the whole of Scripture — or even much of any of it — so may you and I. And if the Early Church could worship Christ without Canon, then so may you and I. God is essential. Nothing else.

        2. Gentle Ben –

          You are not being called on the carpet simply because you like the KJV.

          If you had commented that you liked the KJV, it spoke the most to you, and you found comfort in it, then you would not be embroiled in the current kerfluffle that you are. Many regular contributors here would have chimed in that they too loved the cadence and the authority the KJV invokes, and enjoyed it as well.

          But you didn’t stop there. You then made an unsubstantiated claim that adds nothing to the discussion and echos the KJV worship that the posted video exemplifies. And then you did it again in your rebuttal by saying that it’s the best English translation – despite your tacked on admission that others have not found it so.

          As someone else mentioned, the KJV did not reach anyone. It is God who speaks, and the instrument by which He does so is not something to be admired necessarily. He used a donkey to speak to Baalam, and it would be foolish to honor the donkey above all other animals because of it.

          The “best” English translation? First of all, to say “best” is an unfortunate exercise – it is undefined – therefore can have multiple definitions, and is utterly dependent on the definition of person to whom it relates. If you had merely said “best for me”, that would have been fine. If you had defined what it was best in, that would have been fine.

          But when you state it’s just plain “the best”, then please understand that you are little different in substance from the crazy KJVO’ers, just different in style.

  8. Yup. I was a King James Version Only Fundamentalist.

    And I was young and ignorant.

    Funny how fundamentalism makes you feel like you know everything! You have an answer for everything, and it just has to be right! And when my mom got her first KJV-only tract, she (and the family) were hooked.

    The tract and book sellers made a few dollars off our family buying their wares. Then I went off to BJU where I had my first Bible class. They talked about why they used KJV exclusively in the classroom and the pulpit, but they discounted the idea that the KJV was inspired. They gave the history of the KJV. They noted that about a third of it came verbatim from the Tyndale Bible.

    By the time I finished my first year, I was no longer KJV only. After the second year at BJU, I married my sweetheart and she gave me a New American Standard Version of the Bible as a wedding present.

    We went to my home in Washington State so my parents and sisters could get to know my wife. One afternoon, my youngest sister saw me with the Bible my wife had given me, and she called me a heretic. I asked why, and she pointed to the Bible. I told her to get her KJV, choose any verse she liked, and read it. Then I would read her the verse from the NASV and we could see if it said anything different.

    She ran away screaming that I was trying to destroy her faith.

    It was a distinct marker. Not too long after that, there would be a break between me and my parents and my youngest sister that would never be healed.

    KJV idolatry!

    1. Idolatry indeed when they call you a heretic over which version you read or when they run away screaming instead of being willing to look at actual evidence about the statements they assert.

      The KJV-onlyists believe that other versions are Satan’s perversions. Instead, I believe that their adulation of one version causing them to condemn other Christians is one of Satan’s great achievements.

      1. Dear Pastor’s Wife:

        The comments below yours were intended for rgtmath.

        By the way, you write well, and I appreciate your compassion and common sense.

        1. Yup. That was the nonsense I believed! And despite the reams of this quote and that quote and non-sequiters and circular reasoning, the King James Version is not perfect. Nor is the King James Version Inspired.

          In fact, not even the Canon of the Scriptures is inspired! And there are lots of versions far more accurate than the KJV.

          Those who are KJV-only, protesting it to be the Very Inspired Word of God are idolaters. God inspired the Scriptures, true. But God never said that every Scripture was absolutely perfect in all ways. Nor are the Scriptures to be worshiped. God alone is worthy of worship, and the Scriptures are not God.

          So I am free from that ball and chain, thank you very much!

    2. Well, I’m not young, but maybe I’m still an ignoramus for preferring the KJV to the other English language translations. Let me be clear though, I would never break fellowship with another believer over their choice of Bible translations and I would hope others would treat me with the same respect.

      We’re not all going to see things the same way, but if you’ll agree not to call me an heretic, I’m certainly willing to extend you the same courtesy.

      1. Ben, I’m happy for you to read and quote from the King James Version, if you prefer it for whatever reasons you may have. But it’s not OK to use spurious reasoning and false information (neither which I have seen you do) to claim that it is the only real Bible. Neither King James himself nor any of the translators who worked on the KJV ever made any such claim.

      2. I read the KJV. I memorized verses from the KJV. When recalling Scripture, I think KJV.

        I certainly didn’t tell my sister she was wrong for using the KJV. She was wrong for worshiping it. She was wrong for insisting I was a heretic for using something else.

        I won’t say you are wrong for preferring it. You may indeed have your preference. But I don’t think there is any extra spirituality associated with it, just as there isn’t with any particular version.

        Nor do I espouse inerrancy. I think that particular doctrine is at the root of a lot of prejudices today, and is completely inconsistent with the Bible’s testimony of itself.

    3. rtgmath:

      The reply below Pastor’s Wife’s comments were were actually intended for you.

      For starters though, can we both agree that the Sermon on the Mount was not delivered in Elizabethan English?

    4. Either I’m pressing the wrong button, or I’ve just met George.

      Replies are below PW’s.

      1. Nope. The real stuff, like on Fiona Ritchie’s “Thistle and Shamrock” show… in limited amounts, yes. The fake stuff, NO. Having it on an endless loop, HELL NO.

        1. Best to avoid the feiseanna then – imagine six stages each with its own musician(s), each playing a musical loop set for reels, jigs, and hornpipes. Accompanied by the hammering of (skillful) feet. After eight hours, I’m all done with anything remotely Celtic. Even Guinness.

    1. And I can’t seem to find “the office of pastor” (one man rule), a passive priesthood of the believer, clergy/laity distinction, church buildings, or the countless layers of human tradition imposed on God’s people included anywhere either.

      But this is what we do nonetheless.

  9. One of the (many) lessons from history is that the word used in scripture in and of themselves don’t mean too much. Arius used the words of scripture to argue that the Son was a created being. It was necessary for Athanasius and others to find new words to argue the scriptural ideas, like homoousia (of one essence) and such.
    The words used should be employed to best convey the intent and meaning behind what is written. Obscuring living words behind archaic language is a best unhelpful, at worst destructive. Such people consider alcohol, bars, the movies etc.. a danger of causing others to stumble, yet they make the very words of God into a stumbling block on their insistence in the KJV alone.

  10. “True religious freedom comes from having a standard, not just ‘do what thou wilt’ this kind of satanic philosophy…”

    I was amazed to hear that Satan speaks KJV English also!

  11. I like his rant on “the traditions of man”. I’m pretty sure its a “tradition of man” to be a KJV 1611 only believer.

      1. he changed his view and became more legalistic…If the admonishment was not along the same trajectory he is already on, would he be willing to change? You know, to change from being KJV only?

        1. I agree that he probably wouldn’t. That’s part of why it’s so sad. He really believes he’s right, and by all appearances is a decent guy. The system that he’s part of, and the beliefs that he cherishes are, in my opinion, deplorable. Which is why it’s sad that he seems like a nice guy. It’s a shame for someone that seems nice to be so wrong. It’s so much easy when it’s Jack Schaap, or someone else who is so obviously full of themselves and evil.

  12. I looks like he filmed this video on the side of the highway … near the place where he dumps the bodies.

    (Sorry, I’ve been watching a lot of Dexter, lately)

  13. Ben said, “You know you’re in trouble when a Baptist preacher steps in to defend you….”
    That was hilarious! Really!! I mean it.

  14. If you buy and NIV, you are supporting the same people who sell the Satanic Bible. Amazon sells KJV, and porn, so by that standard of reasoning, the KJV would be out too. Walmart sells KJV right next to the LDS stuff… Preference is one thing, but using reasons like this to support a one-way-only doctrine is silly. ( I wonder if the auto dealer whose sticker is also on the back of the car is the Only True Auto Dealer? Is there a website for that!)

    Loving your blog!

  15. Seems he just drug it out on purpose. Obey the standard. This version is the only standard. Take my word for it. (Throws up in mouth)

Comments are closed.