Featured A KJ-Only church.

I'm not surprised,
as many of the Independent Baptist churches that I once attended are going that direction as well.

It's probable that with the onset of the many English translations that use the "critical text" ( NA / UBS ) instead of the Received Text in the past 40 years,
they somehow feel that something must be put down in writing that defines where they stand about it...

An issue that I suspect was not a problem to them during the time period that you attended there.
In 1970 there were only a small handful ( roughly 3-5 in the United States, not counting the RV of 1885 which had a circulation in England but was relatively unheard of in the USA ) of competing translations widely available and gaining acceptance among professing believers.

For example,
The complete RSV was first published in 1952 and was a revision of the ASV that was published in 1901...but nobody I knew of in IB circles in the 1970's and 1980's had even heard of it, much less used it.
The complete NASB was released in 1971,
and the complete Jehovah's Witness New World Translation was published in 1960.

The others that I knew of back then were paraphrases like the Living Bible ( 1971 ) and Good News for Modern Man ( the Good News Bible, 1976 ).

Since 1978, the NIV was published that year,
The NKJV was not published until 1982,
The NRSV later than that in 1989.

Nowadays?
There are dozens available, just in English and mainly in the USA.


List of English Bible translations - Wikipedia

 

The KJV may be the most accurate Version in existence, but it is not always correct. There are some errors of text and translation. Many newer Versions are not as accurate as the KJV, but sometimes they do correct errors in the KJV. While people should certainly use the KJV, they should not accept the lie of onlyism.

 

They may believe what is stated in their statement of faith, but that does not make it true nor scriptural. The verses that they cite do not state nor support their assertions concerning the KJV.

It is a proven fact that the 1611 edition of the KJV was not without error. It has only been assumed that all the errors in the 1611 edition were the fault of the printers when it is likely that some of the errors were the fault or responsibility of the KJV translators. The errors that were kept in the 1611 from the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible could soundly be considered to be the responsibility of the KJV translators themselves. The fact that some of the 1611 errors remained uncorrected in later editions for many years does not suggest that the 1611 KJV was translated without error. Some of the KJV translators had positions of authority over the press or over printers so that they could have made sure that the errors were corrected if they were actually aware of them and if they were actually the fault of the printers. There are some renderings in present KJV editions that are soundly considered inaccurate based on the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

 

It is true that the Watchtower Society used W/H to "translate" the NWT.

For the first 50 or so years of the existence of the Watchtower Society, their theology taught that Jesus was created by Jehovah and was not eternal with the Father. They accomplished this using the KJV of the Bible. The principle "translater" of the NWT NT was Fredrick Franz, who's training consisted of one college semester of NT greek. To imply that the W/H and/or non TR manuscripts are responsible for the JW NWT is really not a good argument.

 

I was thinking about the KJV Greek New Testament Text being more accurate than more Modern Versions Greek New Testament. Not that the Greek Text of the KJV is always right, it has errors in it. But it seems to me that say Nestle/Alands Greek NT is less accurate than the KJV's Textus Receptus. That is what I meant by may be more accurate.

Certainly one should also use other Versions for even more accuracy. I did not mean to imply that only the KJV should be used. I believe the opposite.

 

Nor accepting the KJVO view that all MV are corrupt or useless!

 

Isn't the consensus today though be that both the CT and MT would be superior then the TR?

 

The TR/MT/CT agree with each other to a large degree, so are there any doctrines affected by which ever Greek text one prefers?

 

There is a new Reformed Baptist Church about 25 miles from where I live.
KJV Bible Church | Independent Calvinist Church | Family Integrated UK
You will see that it only uses the KJV (A.V.) Bible, but nowhere does it say that the KJV is the only divinely-inspired version. This is in line with British KJV-onlyism. The KJV is not faultless, but it is better than any other version.
The Evangelical Times www.evangelical-times.org is the primary newspaper for Reformed Christians. Every June it has a special feature on 'Holiday Churches. A very quick count reveal 39 churches in England (I didn't count other parts of the UK) out of around 140 that advertized, that used only the KJV. Some others use the KJV and another version, but I didn't count those.

I was quite surprised. It seems that KJV-onlyism is alive and well in England. Let me say that I have no problems preaching at a KJV-only church if I'm asked, which I am occasionally. However, my impression is that in South West England (which is the part I know something about), KJV-only churches are slowly fading away. Several have closed and others are just hanging on with very small congregations. Others have bitten the bullet and moved to the NKJV.

 

I understand some have grave issues with the CT and MV based off of it, but why would those such as Nkjv and Mev get scolded by KJVO?

 

I didn't mean to imply that after 50 years the Watchtower changed their stance on the Deity of Christ. Rather I was trying to say that using the KJV of the Bible, the WTBTS got it wrong. The NWT then was brought into the arena in an attempt to justify their beliefs. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that point which is to say that using the KJV or the TR is no guarantee that the theologians will get it right or using a modern greek manuscript or translation will result in error. Take care my Brother.

 

None that I am aware of.

 

So IF the CT was as perverted and demonic as the KJVO would have us believe, would they not have gross heresy and error all way thru them?

 

Interesting that many cults will only use the Kjv version if they accept bible at all!

 

Cults rely on thought control but also appeal to a sort of gnostic pride, knowing something others don’t. Since the KJV is written in a more archaic English, some words and phrases must be explained for readers unfamiliar with it. The leaders are thus able to exert more control both awing and cowing gullible inquirers. They can be very convincing to such. Better to rescue them early.

 

Charles Taze Russell started what became the Jehovah's Witnesses circa 1879. At that time he and most English speakers were using the King James translation. They had the complete New World Translation by 1961. Heretics come in all shapes and sizes, and have been successful with the popular translations in various languages, old and new, as well as the Greek. When they find the translation they are using too constraining, some of them come up with their own edition or translation of the Bible.