A sure mark of a church that isn't spot on is one that says the only trusted Bible is the King James version. Those churches may even call it The King James Bible, not considering it a translation, as if it were God-breathed. All Scriptural content was given by God, but the Hebrew and Greek was written in Hebrew and Greek, and that is what was inspired. Any English translation had to be translated from the original manuscripts and thus, they are all translations.
God did not re-inspire the translators of the King James or any other translation. Please also note, people had trustworthy Biblical text before the authorized version...men love words like authorized to give something clout. Too many people hear that and think, "OH! It is AUTHORIZED, so obviously it is the RIGHT ONE!" Please know, the world had Scripture before 1611. To assert the KJV was inspired is to claim double inspiration and that is unbiblical. God promised to preserve His Word, and He did that. We have older manuscripts and newer manuscripts, and giving one group of them a special name does not bestow upon it extra revelation or inspiration from God Almighty. From all of these manuscripts, there have been several excellent Word for Word translations written. God has used many translations to save people and lead them in sanctification. His Holy Spirit has known how to override our short-comings for a long, long time.
The King James only movement has a beginning point; it was birthed due to people disagreeing with making the KJV more accurate and readable. Sadly, there is nothing new under the sun, and new groups spring up too often pushing this narrow view or that one. One such tiny church is in our area. The chief of that movement denies a literal 6 day creation, teaches people were saved by works and faith in the Old Testament, and they believe Christ was crucified on Wednesday, not Friday. The latter isn't a deal-breaker, but the other two are concerning because convincing people they do not have the Word of God if they don't have the one King James commissioned, produces a weak and limited faith. The 3rd point is only relevant because it is such a minority view in Protestantism, that it only proves my point that men are drawn to KJVO who want to be counter-culture, bold, brave, and ready to throw down for the Word of God. We must realize, discernment must show us, that certain types of men are drawn to a black/white world. Some men need to feel they are always fighting a battle. They live for a controversial position. Warriors at heart have difficulty when the war ends for them on one front, so the battle-cry of the KJVOers can be alluring, because hey, there is still a mantle to take up and fight for, even if it is within the church, right? I don't think so, brother.
I recall as a newer believer thinking everyone in church agreed with each other; I wrongly assumed everyone was not only saved, but on the same page with their biblical depth of understanding, politics, lifestyle preferences, financial views, parenting, music, dancing, drinking...you name it. In time I found that there is a broad range of liberty and views within the church. We're not robots or clones of each other. We are real people with a framework God has given us, and some of us are one way and some another, but we're all saved and living as best we can (or as best as we're willing) for the Lord. Believers can wrongly assume they are right about everything they think if God is using them and blessing them (or others) but that is a red flag. God uses whom He will, and He can do that in spite of our wrong thinking in an area. We are all still being sanctified, so logic would lead us to have to say that He uses people who are in error pretty often...
Always check views you aren't sure of with the pastor of your church. Ask your Sunday School teacher as well, but do not stop there because as just explained, they might disagree with the pastor and the official position of the church and fail to make that clear in their explanation to you. A wise teacher with views that are different from the church should not state their disagreements, but rather state the church's position on the matter.
For example, my church uses one Bible translation for consistency, but it does not believe that is the only correct version. We have our 2 former pastors in the church also that affirm the current position. Those who think that there is only one accurate translation wrongly think others have not looked into the issue closely. They fail to see that plenty have looked into it, and they are convinced it is a weak and indefensible position to take. It shouldn't cause division, but we should have a learned opinion.
Don't take my word for it, there are links below that I encourage you to consider, from vastly more articulate and learned men than this simple writer.
We serve a God who is mighty and able to preserve His own Word and He does not limit Himself to one sinful, earthly king's thoughts on the matter.
Charles Spurgeon on Bible Translations preferred KJV but when Revised came out, was in favor of correcting errors
R.C. Sproul on Bible Translations a Word for Word preference and gives specifics
John MacArthur on Bible Translation Part 1 a Word for Word preference and gives specifics
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy very good approach
**I was recently asked by a pastor I was interviewing why I care so much about this issue. I will tell you what I didn't bother telling him. I care about this issue because I have a strong sense of justice. Wrong teaching is wrong, and that bothers me. On a personal note, I've watched a beloved brother go from sound doctrine to very wrong doctrine, and it was this modern KJVO movement that led the charge. My husband believes it is an unhelpful view that indicates other wrong views, which is why I have to learn where a church stands before I can recommend it to someone else. I love the church and I love truth. My love compels me to educate those who also claim to love the Lord.**
