Often a lot of people do not know to differentiate between Christendom, Christianity, religiosity and even limit religiousness to Christians, forgetting that there are many other religious groups who have all sorts of worship.
“KJV Onlyism” holds to the stance that the King James Version of the Bible is superior to all other English translations of the Bible and, therefore, the only version that should be used by individual Christians or Christian congregations. KVJ Onlyism also teaches that all other English translations are corrupt, hence the KJV is the only English Bible that can be trusted. Some KJV Onlyists even go so far at to teach that the King James Bible is without error and was divinely inspired. Some even teach that if there’s a conflict between what the original language manuscripts say and the KJV says you should choose the latter. Always we should consider the bible as the infallible and authoritative expression of God His Will for man and that He used His Power to protect His word so that it could and still can reach all people all over the world whatever Bible version in whatever language those pepole may use or read. In the previous articles we showed that the KJV Onlyism is fraught with a multiplicity of problems. We also should remember that God’s pure and unadulterated written revelation to mankind really can only found in the original handwritten manuscripts that were produced by either the biblical author or their scribes, known as the “autograph” manuscripts (or “autographa”) and not many of them have survived, but several have been fund after 1611. What is mostly left are imperfect copies (or, more likely, fragments of copies) that, thankfully, we have in such an abundance, that we have been able to reconstruct the autographa with a high degree of certainty. as such we should recognise those findings, even when many of them are from after the 17th century, should consider those reconstructed manuscripts as the closest thing we have to “God’s divinely inspired Word”. Therefore, a translation is only as authoritative as it accurately reflects those original language reconstructions and they are only as authoritative as they reflect the autographa.