Like my recent posts concerning the King James Version, this post is designed to be informational rather than confrontational. It would benefit the reader to read my recent posts regarding the King James Version before reading this post (Fundamentalism and the King James Bible and Thoughts on the King James Version). In this post, I simply intend to put forth a few facts regarding the “King James Only” debate.
That there is such a debate raging today is undeniable. The argument in this debate is defined simply by stating that some insist on using the King James Version exclusively while others make no such insistence. Those who insist on the usage of the King James Version exclusively are known as “King James Onlyists.” King James Onlyists insist that the King James Bible is God’s word in the English language, and that no other translation is to be regarded as the word of God. In Fundamentalism and the King James Bible, I clearly and correctly identify great men of God on both sides of the debate. Out of all the men who stood (or stand) for godly living, the inspiration of the Bible, the literal and premillennial second coming of Christ, the virgin birth, the sinlessness and deity of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, and other fundamental doctrines of the faith, some of them used the King James Version exclusively, but some of them did not. Personally, I use the King James Bible and believe it to be a superior translation in many ways. I discuss this in Thoughts on the King James Version.
Although much can be said regarding this debate, I wish to focus primarily on one simple aspect of the discussion – the fact that I have personally found presuppositions, flawed logic, and inconsistencies on both sides of the debate. I will state them candidly and expound upon them briefly.
Those Opposing the King James Onlyists
I believe that those who oppose the King James Onlyists are inconsistent with, at times, flawed logic in their arguments.
A PRESUPPOSITION
To begin, those opposing the King James Onlyists have a presupposition for their foundation. They presuppose that “older manuscripts” is equivalent to “more reliable manuscripts,” as they like to call them. It is undeniable that the Greek manuscripts that were used in translating the King James New Testament differ in many places from the manuscripts that were used in translating the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901, and the majority of all modern versions since. The King James translators used the Greek text originally translated by Erasmus. This Greek New Testament would become known as the Textus Receptus (meaning “Received Text”) and would be used from 1604 to 1611 by the King James translators.
In the mid-nineteenth century, very old Greek manuscripts were found. One set of manuscripts was found in the Vatican. We call this set of manuscripts “Codex Vaticanus.” Another set of manuscripts was found near Mount Sinai, thus referred to as “Codex Sinaiticus.” Other sets of manuscripts were found, but these two were the oldest. They were much older, of course, than the Textus Receptus, which was used in the translation of the King James Version. From these manuscripts, two Cambridge professors, Dr. Brooke Westcott and Dr. Fenton Hort, produced a Greek New Testament.
The first authorized revision of the King James Version was published in 1881 when the Revised Version of the New Testament was published. The Revised Version of the entire Bible was published in 1885. The American edition of this (British) revision was published in 1901. This New Testament of this revision was translated from the Greek New Testament produced by Westcott and Hort rather than the Textus Receptus. As a matter of fact, most modern translations use Westcott and Hort’s Greek text (or other similar texts) rather than the Textus Receptus.
Here’s where the “King James Only” debate comes in. Opponents of the King James Onlyists base their argument on a presupposition. For the foundation of their argument, they automatically assume, in most cases because they’ve heard it repeated over and over, that the manuscripts used by Westcott and Hort to produce their Greek New Testament are better manuscripts than the manuscripts used by Erasmus to produce his Greek New Testament (which was used by the King James translators). This argument is the basis of the argument (in many cases) for the one who accepts any English translation of the Bible as authentic. When the man who uses many Bible versions encounters the King James Onlyist, he often cites that the modern versions are based on “more accurate manuscripts.” And what evidence is offered for such a position? None, except that the manuscripts used to produce modern translations are older than those used in the translation of the King James Version. “Older is better,” they say. But such a statement is seldom proven. It is stated by the opponent of the King James Onlyist, and the opponent expects the King James Onlyist to use that presupposition as the basis for their argument without so much as questioning it.
I am simply stating that in a debate between a King James Onlyist and his opponent, the opponent of the King James Onlyist cannot merely use this statement without some degree of attempted proof. There is good reason, with respect to ancient manuscripts, to believe that, in fact, “older manuscripts” are not “better manuscripts.” For example, the King James Onlyist could argue that the manuscripts used to translate the Textus Receptus were newer because they were in use. Because the church used the Textus Receptus, there was need to recopy it through the years. Consequently, old copies of the Textus Receptus did not survive. Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, however, were only kept in tact for centuries because they were not used! If they were such superior manuscripts, then why didn’t the church use them? This is a valid question and deserves an answer. Although the oldest manuscripts would seem to reflect what the writer originally wrote, it must be considered that those “more reliable manuscripts” were not used by the church through the centuries.
MUCH OF THEIR ARGUMENT DEPENDS ON “SCRIBAL ERRORS”
As I have already stated, the New Testament Greek text used by the King James Version is a different Greek text than that used by modern Bible versions. To account for these differences, both King James Onlyists and their opponents have different explanations. According to King James Onlyists, the Greek text produced by Westcott and Hort was simply corrupted. That’s all there is to it. The Greek text in Westcott and Hort’s New Testament differed in places from the Received Text because the Received Text was inspired by God and Westcott and Hort’s text was corrupted by Satan.
Opponents of the King James Onlyist, however, present a different viewpoint. They believe that differences occur between the Greek texts because of scribal errors primarily. Through the centuries, the scriptures were copied by hand, usually in monasteries. Opponents of the King James Onlyist believe that, as monks and scribes were copying the scriptures, through the years, they added and deleted words, phrases, and entire sections of scripture! To the opponent of the King James Onlyist, I would ask you to think about the argument you are presenting.
This, in my humble opinion, seems to be a weak argument, considering the fact that most of the time, the monk in the monastery or the ancient scribe had veneration for the scriptures. That they made mistakes is not debatable, but that they “accidentally added entire sections of scripture” seems to the logical mind unlikely. It has been my observation that, along with the “older is better” argument, this argument comprises the bulk of the argument for those who oppose King James Onlyists.
GOD’S WORD BECOMES COMMON AND ORDINARY
My final observation regarding the argument of the opponents of the King James Onlyists is not related to their argument itself, but rather the conclusion of their argument. I do understand that those who disagree with the King James Onlyist will take their liberty to read from a variety of translations. But I wonder how a reader of various versions chooses which version to read and regard as God’s word? It is seldom articulated by the opponents of the King James Onlyists how they go about choosing a Bible version. Most of what I have observed is this – that he who is not constrained to the King James Version sees all English versions as suitable translations of God’s word. But is this the case? It is very difficult to believe that every Bible translation is an accurate rendering of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I am simply stating this to say that if one is going to oppose the King James Onlyist, he should at least explain how one finds a genuine translation of the Bible from among the many versions offered today.
One thing that disturbs me about those who use multiple versions of the Bible is the fact that God’s word seems to become common and ordinary. Translating the Bible from its original tongues into the English language (or any language) ought to be done with reverence. To put it plainly, it seems to be done these days for monetary profit. As I thumb through many new versions in book stores, there seems to be no sense of reverence to most of these modern versions. Everybody seems to translate the scriptures these days. It may be true that, as for the modern versions, the Bible is as “easy to read” as the newspaper; but it equally true that the Bible has become as “respected” as the newspaper. All I am saying is that the King James translators had a sense of reverence for the word of God (this is easily proven by simply reading the Epistle Dedicatory or the Preface to the King James Bible). This reverence is missing in many, many translations today. Many modern translators gallop and skip where angels fear to tread.
The King James Onlyists
Those who honor only the King James Version as God’s word in the English language are not without inconsistencies and flawed logic in their argument.
GOD’S WORD NEEDS NO REVISION!
This is a primary argument presented by the King James Onlyists. It is inconsistent in the simple fact that the King James Bible was identified by its own translators in 1611 as a revision! On the cover page of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible (as in many King James Bibles today) it reads:
Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues, and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised
This would be a good place to insert the fact that the King James Version was not the first English version of the Bible. When the King James translators set out to revise the previous English translations, they met much opposition. Would you like to guess what crime with which the King James translators were charged? They were changing God’s word! The English-speaking people already had the Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and of course the translations of Tyndale and Wycliffe. Now, the King James translators had set out to revise the English Bible once again – and it was not welcomed.
In the Preface to the 1611 edition of the King James Bible, the translators stated that their work of revising the previous translations was not received with a warm greeting:
Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks.
In defending their work, the King James translators further added that, if the translators of the previous English versions were yet alive, they would thank the King James translators for revising their works:
So, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.
When a King James Onlyist opposes the works of modern versions, stating that “God’s word does not need to be revised,” that opponent, if he or she were alive in 1611, would have opposed the King James Version itself.
CIRCULAR REASONING OF KING JAMES ONLYISTS
The King James Onlyist believes that the King James Version is the only English version that is to be regarded as God’s word. One of their supreme arguments, however, is based upon a presupposition that leads to circular, flawed reasoning. Please try to follow me.
The “King James Only” debate is a debate over the question of whether or not the King James Version is the only translation that should be regarded as God’s word in the English language. When the King James Onlyist sets out to prove this statement, he does so by using circular reasoning. He uses the statement he is trying to prove (that the King James Version is the only English translation to be regarded as God’s word) as his premise.
Let me illustrate. During the debate of a King James Onlyist and his opponent, the King James Onlyist will at some point show his opponent a chart containing a list of verses. The chart will show several verses with the King James rendering on one side, and renderings from a modern version on the other. They will show what the modern versions have “omitted.” The question is, “Omitted from what?” From the King James Version of course! This type of reasoning makes the King James Version the standard for measuring all other versions. Of course, that is really what the whole debate is about – whether or not the King James Version is the only version that can be regarded as God’s word in the English language.
Here are the points of the King James Onlyist in this debate:
- Premise – The King James Version is God’s word in the English language.
- The text of modern versions differs from the text of the King James Version.
- Therefore, the text of modern versions differs from the text of God’s word in the English language.
- Modern versions cannot be God’s word in the English language.
- Conclusion – The King James Version is God’s word in the English language.
The King James Onlyist would prove his point in a more logically sound manner if he would begin with a premise that is both different from his conclusion and that is agreed to by his opponent. The fact that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek would be a good premise.
ACCUSATIONS OF DOCTRINAL TAMPERING
The King James Onlyist is quick to refer you to passages in modern versions that “omit” words, phrases, or entire verses. “Why do modern versions ‘omit’ certain words, phrases, and verses?” you may ask. According to the King James Onlyist, words and phrases that are present in the King James Version but missing in modern versions are missing because the modern versions are trying to “do away” with certain doctrines. But is that really the case?
I could provide a number of examples, but I will only show a few of the very common ones cited often by King James Onlyists. Perhaps the most common example of a verse that is found in the King James Version but is missing from many modern translations is I John 5:7. In the King James Version, I John 5:7 reads:
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This verse is not found in the New International Version (although it is included in the footnotes). King James Onlyists insist that the NIV translators are “trying to do away with the Trinity!” But this claim is unsubstantiated. So, why is this verse missing from the NIV and other modern versions?
As stated earlier, the Greek New Testament that was used in translating the King James New Testament was produced by Erasmus. In Erasmus’ first edition of his Greek New Testament, the text of I John 5:7 was absent. This caused a stir, as the text had always been present in the popular Latin Vulgate. When asked why it was missing from his Greek New Testament, Erasmus replied that the verse was not found in any Greek manuscripts available to him. He then promised that if someone could produce a Greek manuscript that included the verse, he would include it in his next edition. Someone supplied such a manuscript (which was probably a brand new manuscript produced solely so the verse would be included), and Erasmus, faithful to his word, produced a Greek New Testament with the words of I John 5:7 in it. Just think of it – had the King James translators used Erasmus’ first edition of his Greek New Testament instead of a later one, the words of I John 5:7 would be missing in the King James Version!
The point is this – no one sat among the NIV translators and said, “We don’t like the Trinity; let’s take it out!” If the NIV translators were indeed determined to do away with the Trinity, don’t you think that they would have removed Matthew 28:19 (the Trinitarian formula for baptism)? What about Jesus’ statement claiming that the Son doesn’t know when His return would be; only the Father knows? In the NIV, that statement is intact (Matthew 24:36). What about the Trinity in Acts 7:55, where Stephen was full of the Holy Ghost, looked up and saw Jesus standing at the right hand of God. In the NIV, this verse is intact. The one who accuses the NIV translators of trying to do away with the Trinity is simply not making a judgment on the basis of fact.
Another verse used by King James Onlyists to prove that the modern versions try to remove certain Bible doctrines is Luke 2:33, which in the King James Version states:
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
In the NIV, the verse is stated this way:
The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
Where the King James has “Joseph and his mother,” the NIV translates, “his father and mother.” Of course, the accusation is that the NIV is trying to make Joseph the father of Jesus, which would mean that Jesus was not virgin born. “The NIV denies the virgin birth!” the King James Onlyist exclaims. But is that a correct assessment? In the NIV, the virgin birth is clearly upheld in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23.
So, what about Luke 2:33, where the NIV refers to Joseph as the child’s father? There is a simple answer. The simple answer is that if the King James Onlyist believes that the NIV denies the virgin birth by referring to Joseph as “the child’s father,” then, if they are consistent, the same King James Onlyist would have to conclude that Mary, the mother of Jesus, the virgin herself, did not believe in the virgin birth either. In the King James Bible, it is written where Mary referred to Joseph as Jesus’ father. Notice the King James rendering of Luke 2:48:
His mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
In addition to this, if the King James Onlyist will be consistent in his accusations, he must then conclude that the King James translators were trying to do away with the virgin birth of Christ when they translated Luke 2:41. Speaking of Mary and Joseph, the King James rendering of Luke 2:41 is:
Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover.
The King James translators are here referring to Mary and Joseph as “his parents.” Were they trying to “do away” with the virgin birth? Of course not, and neither were the translators of the NIV.
Lastly, I want to examine perhaps the most common example provided by the King James Onlyist as proof of translators of modern versions trying to “do away” with certain doctrines. Notice Colossians 1:14 in the King James Version:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.
See if you can spot what is missing from the NIV rendering of the same verse:
In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
The phrase “through his blood” is present in the King James rendering, but absent from the NIV rendering (actually the phrase is absent from the NIV text, but is present in the NIV footnotes). Many King James Onlyists have ranted and raved about the NIV being a “bloodless” version. But is that an accurate statement?
The reason for the absence of the phrase “through his blood” in the NIV’s rendering of Colossians 1:14 is simple. As stated before, the modern versions use a different Greek New Testament for their source of translation than the King James translators. In the Received Text, the phrase “through his blood” was in the Greek text. In the Greek New Testament used by modern versions, the phrase is absent. The translators of both the NIV and KJV were being true to the text before them. The translators of the NIV were being very honest by stating in a footnote that the phrase “through his blood” was found in a few late manuscripts. There is no conspiracy on the part of the NIV translators to “do away” with the blood, a charge with which they are often accused.
Six verses later, in Colossians 1:20, the NIV translates the following:
…by making peace through his blood…
There is a Bible verse that is very similar to Colossians 1:14 and that verse is Ephesians 1:7. In the New International Version, notice its rendering:
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.
The King James Onlyist who claims that translators of modern versions “omit” words and phrases in order to tear down, do away with, or hide Biblical doctrines is either very dishonest or very ignorant.
VILIFICATION OF WESTCOTT AND HORT
As stated previously, the Greek text used in translating the New Testament of modern versions was produced by Dr. Brooke Westcott and Dr. Fenton Hort. A tactic used by many King James Onlyists is to argue that modern versions should be rejected because Westcott and Hort were rascals! Most often, it is brought out that Westcott and Hort were men who defended Roman Catholic doctrine and practice. The inconsistency of this argument is clearly seen when we remember that the Textus Receptus was produced initially by Erasmus, who was a Catholic priest who defended the Mass and the doctrine of transubstantiation.
