Preface
This article has been a long time in the making, not only due to the complexity of the subject but because I am well-acquainted with many who hold the King James Version (KJV) Only position, and perhaps you do too. My goal is to approach this topic with the utmost respect, acknowledging the deep-seated beliefs of those who advocate for the KJV, while also expressing my disagreement with the tenets of KJV Onlyism.
My aim here is to provide insight to this multifaceted debate surrounding KJV Onlyism, exploring its historical origins, its theological implications, and to critically evaluate the arguments put forth by its proponents. While the debate over King James Onlyism might appear superficial at first glance, it often strikes at the heart of scriptural interpretation, occasionally leading to significant division within Christian communities. Through this exploration, I seek to promote unity by fostering a better more rounded understanding of the KJV and KJV Onlyism.
I have written this article with the intention to be accessible to all readers, incorporating some repetition to underscore crucial points and facilitate navigation through the extensive content. Whether you are a staunch KJV Onlyist, someone exploring the debate, or simply curious about the nuances of biblical translation, I hope this article serves as a catalyst for constructive dialogue and enhances our collective appreciation and understanding of scripture.
All that said, it is my sincere hope and prayer is that this article not only informs but also blesses you, enriching your understanding of and strengthening your faith in the scriptures. May it serve as a beacon of enlightenment, guiding you towards a deeper understanding and a stronger connection with the Word of God, regardless of the translation you use.
Introduction
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible holds a revered place in Christian tradition, celebrated for its poetic language and historical significance. However, “KJV Onlyism,” the belief that the KJV is the only accurate and acceptable English translation of the Bible, introduces a contentious debate within Christian circles. Here, we’ll explore the distinction between appreciating the KJV and adhering to KJV Onlyism, highlighting the implications and critiques of the latter while also providing push back to the KJV Only movement.
Table of Contents
The King James Version: A Historical Overview
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, often referred to as the Authorized Version, holds a admired place in Christian history, not only for its theological impact but also for its profound influence on the English language itself. Its creation was a response to a tumultuous period in English religious life, aimed at unifying various factions within the Church of England under one authoritative text.
Commission and Context
In 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference, where Puritan leaders presented grievances against the established Church of England. Among their requests was a new translation of the Bible, free from what they perceived as errors in the then-current versions, such as the Bishops’ Bible. King James, seeing an opportunity to consolidate his religious authority and foster unity, commissioned a new translation that would be “settled forever upon one uniform translation.”
The Translation Process
The task of translating the Bible into what would become the KJV was not merely an academic exercise but a monumental endeavor that required meticulous planning, scholarly collaboration, and royal oversight.
King James I appointed 54 scholars, though it’s believed that only about 47 to 50 actively participated. These scholars were chosen for their linguistic prowess, theological knowledge, and allegiance to the Church of England. They were divided into six companies, each based in a different location:
- Westminster: This group tackled Genesis to 2 Kings, and Romans to Jude.
- Cambridge: They were responsible for 1 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes, along with the Apocrypha.
- Oxford: Their task included Isaiah to Malachi, the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation.
Each company was composed of scholars with diverse backgrounds, ensuring a broad spectrum of expertise in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and theology.
Guidelines and Instructions
The translators were given specific instructions to guide their work. They were to follow the Bishops’ Bible unless the original Hebrew and Greek demanded a different rendering, ensuring continuity with existing church practices. They were encouraged to consult earlier English translations like Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Rheims New Testament, alongside the Latin Vulgate. The primary sources were the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament, supplemented by other ancient versions like the Septuagint. Unlike the Geneva Bible, the KJV was to have minimal marginal notes to avoid doctrinal controversies.
Methodology
Each book was initially translated by individual scholars within their company, then reviewed by the entire group, ensuring multiple eyes on each verse for accuracy and consistency. After initial translations, each company sent their work to the others for further scrutiny, allowing for a cross-pollination of ideas to refine the translation. A final committee, composed of two members from each company, met to harmonize the language, ensuring stylistic consistency across the entire Bible.
Challenges and Considerations
The translators had to navigate the evolving English language, choosing words that would be both understandable to their contemporaries and timeless in their expression. Translating theological concepts required careful consideration to avoid misinterpretation or doctrinal disputes. For instance, the choice of words like “charity” for “agape” in 1 Corinthians 13 reflects the theological context of their time. They also had to reconcile differences between manuscripts, making judgments on which reading best reflected the original text.
Publication and Reception
The culmination of the KJV translation process was marked by its first edition in 1611, an event that would profoundly influence English-speaking Christianity and culture. However, its initial reception was complex, reflecting the religious and political landscape of the time.
Publication Details
The first edition of the KJV was a large folio, printed in a format that was both impressive and expensive, intended for use in churches and by the educated elite. The title page was adorned with intricate woodcuts, including an image of King James I, emphasizing royal patronage and authority over the translation. This edition included a preface known as “The Translators to the Reader,” which defended the need for a new translation and explained the process, emphasizing humility and the desire for unity. The text was organized in double columns, with chapter summaries, cross-references, and marginal notes for variant readings or explanations, though far fewer than in the Geneva Bible.
Initial Reception
King James I’s endorsement gave the KJV immediate credibility and authority within the Church of England. It was intended to replace the Bishops’ Bible in churches, aligning with his vision for religious unity. Despite this, the KJV did not immediately supplant other popular versions. The Geneva Bible, favored by Puritans for its study notes, continued to be widely used by the laity. The KJV’s language, while poetic, was initially seen as less accessible to the common reader compared to the Geneva Bible. Some criticized the KJV for inaccuracies or for lacking the extensive study notes of the Geneva Bible, which were seen as valuable for personal study. There were also political undertones; Puritans viewed the Geneva Bible’s notes as more aligned with their theology.
Gradual Acceptance
Over time, the KJV gained ground in churches, partly due to its royal endorsement and the Church of England’s influence. Its use was mandated in many parishes, gradually becoming the standard for public worship. The KJV’s language began to influence literature, law, and common speech, with its phrases becoming embedded in English culture. As education spread, the KJV became a staple in schools, further cementing its place in English-speaking society. Its use in education helped standardize its acceptance across various social groups.
Revisions and Editions
The first few editions of the KJV contained numerous typographical errors, some quite famous, like the “Wicked Bible” of 1631, which omitted “not” from the commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Over the centuries, minor revisions were made, with the 1769 edition by Benjamin Blayney becoming the standard text used today. These revisions corrected errors, modernized some spellings, and standardized punctuation.
Literary and Linguistic Impact
The King James Version of the Bible has profoundly shaped English literature and language, embedding itself into the cultural fabric of English-speaking societies. Its influence spans from direct linguistic contributions to broader cultural impacts:
The KJV introduced or popularized numerous phrases now common in English, like “the salt of the earth” or “a labor of love.” It also enriched English with words like “scapegoat,” giving them broader cultural meanings. The KJV’s poetic, rhythmic language has influenced prose and poetry, from Milton to Lincoln (Known for Paradise Lost). Its balance of simplicity and grandeur has been a model for conveying deep and expansive ideas with clarity and beauty.
Literature is replete with KJV allusions, expecting readers to recognize biblical imagery and themes. Authors like Herman Melville have woven its language and themes into their works (such as Moby-Dick), perpetuating its literary legacy. For centuries, the KJV was central to English education, standardizing its language across society. This educational role has influenced how English is taught and spoken.
The KJV’s style has shaped persuasive speech in politics, law, and advertising, with its ability to convey moral and philosophical ideas with emotional depth. Beyond literature, the KJV has inspired visual arts, music, and film, with its themes and language influencing works from Chagall’s paintings to the film “Cape Fear.”
The KJV’s impact goes beyond its religious purpose, becoming a cornerstone of English-speaking culture. Its language has shaped how we express profound thoughts, influencing every aspect of English literature and language, from everyday speech to high art.
Historical Significance
The KJV became the standard text for English-speaking Protestants, especially after the English Civil War when Puritan influence waned. Its role in shaping English-speaking Christianity was immense, influencing theology, liturgy, and even legal language. The KJV’s widespread use was also facilitated by the British Empire’s expansion, spreading its influence globally.
The Genesis of KJV Onlyism
The King James Version of the Bible has had a profound impact on English-speaking Christianity, not just for its literary quality but also for its theological influence. However, the movement known as KJV Onlyism, which asserts that the KJV is the only legitimate English translation of the Bible, did not emerge immediately after its publication but evolved over time, triggered by various cultural, theological, and scholarly developments.
The Seeds
The seeds of KJV Onlyism were sown in the late 19th century with the publication of the Revised Version in 1881, which sought to update the KJV based on newer manuscript discoveries and linguistic insights. This revision, and subsequent modern translations, were met with resistance from those who had grown accustomed to the KJV’s language and textual tradition.
Central to KJV Onlyism is the preference for the Textus Receptus, the Greek text from which the KJV was primarily translated. Advocates argue that this text, and by extension, the KJV, is divinely preserved over other textual traditions like the Alexandrian text-type used in many modern translations. This preference often stems from a belief in the providential preservation of scripture through the KJV.
The movement gained traction as a response to broader cultural shifts. The 20th century saw rapid changes in language, society, and theology, which some conservative groups viewed with suspicion. For them, adherence to the KJV became a bastion against modernism, liberalism, and what they perceived as theological drift.
While there’s no single event pinpointing the start of KJV Onlyism, figures like John William Burgon in the late 19th century began defending the Textus Receptus against new textual criticism. Over time, this defense morphed into a broader movement, with individuals like Peter Ruckman in the mid-20th century advocating for the KJV’s inspiration, arguing that it was not just a translation but a new revelation. As seen in writings such as “The Bible Babel.”
Fertile Ground
KJV Onlyism found fertile ground in certain denominations and independent churches where tradition, a distrust of scholarly consensus, and a desire for purity in doctrine led to the elevation of the KJV to a near-sacred status beyond its text.
Today
Today, KJV Onlyism is not just about translation preference but often intertwines with broader cultural and theological battles within Christianity, reflecting a deeper debate about authority, tradition, and the nature of scripture itself. This movement, therefore, while rooted in a reverence for the KJV, reflects broader themes of resistance to change, the quest for certainty in scripture, and the interplay between tradition and modernity within Christian thought.
Arguments Against KJV Onlyism
In this section, I will outline a diverse array of arguments that challenge the tenets of the King James Onlyism movement. It’s important to clarify that these arguments are not intended to target individuals but rather to critically examine the movement itself. My objective is not to sow division but to foster a deeper understanding and unity within the body of Christ.
Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence
From a scholarly perspective, (though I am not a scholar) the discovery of older manuscripts, like the Codex Sinaiticus, offers us texts that are closer to the originals than the Textus Receptus, which the KJV primarily uses. These older manuscripts often differ in minor ways from the Textus Receptus, suggesting that the KJV might not always reflect the most accurate textual tradition. Furthermore, the KJV includes passages not found in the earliest manuscripts, indicating potential additions or alterations over time.
Historical Context of Manuscripts:
The King James Version was primarily based on the Textus Receptus, a compilation of Greek texts that, while significant, represents a later stage in the manuscript tradition. The discovery of older manuscripts, like the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, dating back to the 4th century, provides textual evidence closer to the original than what was available to the KJV translators. These manuscripts often differ in minor but significant ways from the Textus Receptus, suggesting that the KJV might not always reflect the most accurate textual tradition.
Textual Variants:
Textual criticism involves analyzing these differences or variants among manuscripts. For instance, passages like the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) are not found in the earliest manuscripts. The inclusion of these in the KJV, based on the Textus Receptus, highlights how later manuscripts might have introduced additions or alterations not present in the original texts.
Manuscript Families:
Scholars categorize manuscripts into families or text-types (e.g., Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine) based on shared characteristics. The Alexandrian text-type, often considered closer to the original due to its early date and wide geographical distribution, differs significantly from the Byzantine text-type, which the Textus Receptus largely follows. This classification helps in understanding why modern translations might differ from the KJV, as they often lean towards the Alexandrian text for perceived authenticity.
The Role of Textual Criticism:
Textual criticism aims to reconstruct the original text by evaluating these variants. Critics of KJV Onlyism argue that this process, while complex, is necessary due to the nature of manuscript transmission. Over centuries, texts could be copied with errors, intentional changes, or interpolations. By comparing thousands of manuscripts, scholars attempt to discern which readings are most likely original.
The Argument Against KJV Onlyism:
To say that the KJV is the only valid translation is to ignore advancements in textual criticism. Newer translations benefit from a broader manuscript base, including earlier and more reliable texts, providing a more accurate representation of the original scriptures. I’m not writing this to demean the KJV but to acknowledge that our understanding of the biblical text has evolved with new evidence.
Practical Implications:
For believers, this means that while the KJV holds historical and literary value, it’s not infallible in its textual basis. Many modern translations, while perhaps less poetic, aim for precision in conveying the original meaning, which might differ slightly from the KJV due to better manuscript evidence.
Translation Philosophy and Errors
The process of translating ancient texts into modern languages is fraught with challenges, each translation philosophy offering different approaches to balancing fidelity to the original text with accessibility for contemporary readers.
Philosophical Approaches to Translation:
Translation philosophy ranges from formal equivalence, where the goal is to translate each word as closely as possible to the original language, maintaining structure and syntax, to dynamic equivalence, which focuses on conveying the meaning or intent in a way that is natural and understandable in the target language. The KJV, while not strictly word-for-word, leans towards formal equivalence, which can sometimes lead to archaic or less understandable English for modern readers.
Translation Errors and Issues in the KJV:
The KJV, despite its revered status, contains instances where language evolution has led to misunderstandings. For example, the word “prevent” in 1 Thessalonians 4:15 meant “precede” in KJV times but now suggests stopping something from happening, potentially leading to misinterpretations. Similarly, the phrase “suffer the little children” in Mark 10:14, where “suffer” meant “allow,” can confuse contemporary readers. Modern translations might clarify this as “let the little children come to me,” ensuring the original intent is clear.
The use of older language and terms like “unicorn” in Deuteronomy 33:17, based on the best understanding of the Hebrew “re’em,” which modern scholars believe refers to a now-extinct animal, not the mythical creature we imagine, highlights how cultural context can affect translation accuracy.
Philosophical Critique of KJV Onlyism:
KJV Onlyists often argue for the KJV’s infallibility, but translation inherently involves interpretation. Even the KJV translators acknowledged in their preface that they were not infallible and that further revisions might be necessary. This acknowledgment undermines the claim of absolute perfection in the KJV.
Every translation involves choices. The KJV translators made decisions based on their understanding and the manuscripts available to them. Modern translators, with access to more manuscripts and linguistic insights, potentially offering more accurate renderings of the original texts.
The debate also touches on accessibility versus accuracy. While the KJV’s language has a poetic quality, its use of Elizabethan English can obscure meaning for contemporary readers. Modern translations prioritize accessibility, ensuring the message of scripture is clear, which some argue aligns with the intent of scripture to be understood by all. This approach, however, can sometimes be criticized for straying too far from the original text’s nuances.
Theological and Doctrinal Consistency
The debate over KJV Onlyism often hinges on theological and doctrinal grounds, with proponents arguing that the King James Version (KJV) uniquely preserves essential Christian truths. However, a deeper examination reveals that core Christian doctrines remain remarkably consistent across various translations, challenging the notion that only the KJV accurately conveys these truths.
The Nature of Inspiration:
Traditional Christian theology holds that inspiration applies to the original manuscripts, not necessarily to any one translation. This perspective says that while translations are valuable, they are secondary to the original texts in terms of divine inspiration. The KJV, like any translation, is an interpretation of these original texts, subject to the translators’ understanding and the linguistic tools available at the time.
Doctrinal Stability Across Translations:
Despite variations in wording or emphasis due to translation choices, fundamental Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, salvation through faith, and the resurrection remain consistent across translations. This consistency suggests that the Holy Spirit has preserved these truths, not necessarily tied to one specific English translation. For instance, the deity of Christ, central to Christian faith, is clearly affirmed in various translations, not uniquely in the KJV.
The Role of the Holy Spirit:
The argument against KJV Onlyism often includes the belief that the Holy Spirit guides believers in understanding scripture, regardless of the translation used. This guidance implies that while translations might differ in how they express concepts, the underlying truths are accessible to those seeking them, supported by the Spirit’s illumination.
Historical and Ecumenical Perspectives:
Throughout Christian history, various translations have been used without compromising core doctrines. The early church, for instance, used the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) alongside the original Hebrew texts. This historical practice underscores that the essence of scripture transcends any single translation.
Theological Implications of KJV Onlyism:
Advocating for the KJV as the sole authoritative translation can lead to theological isolationism, suggesting that other translations are somehow unable to convey biblical/theological truths. This stance can be seen as contrary to the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, as it potentially divides believers over translation preferences rather than uniting them in the core truths of the faith.
The Challenge of Exclusivity:
The exclusivity of KJV Onlyism raises questions about the accessibility of scripture. If only one translation is considered valid, it might alienate those for whom the KJV’s language is a barrier to understanding, potentially limiting the spread of the Gospel.
Historical Context and Development of Translations
The KJV itself was a product of its time, influenced by the available manuscripts and the linguistic norms of the 17th century. Subsequent translations benefit from more extensive manuscript evidence and linguistic understanding. Ironically, the KJV’s translators acknowledged in their preface that even less accurate translations could still be considered the Word of God, undermining the exclusive claim of KJV Onlyism.
The King James Version emerged in a specific historical and cultural context, which profoundly influenced its creation and reception. Understanding this context, along with the development of translations before and after the KJV, provides a broader perspective on why the KJV, while significant, is not the sole authoritative translation.
The Pre-KJV Era:
Before the KJV, translations like the Wycliffe Bible (late 14th century) and Tyndale’s New Testament (1526) laid foundational work in English. These early efforts were not only linguistic but also theological, reflecting the Reformation’s emphasis on scripture accessibility for all believers. Each translation was shaped by its time, responding to religious, and linguistic needs.
The KJV's Creation:
The KJV was commissioned in 1604 by King James I of England, partly to resolve disputes between Puritans and Anglicans over the Geneva Bible’s annotations, which were seen as too Calvinistic. The translators, a mix of scholars from various theological backgrounds, aimed for a translation that would be both authoritative and unifying. Their work was influenced by the best available manuscripts at the time, primarily the Textus Receptus, and the linguistic norms of early 17th-century English.
Philosophical and Linguistic Shifts:
The KJV’s language, while poetic and influential, was already somewhat archaic by the time of its publication. Over the centuries, English has evolved, leading to shifts in meaning and usage. Modern translations reflect these linguistic changes, aiming to convey the original intent in contemporary language, which the KJV, with its Elizabethan English, might not always achieve for today’s readers.
The Discovery of Older Manuscripts:
Subsequent centuries brought the discovery of older and often more reliable manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which predate the Textus Receptus. These findings have influenced modern translations, providing textual evidence closer to the original manuscripts than what was available to the KJV translators.
The KJV's Own Preface:
Ironically, the KJV’s translators acknowledged in their preface that even less accurate translations could still be considered the Word of God. This admission undermines the exclusive claim of KJV Onlyism, suggesting that the KJV itself was seen as part of an ongoing effort to translate scripture accurately rather than the final word.
The Evolution of Translation Philosophy:
Over time, translation philosophy has evolved from more literal (formal equivalence) to dynamic equivalence, aiming for readability and accessibility. This shift reflects changing needs and understandings of how best to convey ancient texts to modern audiences. While the KJV leans towards formal equivalence, newer translations might prioritize dynamic equivalence for clarity.
Global and Cultural Considerations:
The spread of Christianity globally has necessitated translations into numerous languages, each reflecting cultural nuances. The insistence on the KJV can be seen as culturally myopic, ignoring the need for translations that resonate with diverse linguistic and cultural contexts.
Practical and Cultural Considerations
The debate over KJV Onlyism often overlooks practical and cultural considerations that have significant implications for how scripture is understood and utilized in today’s world. These considerations highlight why the insistence on the KJV as the only valid translation might be seen as out of step with contemporary needs and global Christian diversity.
Language Evolution:
Since the publication of the KJV in 1611, the English language has undergone extensive changes. Words have shifted in meaning, syntax has evolved, and idiomatic expressions have changed. For instance, previously mentioned phrases like “suffer the little children” in the KJV can be confusing to modern readers, where “suffer” meant “allow” in 17th-century English. Modern translations aim to capture the original meaning in today’s language, making scripture more accessible and understandable.
Accessibility for New Generations:
The KJV’s use of Elizabethan English can pose a significant barrier for younger generations or non-native English speakers. The language barrier might deter engagement with scripture, potentially leading to a decline in biblical literacy. (As we often see today) Modern translations, by using contemporary language, seek to bridge this gap, ensuring that the message of the Bible remains relevant and comprehensible.
Global Christianity:
Christianity has spread globally, with believers from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. Insisting on the KJV can be seen as culturally myopic or shortsighted, ignoring the need for translations that resonate with different cultural contexts. For example, idioms, metaphors, and cultural references in the KJV might not translate well into other languages or cultures, necessitating translations that reflect local nuances.
Educational and Liturgical Use:
In educational settings, modern translations are often preferred for their clarity and directness, which aids in teaching and understanding biblical texts. Similarly, in liturgical contexts, while the KJV’s language might have a poetic or traditional appeal, its use can sometimes obscure the message for congregants unfamiliar with its style, potentially affecting spiritual engagement.
The Role of Tradition vs. Understanding:
While tradition holds value, the primary purpose of scripture is to convey divine truth. If adherence to the KJV’s language becomes more about tradition than understanding, it risks elevating form over substance. Modern translations prioritize clarity, aiming to ensure that the core message of scripture is not lost in translation.
Sectarianism and Unity
KJV Onlyism, has implications far beyond textual or translation accuracy. It touches on issues of unity within the Christian community and the broader implications of sectarianism.
Us Versus Them
KJV Onlyism can lead to division within the church, fostering an us-versus-them mentality rather than unity in Christ. This divisiveness often stems from the belief that using any translation other than the KJV is not just a matter of preference but a theological or even moral failing. This stance can create schisms where fellowship is prevail, going against the spirit of Christian fellowship as outlined in scriptures like Ephesians 4:3, which calls for efforts to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
KJV Onlyism exhibits traits of exclusivity and rigidity, sometimes akin to cultic behavior. When adherence to one translation becomes a litmus test for orthodoxy or salvation, it can lead to a form of legalism that scripture warns against. The focus shifts from the core message of Jesus Christ, faith, love, and redemption to adherence to a particular text, potentially alienating those who might otherwise share the same fundamental beliefs but prefer different translations for various valid reasons.
Moreover, this insistence can alienate newer believers or those from different cultural backgrounds who might find the KJV’s language inaccessible. The global nature of Christianity means that the English of the KJV, while historically significant, might not resonate with non-English speakers or even younger generations for whom the language is archaic. This can inadvertently create a barrier to understanding and embracing the Christian faith, contrary to the missionary spirit of spreading the gospel to all nations.
The Argument
The argument against KJV Onlyism from a unity perspective is not just about translation but about the broader implications for the church’s mission. Unity in diversity, where different translations can coexist and even enrich understanding through comparison, reflects a more inclusive approach to Christian fellowship. This inclusivity aligns with the New Testament’s emphasis on the body of Christ being composed of many parts, each with its own function but united in purpose (1 Corinthians 12).
In essence, while the KJV holds a cherished place in Christian history, insisting on its exclusive use can foster sectarianism rather than unity. The debate over KJV Onlyism thus serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between tradition and the need for the church to adapt in its mission to be relevant and accessible to all people across time and culture.
The Burden of Change
For those who argue in favor of the KJV out of habit or tradition, there’s a compelling case for embracing the burden of change for the sake of future generations. From my viewpoint, the principle of edification, as emphasized in 1 Corinthians 14, underscores the importance of scripture being intelligible to its readers. As language evolves, so should our translations to ensure that the Word of God remains accessible and meaningful.
The reluctance to move beyond the KJV, while understandable given its historical and literary significance, places an unnecessary burden on contemporary readers. It’s not just about personal comfort or nostalgia; it’s about ensuring that the next generation can engage with scripture in a way that speaks to their hearts and minds. This isn’t about discarding the KJV but recognizing that its language, while beautiful, might not always convey the original intent as effectively as newer translations can for today’s audience.
By shouldering the burden of change now, we’re not just preserving the text but ensuring its vitality and relevance for future believers. This approach aligns with the broader Christian mission of spreading the gospel in ways that resonate with all people, regardless of time or place.
Scholarly Consensus and Practicality
The vast majority of biblical scholars and the wealth of contemporary Christian literature support the use of multiple translations for study and understanding, indicating that the KJV, while historically significant, is not the sole authoritative translation. This consensus also points to the practicality of using translations that better match contemporary English for broader accessibility.
Engagement with KJV Onlyist Arguments
The debate surrounding KJV Onlyism often revolves around several key arguments, which, upon closer examination, reveal complexities that challenge the exclusivity of the KJV’s superiority.
- The Purity and Inspiration Argument
- Claim: Proponents argue that the KJV is the only pure, inspired translation, often citing Psalm 12:6-7 to suggest that the KJV has been purified seven times through six translations before it.
- Counter: This interpretation misapplies the verse, which speaks to God’s preservation of His word, not specifically to the KJV. Moreover, the KJV translators themselves, in their original preface, welcomed future translations for better understanding, indicating they did not view their work as the final, infallible version.
- Counter 2: There were more than 6 English translations prior to the KJV. Wycliffe’s Bible (1382-1395), Paues’ New Testament (1388), Tyndale’s New Testament (1526), Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops’ Bible (1568) just to name a few.
- The Textual Argument
- Claim: KJV Onlyists often assert that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was primarily translated, is superior to other manuscripts like the Codex Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.
- Counter: Modern scholarship, including the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, supports the reliability of various manuscripts. The differences between the Textus Receptus and other texts are minimal and do not affect core doctrines. Furthermore, the KJV translators used a variety of sources, not just the Textus Receptus, showing their own acknowledgment of textual diversity.
- The Exclusivity Argument
- Claim: Some argue that only the KJV provides the true word of God, suggesting that other translations corrupt the text.
- Counter: This view limits the accessibility of scripture, implying that non-English speakers must learn English to access God’s word, which contradicts the Christian mission of spreading the gospel to all nations. The KJV itself, in its original preface, supports the idea of translations for clarity and understanding.
- The Historical Argument
- Claim: The KJV was translated by the greatest scholars under divine guidance, making it uniquely authoritative.
- Counter: While the KJV translators were indeed skilled, they were also human, and their work reflects the linguistic and scholarly limitations of their time. The evolution of language and the discovery of older, more reliable manuscripts since the 17th century necessitate updated translations for accuracy and comprehension.
- The Copyright Argument
- Claim: All other translations are copyrighted, meaning that they aren’t the Word of God.
- Counter: The KJV was printed under patent to the royal printer or “crown copyright,” thus it is also copyrighted. The presence of copyright does not diminish the divine inspiration of scripture but rather protects the work from unauthorized changes or commercial exploitation.
- The Unchanging Argument
- Claim: Some argue that the text of the KJV has never changed.
- Counter: The KJV underwent multiple revisions. Early editions contained numerous errors, leading to corrections over time. For instance, the “Wicked Bible” of 1631 omitted the word “not” from the commandment “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” illustrating that even the KJV required amendments.
- The Direct Translation Argument
- Claim: The KJV was directly translated from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.
- Counter: While the KJV translators did work from the original languages, they also relied heavily on previous English translations like the Bishops’ Bible and the Geneva Bible, only altering text when necessary. This approach was pragmatic, aiming to maintain continuity with familiar biblical language while ensuring accuracy.
- The “Inspired” English Argument
- Claim: Some KJV Onlyists argue that the English of the KJV is itself inspired, suggesting that the specific words and phrasing are divinely ordained.
- Counter: This claim overlooks the fact that the KJV translators themselves were not infallible. They made decisions based on their understanding and the linguistic norms of their time. Furthermore, if the English of the KJV were divinely inspired, it would imply that God’s word is bound to 17th-century English, which is inconsistent with the idea of scripture being accessible to all generations and languages.
- The “Corrupt Modern Translations” Argument
- Claim: Modern translations are accused of altering the text to fit contemporary theological biases or to be politically correct.
- Counter: While it’s true that translators make choices, modern translations often aim for clarity and accuracy based on the best available manuscripts and linguistic scholarship. Many modern translations provide extensive notes explaining translation choices, which the KJV does not. Also, the accusation of bias can be applied to any translation, including the KJV, which was influenced by the theological and political climate of its time.
- The “Pure Line of Bibles” Argument
- Claim: There is a pure line of Bibles from the original manuscripts through the Latin Vulgate, the Textus Receptus, and culminating in the KJV.
- Counter: This argument simplifies the complex history of biblical texts. The transmission of scripture involved many stages, including translations into various languages with inevitable variations. The KJV itself was not a direct descendant of the originals but was influenced by numerous earlier translations and manuscript traditions. The idea of a “pure line” ignores the diversity of textual traditions that have always existed.
- The “Corrupt Modern Scholarship” Argument
- Claim: Modern translations are accused of being influenced by scholars who are biased against traditional Christian beliefs, leading to alterations in the text that dilute or change doctrine.
- Counter: While it’s true that translators make choices, these choices are often based on the best available manuscripts and linguistic scholarship, aiming for accuracy and clarity. Modern translations are typically more transparent about these choices, providing footnotes and introductions explaining translation decisions. The accusation of bias can be applied to any translation, including the KJV, which was influenced by the theological and political climate of its time.
- The Wisdom Claim
- Claim: Proponents might argue that the KJV contains a unique or superior form of wisdom, either due to its translation or its perceived divine inspiration, pointing to the poetic and archaic language as being more spiritually resonant.
- Counter:
- Linguistic Evolution: Language changes, and what was clear in 1611 can be misunderstood today. For instance, “prevent” in the KJV meant “precede,” not “stop something from happening.” This evolution can obscure rather than reveal wisdom for contemporary readers.
- Original Languages: If wisdom is inherent in the text, it’s in the original languages. The KJV, like any translation, is an interpretation. True wisdom might encourage study of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, not adherence to one English translation.
- Translation Philosophy: Modern translations aim for clarity and accuracy, ensuring the message conveys divine wisdom. Wisdom from scripture comes through the Holy Spirit, not exclusively through the medium of translation.
Personal Testimony on KJV Onlyism
Over the years, I’ve had the privilege of aiding in the spiritual growth of both new believers and those exploring faith for the first time. My church host’s an event known as AWANA (Approved Workmen Are Not Ashamed), a Christian nonprofit organization dedicated to providing Bible-based evangelism and discipleship programs for children and youth aged 2 to 18.
Challenges with KJV in Youth Ministry
During my time as a volunteer at AWANA, one of my roles was to assist children in memorizing and understanding scripture. The experience was extremely rewarding, and I look forward to continuing this volunteer work in the future. However, I encountered a significant challenge: the materials provided by AWANA, while not explicitly KJV Only, were predominantly based on the King James Version.
The Language Barrier
I quickly realized that the archaic language of the KJV was a barrier to comprehension for the children. They struggled not only with memorizing the verses but also with grasping their meaning. This issue became evident when, despite being able to recite verses, they could not articulate the messages or lessons contained within them.
The Analogy of Language
Imagine learning a phrase in a foreign language without understanding its meaning. You might memorize it perfectly, but it remains a collection of sounds or symbols without significance. This analogy captures the essence of the problem I faced. The children were parroting words from the KJV, but the spiritual and moral teachings were lost in translation.
The Summary
This experience is but a mere fragment of what has driven me to write this article. This stance not only divides believers but also erects a significant barrier for those new to the faith. While I can navigate the KJV due to my fondness for Elizabethan English, this isn’t the case for most. The insistence on the KJV alienates many, making scripture less accessible while also fostering division where unity should prevail.
