On one of my posts dealing with the King James Only movement, I recently had someone leave a comment directing me to an article he had written entitled “Dangers of ‘KJV Onlyism’ or KJV Perfectionism”. Upon going to his website, I discovered that this guy preferred the KJV and even thought it is the most accurate English Bible translation available. Yet he took issue with KJV Onlyists. Why? Aside from his conclusion that the extreme KJVO views are very problematic, this man actually owned up to the fact that the KJV has a few minor errors!
An Honest KJV Advocate
Here is a man who deserves to be recognized. He upholds the KJV as the most accurate translation and at the same time feels no compulsion to explain away any and all errors in it. This man is an honest KJV advocate!
Sadly, most American advocates (this man is from England) of the KJV, even those who agree that the Greek and Hebrew texts underlying the KJV are more important for study than the English translation, cannot admit to any error in the KJV at all. Many of these same advocates identify with the Dean Burgon Society. They claim to hold the same views as the Anglican John Burgon, yet he admitted to hundreds of errors in the TR, and they admit none. Some KJV Onlyies go so far as to allow for discussion of the Greek, and even to claim that a better or more accurate translation could be given. Yet they refuse to go beyond a certain point. They cannot admit one error in the KJV.
Perhaps they feel such an admission destroys their whole doctrine of Scripture. It is emphatically important to them that they unquestioningly hold every inspired word of God in their hands, when they lift up a KJV. Anything less than this opens the door, they claim, to questioning whether John 3:16 or any other verse is really God’s word or not. Many of these people also claim that God promised to preserve all of the words of Scripture perfectly and inerrantly, and that these words can be found in the texts that underly the KJV.
Regardless of their reason, such advocates unreasonably hold to their wishful thinking. No matter your theological position, I wish you were honest with the facts. The King James Version has some indisputable errors. More on that later.
Another Wacky KJV Only Website
In reading the article mentioned above (it is written by Pavlos Karageorgi and you can read it by scrolling down about 1/3 of the way down this page), I came across some of the most shocking and alarming quotes I have yet seen in all of my research into KJV Onlyism. These statements can be read here, and describe the position of Touchet Baptist Church (Touchet, WA).
I would say that you may be amused by the craziness you’ll find at this church’s website. But it should be more than amusing, it should be grossly disturbing. Let me provide a few of the statements you’ll find on that page under a section entitled “We are King James 1611 Bible Only!”:
- We are KJB more than most folks can even imagine!
- We will not willingly listen, seek out or encourage any greek in our studies or sermons – or in or from the pulpit – NONE!
- No Hebrew is necessary, either!
- English Language of the King James Bible is the language God put His words into for the 7th and last writing.
- This KJ1611 Bible is alive with the Spirit of God and ALL the modern versions/perversions are alive with the spirit of the devil!
- The King James 1611 Bible is essential for one’s salvation.
- The King James 1611 Bible is truly the sword of the Spirit and is essential for spiritual circumcision, without which Christ can not enter nor can we be made holy!
- The King James 1611 Bible is the word of truth, the gospel of our salvation!
- The King James 1611 Bible is the only inspired, inerrant, preserved word of God and IS the very words of God.
- The King James 1611 Bible is higher than any physical or mental experience that one sees or feels.
- John 1:1 is referring to the King James 1611 Bible today as well as Jesus Christ.
- If you could take the King James 1611 Bible and turn it into a flesh and blood person, you would have Jesus Christ.
- Blood was shed for this book to be in our hands today – as was the blood of Christ so we could be in His hands today! (emphasis added)
One of the subtitles the church claims for itself is “Magnifying His Word Above All His Name”, and sadly, I fear this becomes blasphemy and idolatry in the case of this church. I hope I’m wrong, but such a position manifests an extremely skewed focus for this church.
Some of the KJV’s Errors
Going back to the article written by an honest KJV advocate, I thought it would be good to list all the errors that Brother Karageorgi mentioned in his article against “KJV Perfectionism”.
- In Hebrews 10:23, the KJV translates the Greek word meaning hope as “faith”, but the Tyndale Version originally had “hope” as the translation (as do most of the modern Bible versions).
- Luke 14:10 has the KJV translating the Greek word doxa (glory) as “worship”, resulting in a verse which claims men receive worship, rather than as Tyndale had it, receiving “glory”.
- Rev. 18:13 has the KJV translating the Greek word soma (body) as slaves. This could be attributed to dynamic equivalence, or loose translation, however.
- Mr. Karageorgi thinks the phrase “drink ye all of it” in Matt. 26:27 is unnecessarily unclear, in comparison to Tyndale’s “Drink of it every one”. I agree.
- In Matt. 14:9, he points out that modern KJV’s have “for the oath’s sake” but originally in the Tyndale (and even in the 1611 KJV, as I found) it was for the othes sake” (no apostrophe was used back then). The Greek word is plural, so it refers to more than one oath, which you would not know if you depended on your modern KJV (either the Cambridge or Oxford edition).
- In John 10:16, the KJV translates two different Greek words both as “fold”. The Tyndale version more accurately reflects the Greek reading “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold. Them also must I bring that they may hear my voice and that they may be one flock and one shepherd.” This is a translational error which affects the sense of the text.
- Brother Karageorgi also sees problems with the use of “charity” in 1 Cor. 13 for the Greek word agape, because even in 1611 there were various connotations of almsgiving associated with the word “charity”.
- Lastly, he points out the use of “Easter” in Acts 12:4 as wrong. Since Tyndale used easter lamb and paschal lamb interchangeably (see Mark 14:12), it is clear that to him and others of his time Easter had the meaning Passover. What this means is that the KJV translators missed one of the “Easters” of Tyndale, when they removed all the other instances of this not quite correct word (it is not an actual translation of the Greek word).
- Brother Karageorgi also mentioned a few instances of the differences between the Cambridge and Oxford editions of the modern KJV. Jer. 34:16 has “whom ye” in the Cambridge and “whom he” in the Oxford. At Nahum 3:16, Cambridge has “flieth” and Oxford has “fleeth”. And at 2 Chron. 33:19 the Cambridge has “sin” but the Oxford has “sins”.
Keep in mind these are just errors of the translation, places where it does not reflect its own Greek text well. The Greek text itself is in error, I would claim. Even as it has many readings not supported by the majority of Greek texts or other textual witnesses. E.F. Hills (another honest KJV advocate) admits that in Rom. 7:6 (“that being dead wherein” instead of “being dead to that wherein”) and Rev. 16:5 (“shalt be” instead of “the holy one”) the KJV followed conjectural emendations Beza introduced to his text. Hills also says that in Rev. 17:8 a typo from Erasmus’ first edition was perpetuated through all editions of the TR and into the KJV (TR has “and yet is” but it should be with the majority of Greek texts “and shall come”).
A few other errors in the KJV English would be Lk. 18:12 where it says “possess” instead of following the Greek TR which has “get or acquire”. And in Mt. 23:24 there is an English typo reading “strain at” instead of “strain out”.
Brother Karageorgi, thank you for being honest. I only wish a few other KJV advocates would be honest as well. I join with you in standing against the wacky KJV Perfectionists, and the not-so-wacky ones as well.
Wow. That website almost seems like a parody.
I wish it were!
Wow…so much for the paper pope, they have made themselves a paper god to worship and adore–and as such have departed the true faith. In my part of the country, this type of thinking is common—and has infected most of the Baptist churches around me. I am considered a liberal, because we use the NKJV (though I really wished we used the ESV, so that probably makes me a full apostate). :o)
Karageorgi’s response is refreshing–though of course I do seriously question how anyone could possibly believe the TR is better than the modern critical editions. Just as with the extreme KJV only advocates, it is still burying one’s head in the sand—the only difference with him is that the end sticking out isn’t that of a donkey.
Whew! Thanks for tearing the scab off of that old wound!
Just for that, I’m going to punish you with my song, sung to the tune of “Me Old Bamboo,” from Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang (you had to know I love that movie!):
The Old King James
by John Douglas Chitty circa 1993-94
A good king named James Stuart came to England long ago
He called a group together to see how to run the show
They said, “Let’s make the Bible to be cherished far and wide!”
In seven years came the Old King James, we call the Authorized!
Oh!
The Old King James, the Old King James
You better-never-bother with the Old King James
It’ll judge you when Christ comes to reign
So you better-never-bother with the Old King James!
1611!
1611!
The scribes and Pharisees may think their versions fill the bill
But nothing else will ever better manifest his will
The Bible’s quick and powerful and sharper than a sword
To make a wayward sinner come and call upon the Lord!
(Repeat Chorus)
In the word of a king is the power to win souls!
Any less authority is likely full of holes!
God said it, so believe it!
Now you know that it is true:
For God so loved the world he sent his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son to die for you!
(Repeat Chorus)
The Reformation Bible keeps sound doctrine as it is
It don’t delete the message like the Catholic Bible did
The Authorized King James Bible is what it claims to be:
The Word that God inspired, translated and gave to me!
(Repeat Chorus)
It’s amazing how they worship that book. Thank God for the honest KJV advocates.
Yea, Josh, you’re an apostate alright!
There are enough plausible sounding arguments coupled with a trust in what the Church gave us, to make me understand where a TR preferred guy can come from. But I can’t go for the dishonesty. Thankfully, Bro. Pavlos is honest.
You know, John, you might want to copy write your creation. I can see the folks at Touchet Baptist and others “borrowing” it.
Praise the Lord you came around to worshiping the Savior more than a particular bunch of words on paper.
(Does that rhyme? Can I start a song with that??)
They can have it.
Your attempt has a good rhythm, but you can’t dance to it, the way Dick Van Dyke could dance to my tune . . .
As for Josh on the Brit’s KJV preference, as Peter Ruckman’s Alexandrian Creed says, it’s okay to us apostate fundamentalists if some want to “prefer” the King James, and even the TR, as long as they’re willing to allow us to “prefer” the “Alexandrian text.”
No dance, but maybe a rap??
LOL
PLEASE GO VOTE for Mike Huckabee in the FreedomWorks online straw poll, now through Thursday, August 2nd.
http://www.freedomworks.org/strawpoll
Also, please pass this along to other Huckabee supporters in ANY way you can!!! He CAN win this!
Yeah, you could probably rap it, but could Mike Huckabee? That was an interesting commercial break. So is that “John Piper had a rapper at his church!” controversy still raging?
The Judaizers said that the law was also essential for salvation and Paul wrote the Galatians and admonished them, that anything added to Christ Alone- was anathema. Seems to be a parallel here.
It is amazing to me how that group seems like radical mormonism. Amazing. Also- which addition of the 1611 are they using? I need to make sure I have a copy.
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
I find it humorous that no KJVO that I have met, who constantly chant “1611!”, has actually seen a 1611 KJV. Not one. Yet they insist that they accept no other.
I only wonder how many other “KJV-preferred” people are out there who will own up to the shortcomings and difficulties of the KJV-only heresy? I’m surprised that Bob found one!
BTW, I went to the website for that ‘straw poll’, and found that these Ron Paul supporters have hijacked it as well as any other forum. Don’t these ‘libertarians’ have anything else to do other than hog polls and hijack forums? Sheesh, I’ve already seen Ron Paul supporters on the sidewalk the other day in Sarasota, FL. He sure doesn’t get my support, though. I do like Huckabee!
Yea Ron Paul is supposed to be on the Republican ticket. And on all the online forums, etc. its all the non-Reublicans that rally for him. Few of his “supporters” would actually vote for him anyway.
This wacky KJVO group at least does say they go with the Cambridge edition of the KJV, I wonder why they don’t rephrase their slogan to laud 1769 as the year of choice, then?
They simply say “1611” because it’s the year it was first published. The fact that they use 1769 editions is a matter of convenience (or providence). If God expects them to use the KJV which was first published in 1611, and if God only had editions from 1769 available to them, then that’s the edition he wants them to use. But that doesn’t mean they have to stop calling it the 1611 KJB.
Since it certainly is a matter of the providence of God that the 1769 edition is what KJVOnlyists usually use, it’s just as easy for us to receive this providential circumstance as an opportunity to expose their faulty logic with the question Gage asked above.
But Captain, I have a 1611. They are easily obtained, and inexpensive. And if it was good enough for Paul, they could certainly make the effort to get one.
Of course, then they would have to explain why the world’s most perfect Bible contains the Apocrypha.
Another Baptist church in my area commanded (yes…commanded) its members to go out and purchase the 1611 reprint that recently came out on the market.
So now I guess they have their hearts true desire…..
Yeah, well, what is sold by Thomas Nelson as a facsimile of the 1611 King James Bible is actually a reprint of the 1911 facsimile edition which commemorated the tricentennial of the King James Version. They modernized (up to early twentieth century standards) the typeface so it could actually be read by modern readers. The typeface of the original 1611 edition would be largely unintelligible to us. So, they may have a book with a 6 and 3 1’s on the cover, but, like Bono sings, they still haven’t found what they’re looking for . . .
Wow….I feel duped. Glad I didn’t go in extra for the leather. :o)
Oh, come on, now! It doesn’t have to be the same typeface to be the correct text. I’m sure none of my Puritan works (those not updated) are in the same type as the first edition, but they’re the real deal.
I can’t believe I’m arguing about this. Bob might have to ban me for being a troll. I guess it just goes to show what they say: arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics …
But Thirsty, you’d miss out on having “f”s where there should be “s”s and all that other fun archaic stuff!
Considering the differences between the 1611 and the 1769, and the now widespread availability to have the actual 1611, its a wonder more churches don’t go the route of the church Josh told us about. So would they separate from other KJVOs who are lousy enough to only have a 1769 in their laps??
As wacky as these claims seem to be, they are the logical conclusion of the KJVO position. Anything short of this is grossly incosistent. It’s just rare to see a KJVO actually put these things into print….I love the fact that they are prideful in their willingness to remain ignorant of the underlying texts. The only thing I found surprising about the church website is that they don’t have a “college”….
Bob, tsk …
1. Those are not “f”s, they are “s”s. They resemble “f”s, but if you look closely, you’ll see the difference. It’s called a “long s.” Think sigma–there are two different forms. The long s was used in the initial and medial positions, while the standard s as we know it was used in the final position. There is no uppercase long s.
2. The pseudo-1611s only change the typeface, not the spelling. My cheap fake has all the archaic spellings, including the long “s”s.
The 1611, and the Geneva also, are really quite easy reading for any reasonably literate person. They are in modern English, just not today’s modern English. They’re actually kind of fun. I sometimes catch myself reading (silently) with a Sean Connery accent in my head. I know, I’m a bit odd.
Thanks Thirfty for fetting the record ftraight!
Ellis,
Not sure if the KJVO system has to logically end up at that extreme, but the more you dig into the logic…. I was a TR Onlyist for quite some time. But the answers never quite added up. We were never that extreme, though, and didn’t have much sympathy for those who were. They gave us a bad name.
Thanks for the thoughts,
Bob
I have a question for those who were “moderate” KJV only folks and for those who were more “extreme” in their KJV view…
The question is: In their view(s) would they say that Jesus Christ during his earthly ministry only thought in English? Or would they say he thought in all languages that included English? If you admit that he thought in all languages that included English, then isn’t the KJV only argument somewhat arrogant albeit english arrogance?
Gage Browning
Post Tenebras Lux
Bob,
I don’t mean to overstate anything here, but I truly think that the KJVO system does logically end up in a heretical stance if followed to its conclusion. Most KJVO’s are simply not consistent with their logic (largely due to ignorance rather than dishonesty). Granted, there was a time that I was “moderately” KJVO and I would have branded this guy as a real screwball; however, when I began to honestly evaluate my own position I began to realize that, at the end of the day, I was flirting with heresy. Like you, I was never that extreme….but I suspect I was closer than I thought….
EM
Gage,
Most don’t think through everything involved in their system of belief. They want so much to be able to KNOW that the Bible they hold in their hand has ALL and ONLY the WORDS of GOD. So they don’t think about what that says for non-English Bibles if the KJV is really perfect and all.
Now the extreme types won’t have a problem with actually suggesting other languages should use the KJV and even translate from it, rather than original languages. All types would say that English is similar to Greek was when the NT was written, in that it is a worldwide language and most Christians speak it, etc. Although anymore that is not accurate.
The kind of KJVO person I was, the TR Onlyists uphold the Greek & Hebrew behind the TR and Hebrew Masoretic Text. Yet they still have to say God used the English Bible to cement which Greek/Hebrew words are to be viewed as God’s Words — officially Scripture. Some of them view God preserving the words through both Latin and Greek texts and then with the English the best of both streams came into one book. Other’s just mistrust all history and if there is one Greek/Hebrew copy at all of anything similar to a KJV reading, they view that as adequate preservation to still support their view that the TR is perfect.
Anyways, ultimately the position is elitist or arrogant. But then they like to say God chose to give us a perfect Bible in English, the new worldwide/influential language.
However their thinking is faulty. They claim that God would not have kept his promises if they didn’t have a perfect Bible in their language, yet the Chinese don’t have one (according to them), neither do Spanish speakers.
Thanks for the interaction, Gage.
Bob
Ellis,
I too suspect I was further into heresy than I thought. On the other side the position does look far more extreme than when I held it.
However I shy away from saying that their position logically forces them to be virtually equal to the Touchet Baptist people. Here’s why. We humans are often inconsistent with our logic. Many Calvinists say open theism is the logical conclusion of Arminian beliefs. But Armninian’s fire back that fatalism/hyper Calvinism is the end result of Calvinist belief. Both of these claims merely poison the well, as far as I’m concerned. There are godly people on both sides of the fence that wouldn’t dream of going to either extreme.
With the KJVOs there are a lot of misguided people, and some honest people who are confused or just plain wrong. Most of them are still good people, and if we hope to convince them of their error, we better not be lumping them together with the Ruckmanites and Touchet & co.
At the end of the day, it is hard to escape that something like secondary inspiration happened in 1611, according to almost any KJVO or TRO view. But many of them speak in terms of God’s providence and his perfect pereservation. That now with the printing press, he slowly guided his people to accept (as in canonization) and reject readings until the text was settled.
Anyways, that is why I shy away from making such harsh conclusions, if I can.
Thanks, and God bless,
Bob
Yeah, on the KJV issue as with any other Baptist issue, you ask three and you get three opinions. There may be some overlap, but most will rarely be in lockstep. Thanks for being a good example of moderation, Bob.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses support the Critical Text. Islamics support the Critical Text. Should I keep going with some excellent and very nutty evidences against the CT?
Yes, Kent, and then there’s the Eastern Orthodox who still promote the Byzantine text, and pressure or persecute, or at least ostrasize those who use the modern, critical text.
John,
You forgot the Mormons who also use the KJV.
We could all go back and forth here a bit. But I want to correct a misconception. I am not trying to paint all KJV Onlyists with the Touchet Baptist stripe. As the title of this post suggests, it is about a wacky KJVO group, and about an honest KJV advocate.
Now I do hold to the belief that most KJV Onlyists are not owning up to the evidence. They are being dishonest, albeit many are sincere, they just aren’t owning up to the evidence. That is true despite any references to Touchet extremism.
If Pastor Brandenburg wants to get upset, he should pinpoint that main point: that I believe he is being dishonest with the evidence. He doesn’t need to spin this into a broadbrushing attempt by yours truly.
I was upset only until I could find my medications. “Faith is ‘evidence'” (Heb. 11:6). I am “owning up” to evidence. Maybe we should define evidence. Bart Ehrman has lots of evidence maybe we could all own up to.
Do any of you intelligent Critical Text advocates ever actually read the Word of God, i.e. as in meditative, humble, meeting the Word of God at its level? Or do you just sit around deciding what the Word of God is. A progressive, ongoing project I know…
It is unbelievably sad to me that “men of God” will argue for hours over the KJV being the only Word of God. I have read several of these posts and am quite disgusted!!! As a former Independent Baptist who now lives in the real world, I STILL love the Lord and Worship Him everyday! OH my goodness, it CAN be done!! (By the way, I do still use the KJV but understand those who do not use KJVO!)
I believe it is going to be a sad day at the Judgment when Christ calls His Own to answer about this pathetic behavior.
How can a pastor sit for hours and argue a topic like this?? What happened to the Great Commission? Isn’t that why we are on this Earth? What does arguing about KJV have to do with this commandment? Just think if all this energy were put into trying to win souls….the world would be changed! Not only that, but isn’t this arguing taking away from not only your ministry but your family? I read a book by C.S. Lewis recently and one of the thoughts stood out to me…”trying to lead people to Jesus but never knowing Him” Somehow I cannot help but to see some of this in these posts. Jesus spent more time loving rather than judging! And….that is BIBLE! KJV OR otherwise!!
Bob, I must say that I highly commend you for trying to speak to those who are “harmed” by the Independent movement. You have no idea how many thousands of people it has harmed! Good Job!
Now that I am out of the Independent movement, I have met a great share of Godly people (this is not to say that some independents aren’t Godly) and the best thing that I can say about a southern Baptist compared to independent is that southern Baptists aren’t continually trying to harm each other. Why do independents want to harm so many people? After 20 years or more of this movement, I have finally decided to move on with my life and love the Lord with all my heart….This tearing each other apart condoned by independents makes me want to vomit.
the truth of the matter is we do not read the 1611 KJV due to the fact that the 1611 has been revised I believe 15-20 times. And if KJV is the only way, then what do we say to spanish, french, etc. speaking peoples, or are the english speaking nations are the only blessed ones.
>the truth of the matter is we do not read the 1611 KJV due to the fact that the 1611 has been revised I believe 15-20 times. And if KJV is the only way, then what do we say to spanish, french, etc. speaking peoples, or are the english speaking nations are the only blessed ones.
This is typical of the ignorance of followers of the critical text high priests. The KJV hasn’t been revised. Spelling changes aren’t revisions. Do your homework and compare a 1611 edition with a true edition of today such as a Cambridge edition.
As for those who don’t speak English, the subject is the underlying manuscripts, not translation. The Reformation text, the traditional text, was used to translate the Word of God into all the nations effected by the Reformation. The text used today is the text Roman Catholic beast church favored because it undermined sola Scriptura with all its variant readings.
Get out from the darkness of your academic priests (I speak as a Calvinist, hardcore) and discern the voice of your Shepherd who is Christ alone.
Robert K,
Your first post above was almost offensive so I never responded. I and many pastors I greatly respect use modern versions and seriously think and ponder over what God says. God’s word matters to us.
It matters as much as it did to Charles Spurgeon who often used the RV, and John Wesley who produced his own NT with 20,000 marginal notes (many siding with textual variants).
I have examined the 1611 original and compated it to the Cambridge edition of 1769 and have found multiple places (hundreds) where much more than spelling changes are in view. And I’ve examined differences between the underlying Greek text (TR) and the KJV translation.
Truth be told their are many Vulgate readings in the TR. The Western Text which underlies the Vulgate does not necessarily lean more toward a Byzantine text than the Alexandrian text, but their are many Vulgate readings endorsed by the TR. Of course many Vulgate readings are correct and true readings endorsed by TR and modern texts alike. It is a reductionism to imply that the Vulgate supports modern versions and hence the TR is correct over and against modern texts.
Those who don’t speak English are often given a Bible translated from English by many extreme Ruckmanites and KJVO people. Sure not everyone holds to that view. But consider this: would you grant that God’s perfect word is only in Dutch? The Estates General translation was based on Elzevir’s 1633 text (which was universally acknowledged in Europe, but not so in England). It was an excellent translation and benefited from seeing how the KJV translation was accomplished.
Now many English speaking Americans make a big deal of having an English Bible with no errors in it, that is absolutely God’s Words. Yet they have no qualms saying a host of other countries and languages should be fine with only having God’s Word in the Greek, and having only an imperfect translation.
So the way many KJVO people argue tends toward an undue reliance on English. They feel God has to give them a pure English Bible, and they don’t think about their Spanish or Chinese speaking brothers, when they marshall out their pragmatic arguments.
I don’t wish to open a debate with you on this topic, necessarily. But I must answer your comments here.
Respectfully,
Bob Hayton
Birds of a feather flock together.