Check out my site compiling resources on the KJV Only debate: “The King James Only Research Center”. Also go over to our team blog: King James Only?
Overview of the Issue
coming…
My Blog Posts on the Topic
a list is coming…
Other Recommended Sites and Articles
See my KJV Only Research Center for a fuller list, but here are some of the best:
- Doug Kutilek reviews David Sorenson’s book Touch not the Unclean Thing
- “The Preservation of Scripture” by William Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
- “Errors in the KJV” by William Combs
- “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus” by William Combs
- “Preface To The King James Version And The King James-Only Position” by William Combs
- Doug Kutilek on the true origins of KJV-onlyism
- Pre-1881 conservative defense of critical text readings (article hosted by bible-researcher.com)
- “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism” by Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary
- Dan Wallace discusses the thousands of differences between the Vatican (B) and Sinaitic (Aleph)manuscripts
James R White has a good book called THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY CAND YOU TRUST THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS? Long title but refutes each of the King James Only arguments and defends many of the misinformation KJ only people give about other translations.
Jason I recommend that book as well. Check out my KJV site if you get a chance.
Blessings brother,
Bob Hayton
The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism by D. A. Carson, Baker publisher
Have yet to read but a former Pastor highly reccommends
Thank you for letting me know about the “errors” in the KJV.
This is a big help in my walk with God. Do you have any articles on the errors in the new bibles?
I would love to read them. My faith just grows when I read that stuff!!
David
I have read your blogs, and understand your comments. But if you will read the new versions, and note the words that are left out. Not this the thee and thou, but words like Blood, Christ, The Son of God. I believe and preach that the only way of salvation is by the Blood. Salvation by Grace through Faith. Eph. 2:8,9. I am not trying to argue, but only want people to open their eyes and heart and let the Holy Spirit lead them. That is what we miss today. II Peter 1:21 God Bless You
Tim,
I appreciate your kind comments here.
Sorry it took so long to respond (I’ve been battling colds and have been otherwise occupied).
Anyways, there are 2 ways to look at words “left out”. They are either “left out” or “added in”. I hope we agree that we want to be most accurate to what God actually said.
There are many places where the KJV leaves out words that are in the modern versions. Also, as in the places about the blood, there is no systematic removal of the teaching on the blood. Even if in one or two places the word is removed. Same with the titles of Jesus.
There are places where the modern versions are more clear and direct about the deity of Christ than the KJV. We have to be careful about judging texts and translations by how doctrinal they sound versus how accurate they are. There is much evidence that some copyists and editors spruced up the text to make it sound more theological and orthodox. There is also evidence of times when heretics tried to cut out words and books from Scripture. All this needs to be considered when we look for the correct and accurate reading.
In the KJV 1 John 5:7 is a clear proof of the Trinity. But sadly, those words were added to Scripture. They are only present in the text in 4 copies (only 1 of which dates earlier than the 12th century). They go back to one scribe who added in words from a commentary/sermon in the margin of his copy, and later copyists thought those words were original to the text. If 1 John 5:7 had been original, it would surely have been cited in the doctrinal controversies surrounding the Trinity in the 3, 4 and 500s. But it wasn’t.
What is amazing about this example is that the Church still came to the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, even without the words of 1 John 5:7 to give it further credence. So here we see how God preserves proper doctrine even when he allows a mistake to be perpetuated for a while in this text. The words of 1 John 5:7 are not Scripture they have been added to Scripture. We must be honest and admit this, even though the words themselves are good and true.
I hope that helps you somewhat in understanding where I’m coming from in this issue.
Thanks and God bless,
Bob Hayton
Bob…
Not sure if you have been reading my blog lately…but thought you would like my current series, since it hits on KJO in the latest post…
Hope all is well.
Very informative and thank you. This is surely an important issue which must be addressed precisely and without bias. I share your opinion that, just because something may have been added in or taken out does not necessarily make it less true, but that it is still important to know the true origin in order to assess its value and of course to clarify its meaning and context.
I’ve been an avid user of the NIV for years, but this year the Lord led me to use the KJV.
Then I came across a passage in I Kings that I did not understand so I tried to look it up in the NIV to get better understanding. It wasn’t there. It was then that I decided to not rely on the NIV so much.
Just a note to bring perspective. The “KJV Only” issue is an English language problem. There are several other major languages in the world with a good translation of the Bible (French [Darby or Louis Segond], Spanish [Reina Valera], German, etc.). In view of this, the KJV becomes one of many decent translations. Would someone say you have to read the Bible in English in order to find the Word of God?
I like what Ed said. From many KJVO people, I do get the impression that the English Version of the KJ is the only valid version.
This is a local church issue that must be decided on the local church level. Pastors should lead this charge. The rest of us should find a church that preaches truth and support it.
We spend too much time arguing about this rather than winning souls for Christ and honoring God with our lives.
God has preserved His Word. He didn’t tell us how He would do it. I’ve read most of the new translations. Still preach out of the KJV and like it. But don’t see the need to bash other Bibles. Nor do I see the need to “critique” and look down on those who choose (through their own God-given free will) to make it their Bible.
I agree with Dan, I have studdied the issue for quite some time myself. I believe the KJV to be the most accurate. If someone wants to read another version then that is their perogative. I believe that these new versions were just made so that men could make a profit off of the Bible. The King james is copyrighted with the crown copyright. No one owns the copyright. I can quote the KJV, but i cannot quote the NIV with the same freedoms. Another point that I find interesting is that the same man that owns the copyright to the NIV also owns the copyright of the satanic bible. Just something to think about before you buy your next Bible.
Emmett, it is true that you cannot freely quote the NIV. Here is an excerpt from a web site usage guide:
“These Scriptures are copyrighted by International Bible Society® and have been made available on the Internet for your personal use only. Any other use including, but not limited to, copying or re-posting the Scripture on the Internet is prohibited. These Scriptures may not be altered or modified in any form but must remain in their original context.”
Also from the same source:
“These Scriptures are not public domain. These Scriptures are not shareware and may not be duplicated.”
However, your statement about the copyright owner of the NIV and the satanic bible being the same man puzzles me. The NIV copyright is clearly owned by the International Bible Society, while as far as I could determine, the copyright to the Satanic Bible is owned by Harper Collins publishers. Just who is this mysterious person you refer to, who supposedly owns copyrights in a bible translation and in a book by satanist Anton LaVey?
Can anyone use the entire translations of the KJV Bible modify and copyright there modifications?
Theoretically possible, perhaps. I’m not entirely sure, Stephen.
On my blogsite I have included a short but great article by Dr Joel Beeke, advocating the use of the Authorized King James Version in our day. My blog is: youngpuritan.wordpress.com
I trust it will be of some help in moving away from a non-reformed and unaccademic arguments for the KJV, which the KJV Only advocates have been using for many years – which does not serve the cause of God and truth.
PM,
I have no problem with using and preferring the KJV. But labelling everyone who doesn’t as heretics is a bit more problematic. I think you’re right on. I don’t think the KJV is supported by the best manuscripts however….
I’m interested in checking out Beeke’s article too, and will do so when I have some time.
Blessings in Christ,
Bob Hayton
Alright. I’ve been to Bible College, and it supported using the KJV for many reasons. There were several men who translated it, not just one denomination, one man, nor were they out for money. Greek and Hebrew are hard languages to translate from and most often the KJV lets you decide what you believe the passage says by using Greek and Hebrew helps, whereas the new translations make that decision (I have taken Greek and know this to be true). Almost all, if not all, new translations use the Alexandrian texts for their main basis, which these copied scripts are so filled with allegorical interpretations that it takes away what exactly was trying to be expressed. There are other reasons but let me say this. Yes, other versions can be used to help understand a passage and at school we weren’t afraid to look at them. As was said earlier, the KJV is in English not the original languages. If we really want to learn look up those.
After preaching in an SBC (Southern Baptist Convention -Church), for two weeks filling in, I had a gentleman follow me into the parking lot and want to know why I chose the NASB over the KJV (he was a KJVO’er). I informed him that I “was” a KJVO guy, until I went to Seminary and Undergrad Bible College and learned about the credibility of the Word, the canonization, and the Greek. That really didn’t matter to him. I had to politely explain that the Bible was not written in English and all we have are “translations.” He ignored me. I informed him that the textus receptus (KJV) Greek manuscripts were hundreds of years younger than the Codex Signaiticus (NIV) and other Greek manuscripts. That didn’t mean anything. I then showed him that Paul utilized the Greek Septuagint OT and not the Hebrew, which is used in the KJV. He didn’t care.
So, I dropped the bombshell on him? Did Solomon have 4,000 stalls or 40,000? which is it, in the KJV 1 Kings says one, while 2 Chron. states another.
Also, John 5:3b-4 do not exist in any early Greek manuscripts, only in the Latin Vulgate, and on and on I went. He looked at me and frowned and said, “Well, this is the only Bible.”
I then frowned all the home shaking my head…in that some pastors are so ignorant to actually teach an inspiried English Version, which is a translation from a Greek manuscript, of a copy from the original autograph. Sheesh…ignorance is bliss!
Here is a link from 2004 on Rebecca Writes blodspot that really turned my head in right direction:
Why King James Version Onlyism Denies Sola Scriptura
http://everydaymusings.blogspo.....enies.html
Also mostly reformed sola-scritura types (DA Carson, James White) but different views at
http://www.theopedia.com/King_James_Only_movement
Well, actually that’s not correct. The KJV translation resulted from a fear of King James I that the Geneva Bible was a threat to his authority. That is the sense it in which it is the “authorized” version. It’s a little naive to assume that didn’t influence the translation. Don’t misunderstand: I respect the KJV, and consider it a fine translation, completely sufficient to give a reader all the knowledge possible of God, His righteousness, and His mercy in Christ. I just object to the mythology that surrounds it.
Actually, the KJV was a result of a political move on the part of King James to help the Protestants, Catholics, Baptists, etc. to tide the dissensions and infightings among Christians. Of course there were things that had influence, the words themselves show that. Such as Easter (which comes from a pagan goddess) being in Acts, the use of baptism instead of immersion or dipping, the use of church mostly when a called-out assembly or just an assembly would have worked. Also, among the translators there were even men who weren’t religious. As to the mythology, I think that you’re talking about the KJV being the only translation to use and is inspired. As I said before, I use the KJV because it lets me decide what I want to believe because I can look up the terms for myself, and it seems to be the best translation from a conglomeration of the copied texts that have been found. Yet, I’m not afraid of looking at others for clarification if they provide it.
Thank you for your comment and have a great day!