Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Where the King James Only Crowd Goes Wrong

Over the past couple of days, I have found myself involved in a number of discussions about the the Bible, specifically the King James Version. It would seem that there is a group of folks who believe that the King James Version is the only translation that can be used, that it is God's Word handed down from on high.

One thing about Christians is that we love to argue with each other. As a family, the family of God, we disagree all the time. As long as we agree on the major doctrinal issues, the other items are open for discussion. The problem arises when that arguing becomes dirty and the intent is no longer to debate, but instead to defame and destroy.

This, I believe, is where the King James Only crowd gets it wrong. They do a lot of things right. They honor God's Word, they believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, and they believe that salvation comes through hearing the Word of God preached. But where they go off the rails is when they begin attacking the other translations, the individuals who worked on the translations, and the individuals who use the other versions. I have been called "worldly", had my salvation questioned, and have even been referred to as a "Bible perverter".

Please notice I have not made any assumptions or accusations about this group's beliefs. They are entitled to hold what beliefs they would like. I have no issue with the King James Version. I grew up using the KJV, it was the required translation in college, and my pastor at my church preaches and teaches from it. My problem arises when something that is clearly a preference becomes a measure of my spirituality and the attacks become personal. What we need to remember is that unsaved individuals are watching us and if our disagreements with each other continuous, why would they ever want to be a part of it?

Author's note: I do not want it to seem that all KJV Only folks are vicious and mean. I'm sure that the mean ones are probably a very miniscule part of the movement. I also want it to be known that folks who do not ascribe to the KJV Only stance can be just as caustic.


  1. while i havent seen much of this on the group you posted this to on Facebook (you know you're a baptist when...) I know that sometimes people can be harsh when defending their position.

    Being KJV only is not a preference however. the Bible tells us in Psalms12:6-7" The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." There were 6 translations before the King James bible. 1. Tyndales Bible 1525 2. Coverdales Bible 1535 3. Matthews Bible 1537 4. Great Bible 1539 5. Geneva bible 1560 6. Bishops Bible 1568 and then 7th. King James Bible 1611

    the other versions are taken not from the Textus Receptus but from Vanicanus 350 AD Sinaitcus, Alexandrian, and Jerome's Vulgate 382 they were put together by Westcott and Hort who said that the King James bible was archaic and they were going to change the thees and thous and other things, but what they didn't tell you was that they were not going to be using just the Textus Receptus. So therefore the other perversions (versions) are not the true Word of God.

    God bless you

  2. Thank you for your comment, Mandy. However, you did exactly what I described in the post. By calling the various translations "perversions", you made attacks, not only the Bibles themselves, but on the individuals who use them. I do not want to question your belief on this issue, but I think you may be grasping a bit with the KJV being the seventh and, therefore, chosen translation. Thank you again for your comment.

  3. I've grown up using the KJV, and I've come to understand quite a bit of what some of the archaic terms mean (thanks, Strong's concordance!), but I have YET to figure out what a "turtle's voice" sounds like (Song 2:12) :)! When people start discussing which original manuscript is "more accurate", I get a headache, especially when they become ugly and attack the person of the translators. That cannot be the "fruit of the Spirit" (inmo). The only thing of which I can be certain is that God loved me enough to offer His Son in my place, and I don't really think that the version I read can negate/nullify/water down that fact!