Part 5: “Now about this KJV-Only-ism . . .”

Warning: Sacred-Cow alert. If you are afraid turn back now!

Fine, don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Of all the issues I have covered so far, reading and or encouraging the reading of a different version of the Bible would alienate me the most from my In-Laws or most of the IFB’s I’ve ever known. Some are so zealous on the subject they wouldn’t hesitate using physical violence. I know I was one of them.

After examining the issue of tithing I started to wonder if there was anything else I may have been mislead on. So I turned to the issue of KJV Only-ism. I had been taught by my IFB mentors about the evils of modern translations. I had also read a couple of books. “Let’s weigh the Evidence” published by Jack T. Chick; “The Answer Book” by Samuel C. Gipp. Even examined a book by Peter Ruckman. I had taught against the NIV, ASV, and several others during my tenure as Sunday School teacher. Often citing scriptures that omitted words that the KJV did not omit. I often summed up my teaching with totals like “the NIV omits the words ‘son of God’ [x] amount of times, the word ‘God’ [x] times, and denies the deity of Christ [x] times!” (Where [x] is some number I can’t remember.) I started examining this issue with the same “reset button” mentality as before.

I’ll sum up my findings but encourage those who would want to know for themselves to research this. The internet is a great resource.

First some basic groundwork. There are basically 2 or 3 different styles of biblical translations depending on who you talk to; Formal Equivalence (aka Literal), Dynamic Equivalence, and some have argued, Paraphrase. The Formal Equivalence style attempts to translate from the manuscripts word for word and often ends up being very accurate but can be difficult to understand due to word usage changing over time. The KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NAS are considered Formal Equivalence translations. The Dynamic Equivalence versions; NIV, NAB, NEB, attempt to preserve the general meaning of the verse and often use words understood by the target audience but sometimes at the expense of accuracy.

Whew! That’s more technical than I wanted to get, sorry about that. Ok, so I started to do some research. I revisited the spiritual arguments of the KJV only people that the Wescott and Hort/Alexandrian manuscripts came out of Egypt and that nothing good has ever come out of Egypt. Egypt represents the world, the world is evil etc. And of course most modern translations are based on these corrupt manuscripts. Also most IFB’s/KJV- Only defenders argue that older manuscripts are not always better. Some IFB’s will even choose the KJV over the original Greek and Hebrew texts when they disagree with the beloved KJV. Some even go as far as saying that the KJV translators were practically inspired by God. Then I found something interesting that I have not been able to disprove: the original preface to the King James Version 1611. (You can Google this for yourself using the following phrases: “Preface to the King James Version 1611” or “Translators to the Reader”. Or use the links on the left. I plan on creating a blog dedicated to this so check back soon.) The preface is written in King James English but that shouldn’t stop any good IFB/KJV-Only advocate from understanding it. After all they argue that the KJV is written somewhere between a 7th – 9th grade level. In it the translators stated the following:


“Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded”

Ok guys, you are NOT helping the KJV-Only movement with talk like this! Get with the program!!

So the translators themselves recommend a “variety of Translations”. Then I also read in the section titled,
“An Answer To The Imputations Of Our Adversaries”, apparently they also had their share of critics denouncing them for creating a new “modern” translation:

“Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet), containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.”

Guys! Your killing me! Stop it! Your telling me that the “meanest” (def: common, low in quality or grade) is to be considered the word of God? So if the NIV existed in your time you would read it and regard it with respect? Then the clinchers:

About correcting translations:

“But the difference that appeareth between our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves be without fault this way (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct), and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem major parcas insane minori: they that are less sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others.”

“Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil [quibble] and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?”

About a “perfect” translation:

“There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak), so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.”

“…it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, …”

Ok, that’s it! Now you’re telling me it is ok to correct a translation in general? Your translation too? Your KJV translation? You then tell me that it is impossible to ever have a “perfect” English translation due to the nature of language? Or perhaps God did this on purpose so we can be humbled and fear him? Stop!! I don’t want to hear anymore! You KJV translators are heretics!! Ungodly men! You need to repent and get right!! (I’m being sardonic of course.)

So what is my point? I’ll sum it up for you. I enjoy the King James. It is still my favorite version. I love how it reads, the majestic sound of the King James English. However, I am not afraid to study out of other versions and now recommend it so you can have a complete “sense of the scriptures” (KJV translators). Obviously there are some versions that are better than others and some versions are just plain wrong (e.g. The New World Translation by the Jehovah’s Witnesses read John 1:1 “ a god?”) I have found liberty and strength in this. Let me explain:

Their used to be a time (when I was a KJV only man) when some of the smallest things would tear me apart because of my belief in a "perfect" translated version. An example that turned my faith upside down for a several days was when the New Testament referred to the Holy Spirit as an "it" in John 1:32. After all only Jehovah Witnesses did that.

Another example is the difference between Matthew and Mark when the Lord is sending the disciples to go forth to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Matthew 10:10 KJV reads:
Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.

Mark 6:8 KJV: And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse;
Mark 6:9 KJV: But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.


Did Jesus want them to wear sandals or not? Take a staff or not?

Now granted I'll even succumb to the notion that in Matthew the Lord said no to shoes but in Mark he said yes to sandals, because the underlying Greek words are different. However if perfection is what we are after why not clarify in Matthew or Mark for that matter. But the stave and staff are from the same Greek word. Wait, these are 2 different events, so never mind? When just about every commentary I've read agrees that this is the same event? Granted they could be wrong (man often is), but I don't know about that.

My point is this, stuff like this doesn't bother me anymore. I'm grounded in the Lord, I've matured in my faith. I believe in the fundamentals. But take a Christian, a young Christian who believes that a certain translation is God's perfect revelation and he may struggle over this. And yes before you ask I do believe that God has preserved his word. It has been said that all manuscripts (or witnesses as some call them) of the Bible agree with each other 99% of the time. That is an awesome statistic!

It has been said by Doug Kutilek on his examination of the “Roots of the KJV Controversy” that the KJV only movement was started by a Seventh-Day Adventist. I have not been able to disprove this either. Is there any historical record of the KJV-Only controversy before 1930? If so please let me know in the comments of this blog. If the Seventh-Day Adventist origin is true (and I believe it is) how ironic! That the IFB KJV-Only movement was started by a Seventh-Day Adventist. Someone slap me with a stupid stick!


Next week: Part 6: “Going to church: like a cow showing up at a slaughterhouse”