KJV Onlyism - its problems" /> KJV Onlyism - its problems" /> KJV Onlyism - its problems" />

King James Onlyism (KJVO), commonly called thus, asserts that the Authorized Version, known in America as the King James Version, is the only English translation of the Bible that has God's blessing on it.  In its more extreme forms, KJVO advocates assert that the English KJV Bible is verbally inspired itself (ie...in contrast to the doctrine of inspiration usually reserved for the original Greek/Hebrew manuscripts).

 

This erring ideology views with disdain the modern English translations mainly due to their use of the Wescott-Hort Greek NT textual as the basis of translation. While we would actually agree with a problematic Wescott/Hort Greek text supremacy common in academia....there are valid arguments in regard to the underlying Greek text question where KJVO adherents are on the right side.  If it were only this simple though.

 

We will now examine a few bad arguments used by those holding to KJVO.  We agree with the KJV-only crowd in one way, in finding no value in the Wescott & Hort Greek text-type.

 

To have a point of comparison and explain the concerns we have with KJVO advocacy....let us look at the KJV vs the NKJV.  As stated above, the NKJV and the KJV are on the correct side of the underlying Greek text debate...so this allows us to limit the review of KJVO by showing how they unfairly abuse the NKJV- which again- has the same basic underlying Greek text stream (Textus Receptus/Majority Text). In doing so it helps us see the errant mindset of KJVO.  Examples:

 

1 Corinthians 1:18

  • KJV      For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
  • NKJV      For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Discussion:  Two complaints emerge by KJVO here. 

  1. That the translation "message" (sometimes 'word') should not replace "preaching".  Answer:  The Greek word is "logos" which we are familiar with from John 1:1 "in the beginning was the word...." We believe that "message" is a superior translation for 1 Corinthians 1:18, being better than "word" (being more literal) or "preaching", which is a bit of a stretch to use. Preaching is not in view here, but the message that is preached is in view. Note that the proper Greek word for preaching is used in verse 17 as a compounded word. Here in verse 18 the message of the cross is in view, rather than the preaching of it. In verse 17 Paul tells us he was sent to preach the gospel, here in verse 18 the emphasis is on the message itself, not the preaching of it. Some think the message is foolish, some know it is the very power of God.
  2. An understandable and very serious theological error is asserted in using the phrase "are being saved" instead of "are saved."  It sounds like salvation is a process-the error of Rome.  Answer: The Greek New Testament has here has present passive participles. Grammatically there is no doubt that "are being saved" is technically very correct. Also, the context of the passage is not discussing nor teaching that salvation is a "process" nor that a person is (or is not) able to say "I am saved" right now. KJVO argument is based on a perception- a Roman Catholic inference- where surety of salvation is missing by the suggestion that salvation here is a process in the non-KJV translations. This is never a safe reason to hold a position, though it is understandable. But if we look at the context and the Greek all is clear, and the Romish view is not taught with the NKJV translation. What the passage is contrasting is two groups of people, those in the sphere of perishing, and those in the sphere of having salvation. The message of the cross to one group seems foolish, these are the perishing ones. Those that are being saved by God see the message of the cross as being the power of God for that salvation.  A person is either in the perishing camp or being saved camp.  

2 Corinthians 2:17 

  • KJV     For we are not as many which corrupt the word of God
  • NKJV   For we are not, as so many, peddling the word of God

Discussion:  It may to the casual reader seem odd to even argue this variation in translation, but it is one frequently used. Answer: The Greek word here is kapeleuontes which means "adulterating for gain."  Since the underlying meaning of the term has to do with the preacher who preaches for (monetary) gain, it is evident that "peddling" is a more precise translation, and implies a mis-use of ministry for personal gain. Of course the person doing this is also corrupting it, so the fullest meaning is caught by the NKJV. And how the present day shows a host of false teachers making $$ off peddling the word of God as if it is merchandise for their prosperity.

 

John 1:12

  • NKJV    But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
  • KJV    But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name

Discussion: A KJVO missionary to Eastern Europe that we know, was working with Christians there to obtain a copy of what was considered a very good and old Romanian Bible. This verse is interesting even in Romanian. In a sense, this Bible would have been the Romanian equivalent of the English KJV- "sons", and one of the "test" verses used to determine a good version was John 1:12. This is because in the Romanian language it translated John 1:12 with the Romanian word for "sons" instead of "children." Ah, the KJVO missionary liked that! The challenge for us here is that the translation they sought was probably a very good one, but the absurdity was their terrible litmus test/demand for the male gender word "son" in translation here at John 1:12, when the Greek word underlying all texts of the NT at this spot is teknia...meaning children. This is an example of finding a good Bible for all the wrong reasons...the tinge of the bad logic of KJVOnlyism. 

 

John 1:3

  • KJV    All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made
  • NKJV    All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made

Discussion: The KJV-onlyist sees this as a denial of Christ as Creator or weakening of His absolute Deity. This is a common method of disputing, demonizing the non KJV translation. Answer: The Greek word here is dia (through) and not en (in/by). Therefore "through" is appropriate. The Greek prepositions en, dia, and eis are all used in Colossians 1:16, telling us there that by Christ, through Christ, and unto/for Christ were all things created. Here in John 1:3 the Holy Spirit directed John to write "through" and we are quite right to read as does the NKJV. Are non KJVO only grammarians ok with "by"?  Yes, but "through" is more accurate.

 

Now for a look at the Old Testament, where Hebrew is in view-

 

Genesis 3:4-5

  • KJV     And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil.
  • NKJV     Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil.

Discussion:  The KJVO complains that to use a capital "G" here is blasphemy. Answer: Yes it is, and the one speaking is a blasphemer (we will use a capital, and say The Blasphemer).  It is the Serpent speaking here, instigating by his deception, the Fall of Man. Are we really being spiritually minded in even arguing this point?  In fairness, elohim is a plural word. But its not that simple.

 

Now to balance the discussion a little, not being merely defensive, here is just one example of the superiority of the NKJV over the KJV, keeping in mind that this is certainly not a promo for the NKJV over the KJV (we actually recommend the latter for reasons outside the scope of this article). Also, we do not recommend for primary use any of the English translations based on the NA/USB (Wescott Hort) text such as NIV/ESV/NASB:

 

Titus 2:13

  • NKJV    looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ
  • KJV    looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

Discussion: Here the Granville Sharp rule (see Daniel Wallace in his Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) helps us identify that the additional word "our" in the KJV is incorrect, and masks a beautiful verse concerning the Deity of Christ. Jesus Christ is God and Savior. The KJV reading makes one think that God -and- our Savior are in view for appearing, attaching the words "Jesus Christ" to "Savior" but separating Him from "God" by the insertion of the word "our".  2 Peter 1:1 does the same. Of course we who are not in the KJVO camp point this out due to the undesirable but felt necessity of debunking KJVO. We recognize that 2 persons can be in view here within Trinitarian orthodoxy, since the Father and the Son are both God. Yet the blessed hope, the appearing, is of one Person, who is God and Savior.

 

post script:

 

  • In Romans 5:8 we prefer the KJV "commendeth" over the NKJV "demonstrates" because the former catches in inflection of the Greek word, where God's love is being presented to the conscience, rather than merely demonstrated for analysis. What this should mean to the reader is not that we have an unsure word in the English Bible or have to be questioning it constantly; but instead, that we have a rich heritage. The KJV tradition, we believe without hesitation, is the right one because of its underlying Greek Text. We can find value in other translations when appropriate, as well (2 Timothy 3:16 NIV (gasp) - all scripture is God-breathed...is beautiful but not found in a KJV tradition Bible).
  • Despite academia's almost slavish use of the Wescott Hort tradition, this blog isn't merely a critique of KJVOnlyism, but hereby includes a denial of such modern translations as being valid or primary texts - too many cracks in the foundation. To the KJV-onlyist, we plead for a change from the demand and need your position has, of an English Bible perfection apart from spiritual scholarship, reason, and debate. Scholarship can be a pied piper, but so has KJV Onlyism proven to be, by standing on weak ground indeed. 
  • KJVO are on the right side in many ways, but this often plays out in an almost cultish way, where orthodoxy is predicated on using the KJV. An interesting contrast is the pied piper mentality of modern Greek grammarians who are as slavishly tied to the Wescott-Hort manuscript tradition as the KJVO person is to his English translation. We'll say no thank you to both.

 

Recommendation:  use the KJV and NKJV. Refer with caution to other translations such as the NIV, NASB, ESV, Darby. Not much caution will be needed, by the way, we have a very sure Word of God in our hands.

 

This article is not making an official position of WBC oversight- there is hesitancy to act thus, lest we be in the same dogmatic channel of having a litmus test that exceeds orthodoxy. Instead it is offered to the Bible Teacher in particular in light of scriptural injunction to test all things, and to be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 

 

 

Read more:

1. Textual Criticism in general

 http://www.wheatlandbiblechapel.org/blog---truth-20/P-alignleftTextual-Criticism-54605

2. The English Bible: How we got it

http://www.wheatlandbiblechapel.org/blog---truth-20/P-alignleftEnglish-Bible-How-we-got-it-51378