Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine
http://www.atlantaapologist.org/kjv.html ^

Posted on 08/07/2003 8:34:50 AM PDT by fishtank

When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

This outline was covered in a lecture of the same topic at the March 1998 ACAP meeting.

1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Thus, the Bible that KJV-Only advocates use omits thousands of verses originally contained in the KJV (just over 5,700) – far more than the few verses found in the KJV but omitted in the NASB, NIV, and other modern translations (such as 1 John 5:7). It is true that the Apocrypha was widely regarded by Protestants in 1611 not to have the status of full canonicity. However, in the original 1611 edition no disclaimer was included in this regard (one was added in later editions). Furthermore, if the Apocrypha were to be included today, KJV-only advocates would vehemently object to its inclusion – a sure sign that its inclusion in the 1611 edition is a significant difference.

2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today.. We are not referring here to spelling changes and the like, or to misprints in later, single editions. Usually the changes are improvements – for example, Matthew 26:36 now properly reads "Then cometh Jesus," where the original KJV read "Then cometh Judas." Not all the changes are for the better, though – for example, Matthew 23:34 in the KJV originally read "strain out a gnat," which is correct, while subsequent editions of the KJV to this day have "strain at a gnat." These facts prove that the extreme KJV-Only belief that even the slightest deviation from the wording of the KJV results in a false Bible is completely unrealistic. Please note that we are not claiming that the differences are vast or troubling from our perspective. We are simply pointing out that the position that the wording of the 1611 KJV is inviolable logically requires that modern editions of the KJV not be used.

3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only doctrine. a. They asserted that "the very meanest [i.e., most common or rude] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." In other words, any translation of the Bible by Christian scholars is the word of God. b. They understood their work as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text, contrary to some extreme KJV-Only advocates who maintain that the original Hebrew and Greek text is nonexistent and irrelevant. c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing alternate renderings – making it clear that the wording of the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or debate. d. They also included variant readings – an extremely important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John 2:23b). e. They acknowledged that they exercised liberty in rendering the same Greek or Hebrew word in a variety of ways for stylistic purposes, again proving that they did not regard their wording as the only possible or acceptable rendering of the Bible. f. They took as a guiding principle the belief that the Bible should be translated into the "vulgar," or common, language of the people – implying that as the English language changes new translations may be needed. g. They asserted that there was value in having a variety of translations of the Scriptures.

4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only Doctrine. a. No verse of the KJV indicates that there can be only one translation in any language. Much less does any verse of the KJV teach (as some KJV-Only advocates maintain) that there can be only one language version of the Bible at a time and that the only Bible in the world today is the KJV. b. The KJV does clearly teach that God's word is pure and that God promised to preserve his word. But in no verse does the KJV indicate that this preservation would occur without variant readings or renderings. To say that God's word is "pure" is not the same thing as saying that there can be no variations from one version of the Bible to another. It is, rather, simply to say that what God has said is absolutely reliable. But we must still determine precisely what God said. Did he say what is in the Apocrypha? Did he say 1 John 5:7? The purity of God's word is an axiom, but it does not automatically answer these questions. c. The KJV does teach that no one should add to or subtract from God's word. This does place a serious responsibility on the textual scholar and the translator; but it does not tell us which English version is correct about disputed verses such as 1 John 5:7.

5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV Bible itself. a. If the KJV-Only doctrine were true, we would expect that quotations from the Old Testament (OT) appearing in the New Testament (NT) would be worded exactly the same. But this is usually not the case in the KJV. Granted, God might legitimately inspire the NT authors to reword certain OT verses. But this explanation does not cover all the evidence. b. The fact is that the vast majority of OT quotations in the NT differ at least slightly. Why would God inspire NT authors to reword OT statements routinely if there is only one legitimate wording for each OT verse? c. In some cases in the NT the OT quotation is presented as what a person in NT times actually read, or could read, in his copy of the OT. For example, several times Jesus asked the Jews if they had never read a particular OT text – and then quoted it in a form that differs from the KJV (Matt. 19:4-5 [Gen. 1:27; 2:24]; Matt. 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 [Ps. 118:22-23]; Matt. 22:32 and Mark 12:26 [Ex. 3:6]). If the Bible is properly worded in only one way and any variant is a corruption of the Bible, then Jesus was asking them if they had read something which, according to KJV-Only reasoning, they could not have read. Elsewhere we are told that a person read an OT text, where the KJV of that OT text differs from what appears in the NT quotation (Luke 4:17-19 [Isa. 61:1-2]; 10:26-28 [Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18]; Acts 8:32-33 [Isa. 53:7-8]). These facts prove that the OT text which the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus himself, the rich young ruler, and the Ethiopian ruler had differed in wording from the OT in the KJV.

6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the Christian faith. In the history of Christianity only two other versions of the Bible have ever been treated as the Bible, and even in these two cases not to the exclusion of other language versions. But those two versions were the Greek Septuagint (OT) and the Latin Vulgate, both of which (especially the latter) are typically rejected by KJV-Only advocates as perversions of the Bible. The Vulgate was treated as the only valid Bible for centuries by the Roman Catholic church in order to maintain uniformity in Bible reading and interpretation. Yet KJV-only advocates commonly regard the Septuagint and the Vulgate texts as false versions or "perversions" of the Bible. To be consistent, then, they must maintain that for over half of church history (over a thousand years) there was no Bible available to anyone outside a tiny number of scholars (if to anyone at all). In Protestantism the belief that the Bible may exist in multiple versions even in the same language has freed the Bible from the monopolistic control of the clergy or the theologians. The KJV-Only doctrine is a reactionary movement, limited almost exclusively to a segment of American fundamentalists (with much smaller followings in other English-speaking countries).

7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the transmission of the Bible. a. According to at least some versions of the KJV-Only doctrine, God preserved the Bible against any and all deviations, so that the true Bible has always been the same. But there is no evidence that this has happened. In fact the Bible and portions of it have been freely copied, re-copied, and translated with great freedom in the first five centuries of the church and in the last five centuries (so far). This resulted in many variations and deviations from the original text. b. The copies of the first 1500 years or so of church history were all produced by hand, and no two extant manuscripts are completely alike. It is unrealistic to expect that before the printing press an absolutely unchanging text would be preserved by anyone – and the evidence from the extant manuscripts proves that in fact it did not happen. c. In the case of the New Testament, the distinctive Greek text tradition on which the KJV was based, known as the Byzantine text, does not appear to have existed in the early church. The best evidence we have so far suggests that the Alexandrian text tradition is the earliest. This claim is vigorously rejected by KJV-only advocates, and the arguments pro and con are many and the issue too complicated for most non-scholars to follow and appreciate. However, a simple observation can here be made even here. For the KJV-only doctrine to be correct, in every place where the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts differ, the Byzantine must always be right. To base one's doctrine on such an unprovable and dubious assumption is not wise.

8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the KJV as God's word. Many evangelical Christians greatly revere the KJV, read it, quote from it, believe it, and seek to live by it, who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.

9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express criticisms of other translations. Many evangelicals who do not hold to the KJV-only doctrine have specific criticisms of other translations. For example, many evangelicals are critical of gender-inclusive translations such as the NRSV. Many evangelicals have pointed out weaknesses or problems in the NIV. Sober criticism of other translations assumes a humble perspective that recognizes that no translator or translators have produced a perfect translation and that translators who make mistakes are not necessarily corrupting God's word.

10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy. A variety of Christian sects of American origin embrace the KJV in more or less exclusivistic fashion. a. Arguably the "Ruckmanites," a fundamentalist Baptistic movement that looks to Peter Ruckman as its primary spokesperson, is a distinct subgroup of American fundamentalism with almost cultish characteristics. Their basic theology seems sound enough, but it is overlaid with such extremism and legalism in its view of the Bible as to undermine its evangelical view of salvation. b. Mormonism uses the KJV as its official Bible, even though Joseph Smith produced an "inspired" revision of the Bible (which some Mormons also use). The Mormons have a strong commitment to the KJV because it was the Bible of the early LDS prophets, the Book of Mormon quotes (indeed, plagiarizes) whole chapters from the KJV, and Mormons have found it convenient to use the KJV in evangelizing especially in English-speaking countries. c. Many Oneness Pentecostals hold to a form of the KJV-only doctrine, especially on a popular level among pastors and laity. In their case they find it convenient to stick with the KJV because in certain places its wording is more compatible with the way the Oneness doctrine is articulated than modern translations (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Oneness Pentecostals often object to arguments based on the Greek or Hebrew as vain attempts to improve on the Bible.

11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we have to trust what scholars say about the text and its translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible requires that we not trust any one translator or translation team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help get at the truth about any passage – or at least to become aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage.

12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians. Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV) "per-versions" of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word, calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original 1611 edition of the KJV, these people "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion.

Bibliography 1. Fundamentalist KJV-Only (and Related) Works

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative Classics, 1977 reprint [1883]. Fuller, Daniel O., ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International, 1978. Hodges, Zane C., and A. L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. 2d ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985. Pickering, W. N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977. 2. Evangelical Works Critiquing the KJV-Only Position

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995. 3. On Mormonism and the Bible

Barlow, Philip L. Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. Religion in America series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.


TOPICS: Apologetics; General Discusssion; History; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 861-866 next last
To: Ryan Bailey; drstevej; CARepubGal; Alex Murphy; xzins; Wrigley
The simple and incontrovertible fact is that the AV1611 is the only true Bible, by this we refer to the one and only Holy Bible authorized for the Church of England by His Majesty King James the VI, and I, for which he was almost exploded in the gunpowder plot credit to the satanic devices of Roman Popery.

Ryan - would that be inclusive of the Apocrypha or exclusive

41 posted on 08/08/2003 6:45:59 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
"there is some mixed bathing going on here"

I presume you mean swimming wearing swim suits.

Commuting to Tokyo and back on the train today, and going about my business in Akasaka, I probably saw more partially exposed lingerie than an ordinary Walmart has on their racks. Seems to be the fashion to "peek-a-boo" the bra and panties these days. Been seeing the occasional translucent-to-the-crotch skirt, too.

Ah, me...all that temptation, and me ugly enough to scare a buzzard off a day-old carcass.

In a way, it's kind of depressing that I can remain faithful to my wife with no effort at all. It's hard to work up a good head of sanctimony when you couldn't stray if you wanted to.
42 posted on 08/08/2003 6:48:24 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dsc
In a way, it's kind of depressing that I can remain faithful to my wife with no effort at all. It's hard to work up a good head of sanctimony when you couldn't stray if you wanted to.

Be thankful for small blessings...I'm single, and sometimes see way more than I should, or want to...Jesus said we would have trials, but why does there have to be so many like this?

43 posted on 08/08/2003 6:55:02 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Let God be true, and every man a liar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dsc; drstevej
It's hard to work up a good head of sanctimony when you couldn't stray if you wanted to.

...a prisoner in your own body - I know thy curse -

Im so fat that when I jump in the pool - the water jumps out

Im so hairy it looks like Ive got Don King in a headlock

Im so ugly the starving dogs I scared off the meat wagon, vomited, ate it, and vomited again......and then ate grass and vomited again

44 posted on 08/08/2003 6:58:49 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Dude, that's not good!

My problem is I'm too average. Don't have any money, don't have any land, don't look like a movie star, so they won't take my hand....seems like they're always holding out for a better deal.

45 posted on 08/08/2003 7:05:58 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Let God be true, and every man a liar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ryan Bailey
I left Rome and never did convert to the KJV, but to Jesus Christ only.
46 posted on 08/08/2003 7:17:55 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
Pope Piel (to be) is doing mixed bathing while Bishop Vicki Gene is doing
whatever, let's not go there now.
47 posted on 08/08/2003 7:19:32 AM PDT by fishtank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: nobdysfool
My problem is I'm too average. Don't have any money, don't have any land, don't look like a movie star, so they won't take my hand....seems like they're always holding out for a better deal.

- hey I dont feel so bad now LOL - I have $ & land and look like a cross between Lyle Alzado (before he died) and Dom Deluise -LOL - trouble is that when they find out Im owed rent money by various supermodels, they run away, fearing my standards are too rich and demanding

49 posted on 08/08/2003 7:29:18 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
I'm just lucky that "fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down" doesn't translate into Japanese.

I went to have a suit made (true story) and the guy said the bolts of cloth they used weren't wide enough to cut one for me.

Now I just go to the sporting goods store and have them sew two tents together.

The other day someone tried to have me arrested for a terrorist act...showing my face in public.

My computer monitor quit working. I took it to the shop. The guy said it was an apparent suicide.
50 posted on 08/08/2003 7:31:53 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Frumanchu
As I recall, the 1599 Geneva was the second or third revision (read 'easier to read'). Whether by 12 years or 50, it still doesn't change the fact that your statement was false :)

And as I said, I'll stand by my statement. I gave the reasons for my statement, but nothing has been given to show that I am wrong in my statement other than you claim it to be false.

I'll give credit where credit is due, and if information can be provided (website links or books listed) that I could review, I am open to adjusting my statement. Thing is, I have yet to run across anything to make me change my stand. From my review if the Geneva Bible, It is a wonderful source for study, and has much in common with the King James, but the king James eventually replaced the Geneva Bible, and was the standard for 350+ years. Most bibles today, no matter the source of their translations, look more like a king James Bible in format than the Geneva Bible.

51 posted on 08/08/2003 7:35:08 AM PDT by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool

52 posted on 08/08/2003 7:36:53 AM PDT by Revelation 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: drstevej
BTW, I am on vacation right now and there is some mixed bathing going on here

As long as its not nekkid mixed bathing, you're O.K.

53 posted on 08/08/2003 7:39:50 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Sorry, doesn't do a thing for me....
54 posted on 08/08/2003 7:52:38 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Let God be true, and every man a liar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Hey! Wait a sec! I thought Catholics forbid people to read the Bible until the Protestants did their own translation??? Now I find out that no Bible existed before 1611??? What's up with that?

I can't figure out how the books contained in the Bible were codified by the Council of Carthage in 397 AD when the Bible didn't exist??? What were people using before 1611?

I'm sorry I was not clear. My statement is in regards to formatting, layout, etc. Of course there were bibles, or at least collections or scriptures that could be reviewed. I dont' think that God would hide his word from us between 397 AD and 1611 (which also shows I have problems accepting several of the teachings of more cultic modern day churches who claim they are the "true, restored church")

As others point out, there were the Geneva and Tyndale Bibles (just to mention a few). Some were poor, some very good. All though worked to fulfill the command Jesus gave (witness ...unto the uttermost part of the earth.).

My statement is just that if you take just about any bible off the shelf and compare it, they will look more like a King James in layout, style and format, than they would to the Geneva or other earlier Bibles.

The king James Bible set many standards that had not been in Bibles before it, many which are still followed today.

55 posted on 08/08/2003 7:54:23 AM PDT by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
You win. I can't top that.
56 posted on 08/08/2003 8:06:36 AM PDT by dsc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Wallace T.
I'm independent Baptist. The church I attend fals not into either your hard core or soft sore KJV lists.

We do not believe that the King James is divinely inspired. Only the originals were inspired. Even those who organized the King James say they were not inspired. We do believe that the King James is the preserved word of God.

In cases like Gail Riplinger... I have read "New Age Bible Versions". Interesting Book. Like all things though, we must be like the Bereans and test what is written against the scripture. Riplinger makes some good points, but not all of it can be taken as fact.

57 posted on 08/08/2003 8:11:38 AM PDT by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Bard
We do not believe that the King James is divinely inspired. Only the originals were inspired. Even those who organized the King James say they were not inspired. We do believe that the King James is the preserved word of God.

I can live with that...I object to the inordinate worship of the KJV that some engage in. I'm with you, it's a translation (and overall a very good one), and by virtue of the fact that it has stood the test of time, I don't think God has a problem with it. I have used, and still consult regularly, the KJV, although I recently bought an NKJV, which I find to be very readable, yet familiar. I consult various translations in my study, and find them useful and enlightening. I have a brother who is a Greek and Hebrew Scholar, seminary educated, and he is a valuable source when I want to chase down difficult concepts and see what the the original languages have to say.

I see the KJV-Only attitude as very juvenile, divisive, and possessed of a party-spirit, and not a biblical attitude at all. To me, it's a ruse by satan to get Christians fighting with each other rather than fighting him.

58 posted on 08/08/2003 8:35:21 AM PDT by nobdysfool (Let God be true, and every man a liar...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: fishtank
I left Rome and never did convert to the KJV, but to Jesus Christ only.

THIS IS WHAT MATTERS!!! Amen!

God makes us a promise:

And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
- Jeremiah 29:13 (KJV)

To the best of my knowledge, that is in all Bibles. I personally prefer the King James Bible, but the first Bible I truely studies was the New Living Translation. God's Promise is that we shall find him if we search with all our heart. God never says that only if you are reading a King James Bible will you be saved (and anyone who says that is wrong!).

When I was studying using my New Living Translation, God was working on my heart. I have since studied about the differenced between bible versions and prefer the King James. I personally believe that the King James is the preserved word of God. At the same time, the "errors" (differences between bible translations) were things that had not even occurred to me. When I was using the non-king James Bible, I was seeking GOD, to to discover errors in bible translations. God kept his promise in Jeremiah 29:13.

59 posted on 08/08/2003 8:45:41 AM PDT by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Revelation 911
Some things are just wrong...... ;)
60 posted on 08/08/2003 8:48:55 AM PDT by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 861-866 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson