When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine

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.

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.

It was Frances Schaffer’s son Franky. 622 posted on 08/27/2003 12:09 AM PDT by Calvinist_Dark_Lord ("I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum!" -Roddy Piper)

Yeah, exactly... See #617 (beat ya to it, hah hah).

What can I say, out reflexed by somebody (barely) young enough to be my son. (sigh) I suppose that is why they don’t put old men on the front lines of either debate or combat, we don’t react as quickly, and it takes longer to recover physically and mentally.

You know, CDL, I'm beginning to think that we should just tag-team these threads:

I was trained by the infamous "David K", the Terror of the National Debate Circuit -- I'm happy to say he loved me, "apple of his eye" (it's been ten years and even now his name still inspires fear -- it's actually kinda funny)... whereas you, you actually debated against him in Competition.

You know everything I know, except that you're a Born Calvinist (and they say infant baptism "doesn't matter"), faithful to Blood and Family (not that there's anything wrong with that - I Cor 7:14); whereas I'm a White Trash, wrong-side-of-the-tracks, "Zealotry of the Convert" kinda guy.

We really should just tag-team. Otherwise, it's not even fair.

FAIR???? You do realise of course, that there are already a great number of people out there who believe that you and I are actually the same person? It is of course, not true, ~the difference in styles is self evident to anyone with eyes~ it should have been self-evident on those rare occasions where we have faced each other in "mortal combat".

I'll buy the beer, you debate. Next round, you buy the beer, I'll debate. My only demand is the Second AFF Constructive. Everyone has their virtues -- I couldn't always handle the Negative Block when we switched speakers (and my partner never could, grumble grumble)... but I own the Second AFF Constructive. Most of the debates I ever won (and I did win a few, on my way to the Nationals) stopped right there -- GAME OVER, halfway through.

i usually took the first affirmitive myself, simply because i’m far more brutal, and being older even back then, (i was in my thirties in college) i had skin like a rino, and was extremely good at turning cross exam against the Negative (or the AFF). A couple of times i was warned, but the old army sergeant in me never relented. As a negative i was usually second, and i prefered the second Neg. i especially liked the inside/outside style, where i’d take second negative constructive and first rebuttal. That way your thought doesn’t get interrupted. Of course it did not much matter, the infamous David K. kicked me all over Wake Forrest, as he did everyone else on his way to a national championship, (actually it was a fairly close round). i still from time to time get nightmares about the round with Dartmouth, Harvard’s team were wimps compared to Dartmouth. Everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong.

We do have one modification that needs be discussed: The sewer swill that you call beer is definitely a non starter. We have to at least stick to quality microbrews, hangovers are bad enough, i refuse to spend a day thowing up my internal organs, another fact of aging.

You do realise that we are likely to start the "Scottish Revival" (a concession to the fact that your ancestry is, I believe, German), in that the number of people posting against us will decrease, and that will not make the powers that be happy. Of course, we could go against each other from time to time to amuse the Lurkers.

Ahhh (grin). Good times. Old times.

Indeed, glory days, such as they were. i’d still insist on taking my late 40’s brain with me if I had the chance to go back.

Regards,

CDL

A horrid thought: What do we do if the Infamous David K. should show up here? (gasp!) It will really ruin our image.

Let's see.

I said: "I hope you will take the time to review those letters of Westcott & Hort." and posted extended selections of W&H's private letters to demonstrate that they had secret purposes and belonged to secret occult organizations and worked to fulfill a hidden anti-orthodox agenda.

You responded (twice): "Again you really make me wonder if you're being disengenuous or purposely ambiguous."

Maybe this makes sense in some alternate universe but I'm at a loss to explain your remarks or insinuation or whatever it is.

'Disengenuous' (assuming you mean 'disingenuous') I understand. You're accusing me of misleading by quoting actual selections of the two top attackers of the Textus Receptus and all the bibles which were translated from it. A strange disingenuousness to be sure.

But I don't quite grasp 'purposely ambiguous'. I understand 'purposely' as meaning 'deliberately'. But 'ambiguous'? I posted documentary evidence of that which you were scoffing over, in W&H's own words. Exactly how is that 'ambiguous'?

I assure you that I have no reputation at FR for being anything but blunt. I am very seldom accused of some hidden agenda.

The irony here is that you started by joining p-marlowe in scoffing at these secret groups who march about corrupting the scriptures. When I posted their own words on exactly how they did do that and formed the occultic organizations that rotted the Anglican church from within starting in the nineteenth century, all of a sudden you decide that it is me who is being 'ambiguous' or somehow deceptive.

Now, exactly why shouldn't I think that such a reaction to evidence (contrary to someone's cynical scoffing) isn't evidence of a psychiatric condition or someone in deep deep denial?

OPie, maybe you can parse this steaming heap.

God expects more of the saints.

I think He expects us to face the facts, to love the truth.

Well, I loved posting the truth about Westcott and Hort.

I posted their private letters. You apparently refuse to believe what they say. You tell us how busy you currently are but spend time here at making repetitive little comments which take more time than just reading the evidence I posted. You and p-marlowe were wishing for someone to post this evidence, scoffing that it doesn't exist.

But now, you're too busy to read it. Don't have time to post. Accuse people of being disingenuous. Or 'purposely ambiguous' which might be itself a purposely ambiguous tactic. (See, I can sue it too, whatever it means.) Or you're to busy lecturing people that 'God expects more of the saints' to actually read the precise information that you were asking for and scoffing at the existence of.

BTW, are you aware Westcott and Hort practiced the blasphemous and satanic Communion Of The Saints? Do you know what that was? One of them did it regularly and used his Anglican church for the purpose alone at night according to his daughter's statements.

I think He expects us to face the facts, to love the truth.

Hey, we agree on something. From the Bible and the Spirit's lead I believe the Godhead expects us to not just love the truth, but express the truth in love, not ridicule. Not try to see who can be more clever in putting fellow saints down.

Many engage in this behavior so I'm not picking on anyone in particular. To say it in a different way, I believe we should express the truth as best we can, without spin. As a teacher of the Bible I take this responsibility seriously as expressed in the Bible.

I apologize for not having the time to post here but my work schedule is very hectic and I'm quite busy when I'm not working. I wouldn't even know of this thread if Dr. Eckleburg hadn't pinged me to it in post 395; and since I was pinged I have to comment when I see fellow saints posting half truths. I certainly don't want others thinking I might agree with it, therefore my comment in post 586.

Back to the issue: there's a lot more to this that you're not posting. Please consider James 3:1 in your posts. Now I'm gone again until tomorrow or the next day.

And ???? Your point? There is no one on FR that can be classified a ""hyper Calvinist" There are some borderline personality disorder among the arminians though *grin*

Well, at least Arminians have personalities. ;) If I were you, I would not be so quick to say there are no hyper-Calvinists on FR. There are at least two Calvinist KJVonly types on this thread alone.

Do you deny common grace? Do you deny the free offer of the gospel? Based on you past posts, I think in all honesty, you would have to say yes to one or both question

And your answers to these two simple questions are?

I think you need to know that every Calvinist here has challenged among others Mormonism and presented the gospel

I do believe that Ihave done the same. I think it would not be unreasonable to say that I have been as much the cause of the Mormons going to the moderator to get threads pulled because I have painted them into corners from which there was no escape. I trust that you recall my three questions which conclusively proved that the Mormon Man-God doctrine was logically impossible.

The difference between us and the often silent Wesleyans and Arminians is we are not afraid of scaring someone off by giving the gospel . (I remember threads that not one non Calvinist could be found giving the gospel.While the Calvinists fielded question and gave the message of the scriptures) How many times have YOU done it this week?

Outside of FR, at least three times this past weekend alone. Can't really comment on Wesleyans, but I think Arminian pastors preach Gospel messages on a far more regular basis than most Calvinist pastors. The Arminian pastors I know do not hesitate to mention the consequences of not having Christ as one's Savior.

We happen to also believe that doctrine is important to God and Bad doctrine is displeasing to Him.

You said you checked out the web site of the church I attend and commented that you thought it was a good church. It happens to be much more Arminian than Calvinist, but certqinly is not even close to the stereotype some Calvinists have of Arminianism. An who is the judge of good and bad doctrine? Calvinists?

Calvinists do not have a one dimensional faith that asks for emotionally experiences at their church service so they feel good about being a Christian, and then after the service hide the great commission till next week.

Most Arminian churches do not try to manipulate people on an emotional basis. Certainly some do, just as some Calvinists churches are so unfriendly and cold-hearted it could lead a reasonable person to question why anyone would want to be a Christian if you had to act unhappy all the time. NOTICE I SAID SOME, NOT ALL, OR EVEN MOST.

Hey Connect we happen to REALLY believe what we say

I have never questioned that, nor have I ever questioned or expessed any doubt about the salvation of any Calvinist on these threads; have I?

I think the quote that you cite proves the point that Kenyon was approaching the scriptures as any other manuscripts in his method, not necessary in his belief. And how else does one handle the manuscripts? On what basis did Erasmus handle the multiple manuscripts that he had? On what basis did he choose the "correct" rendering? On what basis will you? Are you going to choose the most accurate copy by fiat? You certainly appear to be doing so. This is why I think your entire argument fails here.

Not at all, there is a difference in approach to the manuscripts.

Those who think that God Himself has preserved His manuscripts will look for those manuscripts which best glorify God, hence the TR manuscripts.

The naturalistic approach, seeing the manuscripts preserved as any other human document would not take those readings into consideration.

Thus, for Westcott and Hort, Doctrinal passages were actually considered suspect because they did glorify God (they believed a zealous scribe added to the word)

One could view the scriptures as being verbally inspired and still hold to a incorrect method.

I do not question those mens sincerty or motives, but only their methodology.

Burgons approach was opposite to theirs and that is why even Pickering and Hodges do not use it, but still hold to a naturalistic methodology.

Where are the letters you posted? Thnx. ... I will read them. I LOVE stuff like that.

I'd love for you to read them.

First, check out P-Marlowe's #403 and scripter's #405 remarks to the effect that 'There aren't a bunch of people out there trying desparately to change everyone into new age Gurus by tampering with the Bible and putting out "new age versions" like the New King James.'

Then look at my extended selection of quotes from the letters of Westcott & Hort in #457, published in separate books by their sons after their deaths, which shows exactly the conspiracy the scoffers denied. P-Marlowe went poof and disappeared, scripter won't acknowledge them and is desperately looking at the corners of the room and calling me 'deliberately ambiguous'.

Those letters are only the beginning of the evidence on those two secret heretic translators. Their spiritualism and involvement with Communion Of The Saints are also well-attested by their friends and families.

People need to understand that this all occurred in an era where the high Anglican clergy idolized Darwin (so they wouldn't have to believe creationism) and engaged in blasphemous and anti-Christian occult practices like the Communion Of The Saints. This was the same period when the Jesuit-instigated Oxford Movement was so strong, both in Britain and in America, where some Anglicans tried to undermine the Church of England and romanize. A number of high Anglicans converted, for instance, John Henry Newman who followed the example of an Oxford professor named Ward whose book of Marian devotion also included justificatoins for the advanced Christian doctrine of 'mental reservation' which meant concealing your ties and devotion to Rome as a Protestant clergyman while undermining your own Protestant church and leading others to romanize with you. Most people are unaware of how powerful the Oxford Movement was. At the time, Tract 90 was key to undermining the English churches and, incidentally, an attack on the KJV. The Oxford Movement was, along with Christian Darwinism and the first publication of modernist bibles from inferior manuscripts, the beginning of the real attack on the soundness of mainstream Reformation churches. It's continued ever since, right down to the recent appointment of the sodomite Episcopal bishop.

Burgons approach was opposite to theirs and that is why even Pickering and Hodges do not use it, but still hold to a naturalistic methodology.

Burgon was a true scholar, one who actually engaged in a vast and comprehensive research of all the sources. His textual methods meant truly exhaustive and exhausting research in text. In his work, he pointed out just how shallow and unscholarly the early textual critics really were, that they were lazy in a way never before seen among Protestant bible scholars.

The modernists have it easy. They just make stuff up. Literally. Their 'scholarly' methodology is a lot like the methods of the modern Jesus Seminar. No surprise, they're birds of a feather.

Burgon was one of the last truly first-rate scholars of the Bible and its underlying Greek texts. Singlehanded, his work undermined Westcott and Hort enough to delay their modernist translations for generations. Only after a century passed and in a modern dumbed-down America could these bibles obtain their current popularity.

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.