[color=CC3333]During my time here on the SI forum I have been involved in numerous conversations concerning the KJV vs. Modern Versions. As a result of these conversations I have been labeled “King James Only”, and informed that I am part of a cult. (I also want to state clearly that I have also made several good friends on this forum who have debated this issue with me, and disagreed with me)

I found the following article today, and I believe this is an excellent explanation of my own position. I agree with this article completely and it states clearly where I stand on the issue of the King James Bible. It is well balanced and wise.

So… for anyone who is interested in knowing precisely where I stand on the KJV, please read the following!

Krispy[/color]

[i]There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Onlyism." This term has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about an alleged dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define this term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are lumped together and labeled with a term the meaning of which is nebulous.

The term "King James Only" was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of the extremism.

I have been labeled "King James Only" because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions and my defense of the King James Bible. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. I know from decades of experience and extensive travels that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

[b]I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:[/b]

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me "King James Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me "King James Only." I have spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are unbelievers, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don't have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me "King James Only." The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is "King James Only," count me in.

Similarly, if "King James Only" defines one who rejects the theory that the "preserved" Word of God was hidden away in the Pope's library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me "King James Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God in this century, call me "King James Only."

[b]I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF "KING JAMES ONLY" IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:[/b]

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only. The King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term "inspiration" refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, "We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have 'the words of the Lord.'" To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only." In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the English Authorized Version is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek text that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only."

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only." God's people should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," we know that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. I encouraged my youngest son to begin studying Greek in high school, and he is scheduled to have four years of Greek and two of Hebrew when he graduates from Bible College. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the Received Text.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only in English, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only." The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only." (I also believe that a good translation can be made directly from the King James Bible when necessary if it is done by men who are capable in the use of dictionaries so that they understand the somewhat antiquated language of the KJV properly.)

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only." It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes that the King James Bible's antiquated language is holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only." I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable, in my estimation. Having dealt constantly with people who speak English as a 2nd or 3rd language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology.

If "King James Only" defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth because they refuse to follow his peculiar views, I am [b]not[/b] "King James Only."[/i]

Hi Krispy, who wrote this, please? Shouldn't the credit be given?

I think perhaps the author meant 'censure', when he wrote 'approbation' here:

Great find Krispy!

_________________
Mike Balog

Dorcas... the author was David Cloud. I left his name off at first on purpose because if I put his name at the top of the article then many people would not read it because they have a misconception of David Cloud.

I have corresponded with David Cloud on a couple of different topics, as well as discussed his missionary work with him. He can come across very harshly in some of his writings, but I have found him to be very gentle in spirit and quite funny at times.

Krispy

What is your response to this criticism of the KJV-only crowd?

" The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500's. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the New Testament authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based the Textus Receptus, just at the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV as heretical just as they do the NIV, NAS, etc. Attempts have been made to "modernize" the language in the KJV, using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. An example of this is the KJV21 - http://www.kj21.com/ All the KJV21 does is update some of the archaic language of the KJV. Yet, it is rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus."

The above is quoted from:
http://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html

What is wrong with the [b]NEW[/b] King James Version of the Bible? It simply updates the archaic language of the 1611 to our modern usage.

There is mention of another modern translation of the King James Version called the 21st Century King James Version. I have never seen this new translation and I don't suppose you have either, so I am not going to ask you to comment on it. Just address the issue of the NKJV. If there is nothing wrong with the NKJV in your eyes, then indeed you are not KJV only.

Krispy,
What do you think of the "Evidence Bible" from Ray Comfort's ministry? Or J.P.Greens Literal Version of the Holy Bible? Any insight on those like you gave on NKJV?

Interesting found this on websearch for different translations that are based on Textus Receptus:
[url=http://www.biblestudysite.com/adulter.htm]http://www.biblestudysite.com/adulter.htm[/url]

I also found interesting in my search that there are "KJV 1611 only" people. However, I could not find anywhere why 1611 only? What do they see wrong with the updated KJV's?

_________________
Neil Long

Hi Krispy...

Thank you for the article. I am glad that you have clarified your position much more than some of the KJV-only guys that sometimes write posts. In my opinion, you do not fall into the KJV-only crowd, but rather a "strongly preferred" crowd.

Me? I am still content (in good faith) to prefer the KJV for study -- while also consulting the NIV. I still believe that the KJV is the best translation derived from the Textus Receptus, while the NIV (1978) is the best translation taken from the other sources.

If someone (like a new convert) asks me which version they should read, I often tell them a little about the versions themselves. I tell them that the NIV is a good choice if they have trouble with archaic early 17th century English. But I also make them gently aware of the opinions of various academics. I suggest that they eventually learn to use the KJV.

:-)

_________________
Christopher

From what I have read about Green's Bible, it is "ok", but does have some issues. I dont remember right now what they were, but I remember thinking that in my opinion they were not big issues. I think Green is headed in the right direction.

I dont know anything about the Evidence Bible.

KJV 1611 Onlyist are out on the fringe. They are of the belief that God inspired the translation just as He did the orginals, and therefore the 1611 is perfect and needs not to be messed with.

I reject that line of thinking.

Krispy