why king james only?

The King James Only movement (also known as King James Onlyism) asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. Adherents of the King James Only movement, mostly members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Conservative Anabaptist, traditionalist Anglo-Catholics Conservative Holiness Methodist, and some Baptist churches, believe that the KJV needs no further improvements because it is the greatest English translation of the Bible which was ever published, and they also believe that all other English translations of the Bible which were published after the KJV was published are corrupt.

These assertions are generally based upon a preference for the Byzantine text-type or the Textus Receptus and they are also based upon a distrust of the Alexandrian text-type or the critical texts of Nestle-Aland, and Westcott-Hort, on which the majority of twentieth- and twenty-first-century translations of the Bible are based. Sometimes these beliefs are also based on the view that the King James translation itself was inspired by God.

Christian apologist James White has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:[1]

These classifications are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a comprehensive summary describing those who prefer the KJV. Douglas Wilson, for instance, argues that the KJV (or, in his preferred terminology, the Authorized Version) is superior because of its manuscript tradition, its translational philosophy (with updates to the language being regularly necessary), and its ecclesiastical authority, having been created by the church and authorized for use in the church.[6]

Although not expressly "King James Only", The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recommends the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible.[7]

Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) in which he asserted that some of the new versions of the Bible came from manuscripts with corruptions introduced into the Septuagint by Origen and manuscripts with deletions and changes from corrupted Alexandrian text. He criticized Westcott and Hort, believing they intentionally rejected the use of the Textus Receptus and made changes to the text used in translation using their revised Greek text based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.[8]

Gail Riplinger (born 1947) has also addressed the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible in some detail.[9] A lengthy critical review of her book New Age Bible Versions, originally published in Cornerstone magazine in 1994, authored by Bob and Gretchen Passantino of Answers in Action, described the book as "erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and logically indefensible".[10]

Jack Chick (1924–2016), a fundamentalist Christian who was best known for his comic tracts, advocated a King James Only position.[11] His comic Sabotage portrayed a Christian whose faith was shipwrecked by the rejection of the King James Version as the Word of God, only to be rescued by another character's defense of the King James Version.[12]

Joey Faust, a Baptist pastor and researcher, is the author of The Word: God Will Keep It: The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement which documents a number of KJV Only proponents throughout history.[citation needed]

The 2015 Manual of the Bible Missionary Church, a Methodist denomination in the conservative holiness movement, states: "We wholeheartedly endorse the use of the Authorized Version (King James Version) of the Bible as the final authority in our English-speaking churches and schools. We also go on record as being opposed to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, The Living Bible, the New English Translation of the Bible, the Reader's Digest Condensed Version, the New International Version and the public use of other modern versions."[13]

The Church Polity of the Dunkard Brethren Church, a Conservative Anabaptist denomination in the Schwarzenau Brethren tradition, states: "To aid in Scripture memorization among our members and our children, to help avoid confusion and to promote sound doctrine in our services, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible shall be used in our Sunday School, Bible Study, and church services. Exceptions may be made where languages other than English are necessary."[14]

Agapé Boarding School in Missouri endorsed the King James Only position. One student said that when he first arrived at the school, he was strip-searched and his Bible was thrown in the trash because it was not a KJV.[15]

Other organizations and individuals promoting the KJV Only include:

KJV onlyists often criticize how new versions do not feature some verses that are found in the KJV. For example, some of the verses in John 5 and John 7 are left out from modern versions.[35]

Most new versions do not have the Johannine Comma ("the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"), because it is not found in any of the earliest manuscripts.[36][37] However KJV onlyists often defend this reading by quoting early church fathers, who sometimes used phrases similar to the reading. This reading is also defended by claiming corruption of the early texts, such as the Sinaiticus. KJV onlyists have also claimed that the absence of the reading causes a grammatical error in the Greek.[36]

For example Cyprian seemed to quote the comma, and this has been used by KJV onlyists to defend the verse:

Most new versions do not have Acts 8:37, because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts.[38] KJV onlyists will also defend the verse by using quotes from early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, who seemed to know the verse, which predate the earliest manuscripts available:[39]

The KJV translates ᾅδης (hades) and Γέεννα (Gehenna) both as "hell", unlike modern versions of the bible which transliterate ᾅδης as 'Hades'. KJV onlyists criticize that the idea of Hades being separate from hell is an idea from Paganism and not biblical.[40]

KJV onlyists often claim that the Alexandrian text-type is corrupted. KJV onlyists cite early church fathers as evidence for the corruption of the Alexandrian texts, for example Origen is cited to have said that changes were made in the manuscripts. KJV onlyists will argue that older readings are not necessarily better.[41]

B. G. Wilkinson at Washington Missionary College writes in his book Truth Triumphant:[42]

John William Burgon opposed what he called the "two irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge" (Brooke Foss Westcott and Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort) and their revised Greek Text.[43]

KJV onlyists favour the Masoretic text over the Septuagint,[44] and KJV onlyists sometimes argue against the common belief that the New Testament quoted the Septuagint.[45]

KJV onlyists argue that copyright incentivizes Bible translators to make substantial changes to the Bible, in order to claim copyrights.[46]

The Holy Bible: An Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI. Oxford: The University Press, 1833, "a scrupulous original-spelling, page-for-page, and line-for-line reprint of the 1611 edition (including all chapter headings, marginalia, and original italicization, but with Roman type substituted for the black letter of the original)" cited in Footnote d above. Complete pdf of the original book.

By Dr. Richard Flanders

Ours is a church that has decided to stick to the old "King James Version" of the Bible. The multiplication of "modern language" English Bibles is one of the most important religious phenomena of recent years. It is our view that the production of these new translations has served to undermine the spiritual foundations of our country and weaken the message of her churches. The new versions are not really better than the old one. The abandonment of the King James Bible by our churches has not been a good thing. We are going to keep the old Bible for several compelling reasons.

Some new Bibles are dangerous because of the theological bias of their translators. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible was presented to the public as a completed work in 1952. It was authorized by the notoriously liberal National Council of Churches. The unbelieving bias of the majority of the translators is evident in such readings as Isaiah 7:14:

"Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." (Revised Standard Version)

The difference between this reading and the way the verse reads in the King James Version is very important. The old Bible says that "a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son." The liberal bias against the doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is reflected in the R.S.V. translation of this verse. The word used in the original Hebrew has long been understood to mean specifically a virgin in this context, and is incorrectly rendered "young woman" by the R.S.V. To make matters worse, this liberal version translates Matthew 1:23, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." This is a correct rendering of the Greek, but with the incorrect translation of Isaiah 7:14 in the same Bible, the impression is given that Matthew misquoted Isaiah. Not only is the doctrine of the virgin birth undermined in the Revised Standard Version, but also the doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible! No fundamentalist Christian would accept as his standard a theologically liberal translation of the Bible like the R.S.V.

The Good News Bible (or, properly, Today's English Version) was translated by neo-orthodox Richard Bratcher, and purposely replaces the word "blood" with the word "death" in many New Testament passages that refer to the blood of Christ (such as Colossians 1:20, Hebrews 10:19, and Revelation 1:5). Bratcher also replaces the word "virgin" with "girl" in Luke 1:27. His theological bias ruins his translation. Other versions, such as the Phillips translation and the the New English Bible, were also produced by liberal or neo-orthodox religionists. For this reason, we will not use them.

Many in the pew do not know that most of the more than 100 new versions of the Bible are not translated from the same Hebrew and Greek texts that the King James translators used! When somebody says that the translation of a certain verse in the King James Version is "unfortunate," usually the problem is text rather than translation. In the late 1800's, a committee of British and American scholars began work on a revision of the King James Bible. It was decided by them that the Greek text of the New Testament used in the translation of the old Bible was seriously defective. Although that text represented the New Testament as it had been accepted by most Christians over the centuries, it was spurned because it disagreed with some of the older manuscripts. Almost all of the new versions are actually translations of the new Greek text generated by this committee. This new text is significantly different from the traditional text.

When the reader comes to John 7:53 - 8:11 even in conservative translations such as the New American Standard Bible or the New International Version, he finds the whole story of the woman taken in adultery set apart with lines or brackets. A note is placed in relation to the bracketed section that says something like this:

"The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have John 7:53 - 8:11."

Something similar is done to the great commission in Mark 16:9-20. What the textual critics of a century ago were saying, and what the new versions are saying, is that a large amount of the New Testament read, believed, preached, and obeyed by most of our spiritual forefathers was actually uninspired material added to the text! If this new textual theory were true, it would be revolutionary news to the church. However, the new theory is still very controversial. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." (Matthew 4:4) Every man needs every word of God! A man's needs will not be met unless he has received "every word" that God has spoken. So said the Lord Jesus. Jesus also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35). With that promise, Christ assured us that the very words we need in order to live as we should would be preserved throughout the ages, through wars and persecutions and disasters, even through the fiery end of creation!

So-called "textual criticism" is more faith than it is science. If one studies the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament with the belief that God has preserved His Word through the years, he will come to different conclusions than one who studies the same documents with the belief that such preservation is unlikely. Much of the work is guess work and many of the conclusions are debatable. For this reason, thoughtful conservative Christians will decide that it is safer to stay with the traditional text than to adopt the revised one. The only widely used English versions that are translated from the traditional text are the King James Version and the New King James.

Christians ought to be interested in having the very words of God, since this is what Jesus said we need! The King James Version is what scholars call "formal equivalence" to the original text. Others, however, seek "dynamic equivalence." The "formal equivalence" approach seeks to express in English the meaning of the words in Greek. The "dynamic equivalence" approach seeks to express the meaning of the writer in modern idiom. Anyone who takes seriously our Lord's admonition in Matthew 4:4 will want a "formal equivalence" translation. Several of the new versions do not offer this to us. The so-called "Living Bible" does not even pretend to be a translation of the words. Copies of this book clearly identify it as a "paraphrase" of God's Word. Dr. Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible, and freely admitted that it was his paraphrase of the Scriptures. In other words, he was putting the Bible into his own words. When a pastor reads John 3:16 to his congregation Sunday morning, that is one thing. When he rephrases it in his own words in order to explain what the verse means, that is another thing. Preachers make it clear when they are reading God's Word and when they are paraphrasing it. It's acceptable to paraphrase the Scripture in explaining it, but it is unacceptable to confuse the paraphrase with the actual Word! The Living Bible is not a Bible; it is Dr. Taylor's paraphrase of the Bible. Please keep in mind the distinction. Sadly, the result of Dr. Taylor's paraphrasing was not always very helpful, even though he claims to hold "a rigid evangelical position" in his theology. For example, in I Samuel 20:30, he introduced vile profanity into Holy Writ without warrant from the original text!

The very popular New International Version is a "dynamic equivalence" translation. Its "rival" among "conservative" modern versions is the New American Standard Bible, which is a "formal equivalency" translation (but of the new text). The looseness of the N.I.V.'s translation is admitted by the publishers and well-known. The scholars who did the translation believe that it is possible and beneficial to put into English what the writers of scripture meant, rather than what they actually said. One great problem with this approach is the element of interpretation that is introduced into the translation process. To translate is to put it into English. To interpret is to explain what it means. Experts will say that all translation involves some interpretation, even when this is not the object of the translators. However, much more interpretation will go on when the composers of a new version try to convey the thoughts rather than the words.

Advertising for the New International Version has often included references to the translation of Job 36:33. Promoters of the N.I.V. ask us which version we would rather read.

"The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour." (King James Version)

"His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach." (New International Version)

Without question, the N.I.V. reading is clearer. However, which translation represents more accurately the meaning of the Hebrew words in this verse? The truth is that this is a hard verse to read and understand in Hebrew as well as in the King James Version! Any good technical commentary will tell you this. the New International makes it clearer than the original Hebrew! Actually, the N.I.V. interprets for us what the translation committee thinks the passage means, rather than what it says. The King James Version tells us what it says and leaves to us, as much as possible, the business of interpreting what it means. This is an important distinction. If we let the translators interpret the Bible for us, we might as well let the priest do it! Our belief in the Priesthood of Believers calls on us to reject highly interpretive versions.

Proverbs 22:28 says, "Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set."

In the spirit of the fifth commandment, we are to honor the traditions given to us by the previous generations of our people. Of course, if such tradition contradicts Scripture, we are to reject it in favor of what the Bible says. "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3)

We never elevate tradition to the same level of authority as Scripture. But we should give our forefathers "the benefit of the doubt." We should also be careful to preserve all we can that is truly Christian about our culture.

The King James Version of the Bible has played an important and unique role in the development of American culture. It could be said that the foundation of our society was Holy Scripture. The theology of the Bible influenced the ideas behind our Constitution. The language of the King James Bible was scattered throughout our early literature. The revivals that formed and changed our culture resulted from the preaching of Bible texts. For many years, Americans knew a certain amount of Scripture by heart. Many or most could quote at least part of the Twenty-third Psalm, and recognize the Beatitudes, the Ten Commandments, and parts of the Sermon on the Mount when quoted. But now the influence of the Bible has waned significantly. One reason for the decline of Biblical influence has been the loss of a standard version of the Bible.

For most of our first two hundred years as a nation, the King James Version was the Bible to most Americans. Even after so-called "modern" versions became popular, the King James Bible continued to be the version memorized, quoted, and publicly read most often. With the demise of the old Bible, our country has been left without a standard text of Scripture. Who can quote the Twenty-third Psalm any more? Who knows how to repeat the Christmas story? The question always arises, "Which version?" Everybody realizes that our nation's spiritual and moral foundations have been crumbling, but few have understood how the multiplication of Bible versions has contributed to the decay. We will stick with the King James Version out of concern for our country' future, if for no other reason! Why should conservative Christians join in the mad movement to throw away the standards that made our country good? Our Constitution is jealously guarded against change by an elaborate and difficult amendment process. If it takes two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states to change one sentence in the Constitution, why should the churches be so willing to accept great changes in the Bible without serious and extensive "due process"?

Believe it or not, some of the features most criticized in the King James Bible are among the best reasons to keep it! For example, consider the "thee's" and "thou's." The King James Version was not written in the everyday language of people on the street in 1611. It was written in high English, a very precise form of our language. In modern English, the second person pronoun is expressed with one word, whether in the singular or the plural. That word is "you." Most other European languages have both a singular and a plural pronoun in the second person, as well as in the first and third persons. The first person singular pronoun in the nominative case, for example, is "I," while the plural is "we." The third person singular pronoun (also in the nominative case) is "he," while the plural is "they." Modern English, however, has only "you" for all its second person pronoun uses. High English uses "thou" for the second person singular, and "you" for the plural! In this way, the King James Version lets us know whether the Scripture means a singular "you" or a plural "you." "Thou" or "thee" mean one person's being addressed, and "ye" or "you" mean several. This feature often helps us interpret a passage.

The King James Only movement (also known as King James Onlyism) asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. Adherents of the King James Only movement, mostly members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Conservative Anabaptist, traditionalist Anglo-Catholics Conservative Holiness Methodist, and some Baptist churches, believe that the KJV needs no further improvements because it is the greatest English translation of the Bible which was ever published, and they also believe that all other English translations of the Bible which were published after the KJV was published are corrupt.

These assertions are generally based upon a preference for the Byzantine text-type or the Textus Receptus and they are also based upon a distrust of the Alexandrian text-type or the critical texts of Nestle-Aland, and Westcott-Hort, on which the majority of twentieth- and twenty-first-century translations of the Bible are based. Sometimes these beliefs are also based on the view that the King James translation itself was inspired by God.

Christian apologist James White has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:[1]

These classifications are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a comprehensive summary describing those who prefer the KJV. Douglas Wilson, for instance, argues that the KJV (or, in his preferred terminology, the Authorized Version) is superior because of its manuscript tradition, its translational philosophy (with updates to the language being regularly necessary), and its ecclesiastical authority, having been created by the church and authorized for use in the church.[6]

Although not expressly "King James Only", The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recommends the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible.[7]

Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) in which he asserted that some of the new versions of the Bible came from manuscripts with corruptions introduced into the Septuagint by Origen and manuscripts with deletions and changes from corrupted Alexandrian text. He criticized Westcott and Hort, believing they intentionally rejected the use of the Textus Receptus and made changes to the text used in translation using their revised Greek text based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.[8]

Gail Riplinger (born 1947) has also addressed the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible in some detail.[9] A lengthy critical review of her book New Age Bible Versions, originally published in Cornerstone magazine in 1994, authored by Bob and Gretchen Passantino of Answers in Action, described the book as "erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and logically indefensible".[10]

Jack Chick (1924–2016), a fundamentalist Christian who was best known for his comic tracts, advocated a King James Only position.[11] His comic Sabotage portrayed a Christian whose faith was shipwrecked by the rejection of the King James Version as the Word of God, only to be rescued by another character's defense of the King James Version.[12]

Joey Faust, a Baptist pastor and researcher, is the author of The Word: God Will Keep It: The 400 Year History of the King James Bible Only Movement which documents a number of KJV Only proponents throughout history.[citation needed]

The 2015 Manual of the Bible Missionary Church, a Methodist denomination in the conservative holiness movement, states: "We wholeheartedly endorse the use of the Authorized Version (King James Version) of the Bible as the final authority in our English-speaking churches and schools. We also go on record as being opposed to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, The Living Bible, the New English Translation of the Bible, the Reader's Digest Condensed Version, the New International Version and the public use of other modern versions."[13]

The Church Polity of the Dunkard Brethren Church, a Conservative Anabaptist denomination in the Schwarzenau Brethren tradition, states: "To aid in Scripture memorization among our members and our children, to help avoid confusion and to promote sound doctrine in our services, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible shall be used in our Sunday School, Bible Study, and church services. Exceptions may be made where languages other than English are necessary."[14]

Agapé Boarding School in Missouri endorsed the King James Only position. One student said that when he first arrived at the school, he was strip-searched and his Bible was thrown in the trash because it was not a KJV.[15]

Other organizations and individuals promoting the KJV Only include:

KJV onlyists often criticize how new versions do not feature some verses that are found in the KJV. For example, some of the verses in John 5 and John 7 are left out from modern versions.[35]

Most new versions do not have the Johannine Comma ("the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one"), because it is not found in any of the earliest manuscripts.[36][37] However KJV onlyists often defend this reading by quoting early church fathers, who sometimes used phrases similar to the reading. This reading is also defended by claiming corruption of the early texts, such as the Sinaiticus. KJV onlyists have also claimed that the absence of the reading causes a grammatical error in the Greek.[36]

For example Cyprian seemed to quote the comma, and this has been used by KJV onlyists to defend the verse:

Most new versions do not have Acts 8:37, because it is not found in the earliest manuscripts.[38] KJV onlyists will also defend the verse by using quotes from early church fathers, such as Irenaeus, who seemed to know the verse, which predate the earliest manuscripts available:[39]

The KJV translates ᾅδης (hades) and Γέεννα (Gehenna) both as "hell", unlike modern versions of the bible which transliterate ᾅδης as 'Hades'. KJV onlyists criticize that the idea of Hades being separate from hell is an idea from Paganism and not biblical.[40]

KJV onlyists often claim that the Alexandrian text-type is corrupted. KJV onlyists cite early church fathers as evidence for the corruption of the Alexandrian texts, for example Origen is cited to have said that changes were made in the manuscripts. KJV onlyists will argue that older readings are not necessarily better.[41]

B. G. Wilkinson at Washington Missionary College writes in his book Truth Triumphant:[42]

John William Burgon opposed what he called the "two irresponsible scholars of the University of Cambridge" (Brooke Foss Westcott and Professor Fenton John Anthony Hort) and their revised Greek Text.[43]

KJV onlyists favour the Masoretic text over the Septuagint,[44] and KJV onlyists sometimes argue against the common belief that the New Testament quoted the Septuagint.[45]

KJV onlyists argue that copyright incentivizes Bible translators to make substantial changes to the Bible, in order to claim copyrights.[46]

The Holy Bible: An Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI. Oxford: The University Press, 1833, "a scrupulous original-spelling, page-for-page, and line-for-line reprint of the 1611 edition (including all chapter headings, marginalia, and original italicization, but with Roman type substituted for the black letter of the original)" cited in Footnote d above. Complete pdf of the original book.

The fundamentalist movement is cocooning itself into a safe web of tradition that will eventually squeeze the very life out of it. It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress.

Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy. Some groups are claiming that this is the hill on which to die, the main issue by which to tell a fundamentalist from a liberal.

So what is it anyway? The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others.

KJV Only Arguments

1. The King James Version is based on the “Majority Text” over against the modern versions that are based on the corrupt “Alexandrian Texts.” Response: Most of the Byzantine texts used by the King James translators come from the 11th and 12th centuries. We have since discovered many older and more reliable manuscripts, which are closer to the original writings of the Bible authors. By comparing the earlier manuscripts to the later ones, we can see how the flourishes and additions of scribes can corrupt a text over time, leading us to believe that many of the “Alexandrian manuscripts” are closer to the originals and the majority of Byzantine texts altered. If the controversy were truly a textual issue, one wonders why the Greek scholars in the KJV camp have not come up with a modern English translation based on the texts they deem “inspired.” The textual issue is actually a smokescreen which hides the true reason for rejecting modern versions: any update of the KJV is considered tampering with God’s Word.

2. The modern translations attack the deity of Christ by removing references to his lordship. Response: The Byzantine texts have the additional “Lord” and “Christ” added to the name of Jesus in many places where the older, more reliable texts do not. These are most surely the results of ambitious scribes, seeking to show reverence to the Savior or simply making mistakes in copying manuscripts. There are many examples where the deity of Christ is made clearer in modern translations than in the KJV. (Jude 4, Phil. 2:6-7, Acts 16:7, 1 Peter 3:14-15, John 14:14)

3. Heretics, occultists and homosexuals were on the translation committees of modern versions. Response: This is an all-out attack on the character of faithful believers who have sought to use their linguistic skills in offering an accurate translation of the Scriptures. The biblical linguist B.F. Westcott is consistently attacked, due to negligence in confusing him with the spiritualist W.W. Westcott. If there is anyone whose salvation should be questioned due to their “fruit,” it would be some of the extremist KJV Only advocates, whose polemic, vicious rhetoric is not becoming of a believer in Christ.

4. The modern translations delete verses from the Bible. Response: Based on the older and more reliable manuscripts, the modern translations have simply sought to reflect what was contained in the original manuscripts. It is just as serious to add to Scripture, as it is to take away from Scripture. The starting-point for KJV Only advocates is that the KJV is the standard to which all other translations must bow, which is also the position they seek to prove. Thus, they employ circular reasoning that will not allow them to see any other position as possibly correct.

5. The 1611 Authorized Version is the preserved Word of God in English. Response: No one today reads from the 1611 version, which also included the Apocrypha. The 1769 revision is the most common version of the King James translation, and this one includes thousands of differences compared to the original.

6. The modern translations promote a “works-salvation.” Response: Virtually all of today’s cults (excepting the Jehovah’s Witnesses) prefer the King James version over the rest, including the Mormons, who also preach a “works-salvation.” Of course, this does not negate the worth of the King James version, but we could use this argument if we were to employ the same tactics of the KJV Only crowd. Compare Revelation 22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (KJV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. (ESV) If we were to use the KJV Only logic, we could assume on the basis of this verse that the King James translators were conspiring to take us back to the chains of Catholicism, while the ESV translators are translating faithfully God’s Word. Of course, this would be a ridiculous assumption, but it is the kind of reasoning that KJV Only advocates employ. Even John R. Rice, the founder of the (now KJV-Only) Sword of the Lord admitted in Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible that the KJV renders Revelation 22:14 incorrectly and that the ASV is more accurate here.

7. The newer versions include footnotes which offer different renderings of certain words or verses. These footnotes confuse the reader and undermine the doctrine of inspiration. Response: The 1611 King James Version also included thousands of footnotes which offered different readings for different verses. We should be grateful for today’s translators, who in the spirit of the King James tradition, have been intellectually honest when rendering exceptionally difficult verses about the limits to their knowledge.

King James Only is the belief, found among some English-speaking Christians, that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is either the best translation, or the only reliable or genuine translation of the Bible in modern English. It is most prominent among fundamentalist Independent Baptists and is also found in other churches from the Mormons to the snake handling sects to some ultra-conservative Anglicans.

Some people may just like the KJV's text better than other texts (e.g. they were raised with it, or think its language has more gravitas as in "Judge not, that ye be not judged. . ." as opposed to "Do not judge, or you too will be judged"[2]), but the usual justifications for this position are that the modern translations were from "corrupted" manuscripts, or were done by a conspiracy of Bible-denying Satanists, liberals and secular humanists, or some combination thereof.[3] The most likely reason, though, is they like all the "thees" and "thous" and God saying "behold!" like the world's most powerful used car salesman, and believe them to have some kind of mystical woo when speaking of the deity that modern English does not have. This is exactly why the KJV was written in language that was a bit archaic even for 1611. According to Bryan Denlinger, this is a special form of English known as biblical English used by God to write the bible.

In the original preface to the KJV, the translators themselves wrote:[4]

and

Implicit in these statements is the translators' belief that the KJV, like older translations, was not perfect, but was an improvement.

The position of some King James Onlyites is that God not only inspired the original texts in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic on which it is based, but reinspired the King James Version as an inerrant English translation, in order to transmit His Word faithfully to the end times.[note 1] No one bothers to explain why God would "inspire" only the KJV translation, while also allowing numerous "erroneous" translations to be published. And this, of course, runs into trouble right away when we open the KJV and find the Jews observing Easter (not Passover, which is meant) in Acts 12:4.[7] A few Christians defend this as a combination of "Easter" being an originally Pagan festival, not anachronistic with respect to Acts;[8] however, this is based on the assumption that "Easter" is derived from the Akkadian goddess Ishtar, rather than a West Germanic goddess named Ostara.[note 2] It runs into further trouble when the KJV contains several instances of wild oxen mistranslated as unicorns (Psalm 22:21, Psalm 29:6, and Psalm 92:10, as well as Job 39:9-10, Isaiah 34:7, Numbers 23:22, and Deuteronomy 33:17),[note 3] mistranslating the Hebrew for striped hyena as 'speckled bird' (Jeremiah 12:9), and the use of words in the KJV now considered vulgar, such as 'piss' (newer translations substitute more genteel words for the urinary act.) On the other hand, the KJV is less prone to covering up the intent of the more filthy passages of the Bible such as Ezekiel 23:18-21 or 2 Chronicles 10:10, which are often bowdlerised in more recent translations.

Another problem with the KJV only position is the KJV was revised in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Most KJV-onlyists use a modern printing which means the last revision, not the original 1611 KJV. KJV-onlyists counter that these revisions were negligible and to correct minor errors and archaic typeface, but doesn't the fact that errors had to be corrected from the 1611 version say a lot about the inerrancy of the original KJV? Indeed, a few KJV-onlyists on the fringe insist on only a 1611 KJV and claim that it, typos and all, is inerrant, but most don't. Of course who else should "refute" this blatant hole in logic with a good ol' Conspiracy theory Than Davie?[9] Furthermore none of the current KJV only bibles use the 29 letter alphabet used for the printing of the 1611 KJV.

A better approach used by some KJV-onlyists is to defend the accuracy of the texts the KJV was translated from (the Textus Receptus) over that of the texts used by most modern translations (the Wescott-Hort text, usually), as well as over other texts like the Latin Vulgate. This could be argued either way although a majority of Bible scholars favor Wescott-Hort. However, several English translations were translated from the Textus Receptus, including the popular 1982 New King James Version as well as several more obscure translations, and as most KJV-onlyists balk at supporting any of these it calls their good faith in using this argument into question. In fact, the 21st Century King James Version is just the King James Version with minimal revisions to replace obsolete terms that nobody understands anymore, but few KJV-onlyists accept even it.

Some KJV-onlyists have gone one step further and declared that English itself is the only proper language for Christians, being the language the KJV was written in (despite the fact that Jesus predates English itself).

One must consider that the KJV features the "thee" and "ye" pronouns which were already obsolete by the time the KJV was written, but they were used because they matched the ancient Hebrew and Greek texts. Modern English does not distinguish between "you singular" and "you plural", or "you formal" and "you informal" but the original texts did, and the KJV uses these pronouns so that a simple "you" does not serve to confuse people, as is the case of the NKJV or any other new English translation, which shows the reliability of the KJV in preserving the ancient sentence structure. Some more recent translations make this distinction in other ways without using "thou", such as the New World Translation that writes "you" in lowercase when singular or "you" in small caps when plural.

There was also a criticism from Dutch biblical scientists that was leveled at the Herziene Statenvertaling (Revised State Translation, or if you want it paraphrased in a less literal way, the Revised King James Translation) that the King James translation is a translation of the Textus Receptus, a not-so-optimal variant of the original Byzantine text. In this 400 year passage there have been way older texts found that have a more accurate representation of what was actually written in the Bible such as the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaïticus, the Bodmer papyri 66 and 75, the Chester Beatty papyri 45, 46, 47 and many others.

One textual analysis written by Gail Riplinger, a trained interior decorator, is The New Age Bible Versions, which compares various contemporary translations side by side with the King James. It is a barking mad paranoid rant that exploits variant readings and translation errors, along with sketchy gematria and argumentum ex culo, to make the point that the Bible is being corrupted by translators who are attempting to slowly remove the name of God from the Bible.

Criticisms abound, from the obvious (Riplinger is a kook with tortured-at-best logic) to the technical (older, closer-to-the-source manuscripts are better than the ones the KJV was based on; variant readings are not inherently corrupt) to the spurious (Riplinger, as a woman, should not be teaching about the Bible).

KJV Onlyists claim that the Alexandrian manuscripts were corrupted by Egyptians which they maintain is the source of all heresies which arose.[10] The reality is that none of the Alexandrian manuscripts are of Alexandrian origin. Rather, Alexandrian is a classification given to manuscripts which use the uncial script type named after the Codex Alexandrinus (Manuscript A) which was written in this text type.[11] The uncial text type is was supplanted by the Byzantine minuscule text in the 9th century. Most Alexandrian manuscripts are of Greek origin, including the Codex Alexandrinus.

KJV Onlyists claim that the KJV is based on Antiochian manuscripts, a non-existent manuscript type.[12] The Textus Receptus itself is based on six Byzantine manuscripts obtained by Erasmus from Greek emigres for the purpose of creating a prepared text from which to make translations. None of the manuscripts used for the prepared text were complete. Erasmus translated the text from the Latin Vulgate into the Greek to make up for missing portions of the manuscripts. The oldest manuscript used for the prepared text dates to the 14th century. The Byzantine manuscripts were known for the accumulation of errors over time and inclusion of glossed notes by the Greek copyists much of which are absent in the older manuscripts such as Manuscript א‎ and Manuscript B.

KJV onlyists claim that the New Age Bibles delete from the word of God who is presumably Erasmus. Scholars and academics are in general agreement that these were additions made from gloss notes by copyists. The KJV is 12% longer than even a wordy minority text Bible such as the NIV.

KJV Onlyists claim that their King James Only bibles are based on the so-called Antiochian manuscripts (which are in reality known by scholars to be late term Byzantine Manuscripts –Class IV) and that these Antiochian manuscripts are untainted by corruption, the pure word of god. However, KJV onlyists reject the General Catholic Canon (GCC) which added five extra books and additions to the other 46 books of the Old Testament of the Formal Catholic Canon (FCC) as a concession to the Church of Antioch during the deliberations in the councils between 382 and 397 which lead to the canonization of the Bible. The KJV onlyists consider that these extra books (7 books of the FCC and the 12 in the GCC) corruptions.

Since the KJV Onlyists reject the Old Testament of the FCC and the deuterocanonical books, the KJV onlyists should consider the GCC even more corrupted and reject anything from Antioch and the even more corrupted bibles. Since the KJV Onlyists lack anyone with an actual historical education, other than attending a 'how to thump your bible' school, they unknowingly accept a historical contradiction which reduces their claims to the absurd. If KJV Onlyists truly believed their claims regarding the trustworthiness of the Church in Antioch, KJV Onlyists must accept the 51 book canon and other additions. However, KJV onlyists only accept 39 books of the Rabbinic canon of 870.

There is a parallel movement to King James Only among some traditionalist Roman Catholics who hold to a Douay-Rheims Only position.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, rather than the original Greek and Hebrew versions, and many Catholic traditionalists believe that to translate the Bible from anything but the official Latin Bible of the Catholic Church is heresy. That Douay-Rheims includes so many obscure Latin and Greek-derived words (many long obsolete, or never even really established in English) as to be near-incomprehensible to the modern reader — indeed, far more so than the merely archaic King James Version — apparently doesn't matter.

Literary mega-critic Harold Bloom has recommended secular use of the King James due to its superiority as a Bible translation having achieving "the sublime summit of English Literature". He also notes that the atheist Faulkner, (Manichean? Gnostic?) equally unorthodox Melville, and Emily Dickinson having learned nearly all they knew of prose and poetic cadence from the King James translation, and a good knowledge of this translation is necessary for understanding their work.

Certain sects of Dutch protestant fundamentalists have come to revere the 1637 Statenvertaling in much the same way that their English-speaking counterparts treat the KJV. The Statenvertaling, like the KJV, was based on the Septuagint and the Erasmian Textus receptus, and just like with the NKJV, there has been a revised Statenvertaling issued recently that updates the translation to use modern Dutch but purposefully ignores the results of any post-17th-century textual criticism.

Then there is Tann Føroyska King James, which is a translation from the KJV into the Faroese language.[13] While it's hardly green ink in style, content-wise it is about the same. To quote: "Why translate the King James Bible A.V. 1611 into Faroese? Haven't we already got two translations ... ? Well, once you've seen that both these current Faroese bibles are translated from Westcott and Hort's corrupt manuscripts, and once you've seen clearly that there is a "pure" lineage and a "corrupt" lineage of Bibles, and that the King James is translated exclusively from the "pure", there is only one thing to do; get going."[note 4]