King-James-Only Movement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article or section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help improve this article or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since November 2005. (help, talk) |
- See technical note on viewing the Hebrew characters in this Article.
The King-James-Only Movement is a position, usually within Protestant fundamentalist Christianity of English-speaking countries, which rejects all modern translations of the Bible, accepting only the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV). The nickname "King-James-Only" apparently originated within a popular book by American church historian and apologist James R. White (b. 1962) published in 1995 entitled The King James Only Controversy.
Some have hotly contested the claim that such advocacy of the KJV constitutes a "movement." White himself addresses the question as to whether using the phrase "KJV Only" or "KJV Onlyism" may be "insulting" and "inaccurate" (King James Only Controversy, p. 248). White concludes that using the phrase "KJV Only" or "KJV Onlyism" is neither insulting nor inaccurate.
[edit] The KJV and modern versions use different Greek Texts
The King-James-Only position is most prevalent within the fundamentalist and Independent Baptist branch of the Baptist denomination in Christianity within the USA, and within the Plymouth Brethren and Strict Baptists within the UK. The rejection of modern translations is based in part on the different original-language texts which were used as source material for the different translations of the Bible. With regard to the New Testament, most modern translations are mainly translated from the Alexandrian manuscripts, primarily represented by the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and some other 50-odd minority texts. The King James Version originates from the Textus Receptus, otherwise known as the Received Text, which is a representative of the Byzantine text-type (but not identical with the "Majority Text" as that term is currently used). See also Novum Testamentum Graece.
[edit] The KJV and modern versions use different Hebrew texts
To a lesser, but also significant, extent, there is also a corresponding division in regard to the texts used to translate the Old Testament, between the traditional ben Chayyim text, represented by the KJV, and the ben Asher text (Biblia Hebraica (BHK) & Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)), represented by most modern translations. The footnotes in the BHK/BHS suggests over 20,000 changes as compared to the traditional ben Chayyim text; however, it is suggested that differences between these Hebrew texts rarely affect the meaning. Most modern Christian (though not Jewish) translations often deviate from the Hebrew, giving a meaning based on other sources such as the Septuagint or Dead Sea Scrolls or sometimes just scholarly conjecture; very often, they base these deviations on the footnotes to BHS.
The New King James Version has a mixed approach; it follows the Textus Receptus in the New Testament but BHS in the Old Testament.
[edit] King-James-Only Movement Christians and "Jehovah"
The ben Chayyim Hebrew text, the underlying Hebrew text of the Old Testament of the KJV as noted above, includes the Tetragrammaton in the form "יְהֹוָה" ( i.e. Hebrew word # 3068 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible ) 6519 times. The consonants of this divine name are ancient, but diacritics indicating the pronunciation of Hebrew vowel sounds were not invented until much later, in medieval times. Most modern scholars hold the view that the vowel points of the spelling "יְהֹוָה" (which would seem to indicate a pronunciation "Yehowah", Latin "Jehovah", if taken literally) are not the correct vowel points of God's name — and that they were actually never intended to be such, but were instead a masoretic Q're perpetuum, or implicit textual note to indicate that the letters YHWH should be pronounced out loud as "Adonai" when reading the text (something later misunderstood by early Christian Hebraists). And in fact, many Hebrew Biblical manuscripts (and the BHS scholarly printed edition) have "יְהוָה" (without the diacritic for the "o" vowel), and in certain cases the consonantal letters YHWH are given different vowel points to indicate that they should then be pronounced out loud as "Elohim." Therefore most scholars do not consider that the name of Israel's God can be correctly transcribed as "Jehovah."
While some King-James-Only Movement Christians believe that "Jehovah" is God’s actual name, they do not necessarily all defend the underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah".
Note that "Jehovah" actually occurs only seven times in the KJV translation, and three of these occurrences are in placenames.
[edit] Variations within the King-James-Only movement
There are variations within the King-James-Only Movement. The late American evangelist John R. Rice (1895-1980), who published The Sword of the Lord, believed that only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts should be considered inspired Scripture. He taught that translations from those texts, when done in good faith, are useful as Scripture, but he expressed a preference toward the King James Version for artistic reasons. On the other extreme can be found the teachings of the controversial Baptist preacher Peter Ruckman, who believes that the King James translation constitutes an "advanced revelation" from God and is superior to the original-language Greek and Hebrew texts. Most King-James-Only advocates hold to a position somewhere between those two extremes; White himself distinguished between five divisions in his book:
- "I Like the KJV Best." This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations;
- "The Textual Argument." Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate;
- "Received Text Only." Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally-preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good;
- "The Inspired KJV Group." Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired;
- "The KJV As New Revelation" This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV.
There are even those that claim, as White says on p. 6:
- "that the KJV was written in eternity, and that Abraham and Moses and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament. These individuals believe that Hebrew is actually English... Such groups are, for obvious reasons, very small."
[edit] Origins of the King-James-Only movement
The origins of the King-James-Only Movement can be traced back to the publication of the Revised Version (RV) in 1881. The original commission of the RV intended it as an update to the archaic language of the KJV. The updaters surpassed that goal, eventually re-translating thousands of words and passages. In the New Testament, they often translated a different Greek text, to conform with the theories of British churchmen and scholars Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort and their Alexandrian text. Public outcry against the RV was not few and far between at the time, with opponents preaching fidelity to the KJV. A prominent critic, churchman John William Burgon wrote several books and articles criticising the RV; his books (notably The Revision Revised) are still being reprinted and his arguments often cited by KJV supporters.[citation needed]
Later, publication of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible in 1952, issued by the American National Council of Churches (NCC), reignited the same debate. Many American fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believed that the NCC was a hotbed of liberal theology or modernism and were suspicious of the new translation. Accusations of Communist and Vatican (by anti-Catholic Protestants) influence within the NCC were brought up. Textually, one significant criticism of the RSV centered on the decision made by the translators to translate a number of Old Testament prophecies, which some scholars believed referred to the coming of Christ, in a manner which de-emphasized their allusions to Christ. Critics charged that the NCC, in issuing the RSV, deliberately intended to discredit doctrines such as the virgin birth, which the NCC denied. As a result, American fundamentalists and conservative Christians largely rejected the RSV; nevertheless, for three decades it became the most widely used Bible translation within the American mainline and liberal Protestant denominations. In the USA, one of the most adamant proponents of the King James Only Movement was famed theologian and founder of the Children's Bible Hour radio program the Revd Dr David Otis Fuller, founding president of Cornerstone University.
[edit] More modern translations published
At the same time, many American conservative and evangelical Christian groups began producing their own modern Bible translations, including the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. Most American evangelicals who were wary of the RSV readily accepted these other new translations, but many fundamentalists did not.
Those who rejected the modern translations began to advocate the ideas held by the King James Only Movement, such as the belief that the Received Text is superior to the Alexandrian manuscripts, and that Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus have been corrupted by Gnostics.
[edit] The New King James Version
In the USA the King-James-Only Movement became one of the core beliefs within the growing Independent Fundamental branch of Baptists. Even the use of only the texts available in the early 1600s for the main body of the work fails to satisfy the supporters of the King-James-Only Movement, who see the New King James Version (1982) as something less than a true successor to the 1611 version. Although the NKJV is based upon the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, its Old Testament basis strays from the KJV model, relying upon the ben Asher BHS text instead of the ben Chayyim. Additionally, supporters argue that, because the New King James Version makes scores of changes to the meaning of the 1611 translators, it is not a simple "updating" but actually constitutes a new version; at the same time, the inclusion of verses found solely in the Textus Receptus (such as 1 John 5:7) in the NKJV may make this attempt at revision less than palatable to many advocates of modern versions.
Within broader evangelical circles, the King James Only belief is controversial and is widely rejected. Most evangelical scholars believe that the Textus Receptus manuscripts which the KJV was translated from contain a number of errors, and that the modern translations are translated from the earliest, and therefore supposedly more accurate manuscripts. Most scholars who support Biblical inerrancy believe this applies only to the original manuscripts (in the USA cf. the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy). However, there is substantial agreement between most of the Majority Text of the Greek New Testament and the Textus Receptus, and the NKJV preface testifies that there are reputable scholars who feel that the Majority Text is defensible, even if they do not support the particular form it has taken in the Textus Receptus.
[edit] Response and Advocacy
The phenomenon of the King James Only movement is notable because it continues year after year. Rebuttal of KJO arguments is difficult, since the KJO movement produces voluminous, detailed material. (A sampling of their material on sermonaudio.com, for example, shows their sermons tend to be longer and contain much more detailed material than regular sermons.) KJO advocates also have stock talking points, such as the often-repeated idea that verses have been deleted (adumbrating out of malice towards the Bible) from modern versions, that would require rebuttals from scholars beyond the ken of most audience members for a typical KJO seminar. (Who typically, given the places and audiences of sermonaudio.com, are laypeople or bible college students, who have no familiarity with the issues behind the debate.) A few scholars, such as Comfort and Carson, have tried to write books for laypeople. Yet not much has been written because the burden of proof is on the KJO advocates. This makes KJO a fascinating social trend. KJO presentations rely on a machine-gun delivery of material that doesn't give the audience members time to react or think. Even so, in a recent King James Bible seminar, the sympathetic audience even questions some of the wild assertions (such as the Septuagint not existing), leaving the speaker to evade the points.
A fact which is completely ignored by King James Only advocates is that the 1611 text is simply hard to understand for modern English speakers, particularly those who have no prior exposure to the KJV text. Nowhere in any of their arguments in favor of the KJV is the issue that the text is hard to understand ever addressed. One notable exception is the Defined King James Bible produced in 1998 by D.A. Waite's ministry. If, however, a glossed KJV edition was what inhibited use of the KJV by modern readers, it should be noted that a decade earlier, in 1988, a similar bible was published in 1988 by Liberty University (and is now sold as the King James Study Bible). The movement as a whole seems oblivious to the fact that 1611 language is difficult for modern readers to understand, and that new Bible translations are required as language shifts.
[edit] Other denominations which hold the King-James-Only position
Besides Independent Baptists, there are a number of other denominations in the USA which hold, in varying degrees, to a King James Only position. These include the Church of God of the Mountain Assembly, the United Pentecostal Church, the Protestant Reformed Church (and other very conservative Reformed bodies), the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ (C.O.O.L.J.C), and some (but not all) of the more conservative denominations from the Anglican tradition which collectively refer to themselves as the Continuing Anglican movement.
It should be noted in saying these churches hold to a "King-James-Only position", not every church that uses only the King James Version believes the King James itself to be inspired. For example, the Protestant Reformed Churches of America believe the KJV to be the most accurate version of the Bible, but do not believe it is infallable and will even acknowledge that other versions can be correct and helpful on certain passages.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also holds a King-James-Only position. The Church publishes the Latter-Day Saint King James Version (LDS-KJV), which, in addition to the text of the KJV, contains numerous footnotes and study aids, including excerpts of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.
In Britain many Plymouth Brethren, Strict Baptists and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland also hold a King James Only position.
The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster also holds this position; its moderator Ian Paisley has written a book outlining his position, My Plea For The Old Sword.
[edit] Similar Movements in Non-English Speaking Countries
In some non-English speaking countries, there are groups claiming that the Textus Receptus is the only reliable Greek text, from which the Bible should be translated to contemporary languages. These might not believe that the KJV per se, or any other modern translation, is totally perfect. In Sweden there are groups that prefer the old Swedish Bible of 1703 ("The Charles XII Bible"). One group is currently working on a revision on this Bible to a more contemporary Swedish language.
There are also tiny fractions that hold to a stricter KJV-only-position. In Norway, there has recently been published a direct translation of the KJV to Norwegian. (Not to be comfused with "Bibelen Guds Ord, Den norske King James utgaven" (BGO) that have a license for the King James trademark and are based on the same greek and hebrew texts, but is not a translation from KJV)
[edit] The Apocrypha
One misconception about the King-James-Only surrounds the Apocrypha. While most books of the Apocrypha are considered canonical by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, neither Jews nor Protestants consider them canonical. Reservations about the Apocrypha were expressed early on in the Protestant Reformation. Martin Luther himself translated the Apocrypha too; not because he believed it was the Word of God (and therefore Scripture), but because it was of "cultural relevance", and "of interest" — in the words of King James Version Defended, page 98: "books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.".
Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, enacted in 1563, gave the books of the apocrypha a reduced status:
And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such as are the following: The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom, The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses, The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.
Nonetheless the books were translated by the KJV translators, and included as a separate section between the Old and New Testament. Anglican editions still require this section, as the lectionary still appoints it for certain days (e.g. the first reading on All Saints Day in the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer[1]). It is still included in the copy given to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom during the coronation ceremony.
However beginning in the 1820s, the Apocrypha has come to be excluded from most American printings of the KJV; therefore few Americans have seen a copy which includes it, though it is available as a separate volume.[2]
[edit] The Pro Arguments
The principal arguments for KJV only are:
- Uses the Textus Receptus and Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text for translation, which some believe to be the preserved original text
- Modern translations have theological differences, for example:
-
- The Deity of Jesus Christ is attacked in various places in all of the modern versions (see Gen 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tim 3:16, Heb 1:8), despite the identification with antichrist in 1Jn 4:3 for making such denial, and likewise references to worshipping Jesus Christ (Luke 24:52);
- The Trinity is attacked. Most modern versions delete 1Jn 5:7 and then split either v6 or v8 to make a counterfeit v7.;
- The virgin birth is attacked, by altering Isa 7:14 in some versions, despite its quotation in Matt 1:23;
- The doctrine of a literal fiery burning hell is attacked, by changing the word 'hell' to words such as 'depths', 'grave', 'hades', etc. The NIV for example also deletes one of two instances of the phrase Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched. in Mark 9:44-48;
- The divine promise for the preservation of scripture is attacked by replacing Psa 12:7, mostly in the form of changing them (KJV) to us (modern);
- The salvation of the repentant thief is attacked by removing Lord from Luke 23:42;
- The first Gentile salvation recorded in scripture, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), is attacked by most modern versions deleting all of Acts 8:37, his saving testimony, which also sets the Biblical requirement for Believer's Baptism, ...If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest...;
- The salvation of St. Paul is attacked, by altering Acts 9:6;
- The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is attacked in several places, one example being the removal of through his blood from Col 1:14;
- Salvation as a one time, permenently settled event in the life of any believer is attacked by inserting the word being into 1Cor 1:18;
- The ascension of Jesus Christ is attacked by removing and carried up into heaven from Luke 24:51, despite Luke's own reference to the ending of his Gospel in Acts 1:2;
- Salvation as a prerequisite for being in heaven is attacked by removing of them which are saved from Rev 21:24, a book which in itself contains an explicit warning against adding unto or taking away from its text (Rev 22:18-19).
- A dynamic translation distorts the message of the original. Only a very literal translation such as the KJV could be considered faithful to the original documents.
- From a literary point of view, some consider the KJV to be the best of all English bibles in its use of poetic devices (alliteration, rhyme, syllabic rhythm, etc.) to enhance meaning, making memorization and understanding easier. Similarly, some say the KJV is the most pleasant to hear read aloud.
- The “archaic” pronouns of the Elizabethan English used in the KJV, often seen as confusing to modern readers, actually clarify the meaning, primarily due to retaining distinct number (singular vs. plural) and case (nominative vs. objective) variations for the Second Person personal pronoun. The argument is that the resulting confusion that can result from rendering all such pronouns as the modern “you” can actually change important doctrine, including the most basic requirement for salvation itself. Modern translations have Jesus telling Nicodemus in John 3:7 (for instance: NASB), “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’” Did this mean that only Nicodemus had to be born again, or everyone? The KJV says, “Marvel not that I said unto thee [singular objective], ye [plural nominative] must be born again.” The use of the older distinct pronouns therein clarifies that Jesus was saying this unto Nicodemus individually, but about multiple people, namely, everyone. (It should be noted that even less educated English speakers noticed at least the importance of the loss of the distinct singular and plural versions of the pronoun, and invented their own replacements in their dialects. The U.S. Southerners have “you all” which became contracted to “y’all,” and even “all y’all” [“all of you all”], while New Yorkers have “you’se,” “you’ses,” “you guys,” and even “you’se guys.” There are other examples as well. It should also be noted that these pronouns were already well on their way out at the time of the KJV translation, and many contemporaries were already not using them and preferring the unified Second Person personal pronouns, implying that the KJV translators used the older distinct ones intentionally.)
- The translators and publishers of modern translators are seen to be ignoring the warnings against changing the Bible, for example:
- Revelation 22:18-19
- 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
- 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
This is often supposed to be deliberate on the part of translators and publishers, "I would like to think these worldly publishing companies are just ignorant to the seriousness of what they are doing. However in some cases I'm sure that these deceptive maneuvers are being done with fore thought. In other words they are aware of the warning labels but choose to ignore them. They have hardened their hearts against the standard text of the Holy Bible." [3]
[edit] The "Con" arguments
Arguments against the KJV only position include:
- Since the original publication of the KJV, many new source documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been discovered, and a lot of other archaeological research has been done in the last 400 years that improves our understanding of the original text, all of which aids enormously in making a better translation. To dismiss such additional source documents and research does a large disservice to the aims of a translation that is as good as it can possibly be.
- Since the Book of Revelation was written well before the Christian Church adopted any official canon, the self-reference to "this book" seems intended specifically to indicate that one book (Revelation). Also, translating words from Greek into English tends to add or subtract slightly from the meaning. Therefore, arguments based on a misinterpretation of the Book of Revelation are not valid.
- Any argument about translation should be based on discussion of the original text. It is not sound logic to work backwards from an assumed theology to a translation. The translation should be based on the best possible text, not on theology. For example, when statements such as "The NKJV removes the word 'hell' 23 times!" are made to argue that the KJV is a more accurate translation, this is an argument based on theology, not on translation. In all scholarly modern translations, translators choose to use words that best seem to translate the original, even if that does not fit with anybody's theology nor support anybody's particular viewpoint. To attack any translation as somehow bad because it changes the message taught by the KJV is to elevate the KJV above the original source documents in terms of reliability.
- Literal translations, and translations with archaic language, may actually make the translation harder for people to understand, not easier. It is desirable that translations be as easy to understand as possible. The Bible is not some magic charm where the actual uttered words have effect, but it is rather the message contained within it that is important, so less literal translations can be very useful. Additionally, it could be argued that the language of the 1611 edition was already becoming outdated even at the time it was printed. Changes in language and usage leading to obscured meaning is a continuous problem, creating a strong argument against one fixed translation for all time for the "common people" to read.
- With respect to theological bias, modern supporters point to the fact that these translations are often done by committees of Christians from various denominations, while the KJV was strictly Anglican.
- The "KJV Only" position also assumes that there is one definitive KJV, when in fact there were many editions and revisions. What most Christians call the "KJV" today is not the KJV of 1611. The "KJV" today is from the 1769 version, the last year it was revised. The removal of the Apocrypha from these editions is just one of many changes that have occurred over the years. So if there is only one true translation, one would have to know which of these KJV editions is the correct one. The original KJV not only included the Apocrypha (and calendars suggesting readings of the Apocrypha for the year, along with the other books of the Bible) but also had footnotes that indicated textual variants. The "KJV Only" position does not take these textual variants into account either.
- If the KJV translators were literally inspired by God in the 17th century, why would God be powerless to inspire later translators? There need not be a contradiction here if we believe God can inspire translators to make writing easier to understand for modern audiences, and to correct printer errors made after the inspired translation. However, theoretically, an all-powerful God concerned with creating a perfect text could inspire everyone along the way if he chose, including the individuals reading the text, and prevent them from error in understanding it. Finally, this line of thought also asks why God would only preserve God's inspired text from the 17th century onward (a small fraction of Christian history). Would it not be more reasonable to assume that as long as the general sense of the text is unaffected, new translations are periodically a practical necessity to keep the text understandable to each new generation across the centuries and millennia of history?
- On the part of those believing in modern translations, both as translators and publishers, there are men and women believing in God and all the doctrines that Christianity strongly teaches as much as on the part of those favoring the KJV. To suggest that somehow those on the side of various modern translations are somehow less committed to the doctrines of the Bible is simply false.
- If theology "uniquely" taught by the KJV determines how we ought to translate the Bible, this would suggest that there is a higher authority than Scripture for teaching revelation, and thus would contradict the widely-held Protestant doctrine of "Scripture Alone". Most "KJV-Only" Christians claim to uphold this doctrine, yet do not see the contradiction.
- The suggestion that modern translators are somehow adding to scripture or changing scripture as the Bible expressly forbids is not necessarily true. A modern translator ideally believes whole-heartedly that the original scriptures (the source documents) must not be added to or changed, but that the translator has a duty to try and translate those documents in the best way possible. The modern-day translator is simply seeking to bring the Bible message to people "in words they can understand." Also, they point out several passages (John 1.18, Romans 9.5, Titus 2.13, II Peter 1.1) where the divinity of Jesus is more explicit than the KJV has.
- The "KJV-Only" position of viewing a particular English translation as the only "correct" one is illogical in the context of the many languages in the world. For example, are the French supposed to read the KJV? Only the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic documents can be the valid basis, and all translations into other languages can be judged as more or less faithful to these according to generally-applicable criteria of textual criticism.
- The "KJV-Only" position is actually harmful to God's purposes of making known the Bible to all the world, since it actually makes it harder for people to understand, and therefore makes it harder for people to enter the Kingdom of God. It is fine if an individual is able to understand the KJV, but is it really God's desire that those who do not find it easy to read should be hindered from finding God? The apostle Paul was passionate about making the gospel known to people in whatever way possible, for example 1 Corinthians 9:22 (KJV) Paul says, "I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some". Shouldn't translators today be still wanting to make the message of God clear to people?
- The pleasantness of the KJV is a matter of opinion, and not a fact.
- The argument "Only the KJV is translated from the true original text" shows a lack of knowledge in biblical research. There are no originals surviving today. We have a variety of manuscripts, but we do not know for certain which of these are the original documents. Even in a copy of the Greek text, there are often many footnotes on the variations in the various Greek manuscripts. If anything, our understanding of what would have been the original text is far better now than it was in 1611.
- A thorough reading of the original introduction by the KJV translators demonstrates a humility concerning their own work that entirely contradicts the "'KJV-only" claims. They never claimed that their work was inspired, and welcomed improvements in their translation.
- It has been asserted by some modern groups that since the KJV translators worked on behest of King James of England and Scotland, they did not edit it for everyone's benefit, as much as for his benefit, thus producing a biased wording.
- The King James Versions refer to the Holy Spirit as "it" and not "he" in several passages. Almost all protestant denominations hold that the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is a person and not a thing or energy. These passages are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16,26, and 1 Peter 1:11.
[edit] References
- ^ Book of Common Prayer (1979) "Lectionary: Holy Days" p. 925 [1]
- ^ For example, this edition found on Amazon.com on 18 October 2006: [2]
[edit] External links
Pro King James Only point of view:
- Branderburg, K., et al., 2003. Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture ISBN 0-9743817-0-5
- Holland, Thomas, 2000. Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version ISBN 0-595-14617-1. This book can also be viewed online at this link.
- Dr. Thomas Holland's lessons on manuscript evidence (some of which include material also found in Crowned With Glory).
- Way of Life's Electronic KJV Defense Library, an Independent Baptist web site
- Typical King-James-Only site — suggests that even the New King James Version is the work of Satan and that Christians who would never touch an NIV, NASB, RSV or the NRSV as they are perversions, are being 'seduced' by the subtle NKJV
- AVPublications' Defense of KJV Bible
- Topical Bible Version Comparison Charts
- Bible Version Comparison Chart
- A Defence of the Johannine Comma
- Gnostic Corruptions in the Critical Texts
- Articles on Bible Versions from a KJV-supporter perspective
- The Brandon Staggs 'Magic Marker' page
- The Answer Book ISBN 1890120006. Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.
- 'The Attack', a Chick tract on the KJV targeted at a general audience
- Trinitarian Bible Society
- Jesus-is-Savior.com
Against King James Only point of view:
- King James Only Resource Center
- When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine
- The KJV Debate
- KJV-Onlyism Page
- Those Lazy Old Blokes of 1611 (from The Idle Babbler Illustrated; colorful polemic refers to KJV as "a Holy Rip Off")
- James White's critiques of KJV-Onlyism
- KJV Only Advocates Refuted! from The Interactive Bible
- Is your modern translation corrupt? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates
- King James Onlyism
Additional resources for research on the "against King James Only" point of view:
- Beacham, Roy E. & Bauder, Kevin T., 2001. One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible ISBN 0-8254-2048-2
- Carson, D.A., 1979. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism ISBN 0-8010-2427-7
- White, James, 1995. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? ISBN 1-55661-575-2
- Ankerberg, J. & Weldon, J., 2003. The Facts on the King James Only Debate ISBN 0-7369-1111-1, a book written by well-known Christian apologists.
- The Revision Revised by John William Burgon ISBN 1-888328-01-0
- The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel of Mark ISBN 1-58960-014-2
- Which Version by Philip Mauro ASIN B0006RY3UA
- The Bible & Modern Criticism by R.A. Anderson ASIN B00069Y39O
- Ryken, Leland, 2002. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation ISBN 1-58134-464-3
- Dewey, David, 2004. A User's Guide to Bible Translations ISBN 0-8308-3273-4
- Which Bible? 5th Edition, by David Otis Fuller, D.D. ISBN 0-8254-2612-X
- David Otis Fuller, True or False? The Westcott-Hort Textual Theory Examined. Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1973.
- David Otis Fuller, Counterfeit or Genuine? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1978.
[edit] See also
- Biblical inerrancy
- Dean Burgon Society (KJV Only promoters)
- D.A. Waite
- Trinitarian Bible Society (UK promoters of KJV Only)
[edit] Technical note
The Hebrew characters in this article may be displayed in some browsers at a size too small for clarity; printing the article out, or cutting-and-pasting text from the web-browser into a word processor and increasing the font size may help.
