King-James-Only Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal
The First Page of the Book of Genesis in the 1611 printing of the KJV
The First Page of the Book of Genesis in the 1611 printing of the KJV

The King-James-Only Movement is a label applied to a wide variety of beliefs concerning the superiority of the Authorized King James Version, the Textus Receptus and the Masoretic Text.

The origin of the label "King-James-Only" is unclear, though as early as 1987,[1] it was being used to refer to claims of exclusivity for the King James Version and the controversy which had been brewing over these claims for almost a decade.[2][3][4][5] American church historian and apologist James R. White claims that the phrases "KJV Only" and "KJV Onlyism" are not "insulting" or "inaccurate."[6] However, KJV proponent D. A. Waite alleges the term is a "smear word".[7][8]

Contents

[edit] Variations

James White has divided the King-James-Only Movement into 5 main types:[9]

  • "I Like the KJV Best" This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations. These are people who like the version because their church uses it, they have always used it, or because they like its style.[10] The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division. They have said, "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."[11]
  • "The Textual Argument" Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group.[12]
  • "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. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.
  • "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. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJO supporter.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Pement, Eric (March, 1987), Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate, <http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/KJVOnly.html>. Retrieved on 27 March 2008 
  2. ^ Carson, D. A. (1978). The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Baker Academic. ISBN 0801024277. 
  3. ^ Walker, Ronald L. (1980). The King James Controversy. Baptist Bible College. ASIN B000HEDHXG. 
  4. ^ Chinn, Douglas S.; Robert C. Newman (1980). Demystifying the Controversy over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible. Interdisciplinary Biblical Research. ISBN 0944788033. 
  5. ^ Custer, Stewart (1981). The truth about the King James version controversy. Bob Jones University Press, Inc. ISBN 0890841373. 
  6. ^ White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 248. ISBN 1556615752. 
  7. ^ Waite, Donald (2007-02-03), King James Only As Slander #1, <http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2307164925>. Retrieved on 26 March 2008 
  8. ^ Waite, Donald (2007-02-06), King James Only As Slander #2, <http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=260713240>. Retrieved on 26 March 2008 
  9. ^ White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1–4. ISBN 1556615752. 
  10. ^ Riplinger, Gail A. (2003). The Breath and Heartbeat of God. In Awe of Thy Word. Retrieved on 2008-03-27.
  11. ^ Watts, Malcolm H. (2007), “The Accuracy of the Authorised Version”, Quarterly Record (Trinitarian Bible Society) 578 (1): 8, <http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr578.pdf> 
  12. ^ White, James (1995). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 5. ISBN 1556615752. 

[edit] Further reading

Languages