KJV-Onlyism Page

Is the following another gospel?

"I am not ashamed of the gospel, as worded in the AV1611, for it is the power of God unto salvation to all those who believe the KJV." Romans 1:17

"...on the day when God will judge all people by my gospel (only as worded in the KJV)"

"...if you confess with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, and believe in your heart that the KJV is the only Word of God, you shall be saved..."

I do not want anybody to think that I do not like the King James Version. I like it, and love to read it. It is the word of God, and many other good translations are also the word of God.

But the thing that constrains me to respond, is the very harsh and vehement attacks made against fellow believers who believe differently on how we got the Bible, and what is the inspired word of God, etc. I grant that King James Only people have a zeal to "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." But my wish for them, in the name of Jesus, is that their zeal be a "zeal according to knowledge." I hope that this page will be effective toward more unity among us. Wouldn't it be great if we stopped attacking each other, and attacked our mutual spiritual enemy instead?

1 John 4:7-8 "Beloved, let us love one another. For love is of God, and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God, for God is love."

First, here is a King James Only position that I respect.  It is a statement on a web page of a Christian book seller.

<<  The great 19th century preacher, C. H. Spurgeon, said: "If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether it is of dubious authority....We shall gradually be so bedoubted and be criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy... and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness." [emphasis mine]

We believe that God has preserved His word perfectly down through the ages (Psalm 12:6-7) so that Christians today can have access to the same word of God that the first century church had. God is no respecter of persons, and He would not leave His people in a situation where they could not completely obey His word because "we don't have the 'original' manuscripts." How can a Christian obey God's word if he's not sure if the Bible he has can be trusted 100%? If there is no perfect, infallible word of God available today, then God has asked His children to do the impossible. In Matthew 4:4, Jesus said to the Devil, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." If there is no perfect Bible available today, then God is asking Christians to do something that they cannot do--obey EVERY WORD.  (See also Luke 4:4 and Deut. 8:3.)  >>

My Response:

I respect what Spurgeon said, or at least, what he is reported to have said. But the second paragraph, by the web site author, is wishful thinking, and factually wrong. The main point seems to be that if there are several versions with different wording, then it is impossible for us to obey EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God. But, this ignores the fact that the same situation existed in the time of Christ and the apostles. The believers then, had at least four versions of the Old Testament that I know of: The Hebrew, The Greek Septuagint (At Least the 5 Books of Moses in Greek, probably more, see below), and the two Aramaic Targums. It seems that many Christians today still don't realize that the majority of Jews of Jesus' day, worldwide, could not understand Hebrew very well, and spoke Aramaic or Greek. Yet they need only look at evidence within the gospels themselves. For example, when Jesus said on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me," he said that in Hebrew or Aramaic. Yet, the Jewish bystanders did not even recognize the word for God in Hebrew/Aramaic, let alone the whole sentence. Which they would have recognized if they were not Greek speakers, since Jesus was saying something out of Psalm 22. But instead, the bystanders said, "Listen, he's calling Elijah." (If the bystanders were not Jewish, they would not know about or care about Elijah. They were probably Jewish pilgrims that arrived from Greek-speaking countries, for the days of Unleavened Bread.)

Secondly, the verse quoted, saying "every word" does not strictly mean every "word." The Greek word is ῥήμα - hreema: "upon every ῥήμα - hreema that proceeds from the mouth of God." (Look at Deuteronomy 8:3 in the KJV, and you see that "word" is in italics.) In Hebraistic Greek, ῥήμα was used not only for words or statements, but when combined with the Greek word πᾶν - "pan" as in this verse, it can mean "every matter" or "every thing." Look at how some translations rendered Deuteronomy 8:3 as "everything that comes from the mouth of God." (ASV, JPS, Spanish Reina Valera, YLT, Darby, NASB) And the KJV in Deuteronomy 8:3 has the word "word" in italics, showing you that there is not a Hebrew word for "word" there. The Hebrew does not exactly say "every word" as the above person is understanding it; it just says something like "what proceeds from the mouth of God." So the point is, that scripture does not mean, "every exact syllable or every exact word" necessarily. It certainly means, "every statement" and "every teaching." And the fact that believers during Jesus' day accepted the statements of God worded so many different ways in their 4 versions of the Bible shows that they did not view Deuteronomy 8:3 the way the above person did.

A worhty excerpt Of Probally the First Translator of the scriptures from Hebrew, and Chaldean To Greek.  Keep this in mind.
Many pirnciples apply to any translation allegorically.

Josephus THE ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS PREFACE {Footnote - *}

1. THOSE who undertake to write histories (Or Bible Translations), do not, I perceive, take that trouble on one and the same account, but for many reasons, and those such as are very different one from another. For some of them apply themselves to this part of learning to show their skill in composition, and that they may therein acquire a reputation for speaking finely: others of them there are, who write histories in order to gratify those that happen to be concerned in them, and on that account have spared no pains, but rather gone beyond their own abilities in the performance: but others there are, who, of necessity and by force, are driven to write history, because they are concerned in the facts, and so cannot excuse themselves from committing them to writing, for the advantage of posterity; nay, there are not a few who are induced to draw their historical facts out of darkness into light(Our Enlgish Bible Translation coming after the dark ages), and to produce them for the benefit of the public, on account of the great importance of the facts themselves with which they have been concerned. ...

2. Now I have undertaken the present work, as thinking it will appear to all the Greeks ( AND enigmatically to Gentile such like us)  (2) worthy of their study; for it will contain all our antiquities, and the constitution of our government, as interpreted out of the Hebrew Scriptures (Later Bibles out of Hebrew + Greek). And indeed I did formerly intend, ...  what wars also they had made in remote ages,...but in process of time, as usually happens to such as undertake great things, I grew weary and went on slowly, it being a large subject, and a difficult thing to translate our history into a foreign, and to us unaccustomed language. However, some persons there were who desired to know our history, and so exhorted me to go on with it; and, above all the rest, Epaphroditus, (4) a man who is a lover of all kind of learning, but is principally delighted with the knowledge of history, and this on account of his having been himself concerned in great affairs, and many turns of fortune, and having shown a wonderful rigor of an excellent nature, and an immovable virtuous resolution in them all. I yielded to this man's persuasions, who always excites such as have abilities in what is useful and acceptable, to join their endeavors with his. I was also ashamed myself to permit any laziness of disposition to have a greater influence upon me, than the delight of taking pains in such studies as were very useful: I thereupon stirred up myself, and went on with my work more cheerfully. Besides the foregoing motives, I had others which I greatly reflected on; and these were, that our forefathers were willing to communicate such things to others; and that some of the Greeks took considerable pains to know the affairs of our nation.

3. I found, therefore, that the second of the Ptolemies was a king who was extraordinarily diligent in what concerned learning, and the collection of books; that he was also peculiarly ambitious to procure a translation of our law (And many other books like the ones in the bible), and of the constitution of our government therein contained, into the Greek tongue ( And others later into English). Now Eleazar the high priest (or translators later), one not inferior to any other of that dignity among us, did not envy the forenamed king the participation of that advantage, which otherwise he would for certain have denied him, but that he knew the custom of our nation was, to hinder nothing of what we esteemed ourselves from being communicated to others. Accordingly, I thought it became me both to imitate the generosity of our high priest, and to suppose there might even now be many lovers of learning like the king; for he did not obtain all our writings at that time; but those who were sent to Alexandria as interpreters, gave him only the books of the law, while there were a vast number of other matters in our sacred books. They, indeed, contain in them the history of five thousand years; in which time happened many strange accidents, many chances of war, and great actions of the commanders, and mutations of the form of our government. Upon the whole, a man that will peruse this history ( or Bible), may principally learn from it, that all events succeed well, even to an incredible degree, and the reward of felicity is proposed by God; but then it is to those that follow his will, and do not venture to break his excellent laws: and that so far as men any way apostatize from the accurate observation of them, what was practical before becomes impracticable (5) and whatsoever they set about as a good thing, is converted into an incurable calamity. And now I exhort all those that peruse these books, to apply their minds to God; and to examine the mind of our legislator, whether he hath not understood his nature in a manner worthy of him; and hath not ever ascribed to him such operations as become his power, and hath not preserved his writings from those indecent fables which others have framed, although, by the great distance of time when he lived, he might have securely forged such lies; for he lived two thousand years ago; at which vast distance of ages the poets themselves have not been so hardy as to fix even the generations of their gods, much less the actions of their men, or their own laws. (The greek and roman Gods and fables and such).

4...that he who would conduct his own life well, and give laws (or bible translations) to others, in the first place should consider the Divine nature; and, upon the contemplation of God's operations, should thereby imitate the best of all patterns, so far as it is possible for human nature to do, and to endeavor to follow after it: neither could the legislator (Or translator)  himself have a right mind without such a contemplation; nor would any thing he should write tend to the promotion of virtue in his readers; I mean, unless they be taught first of all, that God is the Father and Lord of all things, and sees all things, and that thence he bestows a happy life upon those that follow him; but plunges such as do not walk in the paths of virtue into inevitable miseries. Now when Moses (or translator (Like Wycliff, Tydale) was desirous to teach this lesson to his countrymen, he did not begin the establishment of his laws after the same manner that other legislators did; I mean, upon contracts and other rights between one man and another, but by raising their minds upwards to regard God
 (to compare spiritual things with spiritual 1 Cor. 2:13), and his creation of the world; and by persuading them, that we men are the most excellent of the creatures of God upon earth. Now when once he had brought them to submit to religion, he easily persuaded them to submit in all other things: for as to other legislators, they followed fables, and by their discourses transferred the most reproachful of human vices unto the gods, and afforded wicked men the most plausible excuses for their crimes
( which Evolution, a real enemy, does today); but as for our legislator, when he had once demonstrated that God was possessed of perfect virtue, he supposed that men also ought to strive after the participation of it; and on those who did not so think, and so believe, he inflicted the severest punishments.
I exhort, therefore, my readers to examine this whole undertaking in that view; for thereby it will appear to them, that there is nothing therein disagreeable either to the majesty of God, or to his love to mankind; for all things have here a reference to the nature of the universe; while our legislator speaks some things wisely, but enigmatically, and others under a decent allegory, but still explains such things as required a direct explication plainly and expressly.
End of Excerpt.

By the way, here is what John R. Rice says on the issue: "The doctrine of infallibility in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives.” John R. Rice - The Sword of the Lord March 30, 1979 issue.

Fact: The Septuagint (the translation of at least the five books of Moses into Greek, done a couple hundred years before Christ) was significantly different from the Hebrew, yet the true believers among God's people considered BOTH of them to be the very oracles of God. By the above King James Only reasoning, then, only one of them could have been the "perfect" word of God. But that was not the belief of Christ and the apostles. Thus, King James Onlyism is a new doctrine, and a man-made doctrine, and a false doctrine.

Fact: The New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint quite often. They considered it the Bible, the Word of God. Peter Ruckman and other extreme King James Onlyists spread the myth that the Septuagint did not exist until well after the time of Christ. That is simply false. The Jewish historian Josephus says that there was such a Greek translation of the five Books of Moses, at least that much, in the time of Christ, plus surely also the Psalms. Other books of the Bible were added later by various parties, but a good argument can be made that the Septuagint was done at least as early as some of the Dead Sea Scrolls, because they often agree with the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text. 

For the Jewish historian Josephus’ detailed description of events surrounding the original authorship of the Septuagint, see Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, XII, ii, 1-4.<Which is reproduced for your reading Pleasure Here.>
 (Rediculous Ryming Recitation: Who loves you now, brown cow?)

HOW PTOLEMY PHILADELPHUS PROCURED THE LAWS OF THE JEWS TO BE TRANSLATED INTO THE GREEK TONGUE AND SET MANY CAPTIVES FREE, AND DEDICATED MANY GIFTS TO GOD.

1. WHEN Alexander had reigned twelve years, and after him Ptolemy Soter forty years, Philadelphus then took the kingdom of Egypt, and held it forty years within one. He procured the law to be interpreted, and set free those that were come from Jerusalem into Egypt, and were in slavery there, who were a hundred and twenty thousand. The occasion was this: Demetrius Phalerius, who was library keeper to the king, was now endeavoring, if it were possible, to gather together all the books that were in the habitable earth, and buying whatsoever was any where valuable, or agreeable to the king's inclination, (who was very earnestly set upon collecting of books,) to which inclination of his Demetrius was zealously subservient. And when once Ptolemy asked him how many ten thousands of books he had collected, he replied, that he had already about twenty times ten thousand; but that, in a little time, he should have fifty times ten thousand. But be said he had been informed that there were many books of laws among the Jews worthy of inquiring after, and worthy of the king's library, but which, being written in characters and in a dialect of their own, will cause no small pains in getting them translated into the Greek tongue; (3) that the character in which they are written seems to be like to that which is the proper character of the Syrians, and that its sound, when pronounced, is like theirs also; and that this sound appears to be peculiar to themselves. Wherefore he said that nothing hindered why they might not get those books to be translated also; for while nothing is wanting that is necessary for that purpose, we may have their books also in this library. So the king thought that Demetrius was very zealous to procure him abundance of books, and that he suggested what was exceeding proper for him to do; and therefore he wrote to the Jewish high priest, that he should act accordingly.

2. Now there was one Aristeus, who was among the king's most intimate friends, and on account of his modesty very acceptable to him. This Aristeus resolved frequently, and that before now, to petition the king that he would set all the captive Jews in his kingdom free; and he thought this to be a convenient opportunity for the making that petition. So he discoursed, in the first place, with the captains of the king's guards, Sosibius of Tarentum, and Andreas, and persuaded them to assist him in what he was going to intercede with the king for. Accordingly Aristeus embraced the same opinion with those that have been before mentioned, and went to the king, and made the following speech to him: "It is not fit for us, O king, to overlook things hastily, or to deceive ourselves, but to lay the truth open. For since we have determined not only to get the laws of the Jews transcribed, but interpreted also, for thy satisfaction, by what means can we do this, while so many of the Jews are now slaves in thy kingdom? Do thou then what will be agreeable to thy magnanimity, and to thy good nature: free them from the miserable condition they are in, because that God, who supporteth thy kingdom, was the author of their laws as I have learned by particular inquiry; for both these people, and we also, worship the same God the framer of all things. We call him, and that truly, by the name of GREEK, [or life, or Jupiter,] because he breathes life into all men. Wherefore do thou restore these men to their own country, and this do to the honor of God, because these men pay a peculiarly excellent worship to him. And know this further, that though I be not of kin to them by birth, nor one of the same country with them, yet do I desire these favors to be done them, since all men are the workmanship of God; and I am sensible that he is well-pleased with those that do good. I do therefore put up this petition to thee, to do good to them."

3. When Aristeus was saying thus, the king looked upon him with a cheerful and joyful countenance, and said, "How many ten thousands dost thou suppose there are of such as want to be made free?" To which Andreas replied, as he stood by, and said," A few more than ten times ten thousand." The king made answer, "And is this a small gift that thou askest, Aristeus?" But Sosibius, and the rest that stood by, said that he ought to offer such a thank-offering as was worthy of his greatness of soul, to that God who had given him his kingdom. With this answer he was much pleased; and gave order, that when they paid the soldiers their wages, they should lay down [a hundred and] twenty drachmas (4) for every one of the slaves? And he promised to publish a magnificent decree, about what they requested, which should confirm what Aristeus had proposed, and especially what God willed should be done; whereby he said he would not only set those free who had been led away captive by his father and his army, but those who were in this kingdom before, and those also, if any such there were, who had been brought away since. And when they said that their redemption money would amount to above four hundred talents, he granted it. A copy of which decree I have determined to preserve, that the magnanimity of this king may be made known. Its contents were as follows: "Let ail those who were soldiers under our father, and who, when they overran Syria and Phoenicia, and laid waste Judea, took the Jews captives, and made them slaves, and brought them into our cities, and into this country, and then sold them; as also all those that were in my kingdom before them, and if there be any that have been lately brought thither, - be made free by those that possess them; and let them accept of [a hundred and] twenty drachmas for every slave. And let the soldiers receive this redemption money with their pay, but the rest out of the king's treasury: for I suppose that they were made captives without our father's consent, and against equity; and that their country was harassed by the insolence of the soldiers, and that, by removing them into Egypt, the soldiers have made a great profit by them. Out of regard therefore to justice, and out of pity to those that have been tyrannized over, contrary to equity, I enjoin those that have such Jews in their service to set them at liberty, upon the receipt of the before-mentioned sum; and that no one use any deceit about them, but obey what is here commanded. And I will that they give in their names within three days after the publication of this edict, to such as are appointed to execute the same, and to produce the slaves before them also, for I think it will be for the advantage of my affairs. And let every one that will inform against those that do not obey this decree, and I will that their estates be confiscated into the king's treasury." When this decree was read to the king, it at first contained the rest that is here inserted, and omitted only those Jews that had formerly been brought, and those brought afterwards, which had not been distinctly mentioned; so he added these clauses out of his humanity, and with great generosity. He also gave order that the payment, which was likely to be done in a hurry, should be divided among the king's ministers, and among the officers of his treasury. When this was over, what the king had decreed was quickly brought to a conclusion; and this in no more than seven days' time, the number of the talents paid for the captives being above four hundred and sixty, and this, because their masters required the [hundred and] twenty drachmas for the children also, the king having, in effect, commanded that these should be paid for, when he said in his decree, that they should receive the forementioned sum for every slave.

4. Now when this had been done after so magnificent a manner, according to the king's inclinations, he gave order to Demetrius to give him in writing his sentiments concerning the transcribing of the Jewish books; for no part of the administration is done rashly by these kings, but all things are managed with great circumspection. On which account I have subjoined a copy of these epistles, and set down the multitude of the vessels sent as gifts [to Jerusalem], and the construction of every one, that the exactness of the artificers' workmanship, as it appeared to those that saw them, and which workman made every vessel, may be made manifest, and. this on account of the excellency of the vessels themselves. Now the copy of the epistle was to this purpose: "Demetrius to the great king. When thou, O king, gavest me a charge concerning the collection of books that were wanting to fill your library, and concerning the care that ought to be taken about such as are imperfect, I have used the utmost diligence about those matters. And I let you know, that we want the books of the Jewish legislation, with some others; for they are written in the Hebrew characters, and being in the language of that nation, are to us unknown. It hath also happened to them, that they have been transcribed more carelessly than they ought to have been, because they have not had hitherto royal care taken about them. Now it is necessary that thou shouldst have accurate copies of them. And indeed this legislation is full of hidden wisdom, and entirely blameless, as being the legislation of God; for which cause it is, as Hecateus of Abdera says, that the poets and historians make no mention of it, nor of those men who lead their lives according to it, since it is a holy law, and ought not to be published by profane mouths. If then it please thee, O king, thou mayst write to the high priest of the Jews, to send six of the elders out of every tribe, and those such as are most skillful of the laws, that by their means we may learn the clear and agreeing sense of these books, and may obtain an accurate interpretation of their contents, and so may have such a collection of these as may be suitable to thy desire."
<End of Josephus quotes>

The fact is that the Septuagint was the one of the main Bible for believers worldwide then, both Jews and Christians. Relatively few people could read the Hebrew scriptures.
The pharasees marvelled that Jesus knew them John 7:15.  And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?
 I believe the Septuagint existing in the time of the apostles contained at least the Pentateuch and the Psalms, because of how quotations of those 6 books in the New Testament line up so well with the Septuagint. See this link which compares NT quotations with the various Old Testament versions of Jesus' times.This kind of KJV only writer also ignores clear translation mistakes in the KJV, mistakes translating even from the Greek texts which KJV onlyists accept. I need to post a list of such mistakes here, and I intend to do that in the near future.As for Charles H. Spurgeon, check out this link for other things he said on Bible versions and inspiration.

  Assertion: 

Psalm 12:6,7 says God will preserve his words forever. That means they can't keep changing. My AV1611 is the final authority.

My Response:
First of all, even if that passage is talking about God's words, there is nothing in it which speaks of the KJV over any other translation. And if it means the KJV, what did it mean then before 1611, before the KJV first came out? Obviously, this is not referring to the KJV Bible over any other Bible. To say it does, is to be a false teacher.

Secondly, and the main point is, that this verse is not referring to the words of God, but to the people of God. Psalm 12:7 "You will keep them, O Jehovah, You will preserve them from this generation for ever."

The original KJV of 1611 says in a marginal explanatory note that this pronoun, "preserve THEM" is singular in the Hebrew and that it means "him," "preserve HIM." That is, the godly man mentioned in the opening of the Psalm.  This "them" therefore is referring to the godly, the poor, and the needy. The Septuagint says "us" here. This verse is clearly not referring to "the words of God," but to the godly person. It is the godly person that David is saying God will preserve. The first verse of the Psalm sets the subject: "Help, O Jehovah; for the godly man ceases; For the faithful fail from among the children of men."

This is one of the main proof texts for KJV Onlyism, and they don't even know what it is saying or means. They deny what the AV1611 itself says it means. This is a prime example of the ignorance, and carnal pride of KJV Onlyists, that they will not be corrected even by the translators of the AV1611! They truly are their own final authority, and the AV1611 is certainly not their final authority.

As for "Final Authority," it has to boil down to this: each person determines what translation or scholar or authority is true and reliable and final for themselves. Some might profess that they are letting a certain set of scholars determine it for them, but that is still YOU YOURSELF determining which scholars are reliable.

If you decide it is only the AV16ll or only the Textus Receptus that is reliable, YOU YOURSELF determined that, or YOU YOURSELF determined which other determiners to believe.

If we say, "The Holy Spirit's Leading" is the final authority, it is still "me and you" who determine what really is the Holy Spirit's leading v. voices from space or rioting synapses or hormones or drugs or Satan or what have you.

If I had my druthers, I would just remain in bed until God struck me blind and deaf or something, and stood in my room and declared to me without all doubt, what Bible version I must exclusively use. I would LOVE it if that happened. Who wouldn't?

But he hasn't, and I have to conclude that all this process, the very process we are engaged in right now discussing these things, is what God wanted us to be exercised in. Hebrews 5:14 "But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

An email from a reader
Ron wrote: << I am an adult Sunday school, Bible discussion leader in a United Methodist Church. Multi translations are used in my discussion class. ... I minister to homeless persons and have been hit with "the original KJV is the only true Bible and all of the rest are the works of the devil". What do you say to these guys who have been so indoctrinated? One person really gave me a hard time and said I was not fit to teach from the Bible of Satan. That almost did me in. My faith keeps me going in this ministry ....... It ain't easy! Great stuff, and thanks! Ron >>

My response:
Dear Ron, Thank-you for your email. I have been made very sad many times by the same type of people. You asked me what I say to them. The problem is, it is necessary to say a long list of historical and technical things to them, but those people are not of the spirit to wait and learn and listen. So you can't tell them facts. The key is something you already said: "They almost did me in." Ron, who is it that wants to do your faith in? It is Satan. So now, I have reluctantly concluded, that the thing to say to those people is, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" By saying that to them, you are not telling them they are not Christians. Jesus said that to Peter, and He knew Peter was a believer. But Peter was saying things that were very harmful to Jesus' faith. And he had to be stopped in his tracks. If they seem open to you after that, then reason with them like this. Tell them that there are millions of Christians now, here and around the world, whose faith came from reading the NIV, or the New King James, or the NASB. Tell them that their words could DESTROY the faith of those little ones who belong to Jesus, whose faith came from reading other versions. Ask them, what does the KJV say about those "who cause any of these little ones who believe in me, to stumble"? Go with the peace of Jesus

Assertion: The KJV is the only English translation authorized by God and inspired by God.

Response: The translators of the KJV themselves, in their original preface to the KJV, entitled "The Translators to the Reader," recently re-published by Thomas Nelson & Co., have this to say:

"We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. "

(By the "very meanest" translation, they meant the most humble, common, or mediocre( Of that time).  They were speaking of all translations of the Bible in general, not about their own translation specifically.) They clearly did not believe that the King James Version was the only, last, and final Word of God for the English language.

Neither did they believe that their translation work was perfect. They said, "A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?"

They clearly stated that neither was their work perfect, nor did they as men have the privilege of infallibility. They were in a position to know this, since they knew each other, and they knew what was involved in Bible translation. Therefore this belief that the KJV translators' work was perfect, and that they were infallible, is a false belief.

Concerning the issue of whether there are other valid ways to translate Greek words than the way they themselves did it, they had this to say:

"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

Amen! A variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures. Amen.

And it looks to me like they believed it was possible for themselves as translators to have made a mistake.

And as they said elsewhere: "For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables?" I urge us all to emulate the humility and reasonableness of the translators of the KJV.

You can actually view one of the original KJV's marginal notes, on the web. It is a marginal note indicating that they included the verse Luke 17:36, even though they admit in the margin that most of the Greek manuscripts did not have it. To see that, click here, then click the Back arrow at the upper left of your screen.

Assertion: "Modern translations are Roman Catholic-influenced perversions."

This is one of the most amazing of all the KJV Onlyist beliefs, because the truth is so completely the opposite. For example, the most influential scholar producing the Greek text edition from which the King James Version was translated, was a Roman Catholic, Erasmus.

Then you have the fact that there are passages in the King James Version that come from the Latin Vulgate, and not the Greek texts.

It can also easily be shown that the King James Version uses "high church" political terminology, that these very King James Onlyists would normally object to, since many King James Onlyists are Baptists and other groups that protested the "high church" denominations. An example of KJV high church terminology is the word "bishop."

The King James Onlyists sound exactly like Roman Catholics a lot of the time. I will give an example, a quotation from a web site written by a Roman Catholic apologist, instructing Roman Catholics on how to talk to "Bible Christians." It lays down ground rules, and Rule Number One is:

<< Ground Rules

1. Before discussing the Bible with them, tell them that the King James version is the only acceptable Protestant version of the Bible. Normally they will not object to this, unless they are incredibly unlearned. Insisting on the King James version merely makes you seem a little fundamentalist. This version has a more correct translation than other Protestant versions. If they insist on using their version, have them compare I John 5:7 in their version with the same verse in the King James version. The comparison should convince them. If not, they are probably those whom St. Peter calls "willfully ignorant (II Peter 3:5)." They probably will not listen to anything you have to say. >>

The main reason this Roman Catholic prefers the KJV is that it contains Roman Catholic words like "bishop."

<< correct translation is "bishop." However, you find episkopous translated correctly in I Timothy 3:1>>

By the way, for a discussion of the textial variant in 1 John 5:7, read this PDF.

http://www.icubed.com/~rpoe/ini.htm by Robin C. Poe

Assertion: The Alexandrian text type was tampered with by Origen and others, to put Gnostic and other heresies into the scriptures.

My response: Show me one instance of a heresy present in the Alexandrian text type.  This is how I respond to those who make this assertion, and none of them can give me an example.    Conclusion: Such KJV onlyists are deceivers by unknowing or design.  They are lying about and slandering the current editions of the Greek New Testament, and the lifelong work of many godly Christian scholars and Bible lovers.  In short, Anyone who holds their bible as the only literanl inerant word of god could be guilty of the sins of : (1) hate for their brother; (2) lying (3) slander (4) railing (5) pride and unteachableness, and (6) the yeast of the Pharisees. These kind of statements have a show of wisdom but it is likely wisdom that comes from below, an earthly, devilish wisdom.

One web site said: Concerning how to tell if you have the Authorized King James Version, [1] if it doesn't say Authorized (a word that liberal "Christians" don't like. I'm not surprised they took it off the title page) it should at least [2] say conformable to the edition of 1611. As a third check you can [3] take selected AKJV scriptures and compare them with your Bibles. I'd take some verses with ye's and thee's to compare. Even if it has the ye's, I'd look at 2 Timothy 3:17 to make sure they didn't change "throughly" to "thoroughly".

Response: The word "authorized" there means that it was the official version authorized for the Church of England, by the head of the Church of England. The British monarch is the head of the Church of England. Now that King James, the then head of the Church of England, is dead, should the current head of that church, Queen Elizabeth, be the one to decide which version is authorized? Or, since Christian pilgrims came here to America in order to escape the Church of England, should it be Bill Clinton who authorizes Bible translations for us?

Assertion: The King James Version has never been revised since 1611.

My Response:
First, the definition of "revise".
American Heritage Dictionary, Standard Edition:
1. To prepare a newly edited version of (a text).
2. To reconsider and change or modify.
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary:
1. to look over again in order to correct or improve, for example, a manuscript
2. to make a new, amended, improved, or up-to-date version of

So yes, the King James Version has been revised. There have been several revisions, in 1629, 1638, 1653, 1701, 1762, 1769, and two more, the last three by Dr. Blayney of Oxford. These varied in many details, making changes, for example, in orthography and spelling. The orthography of a language is the letters and symbols used to represent the sounds. The KJV that people read today is a revision made in the 1800's. If you found a copy actually printed in 1611, you would have to slog through some strange symbols. For example, the "s" sound was represented by "f." There have been many, many spelling changes since 1611; for example, musick to music; olde to old, etc. The letter "u" in 1611 was "v", and the letter "v" was "u." See the section on this site responding to the assertion that the KJV is the only English version authorized and inspired by God. There you will find actual quotes from the KJV translators that show old spellings of English words. And, click here to see a photograph of the first page of Luke chapter 10 from an original King James Version.

It seems unreasonable to say that the updates of the English done to the KJV up to 1881 are good and inspired by God, but to revise the English subsequent to 1881, is "heresy" or "a work of Satan" or "new age."

Here is a link to a web page that lists and details some differences between the 1611 edition of the KJV as compared to the 1769 Blayney revision.  These differences are not merely spelling and orthography; they are differences in words that change the meaning of the verses.

The fact is, also, that the King James Version itself was only a revision. It was a revision of the Bishop's Bible. At the time, the most popular version of the Bible among lay fundamentalists was the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible irritated both the clergy of the Roman Catholic church and of Church of England, and King James I of England, alike. The Bishop's Bible had been made in reaction to the popularity of the Geneva Bible among Protestant dissidents. When King James I commissioned the Authorized King James Version, these instructions were issued: that they should follow the text of the Bishop's Bible unless they found that the translations of Tyndale, Matthew (John Rogers), Whitchurche, and Geneva more closely agreed with the original text. And that original Greek text edition that the KJV translators consulted, was taken and edited from only a few if any of the best available texts of the 12th to 15th centuries, since it followed the 1516 and 1522 editions of Erasmus' Greek text. Since the KJV used the Bishop's Bible as its main base, that means it kept many old ecclesiastical words from the Catholic tradition, and many Latinisms, or Latin idioms translated into English.

God has raised up servants of his who have continued to update the English Bible. Noah Webster did a revision of the KJV. Then in England the Revised Version was a revision of the King James Version, and the American Standard Version was the revision of the KJV in America. Then came the Revised Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible. If you wanted a good translation that is accepted by many people of God in many camps, it would be the Revised Standard Version. A few conservatives may quibble about a couple words in it here and there, but I could show them more words in the New International Version than in the RSV, that would be more worth the quibbling.( when writting term papers for college it might be worth using) And God's servants who have produced these benefits of modern translations for us have certainly suffered persecution for doing so; and unfortunately the persecution comes from people who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ.

Statement: The MOTIVE of those who point out problems with the King James Version, is to destroy people's faith in the Bible.  Instead of being Bible-correctors, people should be Bible obeyers.

Response: The translators of the King James Version were themselves "Bible correctors."  When they did their translation, there were already a half dozen translations of the Bible into English.  So, they "changed the Bible."   Now why would they make another translation of the Bible into English, unless they thought there was need to correct and improve?  One of the reasons they stated, for their doing a new translation, was to make the Bible "more current."  Those modernists!  :)  I assume they meant to update the English, and to take advantage of new knowledge in textual criticism.  Yes, the KJV translators were also textual critics.  That means, they involved themselves in picking and choosing which text had the reading closest to the original, in any particular passage.  That means they had to involve themselves in picking and choosing which texts to follow.  Sometimes they chose a reading that differed from the "Textus Receptus."

One of the primary false beliefs such KJV-only people have, is that God has chosen the King James Version as the only translation authorized in the English language, and therefore contains no translation mistakes, and also must be based on the best possible Greek manuscripts. As a result, they take a criticism of THAT ONE TRANSLATION as an attack on God, and on his word, as if the King James Version were God's word itself. Jesus Christ is the Word, and he is not paper and ink. He never changes, and never errs.

When has God ever told us that he chose the King James Version over all other translations into English, and that this one translation contains no human errors? They state this as if it were gospel truth. But, it is a great evil to say, "Thus saith the Lord," when the Lord did not say it. In the Old Testament, if a prophet said "Thus says the Lord," and it turned out the Lord had not said it, he was to be stoned to death. Yet, these people turn it around, and say to anyone who challenges this false belief, "You are another serpent, who is saying, 'Hath God really said?'" Brothers and sisters, we are to test every spirit, to see whether it is of God. Test this belief that the King James Version is the only translation into English approved by God, and you must find it false. You can like it best, and read it of course. But do not dare declare as if speaking for God, that it is the only one approved by God.

Yes, I know, they will say that it says in Psalms, "Thy word is perfect." Amen. Note that it does not say, "The King James Version is perfect." But you see, because of their false circular reasoning, you run into their brick wall false belief, that the King James Version IS the only Word of God. So therefore they believe this verse means, "The King James Version is perfect." Well, if a person weak in the faith, or a new convert is saying this, it is not wise perhaps to argue with them. But Christian leaders and pastors should know better, and not be spreading this falsehood.

Assertion: The AV (Authorized Version or King James Version) is our final authority.

My Response:

The scripture says, "As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God..." Romans 8:14

Note that it does not say, "As many as are led by the AV, they are the sons of God."

It doesn't matter which version you use, without the Spirit's leading, none of the versions do any good.

But with the Spirit's leading, they all can be used of God.

His rebuttal:

<< 1. HOW is God our authority? Is it by direct revelation? Signs in the sky? Inner voice? How do we appeal to God as our final authority? For example when there is a heated debate as to which version to believe, how does our final authority (God) tell us? How does He answer us? >>

You are a missionary, and you don't know these things? The wind blows where it wills. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it is coming from, or where it is going. Such is everyone born of the Spirit. Only you can learn this, in your own personal walk with God.

<< 2. All religions, pagan religions included, have God as their final authority. What's the difference? Don't followers of Islam have God as their final authority? >>

The difference is, Christians are "led by the Spirit of God." That is the point here. Are you saying Muslims worship the true God? Are they led by the Spirit of the true God? Muslims are also "people of the book." But are they led by the Spirit? Jesus told the Pharisees, "You diligently search the scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life. And these are scriptures that point to Me." Scriptures point to Jesus, the living Word. He is the word.

<< 3. I thought the SCRIPTURES were the final authority in all matters of FAITH AND PRACTICE? >>

You did? I thought you maintain that the AV is the final authority in all matters of FAITH AND PRACTICE.

The Holy Spirit is our final authority. If not, all we have is opinions, your opinion, my opinion. Jesus spoke with noticeable authority. He quoted the same scriptures that the Pharisees quoted. What was the difference between Jesus quoting the scriptures, and the Pharisees quoting the scriptures? The Holy Spirit was the difference.

<< Is it really your intent to appeal to things that God "uses" for authority in matters of faith and practice?

God can and does use any version. He is not limited by our stupidity. He can USE a drunk to put the fear of God in a cellmate (in jail). He can USE a donkey to rebuke a prophet and a lying spirit to guide a deluded king( balam and balak). This is not to say we should appeal to drunks, donkey's and lying spirits for guidance in matters of faith and practice. This debate is not about what God can and cannot use. It is about which English Bible is our final authority in matters of faith and practice. >>

We should look to God and appeal to be the taught by Holy Ghost/Spirit..

However The Holy Ghost or Spirit is NOT given to every church goer.
Acts 5:32.  And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.
Sorry Billy Graham. Even if you "accept Jesus into your heart" you do not get it. The Holy Ghost is given to them that obey God.
Should write a paper on the abuse of the "Leading of the Holy Spirit" or excuse to do what I want to do, but sound spiritual about it.
Many are mislead by their pastors and blown by every wind of doctrine.

The KJV from my research, does have more going for it than basically any Newer English Translation.

However there were former translations into English. The first whole bible being the Wycliff then the Tydale, then the Geneva, then the KJV.
Also the Webster Bible is worth looking into.
However the KJV  is not copyrighted so the KJV is usaully the cheapest.
And of the Wycliff, Tydale, and Geneva, the only one readily available on some (fewer and fewer thanks to greed mainly) book store shelves is the KJV.
However to say it is the Literal inerrant word of God and there is no other in any language is denying where the KJV is translated from, the Hebrew, Greek and Chaldean or Aramaic. To be dogmatic and try to force others think the same way is wrong.

2 Timothy 2 23-26 KJV
 23.  But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
 24.  And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
 25.  In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
 26.  And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.