When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine

http://www.atlantaapologist.org/kjv.html ^

[fishtank]

When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine by Robert M. Bowman, Jr.

This outline was covered in a lecture of the same topic at the March 1998 ACAP meeting.

1. The KJV originally contained the Apocrypha. Thus, the Bible that KJV-Only advocates use omits thousands of verses originally contained in the KJV (just over 5,700) – far more than the few verses found in the KJV but omitted in the NASB, NIV, and other modern translations (such as 1 John 5:7). It is true that the Apocrypha was widely regarded by Protestants in 1611 not to have the status of full canonicity. However, in the original 1611 edition no disclaimer was included in this regard (one was added in later editions). Furthermore, if the Apocrypha were to be included today, KJV-only advocates would vehemently object to its inclusion – a sure sign that its inclusion in the 1611 edition is a significant difference.

2. Even excluding the Apocrypha, the KJV of 1611 differed slightly from editions of the KJV in common use today.. We are not referring here to spelling changes and the like, or to misprints in later, single editions. Usually the changes are improvements – for example, Matthew 26:36 now properly reads "Then cometh Jesus," where the original KJV read "Then cometh Judas." Not all the changes are for the better, though – for example, Matthew 23:34 in the KJV originally read "strain out a gnat," which is correct, while subsequent editions of the KJV to this day have "strain at a gnat." These facts prove that the extreme KJV-Only belief that even the slightest deviation from the wording of the KJV results in a false Bible is completely unrealistic. Please note that we are not claiming that the differences are vast or troubling from our perspective. We are simply pointing out that the position that the wording of the 1611 KJV is inviolable logically requires that modern editions of the KJV not be used.

3. The translators of the KJV did not believe in the KJV-Only doctrine. a. They asserted that "the very meanest [i.e., most common or rude] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession . . . containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." In other words, any translation of the Bible by Christian scholars is the word of God. b. They understood their work as a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek text, contrary to some extreme KJV-Only advocates who maintain that the original Hebrew and Greek text is nonexistent and irrelevant. c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing alternate renderings – making it clear that the wording of the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or debate. d. They also included variant readings – an extremely important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John 2:23b). e. They acknowledged that they exercised liberty in rendering the same Greek or Hebrew word in a variety of ways for stylistic purposes, again proving that they did not regard their wording as the only possible or acceptable rendering of the Bible. f. They took as a guiding principle the belief that the Bible should be translated into the "vulgar," or common, language of the people – implying that as the English language changes new translations may be needed. g. They asserted that there was value in having a variety of translations of the Scriptures.

4. The KJV Bible itself does not teach the KJV-Only Doctrine. a. No verse of the KJV indicates that there can be only one translation in any language. Much less does any verse of the KJV teach (as some KJV-Only advocates maintain) that there can be only one language version of the Bible at a time and that the only Bible in the world today is the KJV. b. The KJV does clearly teach that God's word is pure and that God promised to preserve his word. But in no verse does the KJV indicate that this preservation would occur without variant readings or renderings. To say that God's word is "pure" is not the same thing as saying that there can be no variations from one version of the Bible to another. It is, rather, simply to say that what God has said is absolutely reliable. But we must still determine precisely what God said. Did he say what is in the Apocrypha? Did he say 1 John 5:7? The purity of God's word is an axiom, but it does not automatically answer these questions. c. The KJV does teach that no one should add to or subtract from God's word. This does place a serious responsibility on the textual scholar and the translator; but it does not tell us which English version is correct about disputed verses such as 1 John 5:7.

5. The KJV-Only doctrine contradicts the evidence of the KJV Bible itself. a. If the KJV-Only doctrine were true, we would expect that quotations from the Old Testament (OT) appearing in the New Testament (NT) would be worded exactly the same. But this is usually not the case in the KJV. Granted, God might legitimately inspire the NT authors to reword certain OT verses. But this explanation does not cover all the evidence. b. The fact is that the vast majority of OT quotations in the NT differ at least slightly. Why would God inspire NT authors to reword OT statements routinely if there is only one legitimate wording for each OT verse? c. In some cases in the NT the OT quotation is presented as what a person in NT times actually read, or could read, in his copy of the OT. For example, several times Jesus asked the Jews if they had never read a particular OT text – and then quoted it in a form that differs from the KJV (Matt. 19:4-5 [Gen. 1:27; 2:24]; Matt. 21:16 [Ps. 8:2]; Matt. 21:42 and Mark 12:10 [Ps. 118:22-23]; Matt. 22:32 and Mark 12:26 [Ex. 3:6]). If the Bible is properly worded in only one way and any variant is a corruption of the Bible, then Jesus was asking them if they had read something which, according to KJV-Only reasoning, they could not have read. Elsewhere we are told that a person read an OT text, where the KJV of that OT text differs from what appears in the NT quotation (Luke 4:17-19 [Isa. 61:1-2]; 10:26-28 [Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18]; Acts 8:32-33 [Isa. 53:7-8]). These facts prove that the OT text which the Nazareth synagogue, Jesus himself, the rich young ruler, and the Ethiopian ruler had differed in wording from the OT in the KJV.

6. The KJV-Only doctrine is not the historic belief of the Christian faith. In the history of Christianity only two other versions of the Bible have ever been treated as the Bible, and even in these two cases not to the exclusion of other language versions. But those two versions were the Greek Septuagint (OT) and the Latin Vulgate, both of which (especially the latter) are typically rejected by KJV-Only advocates as perversions of the Bible. The Vulgate was treated as the only valid Bible for centuries by the Roman Catholic church in order to maintain uniformity in Bible reading and interpretation. Yet KJV-only advocates commonly regard the Septuagint and the Vulgate texts as false versions or "perversions" of the Bible. To be consistent, then, they must maintain that for over half of church history (over a thousand years) there was no Bible available to anyone outside a tiny number of scholars (if to anyone at all). In Protestantism the belief that the Bible may exist in multiple versions even in the same language has freed the Bible from the monopolistic control of the clergy or the theologians. The KJV-Only doctrine is a reactionary movement, limited almost exclusively to a segment of American fundamentalists (with much smaller followings in other English-speaking countries).

7. The KJV-Only doctrine does not fit the facts about the transmission of the Bible. a. According to at least some versions of the KJV-Only doctrine, God preserved the Bible against any and all deviations, so that the true Bible has always been the same. But there is no evidence that this has happened. In fact the Bible and portions of it have been freely copied, re-copied, and translated with great freedom in the first five centuries of the church and in the last five centuries (so far). This resulted in many variations and deviations from the original text. b. The copies of the first 1500 years or so of church history were all produced by hand, and no two extant manuscripts are completely alike. It is unrealistic to expect that before the printing press an absolutely unchanging text would be preserved by anyone – and the evidence from the extant manuscripts proves that in fact it did not happen. c. In the case of the New Testament, the distinctive Greek text tradition on which the KJV was based, known as the Byzantine text, does not appear to have existed in the early church. The best evidence we have so far suggests that the Alexandrian text tradition is the earliest. This claim is vigorously rejected by KJV-only advocates, and the arguments pro and con are many and the issue too complicated for most non-scholars to follow and appreciate. However, a simple observation can here be made even here. For the KJV-only doctrine to be correct, in every place where the Byzantine and Alexandrian texts differ, the Byzantine must always be right. To base one's doctrine on such an unprovable and dubious assumption is not wise.

8. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to respect the KJV as God's word. Many evangelical Christians greatly revere the KJV, read it, quote from it, believe it, and seek to live by it, who do not subscribe to the KJV-only doctrine.

9. One need not adhere to the KJV-only doctrine to express criticisms of other translations. Many evangelicals who do not hold to the KJV-only doctrine have specific criticisms of other translations. For example, many evangelicals are critical of gender-inclusive translations such as the NRSV. Many evangelicals have pointed out weaknesses or problems in the NIV. Sober criticism of other translations assumes a humble perspective that recognizes that no translator or translators have produced a perfect translation and that translators who make mistakes are not necessarily corrupting God's word.

10. Advocacy of the KJV-only doctrine is no guarantee of doctrinal truth or interpretive accuracy. A variety of Christian sects of American origin embrace the KJV in more or less exclusivistic fashion. a. Arguably the "Ruckmanites," a fundamentalist Baptistic movement that looks to Peter Ruckman as its primary spokesperson, is a distinct subgroup of American fundamentalism with almost cultish characteristics. Their basic theology seems sound enough, but it is overlaid with such extremism and legalism in its view of the Bible as to undermine its evangelical view of salvation. b. Mormonism uses the KJV as its official Bible, even though Joseph Smith produced an "inspired" revision of the Bible (which some Mormons also use). The Mormons have a strong commitment to the KJV because it was the Bible of the early LDS prophets, the Book of Mormon quotes (indeed, plagiarizes) whole chapters from the KJV, and Mormons have found it convenient to use the KJV in evangelizing especially in English-speaking countries. c. Many Oneness Pentecostals hold to a form of the KJV-only doctrine, especially on a popular level among pastors and laity. In their case they find it convenient to stick with the KJV because in certain places its wording is more compatible with the way the Oneness doctrine is articulated than modern translations (e.g., Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 3:16). Oneness Pentecostals often object to arguments based on the Greek or Hebrew as vain attempts to improve on the Bible.

11. The KJV-only doctrine requires that we have some sort of faith in the KJV translators. KJV-only advocates constantly complain that if we don't have one sure Bible, the KJV, then we have to trust what scholars say about the text and its translation. But they are placing their faith solely in the KJV translators. A genuinely Protestant approach to the Bible requires that we not trust any one translator or translation team. Lay Christians can compare different translations to help get at the truth about any passage – or at least to become aware of possible disputes over the meaning of the passage.

12. Advocates of the KJV-only doctrine all too commonly exhibit a spiteful and disrespectful attitude toward other Christians. Advocates of a hard-line KJV-only position commonly label all other translations (even the NKJV) "per-versions" of the Bible. They typically accuse anyone defending these other translations of lying, denying God's word, calling God a liar, and having no faith. While there are gracious, charitable advocates of the KJV-only doctrine, in general its advocates have earned a reputation for vicious name-calling, condescension, and arrogance. To quote the original 1611 edition of the KJV, these people "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." While zealous to defend the KJV, they betray its teachings by failing to exhibit love toward fellow believers in Jesus Christ. All too often they imply that to be saved one must not only believe in Christ, but must also adhere to the KJV as the only Bible. A doctrine that fosters such bad fruit must be bad. There is nothing wrong with loving the KJV and believing it to be the best translation of the Bible. There is something very wrong with condemning other Christians for not sharing that opinion.

Bibliography 1. Fundamentalist KJV-Only (and Related) Works

Burgon, John W. The Revision Revised. Paradise: Conservative Classics, 1977 reprint [1883]. Fuller, Daniel O., ed. Which Bible? Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International, 1978. Hodges, Zane C., and A. L. Farstad, eds. The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text. 2d ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985. Pickering, W. N. The Identity of the New Testament Text. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1977. 2. Evangelical Works Critiquing the KJV-Only Position

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979. White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1995. 3. On Mormonism and the Bible

Barlow, Philip L. Mormons and the Bible: The Place of the Latter-Day Saints in American Religion. Religion in America series. New York: Oxford University Press, 1991.

[drstevej]

***While this doesn't relate very much to your discussion, it sort of does. :>)***

Next you'll be talking about Dolly Parton and the Twin Towers.

[George W. Bush]

Look, George, I am NOT trying to demean the King James as "common claptrap". If I am looking for "claptrap", I'll buy myself a Living Bible (It's not really a Bible at all, but we can charge $24.95 for the leather-bound Edition -- and it's quite Friendly!!)

Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you had called it a 'claptrap'. I was alluding en passant to the fact that the KJV itself was criticized for being 'too common' in comparison to the Bishops and Geneva and other, perhaps more stately, translations. But we should expect in any event that any new bible will offend some because they like their safe and known bibles, the bible they grew up with. These are mere reactionaries who do not wish to examine the merits of the text and translation.

BTW, in that list of 'famous KJVers', I suspect Knox must be bogus. Surely he almost had to be a Geneva man.

But once upon a time, the Geneva Bible was the primary Translation preferred by the American Colonists -- For whatever it's worth, the Geneva Bible was the Bible which educated the majority of the Early American Colonists, not the King James.

Absolutely. I've posted the same before. The Genevas were the family bibles of the Puritans at a time when the Bible was the real primer of all education and when Puritan families took seriously their responsibility to raise their children in a Christian home and instruct them. In many ways, a Presbyterian idyll. And not one to which I hold any great objection even if a few tykes got sprinkled prematurely. If only we had anything comparable to that today!

Gimme every citation you like about the King James, George, and the fact remains -- roundabout 1700 AD, when that Baptist Circuit Pastor was whipped in the public square and then bound in the stocks, odds are that he was carrying around a "People's Bible", the Geneva Translation, in his knapsack. And when the Anglican (or even, God forgive us, Presbyterian) Judge read out the sentence and had that poor Baptist flogged and ostracized, odds are that he read out the sentence from the Monarchy-approved King James.

I'm not certain how so much concern for this poor Baptist fellow has developed on this thread. Certainly, the Episcopal Beast of England committed far worse crimes. A flogging was getting off light from them.

However, if the act of injustice was to occur, would you really feel better had the judge read the sentence from a Geneva instead of a KJV (or a Bishops, etc.)?

It doesn't seem much like an argument over the merits of a translation. Even the best translation ever produced would not have swayed the hierarchies of England or Rome from their murderously tyrannical ways. There was no real separation of church and state anywhere at the time, a fault that our own hero, Calvin, shared.

I don't know that for certain, mind you; but given the Early Americans' almost-universal preference for the Geneva over the King James, and the Early Americans' (disreputable, and most-unconventional) tolerance for Baptists... my particular example is invented, but the general statistics tend in my favor.

I think the era of 'tolerance for Baptists' is drawing to an end. If we continue to uphold the need for all men for Christ (including Jews and Muslims and Mormons) and continue to condemn the sin of sodomy and refuse to allow sodomist clergy and sodomy marriage, we'll be reminded soon of just how unpopular a Baptist can be. Just like our forbears.

[xzins]

We call those "torps" in this part of the world (as in torpedos)

Dolly & The Twin Torps.

(Someone call Hollywood...we've got a movie title.)

[nobdysfool]

I also have not watched ET.

You didn't really miss anything....

[connectthedots]

Gee, lie about Palmer being a hyper-Calvinist; lie about me being a hyper-Calvinist; why not lie and say Calvinists don't think they're responsible for anything.

So you didn't like Phillip Johnson's article on hyper-Calvinism. Well. check out THIS LINK which actually quotes Calvin's Institutes. Even responsible Calvinists agree that there are hyper-Calvinists.

Do you deny common grace? Do you deny the free offer of the gospel? Based on you past posts, I think in all honesty, you would have to say yes to one or both questions.

[CCWoody]

I don't wanna drag this out Woody. But your theology tells us you don't make your own choices. It's all pre-determined. ~ CS

Oh, gee, and I actually thought that you had some simple understanding of Calvinism.

BTW, everyone, go to www.foxnews.com and click on the "Put it Back" video. Do you suppose that this fellow is a confessing 5-point Calvinist or more of a 5-point Arminian.

Woody.

[George W. Bush]

I was thinking about you and ftD while working this morning. I had read your exchange over Paisley and kept thinking that it reminded me of something.

Then I recalled it.

ftD was claiming Paisley as a KJVer and you were claiming him as a Calvinist.

It made me think of that old commercial:

• "You got chocolate on my peanut butter!"
• "No, you got peanut butter on my chocolate!"

And I guess I'm the guy over in the corner, smiling smugly as I enjoy my Reese's Cups.

Nice when the ducks happen to be in a row (Paisley being both an ardent Calvinist and an ardent KJVer).

[connectthedots]

I think one was named Turpin, but I'm not sure of that. I forget the other one.

That would be Mel Turpin and Sam Bowie.

[connectthedots]

Well, I can take that Corin meant that seriously, in which case he'd be as big an idiot as ctd ...

So Corin has a genius level IQ as well? Woody, you only wish you were as intelligent as Corin and me.

[CCWoody]

I think in all honesty... ~ ctd

Well, that's not exactly an oxymoron, but don't you think you should at least be honest with yourself.

Woody.

[connectthedots]

Oops, just shows my level of interest in Bored with the Rings.

I never really cared much about the "Lord of the Rings" hoopla, but agreed to go see the "Twin Towers". The movie is fascinating and has wonderful moral lessons of virtue and doing the right thing in the face of evil. Theme is completely compatible with Christian virtues and values. You really ought to see it.

[CCWoody]

Woody, you only wish you were as intelligent as Corin and me. ~ ctd

Now it's a pissing contest you want. The reason I never talk about IQ or have joined a society is because they are full of smug "you only wish you were as intelligent as me" jerks. You comments only continue to prove that I somehow give you feelings of inadequacy.

I'll, therefore, happily leave you in the dark as to my IQ.

Woody.

[connectthedots]

Do you deny common grace? Do you deny the free offer of the gospel?

Anything difficult about these two questions that prevents you from answering. If you think you are so smart, why can't you give a simple 'yes' or 'no'?

[Frumanchu]

Tolkein was a good friend of C.S.Lewis and imitator follower of Jesus Christ.

[Corin Stormhands]

Oh, gee, and I actually thought that you had some simple understanding of Calvinism.

All I know of Calvinism I learned from three years in a Reformed Presbyterian Church and in the last 18 months on these threads.

While I was being a bit sarcastic in my remark above, it stings you because there is truth in it. Don't sputter. Don't spin. I've heard all your arguments.

I will admit one positive aspect of my experiences here has been the recognition that I need to dig deeper, study more, learn more. Here it's just petty bickering and snide statements like yours above.

That, of course, and your sophomoric assertion that "in glory everyone will be a Calvinist."

The Heaven I am going to is where Christ is King.

Not Calvin. Not Wesley. Nor any other man.

[Frumanchu]

I also have not watched ET.

Ugh...don't get me started. My wife wishes I would shut up about the whole replacing the shotguns with walkie-talkies fiasco for the re-release.

[connectthedots]

Now it's a pissing contest you want. The reason I never talk about IQ or have joined a society is because they are full of smug "you only wish you were as intelligent as me" jerks. You comments only continue to prove that I somehow give you feelings of inadequacy.

I believe it was you who first referred to me as an idiot. I have never joined a MENSA type orgainzation because many of the members are not very interesting. Besides, not many of them know how to dance. My comments on;y establish that I have a sense of humor.

I'll, therefore, happily leave you in the dark as to my IQ.

Probably the same as a common everyday light bulb.

[George W. Bush]

"If God had seen fit to paint a gold stripe down the backs of his Elect, I should spend all my days pulling up shirt-tails!"

Vintage Spurgeon. He had a memorable way with words like all the great preachers.

Spurgeon never traipsed around claiming the Presbyterian Ian "Paisly" (it's spelled, PAISLEY) as support for the King James Bible; he was happy enough to be a Faithful 1644 London-Confession Baptist.

Obviously not. But it is true that Paisley is an ardent KJVer and is so to about the same extent or maybe more so than either I or ftD. Those are the facts. He's written extensive articles and an entire book about it. He presents a very sound defense, very reminiscent of Burgon, but in a popular style. And you can hardly surpass Burgon in this matter.

KJVers can claim Paisley with complete legitimacy. Whether Arminian or not. The importance of preserving faithful translations is too important.

Notice also that ftD is not quite the bible-version-idolator that you suggested this morning. He commends the use of a Geneva as a fine Bible and he owns one. This is not the position of the fanatic KJV-onlyist. You might want to re-think that characterization of ftD, other doctrinal issues aside.

On the issue of the Baptist Confessions and the Westminster (about which I've ribbed you a few times that the Baptists beat the Presby's to it), I read recently that there was a similar confession written in a book by an Anglican authority. This confession was supposedly the prototype for the Congregationalists' confession (Savoy Declaration?) and the Baptist's and the Westminster. Do you know if that's true? Wouldn't surprise me since we know that Jefferson lifted the Declaration from a fiery presbyter's letter to his brethren in churches around the colonies. Any info? I can't recall the Anglican's name or the book he wrote.

They know that They can't be a part of the Baptist Founders' Movement, because they know that They have sacrificed the Doctrines of the Baptist Founders for a mess of Arminian Porridge. They want it, but they CAN'T HAVE IT.

Well, I wasn't aware they had any great desire to do so but I may not read enough Baptist news. You know, there were both strong Calvinist and strong Arminian elements among the English Baptists even in their first two decades in England. Now, we might observe that the great increase among Baptists and the real fruits of their missionary efforts have occurred during phases of Calvinist ascendancy but there were early Baptists who were thorough Arminians. They have a historic claim, IMO.

You really know of Arminian Baptists trying to penetrate the Baptist Founders' Movement? It seems strange, given what a bastion of 5-point Calvinism it is. And it is not especially prestigious except among Calvinistic Baptists and not to any great degree even among them. I mean, I certainly like them and approve their effort but I only look their site up occasionally.

[George W. Bush]

I own a Geneva Bible. It's a very big book with very small print and I'm easily distracted.

I've read that complaint about the existing editions of the Geneva before.

[connectthedots]

Tolkein was a good friend of C.S.Lewis and imitator follower of Jesus Christ.

I actually knew that. Tolkein was a fabluous Christian author.