KJV Only?
August 11, 2007 by fundyreformed
Check out my site compiling resources on the KJV Only debate: “The King James Only Research Center”.
King James Only Resources
- Doug Kutilek reviews David Sorenson’s book Touch not the Unclean Thing
- “The Preservation of Scripture” by William Combs of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary
- “Errors in the KJV” by William Combs
- “Erasmus and the Textus Receptus” by William Combs
- “Preface To The King James Version And The King James-Only Position” by William Combs
- Doug Kutilek on the true origins of KJV-onlyism
- Pre-1881 conservative defense of critical text readings (article hosted by bible-researcher.com)
- “Inspiration, Preservation, and New Testament Textual Criticism” by Dan Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary
- Dan Wallace discusses the thousands of differences between the Vatican (B) and Sinaitic (Aleph)manuscripts
James R White has a good book called THE KING JAMES ONLY CONTROVERSY CAND YOU TRUST THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS? Long title but refutes each of the King James Only arguments and defends many of the misinformation KJ only people give about other translations.
Jason I recommend that book as well. Check out my KJV site if you get a chance.
Blessings brother,
Bob Hayton
The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism by D. A. Carson, Baker publisher
Have yet to read but a former Pastor highly reccommends
Thank you for letting me know about the “errors” in the KJV.
This is a big help in my walk with God. Do you have any articles on the errors in the new bibles?
I would love to read them. My faith just grows when I read that stuff!!
David
I have read your blogs, and understand your comments. But if you will read the new versions, and note the words that are left out. Not this the thee and thou, but words like Blood, Christ, The Son of God. I believe and preach that the only way of salvation is by the Blood. Salvation by Grace through Faith. Eph. 2:8,9. I am not trying to argue, but only want people to open their eyes and heart and let the Holy Spirit lead them. That is what we miss today. II Peter 1:21 God Bless You
Tim,
I appreciate your kind comments here.
Sorry it took so long to respond (I’ve been battling colds and have been otherwise occupied).
Anyways, there are 2 ways to look at words “left out”. They are either “left out” or “added in”. I hope we agree that we want to be most accurate to what God actually said.
There are many places where the KJV leaves out words that are in the modern versions. Also, as in the places about the blood, there is no systematic removal of the teaching on the blood. Even if in one or two places the word is removed. Same with the titles of Jesus.
There are places where the modern versions are more clear and direct about the deity of Christ than the KJV. We have to be careful about judging texts and translations by how doctrinal they sound versus how accurate they are. There is much evidence that some copyists and editors spruced up the text to make it sound more theological and orthodox. There is also evidence of times when heretics tried to cut out words and books from Scripture. All this needs to be considered when we look for the correct and accurate reading.
In the KJV 1 John 5:7 is a clear proof of the Trinity. But sadly, those words were added to Scripture. They are only present in the text in 4 copies (only 1 of which dates earlier than the 12th century). They go back to one scribe who added in words from a commentary/sermon in the margin of his copy, and later copyists thought those words were original to the text. If 1 John 5:7 had been original, it would surely have been cited in the doctrinal controversies surrounding the Trinity in the 3, 4 and 500s. But it wasn’t.
What is amazing about this example is that the Church still came to the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, even without the words of 1 John 5:7 to give it further credence. So here we see how God preserves proper doctrine even when he allows a mistake to be perpetuated for a while in this text. The words of 1 John 5:7 are not Scripture they have been added to Scripture. We must be honest and admit this, even though the words themselves are good and true.
I hope that helps you somewhat in understanding where I’m coming from in this issue.
Thanks and God bless,
Bob Hayton
Bob…
Not sure if you have been reading my blog lately…but thought you would like my current series, since it hits on KJO in the latest post…
Hope all is well.
Very informative and thank you. This is surely an important issue which must be addressed precisely and without bias. I share your opinion that, just because something may have been added in or taken out does not necessarily make it less true, but that it is still important to know the true origin in order to assess its value and of course to clarify its meaning and context.
I’ve been an avid user of the NIV for years, but this year the Lord led me to use the KJV.
Then I came across a passage in I Kings that I did not understand so I tried to look it up in the NIV to get better understanding. It wasn’t there. It was then that I decided to not rely on the NIV so much.
Just a note to bring perspective. The “KJV Only” issue is an English language problem. There are several other major languages in the world with a good translation of the Bible (French [Darby or Louis Segond], Spanish [Reina Valera], German, etc.). In view of this, the KJV becomes one of many decent translations. Would someone say you have to read the Bible in English in order to find the Word of God?
I like what Ed said. From many KJVO people, I do get the impression that the English Version of the KJ is the only valid version.