Over the years I’ve toiled alone in trying to create a good KJV Only resource site. There are others out there, and I mainly wanted to publicize them. I also have an interest in the debate and have posted from time to time on the topic here. I’ve had my fair share of blog wars and debates over this too. Other obligations and interests have left that site only partially complete, however.
I’ve finally enlisted a couple likeminded blogging buddies, Phil and Damien, who are going to help me maintain an active KJV Only Blog where we’ll try to compile a bunch of blog posts relating to this debate. Discussions will be saved in the comments and it may prove to be a helpful resource for many.
Our first substantive post went up today, so I encourage you to check out King James Only?, and click on the subscribe links. We’ll be doing some re-posting over there of material the 3 of us have posted at our own blogs, and we will create new content as well. We want it to be a clearing house of good resources on the debate from an informed, rational perspective. One that doesn’t paint all King James Onlyists as total wack0s since all of us posters are former KJV Onlyists ourselves. We feel the debate is important, and that providing patient helpful answers is a good thing for those seeking their way in the debate at large.
Let me know what you think, and if anyone would like to join our effort, contact me.
Greetings in Jesus name. I’ll be visiting your blog in the future, but I wanted to tell you about a brother in Christ from work. He was born again back in November of 2007. The Lord delivered him from a plethura of bondages and today he is the most evangelistically-oriented person that I’ve known in years.
The amazing thing is that, while I am strictly a KJV person, I never talked to CR about it too much. One day, shortly after being saved, he came to me and stated words to the effect that “I think the King James bible is the right one. None of the others seem to have what this bible has.” The Lord revealed this to him; it wasn’t the result of anything that I said.
I’m not an expert in Hebrew or Greek, and I don’t spend time in the other versions. I have never had a problem with the AV1611. The Lord speaks through it, the linguistical flow is out of this world, and when a person is truly born of the Spirit, the archaic words do not stand in the way.
Sorry for rambling on my first visit. I’ll stop by again when time permits. Blessings always in Jesus name.
timbob
I don’t understand why anyone (especially one who claims to be a Christian) would want to start a website/blog/etc. just to show that the King James Bible has errors. What’s “Christian” about casting doubt and trying to destroy a persons faith in a Bible Version if you can’t point them to a pure source of truth which they can personally read and hold in their hands? Other than trying to convince people that “NO BIBLE VERSION/TRANSLATION, ETC.” is error-free, I just don’t see the point. If THIS IS the point why don’t more pastors preach this truth from their pulpits? i.e. “All Bibles have errors, but that’s okay, you can still trust it.”
Jeffrey,
In all sincerity, what you’re referring to is the exact thing done by the King James Only crowd. They are the ones making presentations, books, pamphlets, sermons, and videos just to show that other versions can’t be trusted. It’s the KJVO crowd telling thousand of Christians that they don’t have a Bible.
The objective of the KJVO website is not to “show that the KJB has errors.” It’s to show the fallacy and unbiblical basis of the psuedo-doctrine of King James Onlyism, a false teaching that causes unnecessary division in the churches. If anything, the site is takes a defensive position, not an offensive one.
You’ll be hard pressed to find anyone writing against King James Onlyism who is against the King James Version itself. Though I can’t speak for everyone, I do know that the writers of this new site have no problem with Christians who use the KJV, even exclusively. What we’re against is the dogmatic stand people take about the issue, and the fact that this dogma is supported by twisted scriptures and revisionist history. We’re starting a website so sincere Christians can find honest answers.
So what you’re saying is it’s okay to use the KJV exclusively, but it’s wrong for me to take a stand for it and believe it exclusively, because that causes unnecessary division? I can love it, believe it and confide in it alone, but to teach this and be vocal about it is wrong? … I don’t get it. How come the Devil can have multiple counterfeit “Gods” and “Christs” and can’t have multiple counterfeit “Bibles”? I think it’s better to be safe than sorry. I’ll stick with my KJV brother. : )
Jeffrey,
Before 1611 you couldn’t stick to your KJV. The Bible itself never tells us exactly which Bible translation or which Bible manuscript copies are to be trusted. So your position is the Bible + external evidence and application of Biblical principles. Yet you act like your decision of using the KJV only is to be respected and defended as if it is not an application of Biblical principles and evaluation of the external evidence at all. You want your position on the KJV to be elevated to the place of Scriptural truth. This is both unwise, Scripturally dangerous, and uncharitable.
Respectfully,
Bob Hayton
Not only are you being schismatic about this, you come close to openly questioning the salvation of myself and the other site authors of this new blog. Such an accusation or charge is not to be lightly made.
Honestly brother, you don’t have to get so offensive. I’m not trying to attack you or anyone else. I’m just asking a question; “How come the Devil can have multiple counterfeit ‘Gods’ and ‘Christs’ and can’t have multiple counterfeit ‘Bibles’?” That’s a legitimate question to ask is it not? You said I want my “position on the KJV to be elevated to the place of Scriptural truth.” But the KJV IS Scriptural truth is it not? Is the KJV not Scripture? Is that Scripture not truth? If I can believe in an exclusive Lord Jesus Christ as opposed to a Catholic, Mormon or Jehovah Witnesses, etc. “Jesus”, why can’t I believe in only one Bible? Jesus is called “the Word of God” and there’s only one true Jesus. The Bible is called “the word of God” and it’s elevated above God’s very name (Psa. 138:2), so what’s so horrible about believing in one Bible? I just don’t see how that goes against sound doctrine. I’m not “questioning anyone’s salvation”, all I’m questioning is the vast number of Bible versions (and that’s a legitimate question). I never said a person couldn’t get saved from reading a Bible other than the KJV. The Bible says that it only takes a “little leaven” to leaven the whole lump. A thing doesn’t have to be 100% corrupt to be corrupt. It only takes a “little”. Think of it like the Antichrist. He’ll say and do a lot of legitimately GOOD things right? He can work miracles, preach righteousness, heal the sick, etc. He’ll just not be the genuine article – he’ll be a counterfeit. If I’ve offended you in any way by suggesting that Satan can have copy-cat Bibles that mimic truth, I apologize. But, I don’t see how asking that question hurts the Body of Christ. If true (and it is), it only helps Christians become more aware of the subtlety and devices of Satan.
The problem, Jeff, is simply this. In the act of claiming superiority for the King James Version, far too often people are slandered, lies are told (or passed on by ill-informed followers), history is revised and more heat is generated than light. A Christian who loves to study God’s Word as translated in the KJV is certainly free to do so, but he violates many commands of God’s Word in that version to commit the sins and perpetuate the errors listed above. You personally may not do this, but it happens far too often. This is the justification for a blog devoted to correcting such errors in the hopes of helping those commiting such sins to turn from them and devote themselves to the truth, even if they never pick up a modern translation.
On your question about “multiple counterfeit Bibles,” there certainly are multiple counterfeit Bibles out there. Some think the Bible needs more books added, like the apocrypha or the gnostic gospels, some purposely mistranslate passages to deny Christ’s deity and the reality of eternal punishment, and other issues (yes, I’m talking about the JW’s NWT, but don’t start on it’s Alexandrian Greek text, Russel purposely mistranslated it). Those who elevate paraphrases to the level of serious translation are depriving themselves of much of God’s Word, and the validity of dynamic equivalence is even prone to significant criticism, but the versions many extremist KJV Onlyists spend most of their time slandering and coming close to blasphemy in their denunciation of them, fall under the category appealed to by the very translators of the King James Version itself, in their introduction called “The Translators to the Reader.” They write:
“…we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession … containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God.”
The editors of the ERV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, CEV, NLT, ESV are most certainly “men of our profession” — members of a spectrum of conservative Evangelical Protestants. The kinds of slander some of these men suffer is ungodly and worthy of reproof from sites like King James Only?
Oh, I’m sure there are a number of leading fundamentalist scholars on some of these modern version translation committees as well.
I have no doubt that a good many of the men on the modern translation committees are good men, even Godly men. That point is not in question. However, the history of the modern translations coincides directly with the exact time when the world has experienced a sharp rise in cults, the occult, witchcraft, the New-Age movement, the birth of the theory of Darwinian Evolution, the global acceptance of homosexuality, one-world government and end-times knowledge. These versions play prominent roles in many deceptive “Christian” movements like Promise Keepers, the “Purpose Driven” movement, Emmaus, Contemporary Christian Music, and others. None of these movements use the KJV exclusively. I would be very wary of accepting a Bible translation that has come to fruition just prior to the advent of the Antichrist. That just seems too suspicious. Unlike the modern versions, the King James Bible is a proven book that has stood the test of time. It comes nowhere even close to spawning such subtle, deceptive end-times movements. The men on the modern translation committees are not the issue. The bizarre fruits of these Bibles speak for themselves, and the timing of their appearance on the world scene is subject to suspect.
Okay, so contemporaneous with the publication of modern bible versions is a multi-faceted onslaught of goofy beliefs. So, why don’t we blame the Enlightenment on the publication of the KJV? Wesley spread goofy teachings like the second blessing and “entire sanctification” and he was a KJV reader. Finney was a flaming Pelagian who denied the gospel and left a leavening influence on American evangelism and he was a KJV reader. Must have been the fault of the KJV. I don’t buy my scenario any more than I buy your scenario. It’s easy to point to all kinds of error in every generation. There’s not necessarily a one-to-one correspondence between what translation someone reads and the theological or spiritual goofiness they get involved with.
By the way, you may not personally question the integrity of modern bible translators, but many do, and defending their integrity against all those “other” KJV Onlyists who slander them so much is part of the reason for the site. I saw you asking “Why do a site like this?” and the others answering “not so much to put down the KJV but to defend modern versions and those who produced them.” Am I right, Bob?
John,
I think you’re right. Thanks for interacting over here with Jeffrey. I’ve been really busy and barely able to keep up with the back and forth here. I suggest that Jeffrey just waits and see if our blog will be valuable and worth while, or not.
Bob
Just to keep beating a dead horse, I think the whole KJV Onlyist appeal to the “fruits” of the KJV vs. the “fruits” of the modern versions is a classic example of the logical fallacy “post hoc ergo propter hoc.” Those interested can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
As the New Testament was still being written, heresies were arising. Paul addresses Judaizers in Galatians. John refutes the Donatists in First John. Even the Apostle Peter had to be rebuked for disdaining Gentile believers. Jesus Himself anathematizes the errors of some in the Seven Churches section of the Revelation. I guess that the fact that heresy was contemporaneous with the writing of the New Testament means that the New Testament is untrustworthy, even in the King James Version. Did I follow your argument correctly, Mr. Mardis?
Yes, Chris, you are right. some form of heresy has always been contemporaneous with Christianity. That’s par for the course. But what I’m more specifically referring to, and I believe for the Christian is worth noting, is the fact that the explosion of modern Bible versions (which began around 1880-1901), not ONLY gave rise to numerous pseudo Christian movements, but is ALSO contemporaneous with the rise in end-times knowledge and deception. Many of these end-times movements are primarily ecumenical and push for “unity” over “doctrine”. Much of this ecumenicity is primarily spearheaded by the Roman Catholic Church – the SAME organization whose own Bibles are based on the SAME manuscripts which produced the modern Bible versions: the Vaticannus and the Siniaticus. In other words, the newer Bible versions have helped to undo the Protestant Reformation. Many professing Christian organizations and movements have been coaxed back into bed with Rome, and now can see no difference between her teachings and sound Bible doctrine. This deceptive form of end-times “spiritual adultery” can be laid directly at the feet of the new Bible versions. You’ll be hard-pressed to find a church which uses the KJV exclusively that’s in such close spiritual fellowship with an organization that was once viewed as the arch-enemy of Bible-believing Christianity. A good rule of thumb is for Christians to be extremely leery of the newer versions of the Bible, instead of welcoming them with open arms.
Wow, look at all these comments. Our new website is sure to be a hit!
Anywho, Jeffrey, I appreciate your zeal. In fact, I think all of us do, because we can relate to it. We were there once. But the problem is, your claims are unsubstantiated. Our goal is to use the information age to show how that is.
The guilt-by-association tactic is just not strong enough to form a basis for your position. As has already been pointed out, it cuts both ways. Now I understand how you see a tie between modern apostasy and modern versions – and I don’t doubt that some modern paraphrases are the products of such apostasy – but it is yet to be proved that any of this apostasy is linked to modern versions. In order for that to be true, you have to provide for us an example of how a church, ministry, or theologian/pastor has apostatized based on a reading that differs in modern versions from the KJV. That’s a task that’s yet to be done.
At one time the Jehovah Witnesses exclusively used and respected the King James version as the only Bible. I guess they did not want to be associated with the explosion of new versions that might corrupt their teachings.