Category: KJV-onlyism

My Winning Entry for the Sharper Iron Writing Contest

~ Bob Hayton

Sharper Iron just posted my entry to their writing contest today. I was one of three winners this year. The topic of my paper may be of interest to some of my readers so I’ll excerpt the beginning paragraphs and encourage you to go over to Sharper Iron and read the whole thing. You can discuss it at SI or here in the comments.

Let the minutiae speak: The place of genealogies, numbers, and parallel passages in the King James only debate

“Things that are different are not the same.” So says the title of Mickey Carter’s book advocating the exclusive use of the King James Bible. This sentiment is a fair summary of the mindset of most King James only (KJO) advocates. The differences between Bible versions demand a judgment. Which Bible is right?

Troubled by differing Bible versions, many sincere Christians seek for answers. One side affirms that no doctrine is affected by the relatively minor differences between Bible versions. The message is the same, but finer points and particular details may be slightly different. A typical KJO position jumps in and says this can’t be right. Verbal inspiration is useless without the preservation of those very words of God. In fact, we need to know each and every word, in order to live (Matt. 4:4). All differences, even word order and spelling differences, matter (Matt. 5:18). Differing versions cannot both claim to be translations of the perfect, inspired Word of God.

On the face of it, the KJO argument makes sense. When we’re speaking about the Bible, shouldn’t every little difference matter? Some respond with manuscript evidence that calls into question the choice of the King James Bible as a perfect standard. Others have shown that the various proof texts for word perfect preservation don’t actually promise a single, identifiable, word-perfect copy of the Bible. And prior to 1611, where was such a copy to be found, anyway?

In this paper, I want to take us down a road less traveled. Rather than looking for a proof text which directly deals with this controversy, I aim to scour the King James Bible itself for examples of the very differences which are said to matter so much. The minor points of Scripture itself, the minutia, should be allowed to speak to this issue. Genealogies, lists, numbers, and parallel passages all have an important bearing on how we should think about “things that are different.” [read the rest of the entry at Sharper Iron]

Update: I have attached a .pdf version of this article here for convenience.

Announcement: Taking the KJV Only Debate ON AIR

~ Bob Hayton

Saturday evening, we’ll be taking the KJV Only debate…
ON AIR.

Kevin Thompson of Understanding Our Times Radio, has asked me to guest host his radio show for him this week. He’s had me on the show as a guest before discussing Fundamentalism and Reformed Theology. With Kevin’s blessing, I’ve decided to throw open the phone lines and discuss the issues surrounding KJV Onlyism. I’ll share my own story as a former TR-Onlyist. And I may have another KJVO Debate contributor with me as a co-host (Damien).

So please feel free to tune in to the show live, or download the free podcast in .mp3 or other formats. The download is available pretty much immediately after the show’s completion. If you have a question you’d like to call in with, we’ll be taking callers. Details are below.

Understanding Our Times Radio Show
Guest Host: Bob Hayton
Time: Saturday 5:00-5:30pm CST
Where: online at BlogTalkRadio
Call-in Number: 347-945-7171

UPDATE: Click here and then click on the download button (or else just listen online). The direct link for the mp3 is here.

~cross-posted from my KJV Only Debate blog

My Interview with Dr. Maurice Robinson

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

I wanted to spread the word about an interview I conducted of Dr. Maurice Robinson for my group KJV Only Debate blog. Dr. Robinson is the co-editor of The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform (Southborough, MA: Chilton Book Publishing, 1991, 2005), and one of the few proponents of the Majority Text position. This view holds to the primacy of the Byzantine text-type but does not hold up the Textus Receptus (or KJV) as anything close to error-free. Here are the links to the interview.

KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 1

KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 2

KJV Only Debate Blog Interviews Dr. Maurice Robinson, pt. 3

Help for the Bible Translation Overload

~ Bob Hayton ~ 7 Comments

Charts like the one above highlight the problem that the abundance of Bible translations poses today. Sometimes, the plethora of available Bible translations on the bookstore shelf is overwhelming. How are we to make sense of the different options available? Which version should we use? And who is to say that this chart or others are correct? [This one is actually slightly biased as it is put out by the makers of the NIV and TNIV (which occupy the coveted “balanced” position). It also doesn’t include the ESV or HCSB, but that is because the chart is outdated.]

Well, over at my team KJV Only Debate Blog, Erik DiVietro has given us a 5 part series describing the various major Bible translations available today. This might make for some good weekend reading, so I thought I’d share it here. I felt he did a great job explaining and categorizing the various Bibles. He like myself, gravitates toward the ESV as his preferred Bible. Other good options are available, but it helps to learn the background of the various selections out there.

Defining KJV-Onlyism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

This post is from is from my newly redesigned, group KJV Only Debate blog.

KJV Onlyism is hard to define. And like any grass roots movement, there are many competing manifestations of it. As a former, self-dubbed “KJV-onlyist” I will try to carefully put forth a definition. I know I’m going to say something wrong here and won’t please everyone, but I hope the end result is helpful for those new to the debate.

Simple Definition

The KJV-only position holds that the only Bible an English speaking Christian should use is the King James Bible. While some KJV-only proponents bristle at the label viewing it as a derogatory term, most don’t hesitate to affirm it. In KJV-only circles, you cannot disavow the label. Rather, you qualify it.

Now, for study, some KJV-onlyists may allow the use of other translations. But for memorization, church preaching and teaching, and general reading, the KJV should be the only version of the Bible one uses.

Why the King James Bible?

Different KJV-onlyists will offer different answers to this question. These are some of the common arguments used by most KJV-onlyists.

The Better Text Argument — The KJV is the only widely used Bible exclusively based on the Textus Receptus Greek & Masoretic Hebrew Texts.

The Better Doctrine Argument — The differences between the KJV and other Bible versions are examined and the KJV’s readings preserve a superior doctrine and more of Jesus Christ’s divine titles.

The Conspiratorial Argument — The manuscripts that support the newer Greek text were only found recently and were found in areas like Egypt where false doctrine was prevalent.

The Historical Argument — The Reformers and Puritans used the KJV and it launched worldwide missions and the Great Awakenings.

The Better Manuscripts Argument — The manuscripts that support the text behind the KJV agree with one another closely, don’t show signs of textual corruption and represent the vast numerical superiority – 90% of the manuscripts.

The Better Translation Argument — The KJV translators were masters of English and knew Greek and Hebrew and multiple other languages far better than translators today, plus they used a literal translation technique instead of the dynamic or loose method in vogue today.

Groupings of KJV-Onlyists

I mentioned before that there are numerous manifestations of KJV-onlyism. Sometimes the different groups are treated like one entity. I want to be careful to distinguish terms and not broad-brush the entire movement by the crazy antics of Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger, for example.

Generic KJV Only Position — Most KJV Onlyists find themselves here. They haven’t thought out a more specific position, or just believe the KJV is the only Bible that should be used and leave it at that.

English is Inspired View — This view takes issue with anyone correcting the KJV English. Since the Bible seems to show translations of the OT as being treated like they were inspired, the English is treated like it is inspired. Some versions are more strict than others, but all bow to the KJV as the final authority before they would trust a lexicon or dictionary.

Double-Inspiration View — This view goes further and says the English corrects the Greek. In some sense the KJV was inspired directly by God. People with this view (and some of those in the previous view) would hold that translations of the Bible into other languages must be guided by the English of the KJV.

Pure Seed View — This idea comes from 1 Pet. 1:23-25 and basically claims that the use of the KJV is essential for people to be saved. No one can be saved from an impure seed (the NIV, for instance). Any of the first three positions above could hold to this view as well, but no one in the next three camps would.

TR Only View — This view holds the Greek and Hebrew as superior to the Greek, but also holds that they were word-perfectly preserved. The text behind the KJV usually is the text held to be the word-perfect copy of the original text. The word of God is “intact” in English, and while they would correct the sense of the KJV through scholarship and original language study, they still would not see this as any kind of overt error in the KJV. Few if any, TR-onlyists use the NKJV however.

Ecclesiastical Text — This view places greater stress on church confessions and the historic use of the Textus Receptus by the church of the Reformation period and afterward. Some in this view would hold to errors in either the TR or the KJV, and some would use the NKJV or 21st Century KJV.

Majority Text — This view should be distinguished from the previous views. Proponents of the Greek Majority Text may or may not use the KJV or NKJV. They hold to a textual theory of the superiority of the Byzantine view, but they acknowledge the merits of careful, believing scholarship and textual criticism. As the Majority Text as such didn’t exist prior to 1980, they don’t see adherence to that text as a binding matter of faith for all Christians.

King James Preferred — This view is held by some who see some weaknesses with the King James Only position, but still believe the TR is the best text we have or else use the King James primarily for traditional or other reasons.