Is the 1611 King James Bible God’s Only Inspired Word?
In the early 1970s, a movement swept across the country. This is called the King James Only movement. Though not a new idea, a man by the name of Peter Ruckman began to aggressively teach that the 1611 King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the only inspired Bible. They commonly refer to every new version as “perversions.”
Just go to YouTube and search “KJV Only.” With few exceptions, you will notice from the profile of the video authors, this movement has basically affected only a generation of believers. Most of the creators are 40 and older. While most conservative Bible colleges and universities still use the KJV as their primary text, they are, for the most part, no longer King James Only.
What does the KJV Only crowd teach? Why do they make the claim that the KJV Bible is the only Bible people should use? They believe that the KJV Bible is God’s perfectly preserved Word and is based on the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to have ever existed. This article examines that position.
Is it correct that the KJV Bible contains no errors?
At least one person thinks so. “The King James Bible, AV 1611 is the preserved words of God. It has no errors, that means the text is perfect.” (Lawrence Bronsing, Peter Ruckman)
Already, the KJV has undergone many revisions. The KJV that most people have today is not the 1611, but a revised version that dates back to the 1800’s. The earliest known revision was made in 1612, one year after the original was printed.1 This was necessary because many typographical errors were made. Here are a couple examples of mistakes in the 1611 KJV Bible:
Matthew 26:36 - Then cometh Judas (Which should have read, “Then cometh Jesus.)
Zechariah 4:7 - Headstone instead of Head stone (Still not corrected today!)
Was it a surprise to those who translated the KJV that mistakes like these would be made? No. According to the preface in the 1611 Bible, the translators knew this was a possibility. “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may be corrected, and the trueth set in place.” “…some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”2
Unlike the translators in 1611, the original authors of the Bible (Moses, Paul, John and many others) knew full well that what they were writing was guided by the hand of God. When they composed, they knew their work was Scripture. That is not true of the 1611 translators. While they performed a great task, they knew their humanity would pass errors along. Since the original translators of the 1611 KJV knew their work was open to scrutiny and there may be “some imperfections and blemishes,” why do we have a movement of people today that think otherwise? Simply, they have a distorted (or in many cases puerile) understanding of inspiration and preservation.
Is it true that the KJV Bible is based on superior Greek and Hebrew manuscripts?
James Jaspers Ray states that the Greek text behind the KJV (Textus Receptus {TR}) is made of the original Greek manuscripts that Paul the Apostle and others wrote. He says, “Any version of the Bible, that does not agree with the Greek Textus Receptus, from which the King James Bible was translated in 1611, is certainly to be founded upon corrupted manuscripts.”3 Is the TR really based on the best manuscripts?
A man named Erasmus gathered several manuscripts of the New Testament. Of all the manuscripts he had, not one of them contained the last six verses of Revelation. He translated those verses from the Latin Vulgate, not the Greek.
When Erasmus translated 1 John 5:7-8, several men charged him that he left out the phrase “…the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth…” He simply replied that no Greek manuscript was available to support the reading. A few days later a manuscript appeared. Was this “made to order?” Erasmus thought so, and included the phrase only as a marginal note.44
Though Erasmus was diligent in compiling a Greek translation, he did so with the best resources available to him. Today, the resources are greater and more reliable, thus providing the basis for more reliable versions.
What does the Bible teach about translating, inspiration, and preservation?
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused [them] to understand the reading. And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them. (Nehemiah 8:8,12)
The Israel exiles returned to Jerusalem. During their 70 year captivity, their language changed. When Ezra (and the scribes) read from the book of the Law, it was necessary for Ezra to explain what was being read. The book of the Law was in Hebrew, however the people who returned to exile no longer understood everything in the older Hebrew. What was the response of the people? Was it, “You can’t do that to God’s Word!”? No, the people were able to understand God’s Word because it was updated to the language of their day. The response of the people was a repentant attitude from sin and obedience to God’s Word. The people understood the message, then they became changed individuals!
One comment that is made to support the sole use of the KJV is “The people through prayer and Holy Spirit illumination will understand the KJV!” If that is true, then why don’t people read the language of the originals–Greek and Hebrew? It is necessary to know the meaning, then the Holy Spirit has a tool by which to cause the Christian to understand how the Scriptures apply to their lives.
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16)
Paul the Apostle wrote this verse 1500 years before the KJV was translated. The originals were “God-breathed.” Therefore, if a modern version is an accurate reflection of the original document, there is a sense in which the translation is inspired.
What about preservation? Doesn’t God promise in His Word that “not one jot or tittle shall pass away?” (Matthew 5:18) Yes, and that is true, not one has passed away! We have God’s Word. However, God did not promise that one manuscript or version would be preserved in this fashion. With the thousands of manuscripts and fragments in our possession today, God has given us His Word. We should take heed to God’s Word when He says, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15)
“Practical KJV Only” Position
Many churches, colleges, and other institutions are declaring positions that the KJV is the only Bible to be used. While these same pastors and teachers may reject the KJV Only position, they are actually teaching by practice that the KJV is the Only Bible to use. This is problematic for at least a few reasons.
-
If one demands that the KJV is the only translation to be used, then what real difference is there between this position and the KJV Only position?
-
Instead of responding biblically to those who are KJV Only, this position concedes to them and allows them the freedom to propagate error.
-
Conformity becomes the rule rather than unity to truth. Many good translations are available, why not teach the next generation about other reliable translations?
Conclusion
The translators of the KJV knew that the KJV itself would not be readily accepted. The Geneva Bible was the most widely circulated Bible in their day.6 The preface to the 1611 KJV says, “Many mens mouths have bene open a good while and yet are not stopped with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather persuals of Translations made before…”
The purpose of this article is not to destroy one’s faith, but rather show that some modern translations are also reliable. The many books and pamphlets that are circulated today promoting the “KJV Only” position are actually destroying people’s faith. It is a divisive issue over which many Christians are confused. The KJV Only position is a heresy that must be combated. The proponents of this position are misleading sincere Christians by using poor logic, misguided facts and contentious language.5
For further study on this topic see:
James White, The King James Only Controversy
Donald Carson, The King James Version Debate
Jack Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV
Bruce Metzger, The Test of the New Testament
1Jack Lewis, The English Bible from KJV to NIV, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1982), p. 38.
2All words in these quotes are retained with their original spellings.
3J.J. Ray, “The New Eye Opener”, (Eugene, OR: The Eye Opener Publishers), p. 3.
4Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, (New York: Oxford University, 1968), p. 101.
5Some examples of this are found in the writings by Peter Ruckman. Note the recent publication called New Age Versions by Gail Riplinger. The presupposition of the book tries to link any tranlsation, except the KJV, with the New Age phenonomenon. The author of this book fails to recognize that most modern versions were made before the New Age Movement existed.
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 pm
How do KJV-only proponents respond to this post? I’m curious.
I genuinely don’t understand the KJV-only position. In my mind, it’s equivalent to a “Shakespearean English-only” position. The English language has changed drastically over the past 400 years.
Do KJV-only proponents speak and read NT Greek? Even a Greek-only position would make more sense.
And what about Christians who don’t read either English or NT Greek? Are there similar controversies among Christians who speak other native languages?
The consequence of the Tower of Babel didn’t prevent God from sending Jesus to us. Different languages do not prevent us from experiencing God’s forgiveness today, either.
May 4th, 2008 at 12:43 am
You make some great points Gadfly.
As far as how the KJVOnly advocates respond to this…let’s see if they comment.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
God’s elect know the voice of the Shepherd. The corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and the versions based on them are not the voice of the Shepherd.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Why does the NIV refer to Satan as “The bright and morning star”, a title which in the KJV is only given to Jesus? Why time after time do other translations dumb down or completely remove the diety of Christ from the translation? Why does the NIV literally remove at least 15 verses out of the new testament alone and change the meanings of hundreds of verses? Why does the NIV replace the word “Hell” in almost every instance and instead change it to “Gehenna”, “Sheol”, or “Hades”. If it is not broke don’t fix it, especially if it is the word of God. The “Thees”and “Thous” leave no room for interpretation as to the plural or singular, though “You” that is used to replace them in the modern versions leave meaning open to interpretation as do others.The point of preservation is made by realizing that God has preserved his word, not buried it. It has been in existence and available in a transcript or by memorization of the scribes for thousands of years. Digging up a text in Egypt that does not match the majority that has been available and that is different (not a good thing by the way, the scribes burned whole scrolls for one mistake)and saying it is better because it is older is ridiculous. How old is satan? The fact that it was older but better preserved goes against it, why didn’t anyone use it. Only older people are KJV only? I am 31, my Husband 33, and we have five children that we are raising up for the Lord. I know many women younger than me with and without children that are KJV only and active soul winners. I have never been to a NIV church that actively goes out door to door soul winnning after the example that Christ gave when he sent out the disciples from him to witness in twos and spread the gospel. What a shame that the cults have one up on the majority of Christians in this country.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
James: I debated on letting your comment through. Your comment is simply divisive. I let it through to give Gadfly an illustration of how the KJV Only “debates.” On what basis do you say the Alexandrian text was corrupt?
May 5th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Jenny: You raise too much for me to deal with (time wise). First, I have many Calvinist friends who use the KJV, NIV, NASB and ESV. I, myself, assist with church plants. Notice the emphasis of the gospel and church planting on this website? So, let’s get that one off the table.
Second, I was raised in a fundamentalist, Baptist church. I “cut my teeth” on the KJV. In the 70s and 80s, the KJV Only movement gained ground. In my opinion, by the year 1998, KJV Onlyism basically reached its climax with Dell Johnson’s Pensacola debacle. It is now subscribed to by relatively few. As in the days of King James, I predict it will only be about 40 more years before the KJV Only movement dies out completely. Why do I say this? In 1611, most people used the Geneva Bible and did not readily accept the KJV. This is just history repeating itself. With the variety of good translations and the wide use of these various translations, I doubt that this Onlyism will occur again. But then again, human nature tends to like extremes.
Third, about your references above about why the NIV leaves things out or uses different words. The same can be said about the KJV. Why did the KJV translators add these verses and why didn’t they translate “Hell” as “Ghenna.” Remember, the KJV translators used “baptism” and “church” instead of “immersion” and “congregation.”
Fourth, about “digging up the text.” It is called archeology. They came out of a library in Alexandria, Egypt. The NIV and other modern versions are not exclusively Alexandrian. Even Erasmus, who put together the TR, used texts that were “dug up.”
The main objection to your arguments that I have is that you do not view God’s Word as being intended for the common man. God always raised up learned men to provide the Scriptures in the most common language. Why deny your children an opportunity to have a translation that makes sense so they can understand the scriptures more clearly? (Nehemiah 8.8)
May 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Jenny writes:
This is a fair criticism. But is that a result of the translation used in church or other factors? You’re confusing correlation with causation.
My church is based upon a “seeker-sensitive” model, and we are specifically trained to invite non-Christians to our Sunday morning services and other events. At those services, we use a wide variety of translations and paraphrases, including KJV and NIV, to reach the lost for Christ.
*****
Don’t worry, Barry. I recognize my Shepherd’s voice. James’ post doesn’t bother me. It simply illustrates a lack of depth and willingness to respond to my sincere questions.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Glad to have you around Gadfly!
May 8th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Gadfly said; The consequence of the Tower of Babel didn’t prevent God from sending Jesus to us. Different languages do not prevent us from experiencing God’s forgiveness today, either.
I believe in the OT God chose himself a people out of the world, namely Hebrews and set them as a light to the world and recorded his Word in their language. If one wanted a relationship with God one followed the Hebrew law. Meaning, if you wanted salvation under OT grounds, you had better learn Hebrew quick. English is the commerce language of the day. Even countries as backwards as the Philippines have a english speaking majority.
Your argument their gladfly has a huge gaping hole in it.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Gadfly said: I genuinely don’t understand the KJV-only position. In my mind, it’s equivalent to a “Shakespearean English-only” position. The English language has changed drastically over the past 400 years.
Sixth grade english is still sixth grade english. Their is an eloquence to the KJV which forces the reader to slow down as he reads it. It has a natural rythem to it that allows the reader to better recall and remember text. Even now in our schools children are taught to gloss over the text in an attempt to speed up reading. You wont be able to do this with the old King Jimmy.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Hi Andy: I have a spam eliminator deployed which requires me to approve your first comment. From here on out, your comments will not be moderated by Akismet as you have been approved as a poster.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Andy, you’re right that the KJV is more elegant and requires people to slow down and think about what they’re reading. There is great value in that.
But I strongly disagree with your other post.
How arrogant and odd it is to claim that one must speak English to experience the Word of God.
How about the billions of people who don’t speak and read English?
May 9th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Andy: I am getting mixed messages about your post. On the one hand, you claim that it is 6th grade reading level, then in the next sentence you say that it is “eloquent” and forces the reader to slow down.
I don’t know about you, but when I pick up one of my daughter’s 6th grade level books, there is no slowing down to understand completely what it is saying.
Could it be that your “6th grade reading level” idea for the KJV is contrived? There are a couple of things you can do to get an unbiased opinion:
1) Google “reading level kjv” and you can browse the snippets and find that opinions about the KJV readability range from 5th grade to 12th grade. You will see that the 5th grade analysis is promoted only by King James Only advocates.
So, lets take the bias out of the equation and….
2) Google “reading level Shakespearean English” The results are nearly identical. Every snippet states that Shakespearean English is 12th grade/college level.
The problem is that KJV only types found a tool called the Flesch-kincaid. What they don’t tell you is that the Flesch-kincaid model strictly measures on the basis of sentence/word length and syllables. The other thing they do not show you are the results. With small samplings, I get 11-12th grade results every time. Try it for yourself here: Flesch-Kincaid Tool
What about vocabulary? That is certainly a readability issue. Where do you find the following words in any Junior High or High School vocabulary lists: almug, chode, charashim, chapt, gat, habergeon, hosen, kab, ligure, nard, neesed…. (just to name a few, there are plenty more).
I think I spent too much time trying to prove the obvious. To suggest that the KJV is “easy-to-read” is absurd.
In fact, it is a strange thing for a KJV only advocate to worry readability. For you, the issue is not all about proving the KJVs readability. Your crux is to prove that the KJV is perfect. While language changes, those who want to read it must learn to read “the Kings English” or “Majestic English” as the KJV is commonly called. In fact, your friend KJVOnly01 on YouTube just commented: “Ultimately, it is a spiritual book where God will grant understanding based in the demeanor of the individual who favorably responds by faith to Gods charge.”
There is no 6th grade reading level book that requires God to grant an understanding based on faith for the common man to understand its meaning.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
One small detail, Barry…I thought Andy meant that the NIV is written at a 6th grade reading level, but that the KJV is more challenging to comprehend.
You both seem to agree on this point.
The Flesch-Kinkaid link is very cool. Thanks!
May 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
I think he meant the KJV was written at a 6th grade English level. We have had discussions about this elsewhere. What did you mean Andy?
May 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am
I would recommend a book for you called “Let’s weigh the evidence.” Christianity needs an absolute or we have no legitamate leg to stand on. There is one God and he spoke one word. Things that are different are never the same. We must put our faith in one word of God. Which one will you take?
May 25th, 2008 at 7:44 pm
We do have an absolute. Our absolute is founded on the originals. The commonality between us is that we do not have the exact originals. The difference between us is that while we (the Modern Versionists) are willing to admit that our versions suffer here and there, the KJV also suffers here and there.
I have posted a thread on our forum to discuss this issue further:
In Search of the Absolute Standard Bible