This page is not intended for scholarly dialogue, merely it is a collection of thoughts that I have had since I have been in contact with this teaching. This is the first article I have personally written on the topic, although I have engaged in dialogue with many adherents - some of whom have since come to see its follies. An article by Eric Pement is also available on my web pages - Gimme the Bible that Paul used. This page is a work in progress, as are, I presume, all World Wide Web pages. However, it is my desire to revise and expand this page as time permits.

As a disclaimer, I use and enjoy the King James Bible. Indeed, for some time I provided a searchable King James Concordance for use over the World-Wide-Web (which I hope to provide again). However, I do recognise its shortcomings and as well as other translations, I read the Bible in Greek - for this is the language it was written in, and any translation will involve a degree of subjective interpretation on the part of its translators. For those who are curious, I learned Greek as part of my Masters degree in Theology at a reputable and accredited Bible College in Australia. Interestingly enough, when dialoguing with King James Only people, I am often asked which version I use - not that such a question in any way provides any explanation to the questions I am asking, but rather the King James' person immediately assumes I am a follower of a particular translation and that they can debunk it. When replying that I use a number of versions but prefer the New Testament in Greek they often do not know how to then proceed. Indeed, I am yet to meet a King James Only person who actually and regularly reads Koine Greek. Oddly enough, in addition, many King James Only people are quite unaware that what we label the King James Version is actually a late nineteenth century revision of the 1611 work.

Essentially, I cannot agree with the King James Only doctrine.

Its arguments are wrong

This, simply put, is the main problem. The King James Only doctrine asserts that the King James version, or rather, the Textus Receptus (the Greek text underlying this translation) is the only, pure unadulterated Word of God today.

Such a claim seeks to label many fine translations of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures as corruptions and perversions. This really is quite untrue. Indeed, such claims make me doubt that King James Only people actually understand any of their claims or the entire field of textual criticism. A very easy to read book on this topic is Scribes, Scrolls and Scriptures by J. Harold Greenlee. Australian readers can purchase this book for less than $5 from Koorong Books. It is an introductory text to textual criticism and how we can be confident of the accuracy of today's Greek texts. The book, in fact, does not even mention the King James' Only doctrine, as it is simply not an issue to those who understand the field of textual criticism. I would recommend a study of this field to any who wish a greater understanding of the entire nature of translation and the Greek texts in use.

Also, claims of heresy and so forth are completely exaggerated. The King James Only person would seek to assert that only their translation teaches fundamental truths of the Bible - and that other translations diminish such teachings, or deny them! However, this is not the case. Indeed, there is not one single Christian doctrine that rests on a particular rendering of a single verse. Certainly, should someone seek to build a doctrine solely on such grounds, I would be more than dubious. For example, the lack of I John 5:7 in the New International Version is often used as a claim that it has Arian leanings, or is trying to diminish the doctrine of the Trinity. Nothing could be further from the truth! If the NIV had such an agenda, would not verses like John 1:1, 14; Colossians 1:16 and many others be removed or corrupted, as is the case with the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses? In reality, the variations between Greek texts really deal simply with minutae.

Its arguments are self-defeating

Preservation of the Word of God

The King James Only doctrine seeks to denigrate all other translations of the Bible as a perversion. It is claimed that those who would read another translation do not really have faith in God, for they feel that such a person believes God has not been able to preserve His Word. This claim seems odd, and does not actually have any basis, for such a notion would not occur to many a reader. However, the reverse is actually the case. It is solely the King James Only person who is under the impression that God has not been able to preserve His Word - for they believe it is has been corrupted to such an extent that God's Word may only be found in one single translation!

Missing verses

Interestingly enough, many a King James Only person has strived to claim that other translations (particularly the New International Version) are in error for they omit verses that are included in the King James, such as I John 5:7.

However, this is not a claim that supports the King James Version, and its continual use should really be abandoned by any reasonably intelligent King James' Only person - for it is a meaningless claim. It only has a basis if one pre-assumes that the King James Version is correct, and the basis by which all other translations should be judged.

Any person should be able to see that if a verse is missing from a translation, then two possible things have occurred. Either it is missing from the second translation, or it has been added to the first. Both are possible - and although a reading may appear to strengthen a doctrine, should we not strive to find precisely the words used by the original authors - which may not have included the extra verse!

Nevertheless, even if such a claim were true, the King James Only people are inconsistent in their application of it. For one example, the words and we are are missing from I John 3:1 in the King James Version. Could one then claim that the translators sought to diminish the concept that Christians are the children of God?

Its arguments are irrelevant

I was rather apalled to come across an argument against the New International Version that sought to discredit it by a simple association with Rupert Murdoch, a prominent media personality, some of whose publications feature pornographic material. The article claims that Zondervan publishers had been taken over by a secular publisher, which in turn had been subsumed into Murdoch's empire.

Sad though it may be, that a Christian publisher would be caught in such a scenario, the argument is clearly foolish. Firstly, the New International Version was translated some time before these events took place. Secondly, the association with pornographic material does not in any way have any bearing on the quality of translation or the scholarship or spirituality of the translation committee. Thirdly, to follow such logic, the King James Version must be avoided like the plague - for, being in the public domain, the King James Version has been reprinted time and time again by many a secular publisher, whose array of works well include gross immorality and purely evil material.

The character of its supporters

Without wishing to resort to ad hominem, I feel mention must be made of some of the characteristics of over-zealous King James Only people. I do not wish at all to claim that all adherents of this doctrine are wicked people, merely that certain of its prominent spokespeople are somewhat less than Christian in some of their attitudes and conduct. Gerald Caldwell for example, quite often posts highly derogatory and abusive articles to Usenet. This really, is to his undoing, for it seems to me difficult to take someones' views seriously when every line of their writing is littered with comments that do not betray a Christian manner.

The Bible Believers mailing list

An internet email mailing list has been constructed, the Bible Believers list. This list is strictly for King James Only people. Those who disagree with this doctrine are abused, criticised and harassed in a most disgraceful manner.

Ruckman

An overly outspoken King James Only person is Peter Ruckman. He is most rude, unpleasant and critical in his dealings with those he labels Alexandrians - those who rely on the greater value of Alexandrian Greek manuscripts than the Textus Receptus, with Ruckman's use akin to a derogatory term.

Indeed, certain King James Only pages mention that this is just his particular style, and not something that should be emulated by the average person - so my commendation to these pages for recognising Ruckman's unChristian behaviour.

Interestingly, however, such pages will still support Ruckman's views. However, Ruckman is actually non-Trinitarian and holds to a number of unorthodox beliefs. Perhaps this shows that the personality of the Holy Spirit, the deity of Christ and many other Christian fundamentals are lesser doctrines to these people than whether one should rely solely on a particular translation or not, in this case the King James Version.

Anti-intellectualism

Often I am referred to a page by Brandon Staggs by King James Only people. Firstly, this page appears to be well done, and Brandon has actually made available some nice Bible searching software and appears to have good values. However, I have actually been in correspondence with this person. I offered to reason with him and somewhere along the line I made the comment "good scholarly debate". Brandon agreed to dialogue, but took great exception to the comment "scholarly" for to him this was a grossly taboo word. As things turn out, we somehow got out of communication with each other, but this one comment of his quite intrigued me.

As things happen, the King James Only people are quite against scholarship. They believe it to be merely humanistic wisdom. It does not appear to occur to them that the reason a person may believe opposite to them is because they have spent considerable time studying and investigating the matter! I believe Brandon's web page is where I first encountered the comment that "the majority is always wrong" which I found to be most bizarre. In this context, it was being used as a refutation of the fact that the majority of people recognise the shortcomings of the King James Version. However, were such a thing true, then Christian evangelism and missionary endeavours would be a wicked thing, for if the majority is always wrong then to evangelise the world would work against Christianity.

The King James Only people are, however, inconsistent in this area anyway. Although education and scholarship are devalued, much is made of King James Only adherents who do possess PhD's - so either the qualification does have worth or it does not. Nevertheless, although a person with higher tertiary qualifications is educated, they may not necessarily be qualified to speak on certain fields. Riplinger, mentioned below, has a Masters degree in Home Economics. However, she possesses absolutely no theological qualifications.

I was contacted once by a Kentucky Bible College in America, that taught King James Onlyism - but after some dialog and taking a look at their page, it was evident that the college was completely unaccredited, and the founder had not earned his doctorates from a recognised Bible College.

Riplinger

Gail Riplinger has written a book New Age Bible Versions. A mailing list I was on was spoiled by a certain King James Only person, whose name I will not mention. He was abusive and posted foolish barrages consistently. He constantly referred to Riplingers book and offered to send copies to people. When I replied and said if he posted me a copy I would read every word he wrote back and said he was an invalid with no money. I still don't own a copy of this book, for I am not prepared to spend my money on it, but I have read portions of it, and I am disgusted.

Riplinger makes claim after claim, that involve quantum leaps of logic and are inconsistent in application. Her entire work is a myriad of conspiracy theory, and effectively relegates all modern translations of the Bible to being a "New Age" plot. I am truly saddened that many people have been deceived by this book (A pastor recently relayed on Compuserve's Worship forum about a lady who, after reading this book, destroyed all the non-King James Version Bibles at her Church. When confronted by the Pastor she exclaimed that "they" had got to him!) It is a sad blight on Christianity that many people do not take the time to think, for Riplinger's book is a farce and riddled with holes.

Riplinger claims that constant usage of the term "One" for God in the New International Version means that the NIV is actually referring to Satan, for God is not explicitly named. No evidence is offered to substantiate such a claim, but nevertheless, it is invalid for an abundance of examples of such usage may be found in the King James Version! Consider the "high and lofty One" of Isaiah, for one example.

Riplinger further tries to make use of a discrepency between the Lord's Prayer in one of the Gospels with its equivalent in the King James Version. She claims that the differences are due to the prayer actually being to Satan in the NIV! Amazing, but this is what she says - again, with not a shred of explanation or even logic. However, Riplinger fails to comment that the Lord's Prayer, in a form agreeable to her, occurs in the NIV, in a different gospel. If the NIV were a new age conspiracy, then surely it would be consistent in such demonisation, one would think.

A good page with lots of information on this topic is www.ebicom.net/~breid/kjvonly.htm.

davidmwilliams@oocities.com