The KJV Verses KJV Onlyism

Modern Bible Version Users Do Not Hate or Attack the KJV

October 20, 2003 / In the future, I may be writing another page on this topic

King James Version Onlyists with whom I have talked to on bulletin boards and in e-mails frequently level the charge at those who do not share the KJVO view that we are "against the KJV." Sometimes this notion is conveyed with other phrases such as "attack the KJV," "hate the KJV," and so forth.

For matters of expediency, I will be referring to those Christians who do not agree with the KJV Only proposition as MVUs ("Modern Version Users").

No matter how often the MVUs, whether laypersons on discussion boards or theologians and scholars in their publications, explain in clear terms that they are not against the KJV (for they truly are not), this does not halt the tide of misrepresentation, which I believe to be largely intentional, and therefore, inexcusable.

What Leads to The Conclusion that the KJV Onlyist Misrepresentations are Intentional

The modern version users make it absolutely clear to the KJV Onlyists that we are not against the KJV itself but are, rather, against the KJV Only position. I have witnessed KJV Onlyists on discussion boards being informed of this point, only to see the very same individual(s) make the same untrue accusation time and time again.

Deliberate misportrayal of another Christian's views is not ethical or honest. It is also a large waste of time for both sides of the debate.

Why do so many KJV Onlyists engage in misrepresentation? It is my feeling that it is a form of intellectual dishonesty or laziness, as they find it easier to out- and- out dismiss the MVU outlook by thinking of its adherents as "anti KJVists" or "KJV haters."

After all, if one's psychological framework and tendency is to think of the modern version user as a "KJV attacker" then one will not have to invest mental energy into actually listening to, understanding, studying, and considering the MVU's points.

I do acknowledge that there might be some in the KJVO movement who genuinely feel that the MVUs, by pointing out the shortcomings of the KJV, are "attacking it." But is this really the case; are we actually attacking the KJV?

If one will take into consideration that MVUs

take great pains to point out that they are anti- King James Version Only and not anti- King James Version; and that

we who speak out against the KJV Only position are quick to affirm that the KJV is a trustworthy, good version, (which we do);

there can be no basis in the charge that we are "attacking" the KJV or that we are against it. Therfore, it is dishonest and irresponsible for the KJV Onlyist to continually repeat that the MVUs are "anti KJV," "against the KJV," "KJV haters," or that we are "attacking the KJV."

If modern version users were truly engaged in an anti-KJV plot or had an anti- KJV mindset, > we would be seeking to get all members of Christendom to stop using the KJV altogether. we would begin by insisting that the KJV be used only in private home study but never in public church services or Sunday school. However, I have never once seen a MVU tell a KJV Onlyist any of this. > we would be creating and attending "modern Bible version only" churches and make it a point to mention this in our "what we believe" pages at our church sites. > we would be harassing store clerks at book stores, asking them how and why they carry the "evil, Satanic KJV." We do not do this. > we would interrupt a discussion board conversation about the topic of Bible prophecy to ask, "Why did you quote from that evil KJV to make your point about the Tribulation? Shouldn't you be quoting from a pure, heavenly modern version?" We do not do this either. > we would be erecting sites and publishing tracts telling people "stay away from the KJV!" or referring to it as evil, Satanic, and other such things. Such is not the case. > we would label our "search the bible on-line" links with disclaimers such as "Several Bible searches are provided at the bottom of the page for your convenience. They contain the modern versions and the KJV perversion so you may easily compare the differences between them." > we would also be repeating the arguments of atheists, liberal scholars, and higher critics who deny the deity of Jesus, who go so far as to suggest that the resurrection of Jesus was merely symbolic, or that it contains historic mistakes, and that sort of thing -- none of which we do. > we would be insisting that the KJV should be shunned because it intentionally and maliciously omits doctrines and verses and passages. Not guilty of that one, either.

There are those KJV Onlyists who go beyond the idea that we are supposedly "anti KJV" and jump to the conclusion that we are not saved.

I have personally, over the years, had different KJV Onlyists on boards and in e-mails imply or come right out and say that I am unsaved. One recently sent me an e-mail telling me that if I am "against the KJV" that I am also "against God."

There is certainly a deep problem with a paradigm that leads to such an unbiblical, unwarranted assumption. To apply the phrase "against God" to one who does not share another's views on Bible versions is not only unethical, but it is also redefining the concept and therefore twisting the Scriptures.

The Scriptures tend to cateogorize those who are against God as being individuals who deny that Jesus came in the flesh, or as those who refuse to acknowledge Jesus as Lord (see, for example, 1 John 2:22; 1 John 4:2; 2 John 1:7). No mention is made of version use or preference.

If a KJV Onlyist wishes to cite any verses about individuals who refuse to obey, hear, respect, or listen to "God's word" in support of the KJV Only contention that those who do not do so are "against God," this begs the question, since the KJV Onlyist has not as yet demonstrated that the term "God's word" used in such verses is referring to the KJV alone.

How KJV Onlyism Distorts The Gospel

To be sure, there is a minority within the KJV Onlyist camp who do not hide their belief that one must be saved by, with, or through the KJV; they do not believe that faith alone in Jesus saves, but that the KJV also plays a role in some fashion. Most KJV Onlyists are not usually as forthright as this, though, or may not even realize that they themselves are not too far from believing it.

The most disturbing and problematic issue is the alteration of the Gospel message which is made by some of these KJV Onlyists. Some KJV Onlyists may not honestly realize the full implications of their allegations against MVUs. Regardless, it remains dangerous.

KJV Onlyists who quietly doubt to themselves and who loudly imply in public arenas that those who reject KJV Onlyism are not saved are also implicitly upholding the idea that believing in King James Version Onlyism is necesssary to receive salvation.

Those KJV Onlyists who tell a MVU Christian that he or she is "against God" for not supporting KJV Onlyism, are, in a roundabout manner, doing the very same thing. Their reasoning seems to be that a Christian will be for God, and any Christian for God will thus also hold the KJV Onlyist position. The unspoken assumption, then, is that only a Non-Christian would reject KJV Onlyism; the 'truly saved' would be 'for' KJV Onlyism.

Good Fruit, Bad Fruit

Even if altering the Gospel was not the case here, there is still a gross misunderstanding or misapplication of verses which discuss how to determine who is a real believer and who is not -- and ulimately God is the only one who truly knows the state of a self-professing believer's heart (with the exception of the believer himself or herself).

The Scriptures do not cite the use, dedication to, or choice of a Bible version as a criteria by which to deduce the spiritual status or spiritual life (or lack thereof) of self-professing Christians. Using the "good fruit" argument or how "godly" a person's life is (or is not) to score "brownie points" in the versions debate, is, therefore, not altogether wise.

Why is that? Other than the fact that it is misuse of Scriptures, which is always a bad thing, it also backfires upon the KJV Onlyist:

The scholars who made the KJV were not angelic. They were known to produce "bad fruit." At least one of them was a drunkard, if memory serves me, and some of the others had serious moral shortcomings.

While the KJV was the default version of use for approximately 400 hundred years, I am sure there were plenty of "backslidden" or "carnal" Christians during those 400 years who churned out bad fruit after bad fruit, and who used the KJV exclusively.

I generally see nothing but "bad fruit" emanating from KJV Onlyists, such as consistent hostility and legalism. Should I then infer that the KJV is to blame for this, and as such, toss away my KJV copy?

Conclusion

If KJV Onlyists want to get past empty polemic and rhetoric ("you are attacking the KJV!," "you are against God and His word!," etc.), they will cease attributing to modern version users beliefs we do not actually hold and start dealing with the ones we do.

Even if you perceive yourself as being a KJV Onlyist who considers any critical remark what so ever about the KJV as being an "attack," you will have to suspend this attitude in the midst of conversations with MVUs, otherwise you will never fully understand or listen to what they are saying.

You will have to at least temporarily put aside your disbelief and take the MVU at his or her word: they are not "attacking" the KJV, at least from their perspective. Otherwise, what I say in the following paragraph applies to you as well:

For those KJV Onlyists who are satisfied with hurling these vacuous, untrue sentiments our way, they should keep it themselves and not talk to MVUs, as they are more interested in schoolyard fights than in mature, honest dialogue; the thrust of Titus 3:9 may be applicable in this scenario.