The
KJV Verses KJV Onlyism
Why
Do Modern Version Users Say Critical Things About the KJV?
October 20, 2003
The
KJV Onlyist fakes wonderment and bewilderment: if modern
version users ("MVUs") honestly
do not hate the KJV, if they are not anti- KJV,
and if they aren't really attacking the KJV, then why do
some of them occasionally point out so-called "mistakes,"
"translation errors" and the like in the King
James Version?
For
the KJV Onlyists who even bother to bring up textual issues,
they too feign wonderment and bewilderment: If the MVUs
are not "anti KJV," why do they quibble about
the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine mansucripts?
If one
is even remotely familiar with the techniques KJV Onlyists
use to discredit modern versions (or to proclaim the KJV
as being God's only perfect word), the answer should be
self-evident.
But
because it is not self evident to KJV Onlyists,
(or they at least pretend they are clueless) I
have written this page as a response.
The
major reason why MVUs bring up flaws in
the KJV is to show the KJV Onlyists that they adhere to
double standards regarding Bible versions.
Another
reason it is done is the hope that the KJV Onlyists
will be led to a correct understanding of biblical inerrancy,
inspiration and history, and abandon the false, and, at
times, flakey beliefs they propound.
In actuality
and in practice, it is "modern versions," such
as the NKJV and NIV, which are attacked, and attacked by
Christians ironically calling themselves "Bible defenders"
who claim that only the KJV can, or should, be trusted.
The
usual methods employed to achieve this end are to publish
web pages, tracts, and books listing mistake after mistake
in modern versions, or mistakes in the texts and manuscripts
they were based upon, and to point out where modern versions
allegedly delete or remove passages and doctrines.
A word
of caution is needed: some of the mistakes or alleged deletions
brought up by KJV Onlyists are really no such thing at all.
KJV
Onlyists have been known to print out- and- out falsehoods
or misrepresentations about the critcial texts, Alexandrian
manuscripts, modern versions, and the people who have worked
on them (the
most prominent example is probably Gail Riplinger, who penned
the book New Age Bible Versions).
Some
of the mistakes mentioned about modern versions by KJV Only
advocates do in fact exist, but the KJV Onlyist will wrongly
and dishonestly attribute impure motives to the individuals
behind the versions, or else Satan's hand, as reasons for
the existence of said mistakes.
The
KJV Attacked First?
When
asked to stop bad mouthing, trashing, and attacking modern
versions, some KJV Onlyists seek to avoid responsiblity
by throwing in a red herring. They will change the topic
to proclaim that "the KJV was attacked first."
Regardless
of who began attacking what first, the KJV onlyist should
not be misrepresenting
someone else's position by insisting that MVUs "attack"
the KJV, nor does it make it excusable for them to deride
the NIV and other modern versions. (It is not
even true the the KJV was attacked first.)
KJV
Onlyists Unwilling to Be Honest About the Situation
The
problem -- and the large amount of hypocrisy -- comes in
when KJV Onlyists refuse to admit that the very same mistakes
and problems which affect modern versions, their texts and
manuscripts also apply to the KJV, its texts and
its manuscript family.
Aside
from a few obvious changes, such as document production
by use of the printing press instead of hand copying, and
newer ways of looking at biblical TC (textual criticism),
Bible transmission, history, production, translation and
all of the rest have remained basically the the same.
Special
Pleading or Plain Fantasy?
KJV
Onlyists tend to believe, or their view point necessitates,
that the KJV is exempt from the same problems that inflict
other versions. This would lead one to think that the KJV
had to develop in a different, completely foreign way, from
that of other versions.
So enter
all the KJV Onlyist theories, such as the "tree of
good Bibles," "perfect preservation," the
"consensus" of New Testament readings, or the
direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit upon the KJV scholars.
I am sure there are probably a few other theories which
I have forgotten.
Yes,
in the world of KJV Onlyism, the KJV enjoys unique exceptions
and privileges that the other versions do not. Someone more
knowledgeable in the area of logical
fallacies than I could say if this issue is tantamount
or somehow related to "Special Pleading." I suspect
that it is.
Still,
the KJV Onlyists are left with demonstrating just how it
is that the KJV alone enjoys such benefits. If such theories
were true, who is to say that the Geneva Bible version,
for example, was not the actual recipient of them? Perhaps
the KJV is just a fraud, put into place by Satan to replace
God's only true word, the Geneva?
I have
read books on the making and history of the KJV, and I see
no difference between its creation and that of most other
versions. God's hand is not upon the KJV any more so than
that of the NIV or NKJV or the various, pre-1611 versions,
in English or otherwise.
One
can argue about the worth of the Byzantine manscripts verses
the Alexandrian ones, or which method of textual criticism
is the best, but the overall scheme of things, the reality,
is that the KJV comes from the same sources -- I mean texts
by way of manuscripts -- all of which were made by fallible
men.
Yes,
the rough outline of all Bible versions remains the same:
