What Kind Of Error Is “KJV Only”?

I am a part of the ESV only cult. No – just kidding. Just making a point that to be a one and only verionists doesn’t have much currency among other translations. I have never heard anyone express the same “inspiration” arguments for another translation.

I have wondered for a quite some time why the Geneva Bible is not given much notice in these sort of discussions. It was in much use before the KJV and the KJV as well as many other English translations owe their success to the innovations introduced by widely popular Geneva Bible.

Thanks for the blog post. MarkO – you have a valid point as well. A sincere study of church history and preservation will lead to an appreciation of the translations prior to / and following the KJV.

Ben, I liked the angle of your post, yes there are varying degrees of error but also varying degrees of ‘KJV only’. Some are heretical but others I simply beg to differ with.

It is interesting that Paul commanded Titus to go to Crete to correct doctrinal error rather than commanding total separation.

As you know I travel and am often asked to preach from the KJV. I am prepared to do so out of respect for the church I am ministering in.

So we need to see where people are at with the issue and if an opportunity arises to share the other side of the story.

What intrigues me is that there was so much opposition to the 1611 edition because there were already good existing translations.

The same arguments get re-hashed today in opposing any updated translation no matter how benign.

Ben, you took a very difficult subject and expressed the major points/problems and critiqued it well. But more importantly you paid attention to the family need.
The family of God does not need division; it needs unity (see Jn. 17:23,Col. 3:14). Mark Os observation is very valid. I believe the reason there is its mooring. Some Baptist have a hard time vilifying Presbyterian roots in fundamental realms. Even the New Geneva Study Bible has not been given much audience today (http://www.ligonier.org/store/the-new-geneva-study-bible-nkjv-hardcover/).
The bottom line, like you said is: Don’t let our preference become our pulpit. Let the Bible be our guide.

It was helpful to see the outline of how different people can be in the same error but at different levels. It takes a lot of wisdom to know when someone is a false teacher vs. a deceived person vs. mistaken but teachable.

Hi Ben,

Great refocus of our attention, it is not a waste of time. However, I wonder if you are at this point only highlighting the first step of church discipline–admonition. Those who ardently adhere to his ‘schismatic’ teaching and are not willing to moderate their opinion need to be marked as causing division within the body of Christ (Romans 16:17).

John

I almost had a heart attack when I read the title :) But in all seriousness I liked your post and it is quite thought provoking.

I find it interesting that this problem has plagued the church in times past.

Augustine wrote to Jerome saying:

“[M]y only reason for objecting to the public reading of your translation from the Hebrew in our churches was, lest, bringing forward anything which was, as it were, new and opposed to the authority of the Septuagint version, we should trouble by serious cause of offense the flocks of Christ, whose ears and hearts have become accostomed to listen to that version to which the seal of approbation was given by the apostles themselves.”

Later on in history we see Martin Dorp writing to Erasmus saying:

“It is not reasonable that the whole church, which has always used this edition and still both approves and uses it, should for all these centuries have been wrong.”

He also goes so far to say (Does this sound familiar to you?):

“If however they contend that a sentence as rendered by the Latin translator varies in point of truth from the Greek manuscript, at that point I bid the Greek goodbye and cleave to the Latins”

First the Septuagint, then the Vulgate and now the KJV.

This is a difficult subject – and a good treatment of it. Though I do think you create a bit of a ‘straw man’ by your definition of ‘KJV-only’. I think this is a much more nuanced debate than your piece suggests.

For example, if a person says ‘no’ to points 1 & 3 of your definition, but ‘yes’ to point 2, what does that make them? Are they guilty of holding a KJV-only position? (And being a schismatic?)

@PJ, The word “only” is key in #1 and #3.

Jason,

I guess my point is this, can a pastor (or a church constitution) insist on using only the KJV in the ministries of the church without being guilty of the KJV-only “error” as Bro. Kwok describes it?

PJ

PJ,

Absolutely. None of the criteria set out would be met in that case.

Thanks Jason & Ben for your replies.

This is a very useful and important discussion for those in independant circles – and, as Ben points out in his article, it always generates a lot of heat! [That this is my third post is an evidence of that!]

I think there are at least three points in between a Ruckmanite position and one that sees use of the KJV only as a matter of ‘preference’.

Thr first such position denies ‘double inspiration’ but maintains that the KJV is a ‘perfect Bible’. I would call that an example of the KJV-only ‘error’ and Ruckmanism by stealth.

The second position I have been exposed to is that because of its textual sources and because of the nature of preservation, in the King James translation “nothing has been lost”. I find this position illogical and two steps away from Ruckmanism, though I’d be careful about calling it “error”.

Then there is a third position that argues for use of the KJV only based on the English used in the translation giving the most precise translation of the Greek (e.g. ye, thee, thou etc) and based on the textual sources of the KJV.

There are probably other variations between a belief in double-inspiration and ‘KJV only’ as a matter of preference. Where exactly one falls into the “KJV-only” error is probably not that easy to determine. And whether someone’s position can be called ‘a preference’ or ‘a conviction’ is also a difficult question.

Augustine’s dictum – “In necessariis unitas, In dubiis libertas, In omnibus autem caritas” applies here and I think that’s the spirit of Bro. Kwok’s article – though determining what is ‘in necessariis’ and what is ‘in dubiis’ is often a vexed question!

Ben – thanks for keeping the conversation going…I appreciate your point of view.

I haven’t had a lot of exposure to ‘KJV-only’ doctrine in independant circles, so my opinion is not worth much – but what I have seen suggests that it stems more from an unwillingness to hold a ‘reasoned’ position on the KJV. It’s easier, and creates less potential for doubt simply to ‘believe’ that the KJV is the only true Word of God.

There is a sound, logical argument to made for the exclusive use of the KJV but its a complex argument and I think many KJV-only types can’t, or don’t want to consider and make that argument.

Church leaders and church constitutions have to make some decisions about which version(s) are to be used in worship and which are best for personal edification – I think you would agree that a laissez-faire approach to this issue is not helpful.

There is a line to be drawn somewhere and when you draw that line, I think its very hard not to look at other translations beyond that line disapprovingly. If you didn’t ddisapprove of other versions you would undermine your own position!

In my discussions with various people over the years it seems to come down to which guiding principle governs making those decisions – and it usually boils down to three –

a) A commitment to translational precision.

b) The underlying textual evidence for the translation, or

c) The acessibility of the translation to the modern reader.

Whichever comes first I think will determine which version one decides to use and how one then looks at other versions.

Anyway, there are thousands more words I could put down on this subject but I’ll leave it there – thanks again for your article and taking the time to engage in conversation.

I believe the kjv is a faithful translation but not the only faithful translation of the Bible.

I am curious. Does anyone believe that a word-for-word perfect (complete, inspired, and inerrant) Bible exists, in the world, today?

If so, where is it (I hope everyone knows that no ‘originals’ exist)?

If not, how do you know where the ‘Bible’ you read is correct and where it is in error?

Alg,

The problem is not that we don’t have enough words. The problem is that we have too many. So the question is not if we have all the words. The question is, of all the words we have, which exact combination is the exact combination that was in the original autographs?

Any attempt to solve this dilemma that includes any language besides the languages of the autographs (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) is error.

If you have a suggestion as to the best solution within one of these three languages, I would be very interested to hear it.

Grace to you.