WHY
I CANNOT FOLLOW “KJV-ONLYISM”
By
Pastor Bruce Oyen
This
article is intended to reveal that “KJV-onlyism” is founded upon fallacious
arguments, and, consequently, should be rejected.
But
that is not to say that the KJV should be rejected. It is the Word of God. What
is to be rejected is the faulty argumentation used to support a faulty view of
the 1611 KJV. While my reasons will generate heat from some, I hope they will
also shed some light on this topic.
First, I cannot follow KJV-onlyism
because it seems to imply that the Bible was not in English prior to the KJV.
KJV
– only literature emphasizes the idea that only the KJV is God’s Word in English. If that be true, what were pre-KJV (before 1611) English Bible
translations? Are we to assume that they were not really Bibles? Or, are we to
assume that they ceased to be Bibles
when the KJV was printed in 1611?
If
one admits to the fact that there were English Bible translations prior to the
KJV, it would seem equally true that they still are Bibles. And if that be
true, then it is saying too much to say that only the KJV is God’s Word in the
English language.
What
are the pre-KJV English Bibles?
The
Wycliffe Bible (1382); Tyndale’s Bible (1525-1534); Coverdale’s Bible (1535);
Thomas Matthew’s Bible (1537); the Great Bible (1539); the Geneva Bible
(1557-1560); the Bishop’s Bible (1568); all of these were prior to the KJV.
If
these translations were the Word of God, they still are! And if that be true,
KJV-onlyism falls flat on its face, for we are forced to conclude that the Word
of God has been preserved in English in pre-KJV Bibles as well as in the King
James Version.
Second, I cannot follow KJV-onlyism
for the simple reason that the KJV generally used today is different in
substance from the 1611 KJV.
Followers
of KJV-onlyism make much of using the “1611 KJV.” But most of them seem unaware
of the fact that most of them do not use it. The commonly-used KJV is different
from the 1611 edition in substance, not just in spelling, and type-style, and
punctuation.
On
page 217 of his book, THE KING JAMES
VERSION DEFENDED, E. F. Hills wrote:
Two editions of the King James Version were
published in 1611. The first is distinguished from the second by a unique
misprint, namely, Judas instead of Jesus in Matthew 26:36. The second edition
corrected this mistake, and also in other respects was – more carefully
done. Other editions followed in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1617 and frequently thereafter. In 1629 and 1638 the text
was subjected to two minor revisions. In the 18th century the spelling and
punctuation of the King James version were modernized,
and many obsolete words were changed to their modern equivalents. The two
scholars responsible for these alterations were Dr. Thomas Paris (1762) of
Note
that the text was subjected to revisions!
Evangelist
Gary Hudson wrote a valuable article called, The Myth of No Revision [available from BBH] in which he
listed over seventy examples of how the text of the 1611 KJV differs from what
is used by most KJV readers today. Four examples of textual changes are given
here:
2
Kings
2
Kings 11:10, current KJV: “in the
temple of the Lord”
1
Chronicles 7:5, 1611 KJV: “were men
of might”
1
Chronicles 7:5, current KJV: “were
valiant men of might”
Matthew
Matthew
12:23, current KJV: “Is not this
the son of David?”
I
John
I
John 5:12, current KJV: “he that hath not
the Son of God hath not life”
Have
you ever seen stickers on envelopes that say, “Use the Bible God Uses: 1611
KJV”? Or, have you seen advertisements for churches which say something like “Standing
for the 1611 KJV?”
Well,
it is very likely that they think they are using the original KJV. A simple
comparison of their Bibles with the original might reveal something they will
be surprised by.
While
there is nothing wrong with standing for the King James Version, we should not
make claims that probably are not accurate. Facts are stubborn things, and one
can easily verify the accuracy of those who claim to be using the original King
James Version.
[Editor’s note: I once ordered a Bible
published in
Since
it is easily proven that the KJV usually used today is substantially different
from the 1611 edition, KJV-only advocates are faced with a dilemma: they must
decide which edition is God’s Word in English.
Third, I cannot follow KJV-onlyism
because it attributes infallibility to the KJV, something not done by its
Translators.
The
KJV has some very interesting and informative introductory material which
enables us to see what the Translators thought of their own work. I am
referring to THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY,
and to a lengthy piece called The
Translators to the Readers.
In
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY, the Translators
dedicated their translation to King James. In their dedication we discover that
they did not consider their work to be infallible, as the following quotation
proves:
There
are infinite arguments of this right Christian and religious affection in your Majesty:
but none is more forcible to declare it to others than
the vehement and perpetuated desire of the accomplishing and publishing of this
work, which now with all humility we present unto your Majesty. For when your
Highness had once out of deep judgement apprehended
how convenient it was, that out of the
original sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labors, both in our
own and other foreign languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there
should be one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English
tongue; Your Majesty did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it
was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be
expedited in so decent a manner, as a matter of such importance might justly
require.
Since
the Learned Men considered their work to be “one more exact translation of the holy Scriptures into the English
tongue,” should we make more of it than they did?
In
THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READERS, we
find that they did not look upon their translation the way many do now. For
instance, page seven says:
Now
to the latter (the Puritans) we answer that we do not deny, nay we affirm, and
avow, that the very meanest translation
of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen
none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is
the word of God.
No
cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or
forbidden to be current, not withstanding that
some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that
is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged
with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?
Should
we attribute to their work what the translators themselves denied?
A fourth reason why I am unable to
follow KJV-onlyism is that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition reveal that
the translators themselves were often uncertain of how words and verses should
be translated into English.
Most
KJV Bibles have few or none of these marginal notes. One should purchase a 1611
edition from Thomas Nelson Publishers so that the notes can be read. They are
very interesting, informative, and perhaps unnerving to advocates of KJV-onlyism.
On
page 216 of his book, THE KING JAMES
VERSION DEFENDED,
E. F. Hills said some important things about those notes. Consider his
statements carefully:
The
marginal notes which the translators attached to the King James Version
indicated how God guided their labors providentially. According to Scrivener
(1884), there are 8,422 marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James
Version, including the Apocrypha. In the Old Testament, Scrivener goes on to
say, 4,111 of the marginal notes give the more literal meaning of the Hebrew or
Aramaic, 2,156 give alternative translations, and 67 give variant readings. In
the New Testament 112 of the marginal notes give literal rendering of the
Greek, 582 give alternative translations, and 37 give variant readings. These
marginal notes show us that the translators were guided providentially through
their thought processes, through weighing every possibility and choosing that
which seemed to them best.
Two paragraphs later, Hills wrote,
“As
the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their
work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy
reproduction of God’s holy Word, and as such they commended it to their
Christian reader.
The
conclusion to be drawn from their many notes is obvious: If they were often
unsure of themselves, should we attribute infallibility to their translation?
No, we should make neither more nor less of their work than they did.
A fifth reason why I cannot subscribe
to KJV-onlyism is that it condemns modern translators for doing what the KJV
translators themselves did by putting marginal notes in the Bible.
In
reading KJV-only literature, one soon learns that it is unacceptable to put any
notes in Bible margins that can make the reader “uncertain” of how a verse
should be translated, or that can make one question whether or not a verse
should be in the Bible at all.
For
instance, one pamphlet concerning the NIV says:
Even
though NIV includes a weaker translation of this (Matt.
While
I understand this concern, the facts prove that the original KJV was “guilty”
of the same thing. For example, the KJV marginal note for Luke 10:22 says, ‘Many
ancient copies add these words, “and turning to his disciples he said.’” And
the notation of Luke
Aren’t
such extensive marginal notes in the original KJV just as likely to “destroy
confidence in the Bible as the Word of God” as those in other translations are
said to do?
A sixth reason why I cannot follow
KJV-onlyism is because the KJV is the product of the Church of England.
As
a fundamental Baptist I believe in the Biblical distinctives of Baptists, two
of which are (1) the separation of church and state, and (2) the immersion of
believers.
I
would not have speakers in our church if they deny these doctrines. Therefore,
I could not have any of the translators of the King James Version preach in my
pulpit. They believed in, and were members of the Church of England, a state
church. Furthermore, they believed in baptismal
regeneration, whereas Baptists believe in regeneration by the Word and Holy
Spirit of God.
In
their epistle of dedication of the King James Version, its translators
expressed their “great hope that the Church
of England shall reap good fruit thereby.”
The
fact that the KJV was produced by the Church of England does not mean that it
should not be used. But it does mean that if Baptists are going to be
consistent with their theology, they must admit that the translators of the KJV
would not qualify to join their churches or speak in them.
Consequently,
it does not make sense that so many Baptists are crusading for the King James
Version. How can Baptists crusade for the infallibility of a translation
produced by what we believe is a very fallible and faulty denomination? We
would do well to adopt the view of the KJV’s translators about their work.
Remember that in their epistle of dedication to King James they stated that
their work was “one more exact
translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue.”
Furthermore,
in THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER,
they said:
Truly
(good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should
need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to
make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not
justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that hath been our
mark.
We
would do well, too, to remember what E.F. Hills wrote on page 216 of his book, THE KING JAMES VERSION DEFENDED:
As
the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their
work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy
reproduction of God’s holy Word, and as such they commended it to their
Christian readers…
It
is with such an opinion of the King James Version that we, too, can commend it
to readers, both Christian and non-Christian.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Have you ever heard a KJV-onlyite ask, “Where is
God’s Word today? Where can I find God’s Word?” This is a question of
“sophistry,” not intelligence and sincerity. A question set in sophistry may be
suitably answered with sophistry: Where was God’s word in 1610? Where could one
find God’s Word in 1610? If the sophist can answer this, he can answer his own
question. “Answer a fool according to his folly.”