Were KJV Translators Inspired?

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof

Introductory notes:

This outline is designed to refute the view that the King James Version (KJV) is the only modern Bible on earth that is 100% accurate and error free.

1. Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not the ONLY excellent translation.
2. In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and NONE of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!
3. Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can absolutely be confident of its accuracy. With this large number of manuscripts, comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.) Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining variations, only 50 are of significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages. There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes.
4. These advocates reject all others Bible's that post-date the KJV.
5. They believe that the KJV is not only inspired in the original language, but also in the translation process.
6. This claim of an inspired translation process is not made for any other Bible translation.
7. Only a very tiny fraction of people who use the KJV actually believe that the translation process was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
8. We feel that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible study.
9. The TR itself was based on a very few, late scripts, not one of which contained the entire Greek New Testament and none earlier than the 12th century. In the matter of the book of Revelation, a missing page was translated from the Latin Vulgate BACK to the Greek. Acts 9:6 although found in the Latin Vulgate, and thus the TR is found in no Greek manuscript at all. In light of its obvious shortcomings, a greater number of older and more complete manuscripts were used in the translation of subsequent versions (post-1881)} (The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism, D.A. Carson)

Steve Rudd

We speak the truth in Love...

Go To Start

We speak the truth in Love...

Click here to tell us of how we misrepresented KJV only position

Questions for "KJV only" advocates:

Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from others.

1. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
2. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
3. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
4. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
5. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
6. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?
7. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
8. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
9. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
10. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
11. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
12. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
13. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English - a translation of a translation of a translation?
14. Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
15. Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn't God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God's "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna's deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
16. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
17. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon's believe Joseph Smith's English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
18. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
19. Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
20. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
21. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
22. Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)
23. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
24. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)
25. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
26. Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
27. Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
28. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
29. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
30. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
31. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
32. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
33. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
34. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
35. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
36. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
37. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
38. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
39. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
40. What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
41. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
42. Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
43. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
44. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
45. Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
46. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
47. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture - "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
48. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
49. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
50. Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." - IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
51. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
52. Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
53. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
54. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
55. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."
56. Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
57. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
58. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
59. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
60. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
61. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others' views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
62. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect' translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
63. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
64. Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
65. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above]

Indisputable, universally recognized errors in the KJV

Special thanks to Bill Reid for providing some source documentation in this section.

Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:

Inconsistency in translating identical words and phrases in the KJV

Special thanks to Bill Reid for providing some source documentation in this section.

A Good Translation, But Nothing More

This text article by Jeff Smelser

The King James Version, or "Authorized Version," of the Bible, first published in 1611 under the authority of England's King James (hence the designation, "Authorized"), was in that day a very good translation, and is yet today a useful translation. However, it has never been due the reverence which many people have toward it. In fact, no translation is due the reverence which many have toward the King James Version.

The inspired word of God was and is free from error, being the work not merely of men, but of men directed by the Spirit of God (2 Pt. 1:20-21, Acts 1:16, 2 Tim. 3:16). Translations of that word, however, are subject to the limitations of human ability, and therefore, are imperfect. Moreover, errors arise not only in the process of translating from the original languages utilized by God to other languages, but also due to the fact that translations are made from texts of God's word in the original languages, texts which are themselves imperfect in varying degrees. This last point is that with which we shall concern ourselves in this study, and especially as it has to do with the King James Version. No scriptures exist today in the hand of the original writer. Rather hand-made copies, and in reality, copies of copies, of the originals exist, some very ancient. These are called manuscripts. These manuscripts are imperfect copies, containing the same kinds of errors that slip into hand-made copies of any piece of literature, whether it be a work of Shakespeare, Homer, or a book report for school.

Translators work with compilations of these manuscripts. These compilations represent the efforts of men to weed out the errors (interpolations, omissions, and substitutions) of each individual manuscript by comparing various manuscripts, and arrive at a text which represents as accurately as possible the original text of the scriptures. This process is referred to as textual criticism.

Over five thousand manuscripts, including several from as early as the third century, are available to textual critics today. Some of these include virtually the entire Bible, while others contain only certain books, or groups of books of the Bible. Some are mere fragments. Such extensive manuscript evidence contributes to the ability of modern textual critics to present us with a reliable text of God's word.

However, such extensive and ancient manuscript evidence was not available at the time the King James Version was translated. Even such manuscript evidence as was available was not used as effectively as it could have been in attempting to determine the original text.

The Text Behind the King James Version

The Greek text used by the translators who made the King James Version is commonly referred to as the Received Text, which in turn had its beginnings in the early 1500's when the first printed Greek texts were made. The Complutensian Bible was a polyglot Bible, published in several volumes. The fifth volume, which included a Greek text of the New Testament, was printed in 1514. However, Erasmus' Greek text, printed in 1516, was the first to be marketed. For this reason, and others, the text prepared by Erasmus surpassed the Complutensian text in popularity, and exerted the greatest influence on all the texts to follow for the next few centuries.

After Erasmus' text had seen several revisions, Robert Estienne, commonly referred to as Stephanus, published successive editions of a Greek text. His first two editions were compounds of Erasmus' text and the Complutensian text. However, the third edition (1550) was based primarily on the fourth and fifth editions of Erasmus' text. This 1550 edition gained wide acceptance in England, and for many is synonymous with the Received Text.

However, it was not until 1624 that the phrase, Received Text, or in the Latin, Textus Receptus, was actually coined, and then it was from the preface to the third edition of a Greek text published by Bonaventure and Abraham Elzevir. The words were, as described by Bruce Metzger, part of "a more or less casual phrase advertising the edition (what modern publishers might call a 'blurb')." The phrase boasted in Latin that the text presented was "the text which is now received by all." Thus came the phrase Textus Receptus, or Received Text.

The text published by the Elzevir brothers was mainly taken from a text published by Theodore de Beza in 1565. Beza's text showed its heritage from that of Stephanus, and ultimately from that of Erasmus. It is this basic text, common to Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers, which lies behind all the protestant translations into English that were made from the Greek language prior to the nineteenth century, including the King James Version. According to The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "The textus receptus...resolves itself essentially into that of the last edition of Erasmus."

As we stated before, no translation is due the reverence which many have toward the King James Version. Moreover, while the King James Version represents a scholarly translation from the Greek, because of the Greek text which lies behind it, it is perhaps even somewhat less deserving of such high esteem than some other translations. Bruce Metzger writes,

The vast majority of textual variations between the Textus Receptus and later texts (which are based to a large extent on older manuscripts that have been discovered or made available only in the last 150 years) are of no significance whatever. Often, variants are such that they are not at all distinguishable after being translated into English. At other times the variants merely represent the attempt of some scribe to supplement one synoptist's account with a detail legitimately provided in the account of another synoptist. However, occasionally the variations are more serious.

Although much credit is due to Erasmus for having made a Greek text available at all, the text which he presented was not of good quality. The half dozen manuscripts used by Erasmus were all of late origin. Most, if not all, were from the fifteenth century, while two may have been made as early as the twelfth century. He had only one manuscript which contained the book of Revelation, and it was missing the final leaf, which had contained the last six verses of Revelation. For these verses, Erasmus turned to the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the scriptures. Erasmus translated the Latin back to Greek. Thus, for those verses, it was a contrived Geek text which eventually came to be translated into English in the King James Version. Trying to discover the original Greek text by looking at a Latin translation is a little like trying to discover the exact ingredients used in making a German chocolate cake by tasting it. While your guess may be close, you will not be exactly right. Thus some words which have never been found in any Greek manuscript were incorporated into Erasmus' text, and in turn, into the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. For example, at Revelation 22:19, the phrase, "book of life" in the King James Version should be "tree of life" according to all known Greek manuscripts.

In other passages also, Erasmus took into his text words and phrases found in the Latin Vulgate, but supported by virtually no Greek manuscripts. Thus in Acts 9:5-6, the King James Version inherits from the Vulgate by way of Erasmus the following words:

We should note that these words do legitimately belong in Paul's account of his conversion as recorded by Luke in Acts 26 (verses 14-15), and therefore no factual error has been introduced in this instance.

A Spurious Passage Included Under Protest

An appalling case of a spurious passage coming from the Latin Vulgate down to the King James Version by way of Erasmus is described by Bruce Metzger:

In the time since Erasmus, among all the Greek manuscripts that have been examined, only three more, all of late date, have been found which include the passage, and it apparently comes to these from the Vulgate, not from earlier Greek exemplars. These three include one sixteenth century manuscript, one manuscript which is said to be from either the fourteenth or sixteenth century, and one twelfth century manuscript which has the passage added in the margin by a seventeenth century hand. In spite of the obvious lack of authenticity this passage, which probably originated as an attempt to augment the case for trinitarianism, is today included in the King James Version as if it were part of the inspired word.

Clearly, some of the passages included in the Textus Receptus, and consequently in the King James Version, are woefully lacking in credentials. But as the Textus Receptus became stereotyped, even later editors who were more abundantly supplied with manuscripts, including some from the fourth or fifth century, dared not stray too far from the text of the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus. This was the case until the nineteenth century.

In all our discussion we have not touched upon allegations of much more fundamental shortcomings of the text behind the King James Version. These have to do, not so much with the inclusion of passages supported by virtually no Greek manuscripts, but rather with readings found throughout the Textus Receptus which are supported by many late manuscripts, but which are not found in most of the earliest manuscripts.

The King James Version in Perspective

While there are perhaps no more than a dozen passages where the Received Text has an interpolation supported by no known Greek manuscript, there is a vastly greater number of passages where the Received Text has variant readings that are supported by Greek manuscripts. Often the manuscripts supporting such readings are in the majority. However, these manuscripts are generally of much later date than those which are deemed by most scholars to have the authentic reading.

These variations are almost always insignificant with respect to the practical meaning of God's word. Typical is the case of Mt. 13:9, where the King James Version has, "Who hath ears to hear, let him hear," while most modern translations (including the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, and the New American Standard Bible) omit the words, "to hear". Most manuscripts include the words. However, the oldest manuscripts, and those considered most reliable by most scholars, omit the words. With reference to the meaning of the text, the variation is insignificant, especially because the words are included in the parallel accounts (Mk. 4:9, Lk. 8:8). Most scholars believe the variation is the result of scribes adding words to Matthew's account from the accounts of Mark and Luke. Such additions to the text seem to be characteristic of the manuscripts on which the Received Text, and therefore the King James Version, is based.

Some may wonder why we have spent so much time discussing variant readings if, in fact, they are as inconsequential as we have asserted. The very point we wish to make is that while the King James Version is a good and reliable translation of the inspired word, it is not itself inspired. It is not due any greater reverence than any other good translation, and it is certainly not due the reverence which it receives among some who believe it alone ought to be used and all others are "innovations". (The King James Version itself was considered a vile innovation by many when it first came out.) The fact is, the King James Version is a good translation, and far better than the paraphrases which are so popular today (e.g. The Living Bible, and The Book, which is a new edition of The Living Bible), but it is not perfect.

Today, some scholars are again asserting that although the manuscripts behind the Received Text are generally of very late date, they should be followed in passages where a variant occurs, even though the oldest manuscripts stand against the reading. Simplistically put, these scholars believe we should follow the reading of the majority of manuscripts instead of the reading of the oldest manuscripts.

In the midst of this debate, the New King James Bible has been published in an attempt to capitalize on the King James Version market. The New King James Bible updates the language of the King James Version, but again follows the Received Text. Hence the New King James Bible includes many readings which are found in a majority of manuscripts but not in the oldest manuscripts. Whether or not this can be justified, the inclusion of passages which have no support among the extant Greek manuscripts certainly cannot be justified. However, the translators of the New Kings James Bible inexplicably duplicated this blunder earlier made by the translators of the King James Version (e.g. see Acts 9:5-6, 1 John 5:7-8, and "book" in Rev. 22:19).

One should not adhere to any translation to the exclusion of all others, and this is certainly true of the King James Version and the New King James Bible. One who uses either of these should also have a copy of one of the newer translations which are not based upon the Received Text. Especially recommended are the American Standard Version and the New American Standard Bible.

Note: This article first appeared in 1985 in "The Thayer Street Messenger." It is based, in part, on Bruce Metzger's THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, Oxford University Press, 2nd ed.,

Jeff Smelser

A friend recently asked me about one of the common objections raised by the KJV-Only movement to the use of "any manuscripts that come from Egypt." One particular preacher he sat under was very fond of launching into a tirade against "those evil modern bibles" because "they're based on manuscripts out of Egypt" and "the Bible says Egypt is a type of the WORLD!" This is obviously typical of Peter Ruckman, Chick Publications, Gail Riplinger, J. J. Ray, and other KJV "defenders" who recklessly throw every device they can concoct against the early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. They reason as thus: "The Bible says Egypt is a type of the world; the world is associated with sin; therefore, it must logically follow that Alexandrian manuscripts are evil." This is certainly a "case study" in one of the best examples of "guilt by association" ever imagined.

Actually, the Bible making "Egypt a type of the world" (which, by the way, is not explicitly stated in the Bible, only implied), does not mean it teaches that all other regions of the planet are untainted by sin. In fact, it implies the very opposite! If the Bible teaches that "Egypt is a type of the WORLD," then it DOES "logically follow" that "the whole WORLD is typified by Egypt" - which, in the case of KJV-Onlys, would make no region of the entire planet safe for preserving Bible manuscripts! (read 1 John 5:19).

Bob Ross comments: We should also remember the wonderful Providence of the Lord in regard to Moses, Joseph and the Israelites in Egypt, as well as how the infant Jesus was taken to Egypt as a means of escaping death in Israel during the time of Herod's campaign of infanticide. The Lord is Sovereign in Egypt as well as in Antioch, Jerusalem, and Rome! He works His wonders all over! In fact, if you had to have the "right place" in which the Lord could do His work, it would have to be a "wrong place," as the whole world is defiled by sin.

• "The Translators Were Uninspired Men, And Consequently Liable To Mistakes; The Translation Is 'Inspired', So Far As It Exactly Gives The Original. . . . So Far, No More" (John Girardeau)
• "Variety Of Translations Is Profitable For Finding Out Of The Sense Of The Scriptures." (The Translators Of The King James Version To The Readers)
• "There Is Even Now, With Some Ignorant Persons, An Assumption Of The Infallibility And Equality With The Original, Of Some Particular Translation--As To The Vulgate, Or King James, Or Luther's" (Basil Manley)

The TRUE Genealogy & Genesis of "KJV - Onlyism"

The Bloodline of History

by DOUG KUTILEK

BENJAMIN WILKINSON

• In the realm of "King James Version-Onlyism", just such a genealogy of error can be easily traced. All writers who embrace the KJV-only position have derived their views ultimately from Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson (died 1968), through one of two or three of his spiritual descendants. In 1930, Mr. Wilkinson wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, a book of several hundred pages which attracted almost no attention in its day (no doubt chiefly because it was awash in a vast ocean of error).
• In that book, Wilkinson attacked the "Westcott-Hort Greek text," in large measure by attacking Westcott and Hort personally (the common but fallacious ad hominem method; I exposed and refuted his line of argument in "Erasmus and His Theology," The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 19, no. 20, October 15, 1985, pgs. 3-4)
• He also expressed strong opposition to the English Revised Version New Testament (1881), in particular objecting to it because it robbed Adventism of two favorite proof-texts, one allegedly teaching Gentile Sabbath-keeping (Acts 13:42), the other misused by the Adventists to teach soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27). [some of Wilkinson's grosser errors I documented in "Wilkinson's Incredible Errors," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 3, Fall, 1990 ]
• Wilkinson was the first to misapply Psalm 12: 6-7 specifically to the KJV as though the passage were a promise to preserve the words of verse six [when in fact the promise is the preservation of the persecuted saints of verse five, as I demonstrated in my essay, "A Careful Investigation of Psalm 12: 6-7," The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 21, October 14, 1983, later issued in booklet form as "Why Psalm 12: 6-7 is not a Promise of the Divine Preservation of Scripture"]
• Wilkinson also manufactured the erroneous idea that the medieval Waldensian Bible was based on the Old Latin version and not the Vulgate, and that the Old Latin version was Byzantine in its text-type [ all of which is demonstrably false, as I showed in "The Truth about the Waldensian Bible and the Old Latin Version," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 2, no. 2, Summer, 1991 ] Thus Wilkinson , the first generation . . .

J. J. RAY

• Wilkinson's book lay unused and unknown (and how good it would have been had his errors died with him!), until 1955 when J. J. Ray (died early 1980s), who is self-described as "business manager, missionary, Bible teacher," published a little volume, God Wrote Only One Bible. In his book, Ray heavily plagiarized, without note or acknowledgement, Wilkinson's book, repeating and propagating wholesale Wilkinson's errors and misstatements [ the Fact of Ray's plagiarism and dependence is documented in Gary Hudson's article, "The Real 'Eye Opener'," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 2, no. 1, Spring, 1991 ]
• Ray's book has gone through numerous printings, with total copies numbering perhaps in the tens of thousands. I first saw a copy myself in 1971 as a first-year student at Baptist Bible College, Springfield, Missouri, where I was also introduced - by students from Ohio - to Ruckman's Bible Babel and Fuller's Which Bible? I find it of particular interest that Ray acknowledges that there are some erroneous translations in the KJV which do demand revision (pgs. 30-31, 102 ), a position today's KJV-Only mainstream would consider rank heresy. With Ray, the second generation . . .

DAVID OTIS FULLER

• The other chief disseminator of Wilkinson's misinformation was the late David Otis Fuller, a Regular Baptist pastor. Fuller must be counted as part of the third generation, since, according to Fuller's own words in the dedication of Counterfeit or Genuine (1975), Ray's book God Wrote Only One Bible "moved me to begin this fascinating study." Ray and his book were also repeatedly noted in Which Bible? (pgs. 2-4). I imagine the scenario went something like this: Fuller reads Ray; Fuller writes Ray for more information; Ray directs Fuller to Wilkinson; Fuller reads Wilkinson, is lead astray, then reprints Wilkinson in Which Bible?
• In 1970 Fuller issued Which Bible?, which was in its 5th edition by 1975 and contained 350 pages. Of these pages, ALMOST HALF were taken from Wilkinson's Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, with some editing, first to conceal from view Wilkinson's cult affiliation, and second, to correct some of the worst of his errors.
• According to D. A. Waite, long associated with Fuller in KJV-Only matters, Fuller knew full-well that Wilkinson was an Adventist and deliberately concealed that fact from the reader, and even from the publisher [ noted at end of this section ], because the Baptist brethren "wouldn't understand." Fuller's haphazard "back and fill" operation aimed at editing out some of Wilkinson's grosser errors failed miserably to make a silk purse out of a literary sow's ear, with most errors left untouched [ see the expose, "The Great 'Which Bible?' Fraud," by myself and Gary Hudson, Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 2, Summer, 1990 ]
• As reproduced in Which Bible?, Wilkinson's material is still plagued by blatant misstatements of the facts, distortions, misrepresentations and half-truths; what else would you expect to find in a devoted cultist's writings? [ as noted above, see my article "Wilkinson's Incredible Errors," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 3, Fall, 1990 ].
• It is this same David Otis Fuller who knowingly misrepresented the views of Spurgeon regarding the Textus Receptus greek text, KJV, and English Revised Version [ I exposed Fuller's deception with extensive quotation and documentation from Spurgeon's own writings in, "Spurgeon & Bible Translations: the Abuse Continues," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 1, Spring, 1990, published later in booklet form as An Answer to David Otis Fuller by Pilgrim Publications].
• And it is this same David Otis Fuller who grossly misrepresented the views of Robert Dick Wilson concerning the English Bible. Fuller claimed that the views of Wilson and himself in this regard were exactly the same, that is, that Wilson, too, found no errors in the English translation and none in the underlying texts in Hebrew and Greek. Anyone familiar with Wilson's writings at all knows that Wilson believed that only the original text was inspired, that often the translation must be corrected on the basis of the original, and that, though current Hebrew copies of the Old Testament are generally reliable, sometimes the ancient versions (Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, etc.) preserve the true original reading in places where the Hebrew has been corrupted in the copying process [ see Wilson's remarks in Studies in the Book of Daniel, vol. I, pgs. 84-85, and A Scientific Investigation of the Old Testament, pg. 61].
• Fuller also dragged Anglican priest John William Burgon in as "witness" for his own point of view, even founding a "society" named in Burgon's honor, though the society [ currently led by D. A. Waite] propagated views the late Dean Burgon would have rejected. Contrary to David Otis Fuller, not only did Burgon not believe the textus receptus was unalterably "perfect" and the KJV unchangeably correct, he was convinced that the textus receptus needed extensive revision (proposing more than 120 changes in Matthew's Gospel alone), and stated in print that in some places the English Revised New Testament of 1881 was a decided improvement over KJV obscurities and inaccuracies [ see the direct quotations from Burgon's famous book The Revision Revised, in Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 4, no. 2, pgs. 4, 11, 16 ] and Gary Hudson's article, "Why Dean Burgon Would Not Join the 'Dean Burgon Society',"
• Fuller, in summary, was ready and willing to conceal the truth about Wilkinson, and deliberately distort the opinions of Spurgeon and Wilson, men he claimed to admire, and to invoke the name of John William Burgon, to deceive his readers and to bolster his own views, even though his (Fuller's) views were very much at odds with the beliefs of these men. Fuller's blatant dishonesty and disregard for the truth does not fill one with confidence in examining anything he wrote or edited on the Bible translation "controversy," and yet Fuller is a " founding father " & " leading light " of the KJV- Only " movement " !
• The book Fuller edited, Which Bible?, is a hodge-podge of writings, many by authors such as Robert Dick Wilson, Zane Hodges and others, who distinctly reject the Textus Receptus-Only/KJV-Only point of view [ and at least one of the writers who gave Fuller permission to include something he had written, complained about the way Fuller had altered the writer's point of view in the editing process ], and actually gives some information which refutes some of the extremes of this movement. In spite of its inherent defects, inherently contradictory points of view, and frequent errors, Which Bible? in numerous printings & at least five editions, has had a very extensive influence in shaping much of the current debate and disseminating much of the misinformation that characterizes KJV-Onlyism today. Without any doubt at all, I am convinced that the vast majority of this highly destructive controversy is a direct result of Fuller's deceptive and inflammatory book, Which Bible?, and that he must bear the odium of stirring up strife among brethren (Proverbs 6:19). [Fuller died in 1988]
• Note [ by Bob L. Ross ] : After repeated requests by Fuller and his friends, Robert Kregel of Kregel Publications printed Fuller's three "KJV-Only" books [not using the Kregel Pub. name]. He personally told me that Fuller "begged me to publish his books" but did not inform Kregel they contained the writings of an Adventist.

PETER S. RUCKMAN

• Also in the third generation, without question the most arrogant and abusive of the KJV-Only partisans is Peter S. Ruckman, who passes for a Baptist preacher and whose ranting have been thrust upon the public in a monthly publication, Bible Believers' Bulletin, but especially in a series of uniformly bound and uniformly bad books that are claimed to be commentaries on various Bible books, topical books on Bible-related subjects, and books related to the Bible text and translation issue. All of his writings are characterized by the most vehement vilification and denunciation of everyone and anyone, lumping together great defenders of the faith such as B. B. Warfield, A. T. Robertson, & C. H. Spurgeon (when he's not falsely claiming Spurgeon's support for his own views), with the likes of Wellhausen, Adolf Hitler, and Harry Fosdick.
• Far worse is the torrent of errors that flood each work and virtually each page of Ruckman's every published work. He single-handedly has injected more misinformation into the controversy than all other writers combined.
• Note [ by Bob L. Ross ] : While Ruckman brays a lot about "Final Authority," his "hermeneutical" approach to the King James Bible is so nonsensical that he is nowhere close to what we understand to be the doctrinal, practical, and prophetic teachings of Scripture. He has various "plans of salvation," various "gospels," a 10-foot tall Antichrist who arrives on a UFO, a "mark of the beast" applied by "two huge black lips," baptism for salvation on Pentecost, and other such nonsense. His "smoke" about "Final Authority" is just so much "hokey" to beguile the gullible. He twists and distorts the KJV to make it "say" what it does not say, and doesn't permit it to teach what it plainly says.
• It was Ruckman who first propagated the erroneous idea that the KJV has no copyright [ I exposed and refuted this error with extensive documentation in "The KJV IS a Copyrighted Translation !" first published in The Biblical Evangelist, vol. 17, no. 11, May 27, 1983, and reissued in a revised and expanded form in Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 4, no. 3, October, 1993 ].
• It was Ruckman who manufactured out of whole cloth the false claim that no Protestant scholar has ever personally examined the Vaticanus manuscript [ see for my refutation, "Ruckmanism: A Refuge of Lies," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 4, no. 4, January, 1994 ]
• It was Ruckman who created out of thin air the absurd notion that there was no Greek translation of the Old Testament until one was produced by Origen in the third century A. D. [ proven false in my article "The Septuagint: Riplinger's Blunders, Believe It or Not," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 5, no. 2, Third quarter, 1994 ]
• And how was Ruckman drawn into the fray? What book influenced him? Ruckman's first-born book on the subject (unfortunately not "still-born"), The Bible Babel (1964) betrays unmistakable signs of heavy dependence on J. J. Ray. Ruckman's chart of "corrupt" texts and versions facing pg. 28 is an abbreviation of Ray, pgs. 56-70; Ruckman's "tree" of "good" versions facing pg. 73 is a virtual reproduction, with very minor alterations, of Ray's chart on pg. 109; on pg. viii of the footnote references, Ruckman specifically mentions Ray's book, though giving the title as "God Only Wrote One Book," which is typical of his level of accuracy! Just as Wilkinson misapplied Psalm 12: 6-7 to the KJV, as did Ray, well . . .so did Ruckman! Furthermore, in Ruckman's so-called The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence ( 1970 ), Ruckman specifically commends Ray (along with Edward F. Hills) as one of a very few reliable writers on text and translation issues ( preface, pg. I ).

EDWARD F . H ILLS & OTHERS

• A word needs to be said here about Edward F. Hills, who wrote two books that in part address the text and translation controversy, Believing Bible Study (1967) and The King James Version Defended (1956, 1973), and who wrote a chapter on Burgon in Fuller's Which Bible? The theme of Hills' work is the defense of, not just the Byzantine text-type in general as the true original form of the text of the New Testament, but the defense of the specific textus receptus form of the Byzantine text, including the unique (i.e., unsupported) readings in the textus receptus introduced by Erasmus (as the textus receptus and the majority text as published by Hodges and Farstad differ in 1,838 specifics).
• Hills, who did not advocate the inerrancy of the King James Version nor the Origenian origin of the Septuagint, is neither a founding father nor a star of the first magnitude of the KJV-Only movement, but may be viewed as a secondary tributary, whose works are commonly cited wherever his words can be made to support a writer's point. On the whole, Hills' writings are much better-informed and more accurate than nearly all of the KJV-Only literature, though he writes as one blinded to evidence by his presuppositions. [ An extended analysis of Hills and his point of view was made by Dr. James A. Price, "King James Only View of Edward F. Hills," Baptist Biblical Heritage, vol. 1, no. 4, Winter 1990-91]
• From Ruckman, have sprung, like the serpent heads from Hydra, a teeming uncongealed mass of incredibly misinformed writers, editors, preachers and evangelists, imagining that they are " defending the true faith " when in fact, their ignorance of the truth is almost immeasurable. As John Broadus was wont to say, it is amazing how much ignorance some men have been able to accumulate. In truth, there are natural limits to everything, except human stupidity.
• Among those heavily influenced by Fuller can be named D. A. Waite, who now does a great deal of his own misleading, & E. L. Bynum. Also, Jack Chick, [ CHICK PUBLICATIONS ] whose comic books have espoused KJV-Onlyism, has acknowledged in letters that he is entirely dependent on Fuller and Ruckman for his research. [ also see the footnotes in various Chick KJV - Only comics & books ] I am reminded immediately of an ancient Jewish proverb: "If you wish to strangle, be hanged on a good tree," that is, if you must rely on an authority, you do well to make sure it is a reliable one.

GAIL RIPLINGER

• Now, women are getting in on the KJV-Onlyism act, promoting and profiting from the gullible multitude seduced by the sleight-of-hand tactics generally employed. The latest piece of perverse propaganda is a huge pile of wasted paper called NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS written by Ms. G. [Gail] A. Riplinger. This woman said that God was the "author" [!] and she was His "secretary" [!], hence "G" (God), "A" (and). . . Riplinger. She alleges a "Satanic inspired conspiracy"[!] on the part of "modern Bible versions" which is sponsored by the "New Age Movement."[!] [see link above for one of our reviews - more articles to come.]
• Along with other boasts, these claims were just "too much" for even some fellow KJV-Onlyites to swallow, and Gail Riplinger's work has been dubbed "an undependable book" by David W. Cloud, editor of O TIMOTHY Magazine ( Vol. II, #8, 1994 ) [ re-named "O MADMAN" by Ms. Riplinger ]. Cloud remarks that the claim by Riplinger that God was the "author" is something that "even the most radical charismatic prophets hesitate to use such intemperate language." Yet the book has received the unqualified endorsement of KJV- Onlyites such as Chick, Ruckman, Jack Hyles, Texe Marrs, J. R. Chambers, D. A. Waite, Walter Beebe & others who are "peddling" it. There are a lot of KJV - Onlyites on the mailing lists of these men, hence a lot of money to be made by selling this book to the gullible!

SUMMARY

• From Wilkinson in the first generation, through Ray in the second, and Fuller and Ruckman in the third, the entire KJV-Only movement has arisen, and every present-day KJV-Onlyite is, in varying ways, a direct spiritual descendant of these ill-informed men. And as the movement has progressed from one generation to the next, with each new generation arising from intellectually-incestuous in-breeding, the views have become more radicalized and extreme.
• First, the KJV was viewed as "better" than other English versions, though not above some revision and correction (thus Ray); then, the view was taken that the KJV was "error-free" (but not without insoluble problems; thus Fuller); then, the KJV came to be accepted as "perfect," and infallible, unalterably exact, "superior" even to the Greek and Hebrew texts from which it was made, and in fact contained "new revelations" not found in the Greek and Hebrew (thus Ruckman); and now it is alleged by some that a person "cannot be saved" unless through the English KJV (thus Hyles and others), and all foreign Bibles should be revised to conform to the KJV [ a view pushed by some idiot Americans visiting in Romania, by an ignorant American missionary in Japan, and by a church in Arizona which insists that the 1960 Reina-Valera Spanish translation, which has brought the conversions of millions, is not the Word of God ], a view so absurd that only an American could believe it.
• The movement has become a vulgar caricature of itself, rushing at break-neck speed to ever more extreme views, and as they grope about in the intellectual smog of "KJV-Onlyism", having lost all perspective and ability to discern truth from error, they become easy prey for every false doctrine. One leading KJV-Only advocate in the upper Midwest was recently ostracized from his circle of associates because he has begun espousing British Israelism, the view that the English-speaking peoples are Israel (the view of Herbert W. and Garner Ted Armstrong; this view arises naturally from KJV-Onlyism, for after all, the English-speaking people must be special, since to them alone God gave an infallible, inspired, perfectly preserved translation, . . .with 6 different revisions . . .right?).
• Every KJV-Only advocate is a lineal descendant of Wilkinson, Ray, Fuller and Ruckman, and all are the victims (unwitting, I hope) of the multitude of gross distortions, errors, corruption's, misunderstandings, misrepresentations, and, in some cases, out-right lies of these men. These men are collectively a bruised reed of a staff, upon which if a man leans, it will pierce his hand. They are unreliable in the extreme and are deserving of no confidence as to the truthfulness of anything they affirm. I have no doubt that some will blissfully continue in their ignorance, willfully ignorant of the truth, not seeing because they DO NOT want to see.
• "So then Wilkinson, when he had conceived, brought forth Ray, and Ray, when he was full-grown, brought forth Fuller, Ruckman, Chick, Riplinger, Hyles, Bynum, Gipp, Waite, Marrs ...unfortunately, others."

Archaic language of the KJV

Example of why archaic language of the KJV is a barrier to knowing about Jesus. All the archaic words in this paragraph are found in the KJV:

"Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With som we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!" (References where these words are found: Ez 35:6, Jer 10:22, 1Sam 19:4, Prov 1:21, Esther 8:8, Mk 1:45, Prov 25:14, Jas 3:2, Ps 4:2, Lk 24:37, Acts 25:27, 1Tim 5:13, 2Cor 6:12, Mt 4:20, Ge 20:18, Ps 35:15, Num 23:8, Job 9:33, Ge 31:37, Lam 3:36, Prov 14:15 [Questions You've Asked About Bible Translations, by Dr. Jack Lewis])

Below are 484 examples of how the KJV uses outdated language. This is the primary reason why there is a need for modern translations. One should not need to use a dictionary to understand the Bible. Rather, it should convey the message of God as understandable as a city newspaper!

419 Archaic terms!

Why must one use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand God's message to man?

Go To Start