The Origin and Danger of KJV- Only-ism ; Kent Hovind et al Refuted

King James Only-ism is fairly popular within the Christian circle of North America and Western Europe. Not all KJVO (King James Version Only) advocates are KJVO for the same reason. Some believe that the KJV is the best translation off of the best text. Although I do not agree with that group, the argument is one within reason. There are other groups that need to be addressed, who believe the KJV to be a:

• “Inspired” Translation; in fulfillment of psalm 12:6,7
• perfect translation

To understand why these people think that, we should look into the evolution of the KJVO position throughout its time.

 

ORIGINS

          KJVO advocates claim that their movement began with William Burgon, a man who criticized the Revised Version and the MSS (Manuscripts) upon which it is based off of.  Burgeon’s main claim against the Alexandrian Text-Type (the body of MSS upon which most modern translations are based off of), specifically Codex Sinaiticus (known as ‘Aleph’/𐡀) claiming that its age is due to its unreliability with the early church throwing it out into a trash can (1).  (in reality, Codex sinaiticus was well taken care of [2]). Although William Burgon favored the KJV/AV he was not a KJVO advocate, but he simply thought that the KJV was a better translation of the scriptures, with the Dean Burgon Society arguing for the defense of traditional texts (3). 

          Most scholars associate the KJVO movement beginning with Benjamin G. Wilkinson. This is simply false. almost every KJVO advocate’s argument can be traced back to Benjamin, which is true, however Wilkinson in his book ‘Our Authorized Version Vindicated ‘  took Burgon’s criticisms as fact and formed his own opinions, he was not trying to promote a movement to use the KJV Only. In fact “Wilkinson’s book lay unused and unknown” (4) . Keep in mind that his book stated his opinions based off Burgon’s criticisms.

          So if neither of these men wanted to start the movement for using the KJV, who did start the movement? A book written in 1955 by J.J Ray called ‘God Wrote Only One Bible‘ is responsible for jump starting the movement. Because of Benjamin Wilkinson’s book being so unpopular and only a potential handful actually reading his book we can be safe in saying that hardly any KJVO sentiment before Ray’s book existed, or at least no one preferred the KJV for the same reasons as Burgon and Wilkinson did. J.J Ray actually plagiarized Wilkinson’s book, but presented it all as solid fact, in which J.J. Ray actually favored the KJVO movement.  J.J. Ray was the origin of the KJVO movement, with Burgon and Wilkinson being a type of proto-KJVO. while Benjamin Wilkinson and Burgon could be classified as KJVO, it is important to realize that neither of them wanted to create the movement, and merely expressed their opinions and concerns in their books, it was J.J. Ray who took their opinions and presented them as fact and created the movement. It was also J.J. Ray who influenced other prominent KJVO advocates such as Gail Riplinger, David Otis Fuller, and others. For more information on this, see my paper (5)

The Danger of KJV-Onlyism

          The problem with the KJVO position is that it does not allow for the improvement upon the English Bible (i.e. the ability to more accurately reflect the original language into english). We can see this in many of their claims, one of which is the criticism of the  tetragrammaton (YHWH). KJVOnly-ists claim that “Jehovah” is a more accurate translation, ignoring the origin of the word ‘Jehovah’ being a transliteration (6,7). The KJV is a good translation, but it is certainly not a perfect translation. If KJVO advocates actually against representing the text more faithfully, this leads me to believe that KJVO advocates are more rooted in tradition than truth.

Kent Hovind Refuted

          in a excerpt of Kent Hovind’s 7th Seminar, he makes a lot of claims in his video. here are the errors that I have found

Correction #1: manuscript evidence

While the majority of the MSS do contain Textus Receptus readings (which are late readings anyhow – see ‘The Bible? Which One?’ in the Free Downloads section), the Textus Receptus and even the KJV was not translated by looking at the over 5000 extant greek MSS of the NT (New Testament). Infact, Erasmus’ editions were only based on 10 manuscripts (8). It is also necessary to not that Stephanus’ text (based off of Erasmus’ text) utilized a total of 15 manuscripts (9), and Theodore Beza (who used Stephanus’ text) used a total of 2 (10). Assuming these manuscripts are all different manuscripts to begin with, one could say that the manuscripts the KJV ‘used’ (the KJV was actually translated via printed editions of the Greek New Testament, mainly Beza and Stephanus) (11) numbers less than 30. With this in mind, newer Greek Editions today have the vast majority of support in their analysis of manuscripts.

Correction #2: Alexandria a Cult?

Alexandria is a city, the people who live there were called the Alexandrians. They were not a cult. The claim of changing the bible is completely false, infact they take an active role in the preservation of the NT, with the Alexandrian text type and the byzantine text type both agreeing over 99.5% of the time, and no teaching affected what-so-ever with the inclusion or exclusion of disputed verses (12). In other words, KJV are making much ado about nothing. Also, the principal of first mention is faulty because it assumes that no change can occur over time, one region is not always the same, nor is one people. Isreal is first mentioned as a good thing, this does not mean Israel and his descendants were always righteous ( a moderate reading of the OT clearly shows this). Concerning Origen, although some of his teachings were, what some consider to be, unbiblical, Origen was still a genuine Christian. If somebody disagrees with one on doctrine this does not automatically mean that that person is unsaved, and it certainly does not mean that that person has an evil agenda either.

Correction #3: changed teachings

John 3:7 is not the only verse on baptism, and from other passages, we can see that baptism can be and is for all (see Matthew 28:19,20). Genesis 1:5 in the NASB is also grossly misrepresented, although the reading in this verse says “one day”, in the successive days the days are referred to as “a second day… a third day… a fourth day… etc” (vs 8, 13, 19). The NASB still teaches a literal six-day creation.

Other Advocates of KJV Only-ism

Gail Riplinger

           

          Gail Riplinger is someone who is taken seriously by many, but those who actually study textual criticism in depth understand the fallacies of her arguments, and anyone who looks at things logically can recognize this as well. Here is just one example of her ridiculous claims.

Gail Riplinger’s Acrostic Algebra! (courtesy of James White)

• Step 1: (NASV – NIV) – AV = X
• Step 2: (NASV – NIV) – AV = X
• Step 3: (ASI + NV) – AV = X
• Step 4: ASI + NV – AV = X
• Step 5: SIN = X

it is funny how all throughout her book ‘New Age bible Versions’ that she refers to the NASB as the NASB, except here where she refers to it as the NASV. She is not consistent.  This is just one example.

Sam Gipp

          Perhaps the most ridiculous claim is that he claims that the byzantine text is the original text with out providing textual evidence, infact no one has the original manuscripts because they’re all gone! Instead of using MS evidence Sam claims that psalms 12:6,7 is a prophecy for God preserving His word (13), when in fact the chapter is a promise of God that He will preserve His people. I do believe that God has defended and preserved His word, but psalms 12:6,7 is not a prophecy of that. for more, I recommend James’ White’s response* to Sam Gipp.

Steven Anderson

          Steven Anderson made a Documentary documenting the differences between the KJV and some of the most popular translations of today. Ironically, his documentary is a perfect example of KJVO exaggeration. Anderson also did an extended interview with James White, which show that KJVO positions do not hold up when put to scrutiny.

Conclusion

          Although I love the KJV, it is certainly not a perfect translation. These people above are very lovely people, but they are wrong on the KJV being a perfect translation. Every translation has its own flaws, and the KJV is no exception. If you still like using the KJV, you may use it without fear of believing in false doctrines or being deceived yourself. If you like other versions like the NASB or ESV you may use them as well. The important thing is to actually read your bible, study it, let the Holy Spirit guide you to all understanding, and strengthen that relationship with Christ daily. Christ wants to be with you every second of every day, and the Bible is His love letter to us.

– image courtesy of rostismi.com

“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.” – Mark 13:31 KJV

                                                   -Have a Blessed Day!

                                                                         -Sam

References

1 http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm

2http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2006/03/15/dr-stauffer-on-codex-sinaiticus/ ; http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/extras/tischendorf-sinaiticus.html

3 www.deanburgonsociety.org/

4 http://www.credocourses.com/products/textual-criticism/doug-kutilek/the-unlearned-men-the-true-geneology-and-genesis-of-king-james-version-onlyism.pdf

5  You can view my paper here: THE ORIGIN OF THE KING JAMES ONLY MOVEMENT

6 http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/YHVH/yhvh.html

7 http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/yahweh.htm

8 Wikipedia contributors, “Novum Instrumentum omne,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Novum_Instrumentum_omne&oldid=829836487 (accessed January 11, 2019). the first edition used 7 manuscripts, with the final edition Erasmus ha used around 10 total.

9 Wikipedia contributors, “Textus Receptus,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Textus_Receptus&oldid=877130434 (accessed January 11, 2019).  “[Stephanus’] third edition is a masterpiece of typographical skill. It has critical apparatus in which quoted manuscripts referred to the text. Manuscripts were marked by symbols (from α to ις). He used Polyglotta Complutensis (symbolized by α) and 15 Greek manuscripts. ”

10 Wikipedia contributors, “Theodore Beza,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theodore_Beza&oldid=877398575(accessed January 11, 2019). “Beza may have availed himself of the help of two very valuable manuscripts.”

11 Wikipedia contributors, “King James Version,” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_James_Version&oldid=876857206 (accessed January 11, 2019).

12 see my powerpoint, slide 24, -footnotes section, addendum.

13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qt81qH-DNas