Why do some Christians believe in KJV Onlyism?
By S. Michael Houdmann, Got Questions Ministries
This post probably could have been a part of the "haters" series, but thankfully, advocates of KJV Onlyism are not attacking us as frequently as they used to. I remember the first time I was exposed to KJV Onlyism. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I did not know anything about the Textus Receptus, or Erasmus, or King James VI. All I knew was the idea that we are required by God to use a Bible translation from 17th century England is ludicrous. As I am now much more familiar with the arguments, I am still absolutely convinced that KJV Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ.
What is the true origin of KJV Onlyism? My informed speculation is that it is due to a resistance to change. In the 20th century, when English translations of the Bible other than the KJV started becoming popular, those who were used to the KJV did not want to change and relearn all the Bible verses they knew. But, they couldn't just admit, "I'm an old fuddy-duddy and don't want to change," so they began developing arguments for the KJV and against all the new translations. These arguments have been improved upon, and have gained traction, and have been passed on to new generations of English-speaking Christians.
While they rarely admit it, advocates of KJV Onlyism essentially believe that God re-inspired the Bible in 1611 A.D. Ultimately, they have to go there because if they place their loyalty on the Textus Receptus (the Greek manuscript compilation used by the KJV translators), that would open the door to new translations being created. And, we can't have that, so, God must have perfectly superintended the KJV translators into creating a perfect representation of His Word in English. Advocates of KJV Onlyism hate the NKJV, KJ21, and MKJV just as much as they hate the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, etc., etc. No, in order for KJV Onlyism to be true, God had to have re-inspired the Bible through the KJV translators.
Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't make any sense to me. Now, the more scholarly KJV Onlyites will make arguments for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV. But, if you ask them if a new translation could be created from those manuscripts, watch out. I would advise body armor and ear muffs. Others will argue against the translation methodology of the new translations. But, with the more literal modern translations, like the NASB and the ESV, the translation methodology is not significantly different from what the KJV translators employed. Still others will attack the integrity, morals, and motivations of the modern translators. So, evidently, the group of 17th century British Anglicans behind the KJV were sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives.
So, don't be deceived by KJV Onlyism. God did not re-inspire the Bible in 1611 A.D. The King James Version is not the only Bible we can use. The new translations are not a part of a grand conspiracy to spread false doctrine. When the Bible was written, it was written in the common and current language of the people of that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into the common and current language of the people. My first reaction to being exposed to KJV Onlyism was precisely correct. To force the English-speaking world to use an archaic and antiquated translation is ridiculous.
Related GotQuestions.org article: "Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use?"
Image credit: Robert; "The Holy Bible — 1611 King James Version"; Creative Commons
Tags: Church-Issues | Controversial-Issues | False-Teaching
comments powered by Disqus