The King The King James Only James Only ControversyControversySeparating Separating

Fact From Fact From FictionFiction

Texe Marrs: “Texe Marrs: “James White, a James White, a boastful King James Bible boastful King James Bible

opponent, continues on his opponent, continues on his baseless crusade to bash King baseless crusade to bash King James only believers. It makes James only believers. It makes for a rather sad spectacle to for a rather sad spectacle to observe critics of the King observe critics of the King James Bible like Mr. White James Bible like Mr. White

humiliate themselves and show humiliate themselves and show disrespect for servants of God. I disrespect for servants of God. I

am praying he will be given a am praying he will be given a repentant heart and know the repentant heart and know the

grave damage he is doing to the grave damage he is doing to the kingdom of our Saviour.kingdom of our Saviour.” ”

Elsewhere, Marrs calls White “a Elsewhere, Marrs calls White “a servant of Satan” and “a devil.”servant of Satan” and “a devil.”

Gail Riplinger, Gail Riplinger, author of author of New New Age Bible Age Bible VersionsVersions, calls , calls White “a rude, White “a rude, crude heretic” crude heretic” and a “serial and a “serial soul-killer.”soul-killer.”

Don’t They Have A PointDon’t They Have A Point??

Compare:Compare:

1 Timothy 3:16, KJV:1 Timothy 3:16, KJV:

without controversy great is the without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: mystery of godliness: GodGod was was

manifest in the flesh….manifest in the flesh….

But look at the NASB:But look at the NASB:

By common confession, great is By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: the mystery of godliness: He whoHe who

was revealed in the flesh,was revealed in the flesh,

And Compare These:And Compare These:

Reference Modern Vers.

KJV

Matthew 4:18 he Jesus

Acts 19:10 the Lord the Lord Jesus

1 Cor 9:1 Jesus Jesus Christ

2 Cor 5:18 Christ Jesus Christ

Acts 16:31 Lord JesusLord Jesus

Christ

2 John 3 Jesus ChristLord Jesus

Christ

A test for all the folks using an A test for all the folks using an NIV in the audience: Don’t NIV in the audience: Don’t

think there’s really much of a think there’s really much of a difference? Think your difference? Think your

translation is just “easier to translation is just “easier to read”? OK, let’s say you are read”? OK, let’s say you are

sitting in your front room with sitting in your front room with a Mormon missionary, and he a Mormon missionary, and he takes out his Bible (KJV) and takes out his Bible (KJV) and

asks you to read with him from asks you to read with him from John 5:4. Go ahead, look it up. John 5:4. Go ahead, look it up.

What will you do? What will you do?

But the defenders of the But the defenders of the modern translations are modern translations are not without their not without their arguments as well. There arguments as well. There are many issues one can are many issues one can raise in looking at the raise in looking at the KJV. Let’s look at a few KJV. Let’s look at a few examples: examples:

First, remember the First, remember the appearance of “God” at 1 appearance of “God” at 1 Timothy 3:16 in the KJV? Timothy 3:16 in the KJV? Well, look at this:Well, look at this:

John 1:18, KJV, says:John 1:18, KJV, says:

No man hath seen God at any No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten time; the only begotten SonSon, , which is in the bosom of the which is in the bosom of the

Father, he hath declared Father, he hath declared himhim..

But the NRSV reads:But the NRSV reads:

No one has ever seen God. It is No one has ever seen God. It is God the only SonGod the only Son, who is close to , who is close to

the Father's heart, who has the Father's heart, who has made him known.made him known.

In the same way, the KJV agrees In the same way, the KJV agrees with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT with the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ NWT in not having a reference of prayer in not having a reference of prayer

to Christ at John 14:14. Modern to Christ at John 14:14. Modern translations agree that here the translations agree that here the Lord speaks of prayer to Himself, Lord speaks of prayer to Himself, while the KJV lacks the word “me” while the KJV lacks the word “me”

in the phrase “If you ask in the phrase “If you ask MEME anything in my name…”anything in my name…”

NASB: “If you ask ME NASB: “If you ask ME anything….”anything….”

KJV: “If you ask anything….”KJV: “If you ask anything….”

Compare the KJV at Rev. 1:8:Compare the KJV at Rev. 1:8:

I am Alpha and Omega, the I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith beginning and the ending, saith

the the LordLord, which is, and which , which is, and which was, and which is to come, the was, and which is to come, the

Almighty.Almighty.

But the NASB:But the NASB:

"I am the Alpha and the "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Omega," says the Lord GodLord God, ,

"who is and who was and who "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."is to come, the Almighty."

How is this for a Conspiracy?How is this for a Conspiracy?

NASB, 1 John 3:1:NASB, 1 John 3:1:

See how great a love the Father has See how great a love the Father has bestowed on us, that we would be bestowed on us, that we would be

called children of God; and called children of God; and such such we we are.are. But Look at the KJV!But Look at the KJV!

Behold, what manner of love the Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, Father hath bestowed upon us,

that we should be called the sons that we should be called the sons of God:of God:

What happened to adoption as What happened to adoption as sons?sons?

But, in reality, there is no But, in reality, there is no conspiracy involved on conspiracy involved on eithereither side. side. There are simple, logical reasons There are simple, logical reasons

why there are differences in why there are differences in translations. Unfortunately, few translations. Unfortunately, few people take the time to learn the people take the time to learn the backgrounds of the Bible, hence, backgrounds of the Bible, hence, they are easily misled and upset they are easily misled and upset by variations that are perfectly by variations that are perfectly

understandable and do not understandable and do not indicate any kind of evil intention indicate any kind of evil intention

or corruption.or corruption.Let’s look at some of the Let’s look at some of the passages cited above and passages cited above and see…see…

Let’s start with 1 Timothy 3:16, Let’s start with 1 Timothy 3:16, one of the favorite passages of one of the favorite passages of

KJV Only advocates. To KJV Only advocates. To understand why modern understand why modern

translations differ from the translations differ from the KJV/NKJV, we need to know KJV/NKJV, we need to know

something about the texts from something about the texts from which these translations came. which these translations came. The KJV/ NKJV NT’s are based The KJV/ NKJV NT’s are based upon a 16upon a 16thth century Greek text century Greek text known today as the “Textus known today as the “Textus

Receptus.” Modern trans-lations Receptus.” Modern trans-lations are based upon the Nestle-Aland are based upon the Nestle-Aland

Greek text of this century.Greek text of this century.

The “Textus Receptus” represents The “Textus Receptus” represents what is called the “Byzantine” what is called the “Byzantine” family of manuscripts. These family of manuscripts. These

manuscripts constitute 4/5manuscripts constitute 4/5thth of the of the extant Greek texts in our extant Greek texts in our

possession. Yet, the vast majority possession. Yet, the vast majority of them come from the 10of them come from the 10thth through through

1515thth centuries. That is, they centuries. That is, they represent the later, ecclesiastical represent the later, ecclesiastical

text, rather than the more primitive text, rather than the more primitive text of the first centuries. This is text of the first centuries. This is

the “Majority Text,” though the TR the “Majority Text,” though the TR differs in over 1800 places from the differs in over 1800 places from the

“Majority Text” type.“Majority Text” type.

II III IV V VI VII VIII IXII III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Alexandrian Manuscripts Byzantine Manuscripts

What was the “Majority Text” What was the “Majority Text” during the First Millennium?during the First Millennium?

II

III

IV

v

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

XVI

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

II

III

IV

v

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

XVI

Minuscules

Uncials

Papyri

An example of the style of the An example of the style of the early manuscripts of the New early manuscripts of the New

Testament:Testament:

dikawqentesounekpistewseirhnhndikawqentesounekpistewseirhnhnecomenprostonqsdiatoukuhmwnihecomenprostonqsdiatoukuhmwnihsoucristoudioukaithnprosagwghnesoucristoudioukaithnprosagwghne

schkamenthpisteieisthncarinschkamenthpisteieisthncarin

Around the 9Around the 9thth century the century the minuscule text became minuscule text became

predominant, which is very similar predominant, which is very similar to our modern texts:to our modern texts:

Dikaiwqe,ntej ou=n evk pi,stewj Dikaiwqe,ntej ou=n evk pi,stewj eivrh,nhn e;comen pro.j to.n qeo.n eivrh,nhn e;comen pro.j to.n qeo.n

dia. tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/n VIhsoudia. tou/ kuri,ou h`mw/n VIhsou/

II

III

IV

v

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

XVI

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

II

III

IV

v

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

XVI

Minuscules

Uncials

Papyri

The “Textus Receptus” was created The “Textus Receptus” was created by the work of a Roman Catholic by the work of a Roman Catholic priest and scholar, the “Prince of priest and scholar, the “Prince of

the Humanists,” Desiderius the Humanists,” Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus printed and Erasmus. Erasmus printed and

published the first edition of the published the first edition of the Greek NT in 1516. The 3Greek NT in 1516. The 3rdrd edition of edition of his text was particularly influential. his text was particularly influential.

A total of five editions came from A total of five editions came from him; after him, Stephanus (1555) him; after him, Stephanus (1555) and Beza (1598) edited the work, and Beza (1598) edited the work,

and it was used by the KJV and it was used by the KJV translators for their NT (1604-1611).translators for their NT (1604-1611).

Modern texts, however, are based Modern texts, however, are based upon an “eclectic” text that draws upon an “eclectic” text that draws

from a wider variety of sources than from a wider variety of sources than the TR, including manuscripts the TR, including manuscripts

unknown in the days of Erasmus. unknown in the days of Erasmus. Some of the papyri manuscripts Some of the papyri manuscripts used in the modern Nestle-Aland used in the modern Nestle-Aland 2727thth edition date to as early as AD edition date to as early as AD 125. But these different sources, 125. But these different sources, being more primitive, do not show being more primitive, do not show

the effect of long-term transcription the effect of long-term transcription seen in the Byzantine texts, and seen in the Byzantine texts, and hence are not as “full” as the TR.hence are not as “full” as the TR.

When we speak of textual When we speak of textual differences between the TR and differences between the TR and

modern texts, we need to modern texts, we need to immediately emphasize something immediately emphasize something

that is often lost in the debate. that is often lost in the debate. There is no doctrine of the There is no doctrine of the

Christian faith that is based upon Christian faith that is based upon any single text; and no doctrine of any single text; and no doctrine of the faith is changed or altered by the faith is changed or altered by any variation of the text. If one any variation of the text. If one

applies the same rules of exegesis applies the same rules of exegesis to the TR and the NA 27to the TR and the NA 27thth edition, edition, the results will be the same. The the results will be the same. The

variations do not change the variations do not change the message.message.

KJVKJV

NKJNKJVV16111611

19841984

NASNASBB NIVNIV

1978197819601960

Textus Textus ReceptusReceptusTextus Textus ReceptusReceptus

Byzantine TraditionByzantine TraditionByzantine TraditionByzantine Tradition

Nestle-Nestle-AlandAlandNestle-Nestle-AlandAland

Latin Latin VulgateVulgateLatin Latin VulgateVulgate

AlexandriaAlexandrian n TraditionTradition

AlexandriaAlexandrian n TraditionTradition

What does all of this have to do with What does all of this have to do with 1 Timothy 3:16? Let’s see:1 Timothy 3:16? Let’s see:

The difference between the two passages, The difference between the two passages, as they would have been written as they would have been written

originally, would be:originally, would be:

KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOKAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONQSEFANETHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONQSEFANE

RWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHENRWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHEN

KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOKAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONOSEFANETHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONOSEFANE

RWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHENRWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHEN

What does all of this have to do with What does all of this have to do with 1 Timothy 3:16? Let’s see:1 Timothy 3:16? Let’s see:

The difference between the two passages, The difference between the two passages, as they would have been written as they would have been written

originally, would be:originally, would be:

KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOKAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONQSQSEFANEEFANE

RWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHENRWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHEN

KAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOKAIOMOLOGOUMENWSMEGAESTINTOTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONTHSEUSEBEIASMUSTHRIONOSOSEFANEEFANE

RWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHENRWQHENSARKIEDIKAIWQHEN

QSQSOSOS

= God= God

= He who= He who

KJV Only literature abounds with KJV Only literature abounds with examples of circular argumentation examples of circular argumentation at this point. Keep in mind that for at this point. Keep in mind that for

the vast majority of KJV Only the vast majority of KJV Only advocates, this is the starting point advocates, this is the starting point

in their thought:in their thought:

The King James Bible ALONEThe King James Bible ALONE

==

The Word of God ALONEThe Word of God ALONE

When we realize this, we can When we realize this, we can understand why they argue as they understand why they argue as they

do.do.

The result of this mindset is seen in The result of this mindset is seen in the language used in this debate: the language used in this debate:

instead of asking “What did John or instead of asking “What did John or Paul or Peter originally write” we Paul or Peter originally write” we

hear about how modern translations hear about how modern translations have REMOVED this or DELETED have REMOVED this or DELETED that or ADDED this or CHANGED that or ADDED this or CHANGED

that. All these loaded words that. All these loaded words assume that the KJV is the standard assume that the KJV is the standard

by which all others are to be by which all others are to be judged. Some KJV Only folks go so judged. Some KJV Only folks go so far as to say the Greek and Hebrew far as to say the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts themselves must be manuscripts themselves must be

judged by comparison with the KJV!judged by comparison with the KJV!

How about John 1:18?How about John 1:18?

The earliest manuscripts of John, The earliest manuscripts of John, PP6666 and and PP7575 (papyri manuscripts (papyri manuscripts

dating around AD 200), as well as dating around AD 200), as well as two of the earliest uncial two of the earliest uncial

manuscripts, manuscripts, aa and B, (i.e. Codex and B, (i.e. Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) all Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) all read, read, monogenh.j qeo.jmonogenh.j qeo.j, literally, , literally,

“unique God” or “the only Son who “unique God” or “the only Son who is God.” The bulk of later is God.” The bulk of later

manuscripts read manuscripts read monogenh.j monogenh.j ui`o,jui`o,j, “only-begotten Son.” The , “only-begotten Son.” The

KJV, following the TR, reads “son.”KJV, following the TR, reads “son.”

But some insist that the literal rendering, But some insist that the literal rendering, “only-begotten God,” actually undercuts “only-begotten God,” actually undercuts

the deity of Christ, hence, “it can’t be the deity of Christ, hence, “it can’t be right.” Allegations of “gnostic corruption” right.” Allegations of “gnostic corruption”

abound in KJV Only books. But this is abound in KJV Only books. But this is determining the text of Scripture not on determining the text of Scripture not on the basis of the best evidence available, the basis of the best evidence available, but on the basis of one’s own ideas of but on the basis of one’s own ideas of theology. In point of fact, the phrase theology. In point of fact, the phrase

does NOT necessitate any idea of does NOT necessitate any idea of inferiority regarding Christ: in fact, while inferiority regarding Christ: in fact, while

the phrase “only-begotten Son” was the phrase “only-begotten Son” was prevalent in gnostic writings, the phrase prevalent in gnostic writings, the phrase

“unique God” does not appear in the “unique God” does not appear in the extant gnostic literature from the time extant gnostic literature from the time

period.period.

1 John 3:1 is an excellent example 1 John 3:1 is an excellent example of a simple scribal error, an error of of a simple scribal error, an error of

sight that is common to us all. sight that is common to us all. Look at the passage in Greek:Look at the passage in Greek:

i;dete potaph.n avga,phn de,dwken h`mi/n o` path.r( i[na te,kna qeou/ klhqw/men( kai.

evsme,nÅ

You don’t have to know Greek to see how an error could be made

here. Look at the last three words:

klhqw/men( kai. klhqw/men( kai. evsme,nÅevsme,nÅ

Notice how two of these words end with the same three letters:

klhqw/klhqw/menmen( kai. evs( kai. evsme,nme,nJust as we often inadvertently skip Just as we often inadvertently skip

something when our eyes come back something when our eyes come back to what we are copying because two to what we are copying because two words end in a similar ending, such words end in a similar ending, such

as “-ing” or “-tion,” so too an as “-ing” or “-tion,” so too an ancient scribe, upon writing ancient scribe, upon writing

klhqw/klhqw/men men then returned to the then returned to the text and instead of starting there, text and instead of starting there, saw saw evsevsme,nme,n and inadvertently and inadvertently

skipped the phrase.skipped the phrase.

In the same way, there is no In the same way, there is no “conspiracy” at John 14:14. “conspiracy” at John 14:14. Here the Alexandrian texts Here the Alexandrian texts join with a large portion of join with a large portion of the Byzantine texts in the Byzantine texts in containing the word “me.” containing the word “me.” But a part of the Byzantine But a part of the Byzantine tradition does not contain tradition does not contain the word, and this part the word, and this part underlies the TR. The underlies the TR. The Majority Text contains the Majority Text contains the reading “me” at this point, reading “me” at this point, demonstrating that the TR demonstrating that the TR is not identical to the is not identical to the Majority Text.Majority Text.

• What about quotations by early Christian writers? Many Christians quote from the NT in the letters, sermons and commentaries preserved from the early centuries of our era. Although we see about 100 writers using the Alexandrian, Western and Caesarean text families in quotations from before A.D. 400, the first person known to have used the Byzantine type of text is John Chrysostom, who died in A.D. 407.

• What about early translations? We have translations of the NT made into Latin, Syriac and Coptic (Egyptian) by A.D. 300. None of these use a Byzantine sort of text but rather the Alexandrian or Western text. The earliest Byzantine type translation is the Syriac Peshitta, but there is no evidence for its existence before the 5th century A.D

Likewise, Revelation 1:8, and the Likewise, Revelation 1:8, and the reference to “the Lord God” is reference to “the Lord God” is

another example of where the TR another example of where the TR even departs from the entirety of even departs from the entirety of

the Byzantine manuscript tradition. the Byzantine manuscript tradition. The The vastvast majority of texts, including majority of texts, including the later ones, contain this reading. the later ones, contain this reading.

The TR in the book of Revelation is The TR in the book of Revelation is particularly suspect. This is due to particularly suspect. This is due to

the fact that Erasmus rushed his work the fact that Erasmus rushed his work on the book and utilized only one on the book and utilized only one

manuscript of Revelation. As a result, manuscript of Revelation. As a result, entire words exist in the TR that are entire words exist in the TR that are

found nowhere else.found nowhere else.

Here’s One of the “Big Here’s One of the “Big Ones”Ones”

Colossians 1:14KJV NIV

in whom we have redemption

through his blood, even the forgiveness of

sins.

in whom we have

redemption, the forgiveness of

sins

It is on the basis of passages It is on the basis of passages such as this that KJV Only folks such as this that KJV Only folks have identified the NIV as the have identified the NIV as the

“bloodless Bible.” But is such a “bloodless Bible.” But is such a charge true, accurate, and charge true, accurate, and

honest? honest?

No, it is not. First, any person No, it is not. First, any person studying the passage might note studying the passage might note

that Ephesians and Colossians that Ephesians and Colossians contain parallel passages. The contain parallel passages. The parallel to Colossians 1:14 in parallel to Colossians 1:14 in

Ephesians is found at Ephesians Ephesians is found at Ephesians 1:7:1:7:

Ephesians 1:7

KJV NIVIn whom we have

redemption through his blood, the

forgiveness of sins, according to the

riches of his grace;

In him we have redemption through

his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's

grace

If the NIV was trying to hide the If the NIV was trying to hide the blood, why include it here??blood, why include it here??

In reality the KJV here contains a In reality the KJV here contains a reading that goes against not only reading that goes against not only

the ancient manuscripts, but the ancient manuscripts, but against the vast majority of all against the vast majority of all

manuscripts, including the manuscripts, including the Byzantine. The earliest manuscript Byzantine. The earliest manuscript to contain the added phrase is from to contain the added phrase is from

the 9the 9thth century. All of four century. All of four manuscripts, all dating long after manuscripts, all dating long after the original writing, contain the the original writing, contain the

reading. reading.

IfIf KJV Only advocates were KJV Only advocates were consistent with their arguments, consistent with their arguments, they would reject this reading. they would reject this reading.

Since they do not, they prove that Since they do not, they prove that they are arguing in circles.they are arguing in circles.

This is nowhere more clearly seen This is nowhere more clearly seen than in the “textual emendation” than in the “textual emendation”

found at Revelation 16:5. Even our found at Revelation 16:5. Even our hymns have been impacted by this hymns have been impacted by this

textual variant. All Greek textual variant. All Greek manuscripts, of whatever type, manuscripts, of whatever type, agree in reading as the NASB:agree in reading as the NASB:

And I heard the angel of the waters And I heard the angel of the waters saying, "Righteous are You, who saying, "Righteous are You, who are and who were, O Holy One, are and who were, O Holy One,

because You judged these things;because You judged these things;

The key phrase is “O Holy One.” The key phrase is “O Holy One.” Compare the KJV:Compare the KJV:

And I heard the angel of the waters And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, say, Thou art righteous, O Lord,

which art, and wast, and shalt be, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.because thou hast judged thus.

Theodore Beza made a Theodore Beza made a “conjectural emendation” at this “conjectural emendation” at this point: that’s a change in the text point: that’s a change in the text that has no manuscript support. that has no manuscript support. He felt that the text made more He felt that the text made more

sense if it read “and shalt be” than sense if it read “and shalt be” than “O Holy One,” and he thought the “O Holy One,” and he thought the Greek words were similar enough Greek words were similar enough

in form to explain it.in form to explain it.

That is, he felt that these two That is, he felt that these two Greek words were close enough in Greek words were close enough in form to allow him to change the form to allow him to change the

text:text:

o[siojo[sioj

evso,menojevso,menoj

So against all manuscript evidence, So against all manuscript evidence, this reading persists in the TR this reading persists in the TR

today, and we even sing the song, today, and we even sing the song, “who wert and art and evermore “who wert and art and evermore shalt be” without knowing our shalt be” without knowing our

debt to Beza!debt to Beza!

Which KJV do you have? And Which KJV do you have? And which one should be the which one should be the

“standard” we are to use? “standard” we are to use?

Almost all KJV’s are actually the Almost all KJV’s are actually the 1769 Blayney Revision of the 1769 Blayney Revision of the

AV, not the 1611. But, there are AV, not the 1611. But, there are different different kindskinds of KJV’s. The two of KJV’s. The two

most prevalent are the Oxford most prevalent are the Oxford and Cambridge types. How can and Cambridge types. How can you tell which you have? Look you tell which you have? Look

at Jeremiah 34:16:at Jeremiah 34:16:

Oxford EditionOxford Edition Cambridge EditionCambridge Edition

But ye turned and polluted my name,

and caused every man his servant, and every

man his handmaid, whom hehe had set at

liberty at their pleasure, to return,

and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and

for handmaids.

But ye turned and polluted my name,

and caused every man his servant, and every

man his handmaid, whom yeye had set at

liberty at their pleasure, to return,

and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and

for handmaids.

Well then, has God preserved His Well then, has God preserved His Word or not? That’s the question Word or not? That’s the question KJV Only folks always come back KJV Only folks always come back to. Unfortunately, they always to. Unfortunately, they always seem to assume that unless you seem to assume that unless you

have a perfect English have a perfect English translationtranslation, , you don’t have a perfect you don’t have a perfect Bible.Bible. Of Of course, English did not come into course, English did not come into existence until more than 1,000 existence until more than 1,000

years after the last words of years after the last words of Scripture were written. Hence, Scripture were written. Hence,

making a perfect English making a perfect English translation the standard is translation the standard is

obviously an error.obviously an error.

Think of it this way: let’s say the Think of it this way: let’s say the Constitution of the US was Constitution of the US was

translated into the language of a translated into the language of a small island in the Pacific. How small island in the Pacific. How much sense would it make for much sense would it make for someone on that island to take someone on that island to take one particular translation of the one particular translation of the Constitution, insist that this one Constitution, insist that this one

translation is “the” standard, and translation is “the” standard, and then proclaim that unless this then proclaim that unless this translation is perfect, then no translation is perfect, then no

perfect Constitution exists perfect Constitution exists anywhere? Yet this is anywhere? Yet this is exactlyexactly what KJV Onlyism is saying!what KJV Onlyism is saying!

How, then, has God preserved His How, then, has God preserved His Word? He has done so by making Word? He has done so by making sure that the New Testament was sure that the New Testament was so quickly distributed all over the so quickly distributed all over the known world that there was never known world that there was never

a time when any one a time when any one man/group/church could gather up man/group/church could gather up

all copies and make wholesale all copies and make wholesale changes. By the third century changes. By the third century

entire manuscripts were already entire manuscripts were already buried: if major changes were buried: if major changes were

made after that time, they would made after that time, they would be easily detectable by be easily detectable by

comparison with those earlier comparison with those earlier manuscripts.manuscripts.

This means we can disprove the This means we can disprove the claims of those who say the Bible claims of those who say the Bible has undergone wholesale editing has undergone wholesale editing and changes, such as Mormons, and changes, such as Mormons,

Muslims, atheists, New Agers, the Muslims, atheists, New Agers, the Jesus Seminar, etc.Jesus Seminar, etc.

KJV Onlyism undercuts the most KJV Onlyism undercuts the most foundational elements of our foundational elements of our defense of the veracity and defense of the veracity and

accuracy of the Scriptures, all in accuracy of the Scriptures, all in an attempt to establish a “final an attempt to establish a “final

authority” in an English authority” in an English translation!translation!

So what are we to conclude? First So what are we to conclude? First and foremost that we don’t need and foremost that we don’t need

conspiracy theories complicating our conspiracy theories complicating our lives. There is no reason to embrace lives. There is no reason to embrace

KJV Onlyism, for it is a system (a KJV Onlyism, for it is a system (a tradition) that must assume its tradition) that must assume its

conclusion to prove its conclusion. conclusion to prove its conclusion. As such, it is not something that As such, it is not something that Christians, who love the truth, Christians, who love the truth,

should wish to embrace. should wish to embrace.

Next, we recognize that the Lord has Next, we recognize that the Lord has indeed preserved His Word, but He indeed preserved His Word, but He

has done so in a way other than that has done so in a way other than that assumed by KJV advocates.assumed by KJV advocates.

And finally, that while there are And finally, that while there are modern translations that we could modern translations that we could

never recommend, it does not never recommend, it does not follow that we must go back to a follow that we must go back to a

venerable translation that exists in venerable translation that exists in a language no one has spoken for a language no one has spoken for hundreds of years. If we follow hundreds of years. If we follow

the Apostolic example, we will give the Apostolic example, we will give the Word of God to people in a the Word of God to people in a

language that they can language that they can understand, not one that leaves understand, not one that leaves

them bewildered.them bewildered.