"Pilgrimettes"  From  THE  PILGRIM

A  DEFENSE  OF  THE  KING  JAMES  BIBLE  DON'T  BLAME  the  KJV  for  "KING JAMES ONLYISM" !!    by  BOB  L.  ROSS

          I have often been upset by reading or hearing someone in the news media refer to what the "Christians" did to the Jews in Germany during World War II. For example, a religious magazine published a speech by a U. S. Senator entitled, "How Could Christians Have Done This?" — as if to say that Hitler and his henchmen were indeed authentic Christians simply because they may have identified with some "branch" of professed "Christendom".

          Years ago, in the time of one of our "cussin'" presidents, I often winced when I would read the foul language of the "Baptist" who occupied the White House. It made me a little ashamed to be a Baptist when he humiliated us before the rest of the nation.

          When I first moved to Pasadena, Texas, you would know you were close to "home" when you could smell the stenchy odors which occasionally defiled the air, rising from some of the Houston-based industries along the nearby Houston ship channel. To tell people in Houston that you lived in "Pasadena" would often draw a little grin and a remark about "Stinkadena" where "the air is greener".

          A "Jehovah's Witness" is not necessarily a witness for Jehovah. And a "Christian Scientist" is not necessarily either a Christian or a scientist. A member of the group called "People for the American Way" is not necessarily traditional American for advocates of the traditional American way.

          Likewise, "King James Version-Onlyism" is just as much a misnomer as the foregoing names and the vain use of those names. I am a reader and user of the KJV, yet I am as much an opponent of the heresy of "KJV Onlyism" as I am an opponent of the cult which is called "Church of Christ", and that is because of the heresies of both. The KJV itself, its Translators, and its teachings — are NOT responsible for the modern wolf-in-sheep's clothing which parades as "KJV Only."

I will use the Translators to the Readers preface to the 1611 King James Version [the 1611 KJV is no longer in use, but was recently reprinted by Thomas Nelson Publishers/Nashville TN] to expose a few of the Fallacies of the modern day "KJV-Only" cult. The translators were NOT "KJV-Onlyites". Do you suppose, in your wildest imagination... that John Rainolds, Lancelot Andrewes, Miles Smith and the other scholars who were chosen to work on the English translation, would appreciate the "defense" of their creation by the likes of Benjamin Wilkinson, J. J. Ray, David Otis Fuller, Peter S. Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, Jack Hyles, Jack Chick, Texe Marrs, D. A. Waite, Sam Gipp, William Grady, Larry Vance, The Flaming Torch and their cadre? I rather suspect that these "defenders" of the KJV would more likely receive the type of reaction which Paul made to the woman who commended the Apostle [Acts 16:17-18].

| 1 |

The KJV Translators had respect for and recommended

OTHER TRANSLATIONS.

          Far from being "KJV Onlyism", the men who translated the King James Version respected the validity and usefulness of other translations.  In the preface of the 1611 KJV, we read: "...we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest or least esteemed] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession... contains the Word of God, nay, IS THE WORD OF GOD". They said that "though it be not interpreted by every Translator with like grace", the King's speech is "still the King's speech"; thus, "No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be currant [used], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth [translating] of it." This is completely opposite to the modern cultism of "KJV-Onlyism!" This statement would be immediately deprecated as "apostasy" and "New Ageism" by so many "KJV Onlyites" such as Ruckman, Riplinger, Hyles, Gipp, Grady, etc., etc.

| 2 |

The KJV Translators believed in the validity of the

SEPTUAGINT  TRANSLATION.

          One of the modern notions of some "KJV-Onlyites" is to deprecate the Septuagint, the ancient Greek Old Testament used in the time of Jesus and the Apostles. The KJV translators, however, refer to the Septuagint as being used by the Apostles and as being the "Word of God". The modern writers of fiction, in the "KJV Only" camp, contrarily spin-off the "tale" that Origen is responsible for the Septuagint and that it is a "post-apostolic creation".

| 3 |

The KJV Translators defended the practice of

"amending"  ENGLISH  TRANSLATIONS

of the Bible.

          One of the "cavils and objection" against the KJV to which the translators replied was the idea that there was no need for any alternation of the current translation in common use. They summon the history of Bible revisions to demonstrate the fact that such an objection is contrary to the perpetuity of the Bible from the past to the present. The Bible, at any given time, is what it is as a result of the translating and revision of the Hebrew and Greek scholars across time. From Jerome to Wycliff to Erasmus to Tyndale and on to our present time, arriving at the most authentic translation of the "Originals", has been sought by such men as the Translators of the KJV. This was their attitude in contradiction to modern "KJV-Onlyism".

| 4 |

The King James Translators believed that

OTHER  VARIOUS  TRANSLATIONS

were helpful.

          "Therefore", they say, "as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." The KJV translators placed hundreds of notations & alternative readings in the margins of the 1611 translation. They made use of other translations, not only in English, but other languages, past and current to arrive at what appeared to them to be most accurate!

| 5 |

KJV Translators were NOT, in any form, "KJV-ONLYites."

          Even though they diligently sought to set forth an accurate translation, the King James translators did NOT believe in translation-bias "final authority", nor claim to have produced a "final" Bible free of any further alternation. They say that "if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truer set in place." And, indeed, subsequent Revisions of the KJV were made, with the 1769 edition best representing the KJV used today, 6 times revised since the "Original 1611" KJV.

          Most would find the English of 1611 cumbersome and difficult to read, since spelling has changed so much. Even the meaning of some English words of the 17th century have significantly changed, necessitating clarification in certain passages. Many "KJV Onlyites" say our language has degenerated & we need to go "back" to the 17th century English! Fortunately, sanity is still dominant as opposed to such "looney-toons". Some word changes in today's KJV [1850 revision] are erroneous, while others are mainly incidental; ** yet most "KJV Onlyites" (thinking they have an "infallible" 1611 edition in their hands) state it is "perfect", including the added italicized words! The KJV translators certainly did NOT think so as they added hundreds of alternate readings (translations) in the 1611's margin. With today's "KJV Only" mindset, these additional word comparisons would be considered rank heresy!

    ** [see "KJV Revision is No 'Myth'!"  by Gary Hudson -- Proof of actual word changes in the KJV revisions which sometimes, but not always, affect the sense of passages] -- examples: 1 John 5:12 1611 KJV--"he that hath not the Son, hath not life" || Current KJV--"he that hath not the Son of God hath not life" ~~ or Matthew 16:16 1611 KJV--"Thou art Christ" || Current KJV--"Thou art the Christ." It must be a shock to "KJV Onlyites" that the 1611 KJV is different than the current KJV since they affirm that the "1611 KJV is God's perfectly preserved words:" but yet, even with the different words, the actual meaning here is the SAME for both KJV editions. This is the ongoing goal of bible translating, using different, various, easier words to arrive at the same meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek / Aramaic words; and we all have the ability to study languages and compare translations. All translations in all languages PRESERVE the Word of God everywhere they properly translate the original languages.

>>> But wait !  What does the KJV-Onlyite say about this word change:  Jeremiah 34:16 (Cambridge KJV's) -- "...whom YE had set at liberty..." || or || (Oxford KJV's & most other publishers' KJV's) -- "...whom HE had set at liberty..." Which KJV is "perfect?" Which one do YOU have? Is yours INFALLIBLE and INERRANT? Are you sure that your KJV is THE "perfect" one? There is quite a difference between whether you are addressing a "ye" or speaking about a "he". Well, the original 1611 KJV reads "whom ye", but this cannot be the decisive reference because the original 1611 contained numerous variations, including "he" instead of "she" at Ruth 3:15 ("she went into the city"). The context of Jeremiah 34:16 seems to support "whom ye", but the HEBREW MASORETIC OLD TESTAMENT settles the matter, reading in the second person ("whom ye"). It is the HEBREW TEXT that reveals the correct reading. God tells us whether He said "whom ye" or "whom he", just as He tells us whether He said "he went" or "she went." [It is to be understood here that not all Nelson and World KJV's follow the Oxford tradition, yet, ONLY KJV's following the Cambridge printing are correct!]       

Dr. F. H. A. Scrivener, perhaps the greatest authority on the history of the Authorized Version, aptly said concerning these word changes that "much of the greater part of them are deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown." [The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611--Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives, Cambridge, 1884, pg. 3] Also, Dr. Benjamin Blayney, whose 1769 edition best represents the current KJV, said concerning his KJV revision that, "many errors that were found in former editions have been corrected, and the text reformed to such a standard of purity, as, it is presumed, is not to be met with in any other edition hitherto extant" (Scrivener, pg. 238, emphasis ours). Most importantly, however, is a key reason for many of Blayney's 1769 "corrections" when he says, "Frequent recourse has been made to the Hebrew and Greek Originals." — "KJV Revision is No 'Myth'!" available from Pilgrim.

Now, what we have written above is NOT an "attack on the KJV", but an attack on ERROR. We are not "fault finding" our King James Bibles, only revealing the logical inconsistency of those who so boldly expound the theory of "KJV-inerrancy". And it is indeed a MAN-MADE teaching not supported ANYWHERE in Scripture! One variant in our KJV's (such as with Jeremiah 34:16) demolishes Ruckman's entire theory of "KJV-inerrancy and exact versionism". That, and that alone has been our purpose in presenting the above material.

| 6 |

"KJV-ONLYism," — a form of  ROMANISM .

          When one reads the preface to the 1611 King James Bible, he discovers that many of the objections offered today against "modern" bible translations were some of the very same objections offered against the KJV [of course, some objections today — Riplinger, etc. — are simply ridiculous and ignorant.] "Why a new translation? Wasn't the former translation not a good one? Has the church been deceived all this time?" In fact, due to the overwhelming use and popularity of the Geneva Bible (first produced under John Calvin and John Knox in the 1560s), it took 50 years after 1611 for the KJV to surpass it in readership and distribution [a feat that the New International Version/NIV equaled in less than 20 years — since 1991, among all English translations in print, it is now the most popular Bible sold].

          The chief opponent of Bible translating has been the Roman church which venerated its Latin Vulgate as the "one-and-only authentic Word of God." The KJV translators, members of the Church of England, a "split" off the Roman Church, were criticized for the fact that their translation would further denigrate the Latin Vulgate. In the 20th century, that same attitude is prevalent in KJV-Only "theories": every new English translation is an "attack upon the KJV" — "only done for $$" — "promoting the 'New Age'" — "blah, blah, blah..." To the many "KJV-Onlyites", the KJV is their "Latin Vulgate" ...it and it alone [!] is the "one-and-only perfectly, preserved" Word of God.

          But, the KJV Translators were NOT OF THAT MIND. And "KJV Onlyism" is NOT a product of the translators NOR the King James Bible. One does NOT endorse "KJV Onlyism" by using the KJV, and one is NOT an apostate by using other translations. "KJV Onlyism" is a cultic philosophy and has victimized the KJV by deceiving people so as to reap various benefits from the victims — namely, their devotion and dollars. It is basically the Romanist mentality of the Dark Ages.

written by  Bob L. Ross

Contact  us  for  a   FREE  CATALOG   and  Sample   SPURGEON  SERMONS  

 E-Mail:   Pilgrimpub@aol.com (1st)     E-Mail:   Pilgrimp@swbell.net (2nd)

 | Join our company:  "The Lord gave the WORD:  great was the COMPANY of those that PUBLISHED it." [Psalm 68:11] — Please, Copy this article, pass it on, and mail to others.   Permission granted by Bob L. Ross — No Copyright |

"CORRUPT"  MANUSCRIPTS  ?

          Many times I hear KJV-Onlyites mention manuscripts other than the textus receptus as "corrupt". Well, since there are no "originals" or exact copies of them in existence, & since no two existing manuscripts are exactly alike, IF one uses the term "corrupt" to include any manuscript which is NOT exactly as the "originals" — then you have to say that ALL of them are "corrupt!" There is no single manuscript in existence which can be placed side-by-side with ANY translation to exactly parallel it.  

          Beza put together a text in the 16th century that most KJV-Onlyites hold up as being "essentially" the original New Testament. Yet the KJV does NOT exactly parallel that text. The Trinitarian Bible Society publishes a "TR" which was put together by F. H. A. Scrivener to "match" the current KJV, but that was not available in "one" until the last century. The "Majority Text" does not match the KJV, either.

          According to most KJV-Only "scholars", they admit there is only a small percentage of difference between the "TR" family of manuscripts and the other "family". They also admit that there is not a single important or major difference between them in their vital teachings. No doctrine is "corrupted" by either "family" of manuscripts. Even in the translations, KJV-Onlys admit that the all-important truth of Salvation is in them so that a person could be saved. God HAS preserved His Word in both "families" of manuscripts, despite any "omissions" or "additions" that copyists have made in those manuscripts.

          A good book on this subject is Norman Pickering's The Identity of the New Testament Text [Thomas Nelson, 1977, 1980]. To my knowledge, Pickering does NOT affirm that any particular manuscript or "family" of manuscripts is exactly reproduced by a translation, not even the KJV Bible. He was one of the Consulting Editors on the "Majority Text", and it omits, for example, the disputed words of 1 John 5:7—used in the KJV but controversial as to its textual reliability.

[ A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8  - see Michael Maynard's book for a study on this scripture. Also, one of the most thorough articles I have read in regard to the controversy about this passage was published in "Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks" magazine of October 1993. If you would like a copy, write to Editor Glen Conjurske, 3540 Hwy 47 N, Rhinelander WI 54501 — enclosed $ 1.00 to cover cost]

          In a letter published in our magazine first's issue (1990), Mr. Pickering said: "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 Jn. 3:16]." He says that IF the KJV is the only "infallible" Bible, "then no one who lived before that date had access to it — & with the 6 subsequent revisions of the original 1611 KJV, containing hundreds of word changes, this would mean God's "infallible translation" is... NOT infallible! — those "infallibly translated words" — have CHANGED. This is just another KJV-Only theory I refer to as PURE HOKEY! No one even uses a "1611 KJV" today!

           Do you know a single cult which originally developed from the use of a version other than the KJV? Even the "Jehovah Witnesses" originally used the KJV. The only "cult" I know that has developed in relation to a translation is... the "KJV-Only" cult itself!

          "KJV-Onlyism" is simply a "hobby-horse" promoted to sell books, videos, magazines, pamphlets, trinkets, and all types of other merchandise to people who are misled to think such stuff is vital to the "defense of the faith".

          While we oppose the type of "KJV-Onlyism" which is of the cultic variety mentioned above and elsewhere in our articles, I want to make it clear that we are not doing either of the following: 1) "repudiating" the KJV, and 2) "promoting" other versions. What we are DOING is defending the very same "rights" assumed by the KJV Translators when they made their translation. We have as much "right" as they did to study Greek and Hebrew texts and manuscripts, past and present Bible translations, lexicons, etc and expound what appears to us to be Scripture and its teaching.  

         The 57 translators who worked on the KJV are not the "Final Authority", as inferred by Gail Riplinger in her "Nite Line" video wherein she repudiates the study of the same and similar sources as used by the translators. We repudiate making authoritarian "elitists" out of the KJV translators (which they themselves did NOT do), just as we repudiate the Romanist "elitists" who claim "authority" via "apostolic succession". Neither Rome nor the "KJV-Onlyites" will tell us what we can and cannot do. Who appointed Ruckman, Sam Gipp, Riplinger, Fuller, Hyles, Waite, etc. etc., over the Lord's vineyard? Through no fault of the KJV or its translators, the KJV has been unjustly victimized by modern professed "defenders" who in some instances actually believe very little of the doctrine that it teaches.

          While some of our comments are "facetious" and "satirical", we are simply "answering a fool according to his folly" [Proverbs 26:5]. We don't cast pearls before "swine" [Matthew 7:6]. We are not "gifted" in the category of slobbering about "love" and "gentleness" when dealing with Pharisees and Sadducees [Matthew 23] and others who are to be "rebuked sharply" [1 Timothy 5:20]. If you don't approve and you think we are wrong, just charge it to our less-than-perfect human nature [James 3:2]. Replying to false teachers is not the most pleasant nor the easiest thing to do, but for the sake of the Truth it is necessary [Jude 3].

"If the history of the Textus Receptus itself is a history of revision, why is it beyond revision today?" [ROBERT MARTIN, Accuracy of Translation and the NIV pg. 76]

 TOP  OF  PAGE