“KING JAMES ONLY”
The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible
and its underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is
usually defined in terms of the extremism.
I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE
FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original
Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek
Received Text underlying the King James Bible and other Reformation Bibles and that we have an
accurate translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King
James Only.” The theories underlying modern textual criticism are not dependable. They refuse to
approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. Most of them are unbelievers,
and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment
necessary to know where the inspired, preserved Word of God is located today.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common
use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the
Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to
start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.”
The theories of modern textual criticism, on the other hand, all revolve around the idea that the pure
text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because
of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources, rejected the pure text and chose, instead, an
inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the best text of the New
Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and was replaced with
a corrupt recession that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the
Byzantine or Traditional text) and that the corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of
church history (for 1,500 years) until the best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free
to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe this is absolute nonsense, and if that is “King
James Only,” count me in.
Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God
was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt.
Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me
“King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes it is important to have one biblical standard in a
language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has
created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God in this century, call me “King
James Only.”
I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE
FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King
James Only. The King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term
“inspiration” refers to the original giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:
20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against
such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in
which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the
Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because
it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was
given by inspiration.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek
texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure
nonsense, as it would mean the preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English Authorized Version is advanced revelation
over the Hebrew and Greek text that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King
James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today
or that it is not proper to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people
should learn Greek and Hebrew if possible and use (with much caution and wisdom) study tools.
When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know
that the words they spake were Hebrew and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the
biblical languages is a thorough understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek
and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of the original language study tools, because many of them
were produced from a rationalistic perspective and with great bias against the Received Text.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only in
English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received
New Testament translated properly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language,
whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based
on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King
James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation
(Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the Gospel.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is
holy or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the
KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age. At the same time, I am not going to trade what the
Church down through history believed was the preserved inspired Word of God and passed on to us
today, because some thinks it has a few “supposed” minor problems due to old language for a Bible
filled with error due to a corrupt text (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) and a corrupt translation
methodology (adopted from Westcott and Hort).
If “King James Only” defines one who believes he has the authority to call those who disagree with
him names, and to treat them as if they were the scum of the earth because they refuse to follow his
peculiar views, I am not “King James Only.”
|
|
