[From https://web.archive.org/web/20070713132110/http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/kjv.txt] This page is about the King James only position. This is the claim that the King James bible is the only authoratative version. In the most extreme version, it is claimed to be the only completely preserved version in the world. I.e. if you want the most accurate knowledge of God's Word, you have to read English. More moderate versions of this position exist, that claim there are also inspired versions in other languages. For a good web reference see http://www.aloha.net/~bstaggs/kjb.html. That page is for essays. See also the FAQ collection pointed to at the left. It defends the most extreme position. The rest of this page is a posting from soc.religion.christian on the subject. Received: from zippy.Telcom.Arizona.EDU by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.5/3.08) id AA02725; Mon, 12 Jul 93 13:14:27 EDT Received: by zippy.telcom.arizona.edu (4.1/zippy-MX-1.4) id AA22214; Mon, 12 Jul 93 10:14:25 MST To: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu Path: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu!lippard From: lippard@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: KJV defended!! Date: 12 Jul 1993 17:14:24 GMT Organization: University of Arizona Lines: 178 Distribution: world Message-Id: <12JUL199310142405@skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu> References: Nntp-Posting-Host: skyblu.ccit.arizona.edu News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41 In article , owenb@kira.emba.uvm.edu (Bobbie Owen) writes... >aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu: > > -- Scott at Brandeis Since the defense of the KJV-only view has come up here, I thought I'd offer my summary of someone else's analysis of this issue. The following is from a message I posted on GEnie (Religion and Philosophy RT, page 390; cat 32, top 14) as part of a discussion involving defenders of the Textus Receptus/King James Version-only thesis. I've edited it slightly from what I posted on GEnie. ----- I have obtained a copy of Douglas S. Chinn and Robert C. Newman's _Demystifying the Controversy over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible_, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute Research Report No. 3, 1980/1990, ISBN 0- 944788-03-3, available for $2 from the IBRI, P.O. Box 423, Hatfield, PA 19440, and it is excellent. I thought I would briefly summarize their analysis of the six major arguments for KJV-only (and their two suggested explanations of why people hold the KJV-only view) here. Arguments for KJV-only 1. Inerrancy Means *Present* (Preserved) Inerrancy: The doctrine of inerrancy means not only that the original manuscripts are without error, but that there are extant copies which preserve inerrancy. Otherwise, even liberals can believe in the inerrancy of the originals but deny the inerrancy of the present Bible if all copies have errors. In the Greek, the inerrant manuscripts are the Textus Receptus or Byzantine family on which the KJV is based. Reply: No two manuscripts of the Bible are identical. No original manuscripts are known to exist. The Textus Receptus itself is full of errors--there are many versions of it, not just one. The first two editions produced by Erasmus did not contain 1 John 5:7--he was compelled to add it from the Latin Vulgate Bible. Even the Bible Truth Institute's (a KJV-only group) 1976 edition of the Textus Receptus did not include Luke 17:36 from the KJV. 2. The Majority Text Argument: Although errors have crept into the Greek manuscripts, God has preserved the correct text in the vast majority. When 80-95% of the manuscripts have almost identical readings, it is obvious that this is the inerrant Word of God. Reply: The KJV does not follow the majority text. 1 John 5:7, Acts 8:37, "through his blood" in Colossions 1:14, are all found in a minority of the texts. Most of the non-majority texts found in the KJV come from the Latin Vulgate Bible of the Roman Catholic Church which was in general use when the Textus Receptus was first printed. Some KJV-only advocates (Zane Hodges, Arthur Farstad, John W. Burgon) allow that corrections may be made to the KJV to keep it consistent with the majority text. Most KJV-only advocates don't realize that the majority text is inconsistent with th KJV, and very few discuss this problem at all. One who does is Edward F. Hills, in his 1956 book _The King James Version Defended!_. On p. 45, he writes that "Readings found in the non-Byzantine minority of the extant manuscripts may be adopted as probably or possibly genuine only when it can be shown that they do not contradict the Byzantine text, alter its meaning, or detract from its doctrinal richness." In other words, it is acceptable to correct or add to the majority text. Douglas Chinn wrote to Wilbur Pickering, a KJV-only advocate who uses the majority text argument, to ask how he resolved the problems of minority readings in the KJV. Pickering replied (January 19, 1978) that "The status of 1 John 5:7, etc. will be resolved in due time." So both Hills and Pickering admit that it is possible for the majority text to be wrong. Perhaps the biggest problem for the majority text argument is that there is no majority text for the book of Revelation. There are so many variants that no single reading is found in a majority of manuscripts. 3. The Contamination by Heretics Argument: The Greek manuscripts used for modern translations are from Alexandria, Egypt, and were in possession of heretics. They were not in general use from the 8th to 19th centuries. They were rediscovered and brought into use by the liberals Tischendorff, Westcott, and Hort. Reply: The OT text was transmitted by non-Christians (Jews). The traditional NT text (Textus Receptus) was transmitted by the Greek Orthodox Church, which believes in a theology of faith plus sacraments which most KJV-only people reject as unbiblical. The man who compiled the Textus Receptus was Erasmus, a Dutch humanist. The first edition was dedicated to Pope Leo X. Erasmus frequently followed the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate Bible rather than the Greek manuscripts because of public pressure. One entire book of the Bible was lost for a time during the reign of King Josiah (2 Kings 22:8-23:2). The complaint KJV- only people make against the Alexandrian text applies just as much to the Textus Receptus and KJV. 4. Christ Not Exalted: The Alexandrian manuscripts do not properly exalt Christ. Compared with the Textus Receptus, there are many places where the words "Lord" and "Christ" are in the Textus Receptus but not in the Alexandrian manuscripts. Reply: The reverse is also true. Matthew 16:21 in the KJV says "Jesus." The same verse in the NASB says "Jesus Christ." 1 Corinthians 6:11 says "Jesus" in the KJV, but "Lord Jesus Christ" in the NASB and NIV. In Acts 24:24, the KJV says "Christ" but the NASB and NIV say "Christ Jesus." There are many verses in which both the Textus Receptus and Alexandrian manuscripts do not have "Lord" or "Christ," but other minority manuscripts do (eg, Romans 3:26, 10:9, 2 Corinthians 4:5, Galatians 1:6, 2 Thessalonians 2:8). If, as KJV-only advocates claim, the Alexandrian scribes intentionally refused to copy the word "Christ" in Revelation 1:9, why did they copy it in Revelation 1:1, 1:2, and 1:5? 5. Heresies: The Alexandrian manuscripts teach different doctrines--they teach justification by works, Arianism, and the belief that the Apocrypha is part of the Bible. Reply: All of these same problems exist in the KJV. Regarding justification by works, the KJV-only people appeal to verses such as 1 Peter 2:2, which in the NASB says "Like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you ma grow in respect to salvation." They take issue with the word "salvation" in this verse, assuming that it means "justification." (The KJV just says "...that you may grow thereby.") But an alternate interpretation is that it simply means deliverance from sin and death. Other verses in the KJV say similar things which could also be interpreted as deliverance by works (Romans 13:11, Philemon 2:12, Revelation 22:14). In the last of the mentioned verses, the Alexandrian manuscripts give a different reading which is *less* amenable to an interpretation of salvation by works than the KJV. Regarding Arianism, which says that Jesus is the physical progeny of Joseph as well as Mary, the KJV-only people appeal to verses such as Luke 2:33,43 which in the KJV say "Joseph and his mother" but in the NASB and NIV say "His father and mother" and "His parents." Once again, exactly the same problem exists in the KJV, where Luke 2:41 refers to Mary and Joseph as "his parents" and Mary refers to Joseph as Jesus' "father" in Luke 2:48. KJV- only people say that these verses refer to Joseph in the role of stepfather. Why do they reject the possibility of that interpretation for *exactly the same words* in Luke 2:33 and 2:43 in the Alexandrian manuscripts? Regarding the Apocrypha, which is included in some of the Alexandrian codices--once again, the KJV has the same problem. The 1611 KJV was printed in five volumes. Volume four was the Apocrypha! If the Alexandrian codices teach that the Apocrypha is part of the Bible, so does the precious 1611 KJV of the KJV-only advocates. A final problem is that major, major doctrinal differences exist between Christian sects who all use the KJV! 6. The "Know It By Its Fruits" Argument: The KJV and Textus Receptus must be the best because God has so blessed its use. Reply: The Greek Orthodox Church has used the Textus Receptus, yet KJV-only advocates disagree with many of their doctrines. Many non-Textus Receptus documents have as great a claim to having their use blessed, such as the Greek Septuagint OT and the Latin Vulgate. The KJV has been the most popular English Bible, but only because it has been around much longer than other translations. Possible Other Explanations for the KJV-only View: 1. KJV is a tradition, and people find it hard to change. The same kind of social pressure which produced KJV-only people caused Erasmus to insert verses from the Latin Vulgate into the Textus Receptus. 2. If errors are admitted in the KJV, then people would have to be taught how to evaluate manuscript evidence, which would require knowledge of Greek (and Hebrew) and manuscript history. This would put the common people at the mercy of scholars. Jim Lippard Lippard@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU Dept. of Philosophy Lippard@ARIZVMS.BITNET University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721