I used to believe that the only acceptable translation of the Bible was the King James Version – otherwise known as “KJV – Only”.
I have had (and continue to have) many wonderful mentors who were/are KJV-Only still and I love and respect them. They have taught me much, helped me much and continue to do so. However, I cannot in good conscience remain in a KJV-Only stance myself. I am very thankful for the variety of translations of the Bible in the English language. Some are certainly better than others, and some serve different functions than others but I am grateful since so many other languages have only one or maybe even no translation in that language.
Here are 7 reasons why I am no longer KJV-Only. Some reasons are more personal testimony and some are more about fact-checking (but they are certainly not exhaustive). For a full and fair treatment of this topic I highly recommend you read “The King James Only Controversy” by James R. White.
One last note - this is not an anti-KJV blog post. It is simply expalining my reasons for not being KJV-Only.
#1 Reaching the Lost
I soon began to realize that the old English of the King James Version was simply not meeting the needs of the youth I was trying to reach and serve in a rural town who had never really been to church before. To me, it was not enough to say that “We shouldn’t dumb the Bible down but rather smarten the people up.” That didn’t ring right to me. Jesus always went out seeking the sinner, the tax collector and others who were not very “educated”.
It is certainly no sin to have a modern translation in today’s English. We should be wary of putting any unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of reaching the lost with the Gospel.
#2 My Pride
If I’m honest, I also began to realize that in my heart I was harbouring a sense of superiority over other Christians who did not use the KJV only. I thought to myself “Are all other believers just not very smart?” Little did I know how many brilliant Bible-loving scholars and laymen had searched out the issues of texts and translation and come to an honest opinion that was different than mine.
It was really the epitome of pride and I realized I was also putting an unnecessary stumbling block on my fellowship with other believer
#3 But What About Those Missing Verses?
Having said those two things though, I still had concerns about missing verses and different ways of translating certain verses and different manuscripts. So, for the first time in my life I put aside all the emotions and I read a book that treated the topic fairly (from both sides) – “The King James Only Controversy” by James White. Finally I understood why there were differences in the translations (and in some manuscripts) – after all it is just as much a sin to ADD to the Word of God as it is to TAKE AWAY from it. This helped me immensely and the following points will flesh that out.
“It is refreshing to read a work that simultaneously reflects the unswerving commitment to devout orthodoxy (i.e. doctrine) and a sane exposition of the facts.” D.A. Carson on “The King James Only Controversy”
#4 Tradition and the Textus Receptus (Received Text)
Many of us grew up with the KJV and its beautiful poetic style and that’s part of the reason we are uncomfortable with new versions. However, just because something is unfamiliar does not mean it is inaccurate.
The truth is when Erasmus wrote the Textus Receptus (on which the King James Version is based) he was attacked by many Christians because it was a change from what had been the traditional text of the day - Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. To one such concerned Christian he wrote: “You must distinguish between Scripture, the translation of Scripture and the transmission of both. What will you do with the errors of the copyists?”
In this statement by Erasmus himself we see him stating that there is a difference between the Scripture (in the original languages) and the varied translations of that Scripture. Only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts can tell us what the Word of God is.
As White says “There is nothing wrong with tradition, as long as we do not confuse tradition with truth.”
Desiderius Erasmus
#5 Scribes Aren’t Perfect
In addition Erasmus affirms in that quote the fact that the copyists (or scribes) of those manuscripts sometimes made mistakes or even well meaning “adjustments”.
White writes: “The scribes of old made errors, too. Even the best professional scribes had bad days… they often worked in the cold or the heat, and their lighting was almost always inferior to a good fluorescent lamp. Many of them had to work long hours at what they were doing. Fingers cramped, backs ached… All of these things contributed to the simple fact that there is not a single handwritten manuscript of the Bible, in Greek or Hebrew, that does not contain, somewhere, an error, an oversight, a mistake. To err is human.”
Having said all of that though he then quotes Philip Schaff who estimated that there were only 400 variants that affected the sense of the passage, and only 50 of those were actually important. He asserted that not one affected “an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching.”
In other words whatever differences there may be between the KJV and some modern translations – none of them affect the vital and essential doctrines of our faith. Both teach conservative orthodoxy. “That is a fact that any semi-impartial view will substantiate.” White
Truly God’s Word has been preserved for us from every generation – including more modern translations such as the ESV (which I now use).
#6 1 John 5:17 (The Comma Johanneum)
Earlier we talked about how some scribes made well-meaning adjustments or even additions to the texts in order to shore up the evidence against a certain heresy etc. This is what scholars called “Expansion of piety” – adding to the text in order to “aid” God’s Word. However we know that adding to God’s Word is just as serious a problem as taking away from it.
Erasmus’ first edition of the Textus Receptus did not include 1 John 5:7 (also known as the Comma Johanneum) because “…it was not found in any Greek manuscript of 1 John that Erasmus had examined.” When someone challenged Erasmus on why he did not include the Comma Johnanneum in his Greek text, he, in return, challenged the man to find even one manuscript that contained it and said if he found he would put it into his Greek text.
Finally someone found a manuscript that had it and so Erasmus kept his word and put it into the third edition of is text and it then made it into the KJV. However, even that one manuscript was highly suspicious as it came from an old enemy of Erasmus, whose only intention was probably to refute Erasmus. This is one passage where the evidence seems very clear that it was not in the original text.
#7 Further Notes
> It is also good to remember that the KJV has some missing portions of verses that the modern translations include.
> Erasmus was a Roman Catholic priest and, although he often rebuked the corruption within that church, he dedicated the Textus Receptus to Pope Leo X.
> Majority does not always mean accuracy. We have more Byzantine texts (on which much of the Textus Receptus is based) than the other text types but that is because the Byzantine texts came largely later on in Church history when the persecution had died down and the Church was more stable.
> As it stands the Bible clearly teaches the very important doctrine of the Trinity even without 1 John 5:7. In fact, the early church fathers, though they were embroiled in the debate over the Trinity did not quote 1 John 5:7 apparently because it simply did not exist at their time.
“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12
