Leaving King James Onlyism

(With special thanks to Gail Riplinger)

I have been meaning for sometime now to blog a little bit on King James Onlyism. It has been a subject that has occupied my personal study for nearly a year and half.

I even taught a series of devotional studies I entitled Confessions of a KJV only Advocate that examines what I use to believe, as well as interacts with what I think are the main arguments put forth by KJV Only advocates.

King James Onlyism is near and dear to my heart because I emerged from being a hard-shell KJV Onlyist in belief and practice. I chronicle my journey through KJV Onlyism in a more in-depth article that can be read at my Fred’s Bible Talk website. However, for the sake of introducing new readers to the topic of KJV Onlyism, allow me to give a short re-telling of my testimony.

Let me begin with providing a simply definition of King James Onlyism:

The belief that God’s Word, the Holy Bible, has only been faithfully preserved in one English translation: the 1611 King James.

According to KJVO advocates, the Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators represent the infallible, inerrant, and exactly preserved words originally penned by the writers of Scripture. In other words, God so preserved the process of transmission for the biblical documents it was as if the King James translators were translating from a Xerox copy of Jeremiah’s original prophecy or Paul’s original letter to the Colossians.

Additionally, KJVO advocates insist that the men commissioned by King James the 1st to produce the translation which would eventually bear his name, were not only the godliest in their spiritual walk with Christ, but also the greatest ancient language scholars the Christian church had ever known. That means God not only saw fit to govern the transmission of biblical manuscripts so that the translators would have the actual words the biblical writers wrote, He also directed the choosing of the translators so that only the most skilled would be translating.

KJVO advocates further insist heretics intentionally corrupted the Hebrew and Greek texts used to translate all of our modern versions beginning with the Revised Version published in 1881. The corruption, though ever so slight, is manifested with the altering of key Christian doctrines like the Deity of Christ and salvation by faith alone. Moreover, unlike the godly KJV translators, the men who translated many of the modern versions like the NASB or the NIV had either a hidden liberal agenda to produce a new age style translation, or were unwitting dupes in the overall satanic scheme to pervert God’s Word.

This is the view of the Bible I believed, taught, and defended for nearly ten years.

I was introduced to King James Onlyism shortly after my conversion to Christ. I had a friend of mine who hosted occasional Bible studies at his apartment, and who enjoyed supplying good books for Christians to read.

One of those books I received from him was entitled, To Be or Not To Be: Can You Trust the Modern Versions, written by an Oklahoma pastor named Gary Flynt. The book was basic KJVO rhetoric similar to what I outlined above.

Being immature and unlearned, I was convinced by the arguments presented in the book. I was particularly impressed with a section in the book dealing with problem passages in Scripture. Rather than concluding textual discrepancies are a result of scribal copying errors, as the notes in the typical study Bible often conclude they are, pastor Flynt argued that by solely using the KJV, an easy solution can be found within the biblical text, rather than labeling all such discrepancies as copyist errors. To prove his point, he re-printed a couple of articles written by a medical doctor in New Zealand who frequently contributed Bible study articles to a local, New Zealand Baptist publication.

I was so moved by Pastor Flynt’s book that I hunted down his phone number and called him to talk about the KJV.  He recommended to me several books by a variety of authors and I soon began amassing a substantial KJVO library.

I quickly became something of a pest in my college church group constantly hassling my friends and other students about the translations they used. The pastors at my church lacked the sophistication to counter my arguments, so I was pretty much left unfettered and dismissed as a zealous young man who will eventually learn.

When I arrived at seminary, I was not as out spoken of my KJV Onlyism simply because I was around people who could argue better than me and who would not lay down for my assertions. Rather than constantly getting into heated debates, I kept my KJV-Only convictions to myself. I just wanted to get through seminary, learn what I could, and then go out and pastor a church where I could preach my KJV-Onlyism to my heart’s content.

I probably would have done just that, but thank my sweet Lord, He refused to leave me in this foggy state. There were a handful of factors which the Lord used to bring me to the truth and a complete departure of KJV Onlyism. I recount more of them in my Confessions article.

However, God used one unlikely individual to sober my mind regarding Bible translations.  A person who came from within the KJVO movement: Gail A. Riplinger and her book, New Age Bible Versions (NABV).

I am at a loss as how to describe her book. It does exist as a prime example of why editors are important. As I describe in my Confessions article:

“The author, Gail Riplinger, gathered all the threads of knowledge pertaining to textual criticism her degree in interior design provided, and with a skillful use of ellipsis, masterfully wove together scholarly ineptitude, twisted exegesis, conspiracy theories, her personal revelations from God, illogical comparison charts, distorted fact, and a sinister red and black cover, to produce a hideous literary tapestry.”

To summarize her book, Mrs. Riplinger (pictured above), believes the devil is attempting to usher in the New Age of the Anti-Christ and his primary method is the introduction of new age doctrine in place of Christian doctrine through the instruments of modern Bible versions like the NIV, NASB, and the ESV.

The profound, gross errors she promotes through out her book are almost infinite. There is no earthly way for a person who has taken the time to read her book to unravel all the tangles she has created. There a number of reviews, but probably the best I have ever read is written by James May. I encourage everyone to print-out a copy and take a weekend to read through it. Even though Riplinger is old news, Mr. May writes with spunk, intelligence, and clarity, and he brings the reader right to the point: Mrs. Riplinger is a kook.

I personally believe she is a heretic on the magnitude of Benny Hinn. She has done more to destroy the Body of Christ than any cultist could imagine doing. Of course, when I was a budding seminary student way back in 1993, I thought she deserved a theological Pulitzer Prize and her book should be required reading for every Christian college student in America.

Yet, despite my enthusiasm for Mrs. Riplinger, it was her book that God primarily used to break me from being a KJVO apologist.

One of the areas of study in Mrs. Riplinger’s book that interested me was on the lives of B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. They were the two principle scholars who produced the Greek text from which the Revised Version of 1881 was translated.  In chapters 29 through 33 of NABV, Mrs. Riplinger lays out her research showing how these two men were actively involved in Satanism and the occult. This accusation captivated me, because I figured if it were clearly documented that those men did what she claimed, then the modern versions my friends used were based upon the work of highly unorthodox men.

Armed with Mrs. Riplinger’s “copious and well-researched” footnotes, I journeyed to my seminary library and began my own research cross-checking her citations from Westcott and Hort’s books. I had not been there for more than 30 minutes when my heart began to deflate inside me.

As I read the original works of those two men, opened next to the citations printed in NABV, it became painfully obvious to me that Mrs. Riplinger was seriously misrepresenting what they had written. In fact, I could even say I was being intentionally lied to. It is difficult to capture the feeling of the moment, but it was a revelation of sorts, like when you discover Santa Claus is not real by catching your father putting together a weeble-wobble play set late one Christmas Eve night.

In some instances, this woman was completely fabricating lies against those two men by twisting around whole paragraphs and selectively citing from comments while taking whole pages from each other to produce an entirely bogus quotation.

Moreover, she was accusing them of wickedness neither one of them ever committed.

For example, in an extended footnote in NABV (the 11th printing, 2000 edition, pg. 676-677, fn. 128), Mrs. Riplinger claims B.F. Westcott was heavily involved with the occult and was an active member of Madame H.P. Blavatsky’s Theosophical Society, an organization dedicated to spiritualism. She further claims he was a regularly contributor to the Theosophical Society Dictionary under the initials of W.W. Westcott.

One would think a book proclaiming to contain exhaustive research would note the difference between B.(rooke) F.(oss) Westcott and W.(illiam) W.(ynn) Westcott. Apparently, Google has not reached Mrs. Riplinger all the way in the back woods of Virginia.

A simple search will tell anyone that William Wynn Westcott was a London coroner who was actively involved with secret spiritualist societies, especially one called the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.


Brooke Foss Westcott and William Wynn Westcott

Apart from sharing an affinity for facial hair and a receding hair line, neither of these two men are alike in any philosophical way. Ms. Riplinger essentially libeled the character of B.F. Westcott.

I would like to testify that it was at this dawning moment of enlightenment with the lies of G.A. Riplinger that I renounced KJVO propaganda and embraced the orthodox, historic Christian view of inspiration, preservation, and the transmission of the biblical documents, but to my shame, it was not.

I took solace in the writings of other KJV-Onlyists who renounced Gail as not representing the true KJVO position.  Either that, or they were all ashamed to discover GA Riplinger was a woman. However, as I engrossed myself with their works, they too repeated many of the same lies against Westcott and Hort Mrs. Riplinger published in NABV. It took another 7 years or so, but eventually, thanks be to God, He freed me from the muddled-thinking of KJV-Onlyists and their publications. And to think it all began with the Queen of all KJVO advocates.

The Lord willing, I wish to publish some entries which deal with what I believe to be the 6 key presuppositional arguments used by KJVO advocates to defend their apologetics. My prayer is that they will be beneficial, not only to those ensnared in KJV-Onlyism, but also to those who may have to debate a KJV-Onlyist or two within the local church.

Just one last note. I linked to a review article on NABV by James May above. I would also recommend anyone printing out his articles on Westcott and Hort. Mr. May has done the Christian church an enormous favor by reading through nearly all of B.F. Westcott’s printed works to expose the hideous lies preached against him by KJV-Onlyists. His research is pure gold. Also, look over his other on-line articles at the KJV Only page.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Leaving King James Onlyism

  1. Pingback: Answering the Claims of KJV-Onlyism | hipandthigh

  2. Pingback: hipandthigh

  3. Great post, Fred. It is unbelievable how much damage this has done to churches and even missionaries who lost support when a new KJV only pastor sends out questionnaires about the missionaries position on the KJV. Multiple marriages and divorces didn’t seem to slow Riplinger down among her followers either.
    I haven’t heard of many coming back to sanity from that position so you are a rare bird indeed. (Perhaps the rare speckled bird of Jeremiah 12:9 KJV) ;-)

    Kerry

  4. Sad to say I’ve been in this territory too; God forgive me for being an imbecile.

  5. Its a shame that you became a KJVOnlyist through Gail Riplinger, and then rejected the sound arguments for the superiority of the Traditional text, based on your discovery that Riplinger was a flake.

    In fact, there are good logical, scientific and historical reasons for preferring a text much closer to the KJV in the New Testament sections than any of the modern (over)critical texts, which are themselves based on a poor ‘science’ easily as lame as anything Riplinger has done.

    The truth is more like this: Both Hort AND Riplinger have done extensive damage to the Church of Christ.

    For extensive evidences in favour of such important and sizable passages as John 8:1-11, and Mark’s Ending, and in fact most of the larger deletions of whole and half-verses, take a look at deep analysis of the morphological features which indicate that
    these are accumulated errors of homeoteleuton and homeoarchton accrued in the Alexandrian and Caesarean manuscripts, such as Vaticanus 1209 and Sinaiticus.

    http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.ca/

    http://pericopedeadultera.blogspot.ca/

    The world’s largest database on John 7:53-8:11 can be found here:

    http://textualcriticism.scienceontheweb.net/

    peace
    Nazaroo

  6. Nazaroo writes,
    Its a shame that you became a KJVOnlyist through Gail Riplinger, and then rejected the sound arguments for the superiority of the Traditional text, based on your discovery that Riplinger was a flake.

    If you had read my article carefully, I didn’t become a KJVO because of Gail Riplinger, I abandoned KJVO because of Gail Riplinger.

    I am very much aware of all the arguments from what would be “sound” proponents of the Majority/Traditional Text. Even you should recognize what they argue is way different than the AV enthusiasts who believe the TR represents the purist original of the NT documents. Certainly you would be in favor of an updated English translation using the MT as a base text, correct? And what about the OT? You apply the same criticisms to the textual criticism that has given us the BHS apparatus?

  7. Its a strange thing to abandon good science because of bad propagandists.
    Should we stop being Christians because of a stumbling Jimmy Swaggart, or worse, crookedBenny Hinn? Benny Hill is more like it.
    Most Christians are able to laugh off a few frauds, without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Its my view that the various Revised texts of the O.T. have been corrupted in a very different way than merely reintroducing old scribal errors from Aleph/B lines of transmission. In the O.T. case, the translation is what has been attacked systematically by Germans like Kittel intent on erasing the Jews from the Bible.
    For evidence of this, along with others who have also acknowledged similar problems,
    have a look at these articles here:

    How the Germans perverted the Bible
    http://kjvonly2.blogspot.ca/2011/09/how-germans-perverted-bible.html

    The NAZIs and the NIV (New International Version)
    http://kjvonly2.blogspot.ca/2011/09/nazis-and-niv-new-international-version.html
    Kittel’s AntiSemitism and O.T. Sabotage (cont.)
    http://kjvonly2.blogspot.ca/2011/10/kittels-antisemitism-and-ot-sabotage.html

    Everyone is in principle in favour of an updated translation, especially where needed in such obvious and already openly recognized places such as where words have changed their meaning or become obsolete. Does the underlying Greek text need any serious revision? I doubt it. The ‘critical revisions’ have all been butcher-jobs by ‘men’ of doubtful integrity and absurd methodology.

    What is wrong with a NKJV or a KJ2000? If you want the literal accuracy and clumsiness of the NASV without the doctrinal bias of Unitarians and Jewish rabbis,
    why not just use the Young’s Literal Translation? How badly do we need yet more
    “versions” that not only dumb down the text but dumb down the readers, leaving them hopelessly ignorant of the real meaning of the texts?

    A few words should be spoken on the kind of translation that Christians should produce, sponsor and accept: We are not here to appease unbelieving Jews and provide translations for their own use, using their interpretational methods. We are not here to provide apostate Roman Catholics with ‘versions’ that minimize the scandal of Roman wealth and bad behaviour, and questionable ‘traditions’. We can’t possibly be the financiers of translations that please academic agnostics and atheists alike, or present a version that makes Jesus into a new Age pacifist or anachronistic feminista.

    Christians are and should only be obligated to produce accurate Christian Bibles. Let heretics, skeptics, and apostates finance their own projects, and quite infilterating Christian institutions.

    peace
    Nazaroo

  8. Good that you’ve left KJV-onlyism for the real, inspired Bible: in Hebrew and Greek, faithfully preserved.

    I compiled an article about Gail Riplinger, with links and sources, I’d like to copy here for your reference:

    Gail Riplinger:
    G. A. Riplinger is the author of “New Age Bible Versions”, published in 1993, a book which attracted a some attention in the King-James-Only movement. The author is Gail Riplinger, born as Gail Anne Ludwig, born on October 1947 in Columbus, Ohio. She married Michael D. Riplinger at the age of 36. http://www.avpublications.org/records/gail-riplinger-marriage-3.jpg. Gail Riplinger earned a B.A. (Interior Design), M.A. (Home Economics), and M.F.A. (Art) degrees. She served as an instructor at Kent State University, under the name Gail Kaleda, for interior decorating and home economics courses. In 1993, Riplinger wrote a comparison of modern Bible translations to the King James Version, New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion. It was self published under the name A. V. Publications. Riplinger wrote that the underlying manuscripts of the modern versions of the Bible were corrupted and that the men who collated them were often involved in the occult. She writes that some words and phrases in the New King James Version (NKJV) and other versions are errors, comparing them to the KJV text.[1] She cites NKJV’s “sexual immorality” as supporting “relative/subjective standards” compared to the KJV’s “fornication” (Mt. 12:32). She purports to have some of her material by immediate revelation from God, claiming in one instance that God refers to the New American Standard Version as the “NASV”, a claim she uses to show that that version and the New International Version (NIV), using what she calls “Acrostic Algebra”, spell “sin.”[2] “New Age Bible Versions” was received with acclaim by much of the “King James Version Only” movement. King James Only advocate, David Cloud, notes that it gained “a far-reaching audience”. [3] Jack Hyles (September 25, 1926 – February 6, 2001) pastor of the large First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana, presented Mrs. Riplinger with an honorary doctorate degree from Hyles-Anderson College for her work on the book.[4]

    Critics say she has misquoted and misused the works of others. [5] [6] Reviewing her book, S. E. Schnaiter wrote, “Riplinger appears to be another of those who rush to [the KJV’s] defense, alarmed by the proliferation of its modern rivals, armed with nothing more than the blunderbuss of ad hominem apologetic, when what is needed is the keenness of incisive evaluation.” “For whatever rationale on Riplinger’s part, she has produced not an exposé but rather a diatribe, often quite vitriolic, based on dogmatic, predispositional, and, more often than not, blatantly fallacious propaganda techniques rather than real evidence, carefully weighed and judiciously presented.” Even fellow “fundamental Baptist” pastor David Cloud concludes, “is filled with illogical and improper statements which have the effect of discrediting everything the author says that is true.” [7]

    Leading King James Version Onlyist Donald A. Waite, President of the Dean Burgon Society, held a King James Bible Conference at Straightway Baptist Church in Princeton, New Jersey, January 10-11, 2008, at which Riplinger was invited to participate. During a question-and-answer session, someone asked if Riplinger had ever been divorced, to which Waite conveyed that Riplinger had assured him that she had not. He later discovered that she had been twice divorced. On July 22, 2009, Waite publicly exposed Riplinger at his annual Bible Conference, accusing her of “lying”.[8] [9] Aletheia O’Brian claims Riplinger has frequently misrepresented and exaggerated her academic credentials.[10]

    Bibliography:
    O’Brian, Aletheia. “Who Is Gail Riplinger”, http://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/WhoIsGailRiplinger.pdf
    Riplinger, Gail (1993). New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist’s One World Religion. Monroe Falls, Ohio: A.V. Publications. ISBN 0-9635845-0-2.
    Riplinger, Gail (1998). The Language of the King James Bible. Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications. Riplinger, Gail (2004). In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible Its Mystery and History Letter by Letter. Ararat, Va.: A.V. Publications Corp.. ISBN 0-9635845-2-9. Schnaiter, S. E. “New Age Bible Versions.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 2 (Fall 1997): 105–125.
    Thomas, Robert L. (1994) “Book Review: New Age Bible Versions.” Masters Seminary Journal 05:2. p. 229-234. The Lockman Foundation. (1994) “The Lockman Foundation’s Reply To New Age Bible Versions”. White, James. “New Age Bible Versions Refuted.” http://vintage.aomin.org/NABVR.html

    References
    ^ Riplinger, Gail. (1998) The Language of the King James Bible, p. 151. Ararat, VA: A. V. Publications. ^ “Gail Riplinger vs. James White, 1993, KRDS Radio Part II”, at about 3:00 point, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdld8KGEm7E&list=PLDFD630FFA4AD77B4&index=2.
    ^ David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, Inc., “THE PROBLEM WITH NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS”, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html.
    ^ “The Growing Convictions of Dr. Jack Hyles with Regard to the King James Bible”, The Jack Hyles Home Page, http://www.jackhyles.com/Hyles-stronger-KJV.htm
    ^ Schnaiter, S. E. (1997) “Review Article New Age Bible Versions.” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 02:1. p. 125. Thomas, Robert L. (1994) “Book Review: New Age Bible Versions.” Masters Seminary Journal 05:2. p. 229-234. The Lockman Foundation. (1994) “The Lockman Foundation’s Reply To New Age Bible Versions”.
    ^ White, James. “Why Respond to Gail Riplinger” http://bible.org/article/why-respond-gail-riplinger.
    ^ David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, Inc., “THE PROBLEM WITH NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS”, http://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html.
    ^ “Reason For Exposing Gail Riplinger”, http://avpublications.org/articles/reason-for-exposing-gail-riplinger.pdf.
    ^ “Waite gets all bent outta shape over former compatriot Riplinger”, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSeiVc98-Zk.
    ^ Aletheia O’Brian, “Who Is Gail Riplinger”, http://www.biblefortoday.org/PDF/WhoIsGailRiplinger.pdf. Yeoberry (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)Yeoberry (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  9. I was directed to your blog from another blog I follow, and I have been very impressed with your research demonstrating the fallacy of the KJVO cultic teachings.

    I am currently doing a series reviewing Riplinger’s “New Age Bible Versions” on my blog. I’ve finished reviewing the first ten chapters. My point is not to address all of her conspiracy claims, or even to address the underlying manuscripts. Rather my point is to examine what the KJV says vs the “other versions” as cited by Riplinger. What I have been demonstrating is the dishonesty of the book, as well as the lack of substantive differences between the KJV and newer versions. For those interested in looking at my blog articles, they are all under the label of “New Age Bible Versions.”

  10. Pingback: Were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort Apostate Heretics? | hipandthigh

  11. KJVO has a definite MAN-MADE beginning. In 1930, Dr. Ben Wilkinson, a 7TH DAY ADVENTIST official, published a book, “Our Authorized Bible Vindicated”, in response to a squabble within his cult. (In a conference called by the SDA because of that squabble, that same Dr. W stoutly argued that the writings of E. G. White were on a par with Scripture!)

    That book, copyrighted only in Scotland, not the USA, received little attention outside the SDA cult until 1955, when it was “discovered” by one “J. J. Ray”, who published “God Wrote Only One Bible”. In this book, “Ray” heavily plagiarized W’s book, without acknowledging him whatsoever. This plagiarism might’ve been legal, but it was certainly DISHONEST, NOT an act which any TRUE Christian woukl do!

    Then, in 1970, Dr. D, O. Fuller published “Which Bible?”, which copied heavily from both W and Ray. While Fuller at least acknowledged those men, he took pains not to mention ray’s plagiarism, nor W’s CULT AFFILIATION. That was every bit as dishonest as Ray’s plagiarism, again, something no TRUE Christian would do!

    These are the three boox that led to the creation of the KJVO myth. (es, I know Dr. Peter Ruckman is in the mix, but his stuff didn’t get hardly any notice until after the KJVO mtrh was already established.) This, combined with the fact there’s absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT FOR KJVO, proves that KJVO is of Satan, and not GOD, as GOD would never use dishonesty, nor the work of a cult official, to establish any doctrine of His.

    NO KJVO can refute that sordid origin of their doctrine, which casts mud upon the KJV by telling lies about it and has built up an entire industry around it, churning out boox and other literature by the boatload, filled with KJVO lies.

    The KJVO myth is just another tool of Satan’s that he uses to try to discredit God’s word. First, it heaps aspersions upon many perfectly-valid modern Bible translations, while it idolizes the KJV, trying to make something out of it that GOD never intended.

    “BEWARE THE LEAVEN OF KJVO-IT’S A POISON MUSHROOM!”

  12. Thanks for sharing the story of your journey. I enjoyed the read, and will track down more of your writings in this area. Have you received any feedback from KJVO people or no?

  13. I’ve been sparing with KJV onlyists for a number of years. They all vary from one degree or another with regards to their commitment and their intensity with defending their view. Best stuff was with Will Kinney. Chris Pinto is the most recent. Do a search on my site for his name to see my interaction with his conspiracy theories.

  14. Hi Fred Butler. I know all about your unbelief in the existence of a complete and inerrant Bible. You and I had many discussions in the past, and (as you well know) I even wrote an article about you. I don’t expect you to change any time soon. You like being a bible agnostic and your own authority. But for those who may not know, here is my article about you and the interchanges we had.

    Will I be banned from this group too for pointing out the truth about your real beliefs (or rather, unbeliefs)?

    Fred Butler – EX- KJB believer’s Loopy Logic 101.

    http://brandplucked.webs.com/exkjbloopy.htm

  15. Pingback: Tin-Foil Hat Theology [2] | hipandthigh

  16. Why do KJO advocates find it difficult to believe that the Gospel could co-exist in different translations. Consider the King James Version New Testament. Paul taught the word of God. Peter covered the same subjects but used different words and phrases: Also James and John. Jesus words and commands were stated differently than those of his apostles, but it all remains the true word of God; All of the basic Christian doctrines are present in every conventional modern translation.
    It should go without saying – but I’ll say it – that we must exclude Parodies, paraphrase, and so-called bibles altered to support cults that follow a human leader other than Jesus.

  17. Pingback: Answers KJV Onlyists are Afraid You will Provide [3] | hipandthigh

  18. I am not a KJVO, however I do believe the KJV is the most reliable and accurate of all English translations. No doubt that Riplinger, Ruckman and several other KJVO proponents are quite twisted, it still does not take away from the reality that there are many (perhaps even more so) who are just as twisted who support and helped form the Critical Text and the new translations, who even deny greek and hebrew grammar for the sake of supporting the so-called ‘earlier and more reliable’ sources without even providing an answer at times why when they are confronted. We see in their own books and writings in their fullest contexts what they believed and if it was scriptural, and that some of the heresy that has been written about by these crazy KJVO’s are still true, despite the bias which had caused them to stretch the truth or be blind to what was factual.

    There is nothing Orthodox about supporting Vaticanus and Sinaiticus unless the Papacy, Arius and Origen are the poster children of what is considered Orthodox, despite the confession of the Nicene Creed, which was used as a mere facade to appease the true believers, who though they shed their blood to keep the Word of God as He had promised perpetually and emphatically, did so faithfully by the way. I believe, one should never stop exploring the Truth, however, some Truth along the way become firmly established as we pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, stay in the Word, and contend for the Truth as we check for our own error. I pray that you are doing the same. God bless you.

  19. But why is it hard to believe that God can and did in fact keep one book that you could pick up, read and know is right. So forget about any crazy propaganda or any assertions about Hort and Westcott. Look at the clear evidence.
    1. God gave clear warning about adding and taking from his word
    We can look back at all the bibles up until and including the KJV and see the verses are there and we use them. So if the text that God gave us to use first is corrupt then does that mean he broke his own word?
    2. We can’t compare the Nestle-Alland to the “original manuscripts” any more than we can compare the Textus Receptus to them. (See 1.)
    3. Out of all those versions still out that follow the same text line (Hebrew-TR) which one is still readily available? Why? If from tradition wouldn’t it have been the Mathew’s Bible or Geneva?
    4. The fact remains the the KJV has much clearer doctrines surrounding the deity of Christ, and salvation through faith. Not to mention others like salvation before baptism. Acts 8:37(if you can find it.) So either one of two things has happened here. The KJV has an over zealous account of who Christ is and God allowed the Protestant church to be built of false pretenses or its right. Its that black and white to me.
    5. Again which came first? I’ve heard the KJV has been called a “church splinter”. First off when something is seated in the same place it has been and something new comes and trys to push of aside, the former thing can’t be the splinter! That’s like cutting an old tree down because it blocked your view. You were the one who went out against the tree, not the other way around.
    This my take on it and why I don’t settle for anything else but the KJV. Yes there are KJVo’s who take it too far but you were wrong and revived to through the baby out with the bathwater.

  20. Nick,

    I’d like to respond to your comments point by point.

    It is hard to believe that God decided to choose ONE English translation to be the standard forever, because there is no biblical support and only assertions by KJV Onlyers.

    1. You can look at the citations from the original texts in writings by Christians of the first three centuries and won’t find passages that are late in the KJV. The text used by the KJV is not the earliest text. There is clear evidence that the Received text has extra words, sentences, etc not in earlier texts. Besides which, God’s words about adding or subtracting have to do with the KJV as much as any other text.

    2. The Nestle-Alland text is no more or less corrupt than the T.R. and in fact has multitudes more reference texts than did the KJV translators with the T.R. (which, by the way, had at least one section with no Greek support so the Latin vulgate was used to translate into Greek).

    3. The KJV is the one still readily available because it was the first mass-produced version in English, and remained so due to it’s availability for publishing.

    4.the KJV does not have any clearer doctrines than any other formal translation.

    5. Which came first? Just because the KJV came first compared to the others means absolutely nothing. It’s like saying the Model T is best because it came first when compared to all the new cars.

    Your entire comment is no more than biased assertions without facts.

  21. Thanks for this article. My experience was almost identical to your own. Someone gave me a copy of riplingers book and by the time I finished it I was on my way out of the KJV only heresy. I found so many errors, miss representations of other versions, as well as outlandish numerology insanities that I began having numerous questions about the claims of KJV onlyism I had been taught in the past. I later was given James Whites book KJV Only Controvery. He answered my remaining questions and it was then I totally rejected KJV Onlyism. I have since enjoyed reading through the Bible in various translations. My kids now can read the Bible on their own in the NKJV, ESV, Niv, with understanding in our modern English. It has also made discipleship of new believers easier. I have seen new believers take a newer translation after struggling with the KJV and devour the word and grow. Thanks again and God bless your writing and blogging. From a happy Pastor enjoying the word of God in our modern English!

Leave me a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s