Answers KJV Onlyists are Afraid You will Provide [1]

screamingBack when I started blogging on a regular basis, I was directed to a KJV onlyist website called, Bible Discernment. The inappropriately named website is crudely designed with seizure inducing flash animation and neither teaches the Bible nor discernment in any meaningful fashion. In fact, it really hasn’t changed much, if at all, since encountering it back in the mid-2000s.

The owner, who remains pretty much anonymous, which is typical of a lot of those sites, compiled a list of questions to ask those who read modern Bible versions. (That’d be me.)

33 questions that modern Bible version advocates are afraid they will be asked

Our “Bible Discerner” believes he has put together a list of silver bullet questions that will just shut the mouths of non-KJV onlyists and if they are asked any one of those 33 questions, they will close their modern Bible version, bow their heads, and with proverbial tail stuck between their legs, make a hasty retreat for the nearest exit.

Never being one who ignores a thrown gauntlet, I answered every one of our challenger’s questions. Along with providing my answers, I will also take the opportunity to ask our KJV onlyist questions he is afraid I will ask in response.

Let’s begin, shall we?

1) Have you done research on the KJV/other version controversies yourself?

Yes I have. I would further add, probably more so than the average KJV onlyists who tend to only read literature published from within their own circles, just as I did when I was a practicing KJVer.The question is meant to “expose” some alleged fatal-flaw in the arguments of the non-KJV onlyist. It is suggested that a person reads and uses a modern Bible version (MBV) because he or she doesn’t know any better and is blindly following a favored teacher or what was taught at the Bible college where the person attended. Many KJV onlyists believe this about the non-KJV onlyists. It is assumed they are ignorant, but this is merely a strawman objection. I would throw back a question to our KJV onlyist:

Have you done research on the KJV-MBV controversy in sources OTHER THAN KJV publications? Have you read, for instance. the research found at such sites as The King James Resource Center?

I would venture a guess that you have not, or only selectively.

2) If you are not in favor of using the KJV, and if you are in favor of using Modern Bible Versions, are you sure you understand the major points about the philosophical/theological position you are advocating?

Well, if I have done my own research as I acknowledged under the first question, then yes, I am quite aware of the philosophical-theological position I am advocating. It is called biblical Christianity.

You see: It is being suggested by the question that if a person reads from and recommends study in a MBV, then that person is advocating some alternative Christian faith or a devil inspired philosophy. Moreover, it is implied with the little phrase are you sure that if I am using a MBV, then I may be ignorant that I am using a new age Bible version. However, if we were to dig a bit under the revisionist top soil the KJV onlyist has laid down as the “fact” of how our English Bibles came about, it will reveal that much of it is contrived and has nothing to do with the facts.

A question in response: If you are not in favor of using any MBV and will ONLY use the KJV, are you aware of the Anglican theology that lies behind its production and the church-state politics that forced its translation?

3) Have you thought through the premise that – if you insist on using Modern Versions only – you must accept to go against 95% of the Bible Manuscripts that have been used by the Christian Church throughout the centuries (until 1904) ?


4) Are you aware that the KJV is still supported by 95% of the Bible Parchments and Manuscripts which exist all over the world?

sabotageLet me treat those two questions together. They both address a common KJV myth about the biblical texts that allegedly support the KJV and how KJV onlyists understand textual criticism.

When you read their apologetics, KJV onlyists will present the idea that the KJV is translated from a biblical text that is supported by 95% of the evidence. The claim suggests, particularly to those uninitiated in the subject of textual criticism, that the MVs are translated from entirely different manuscripts that present an entirely different Bible.

A few things are important to note.

First, when he makes that claim, what is in view here is the New Testament documents, not the Old Testament documents. That is because we have more copies of the NT documents than we have of the OT.  The NT is different in that the manuscripts are many and wide spread from many areas of Asia Minor and North Africa.

Secondly, the “95%” figure is never clarified. It is cited rather blindly, because KJV apologists assumes the priority of the manuscripts that circulated in and around the Byzantine empire.  Those manuscripts share many similar characteristics and are called the Byzantine family, because the Byzantine Christians did such an excellent job of copying and maintaining them. They produced so many of them that it became the dominant family of manuscripts in numerical quantity, and the ones from which the Reformers did much of the earlier translating work into English. Hence, that family has the nickname of the Majority Text. But the title of “majority,” contrary to what the KJV onlyists claim, does not equate the best.

Third, later manuscript finds in the 1700 and 1800s of older biblical texts helped to revolutionize the textual criticism of the NT. One of the things those new finds did was to push back the original reading of the NT in the Greek language to the 2nd century, nearly 200 years after the first NT documents were written. Those new finds also uncovered some different readings than what was in the current textual apparatus of the day, the Received Text from which the KJV was translated.

Those different readings, however, didn’t alter the message of the Bible, nor did they take away or weaken any key doctrines of Scripture as KJV onlyists would have people to believe. Thus, when textual critics of the NT  wanted to provide a new translation of the NT, they determined to use some of the different readings because they were considered closer to the originals.

King James only apologists will often confuse the Received Text with the Majority Text as being one and the same. They are not. The Received Text is a working translational apparatus that was edited from manuscripts in the Majority Text family. The Received Text also has gone through at least 26 revisions since it was first published in the early 1500s by Erasmus.

When Erasmus edited his first Greek text that became known as the Received Text, he used just a handful of incomplete manuscripts for his work. Many KJV onlyists are unaware of that fact. Additionally, the KJV translators used a variety of other sources for their translation work, which was really a revisionist work of the former Bishop’s Bible. That included the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, and other ancient translations of the Old and New Testaments.

Hence, a couple of questions a person can ask a KJV advocates is: Do you know the difference between the Majority Text and the Received Text? Do you know the first handful of Received Text editions were based upon just a small amount of manuscripts? Did you know that the KJV translators did not use the Received Text exclusively, but used many other textual sources for their translation work?

5) It is true that the KJV translators relied on the manuscripts that were available in their own day and time. And it is also true that more Bible manuscripts were found since the early 1900s, than in all of the other centuries combined. Here is the key question: Are you aware that almost all these ancient manuscripts – those found in the 1900s – have accomplished, is to support, authenticate and validate the King James Version of the Bible?


6) In other words, despite finding many more manuscripts of the Bible since the KJV was translated, more than 95% [sic] the new manuscripts found in the 1900s continue to support the King James Version, and disagree with the Modern Version. Are you aware of this?

truebibleI’ll treat these two questions together as well.

First of all, I am not sure what the author has in mind when he writes about ancient manuscripts found in the 1900s. The bulk of the ancient manuscripts in question that are the focus of so much KJV only scorn were discovered in the 1800s, not the 1900s. To give the author the benefit of the doubt, he may have in mind the “19th century,” not the 1900s, but I could be wrong about that.

Anyhow, he makes the claim that all of those manuscripts supposedly support the Received Text that underlies the KJV, but that is not entirely accurate. Again, his claim suggests that the MBVs present an entirely different NT than what is found in the KJV, but that is only wildly inaccurate, if not outright dishonest.

The manuscripts on which the MBVs are based are almost identical in content as those manuscripts that were used to put together the Received Text. However, there are maybe 10% where the modern texts dissent in reading the same. What textual critics have done, and with good reason, is to side with those dissenting readings that differ with the Received Text in a variety of places because those manuscripts are hundreds of years older and closer to the original writings than those that were used to translate the KJV. King James apologist make a big deal over those dissenting readings by asserting that they introduce heresy or take away important biblical doctrine. But that is exaggerating the facts.

What’s more, most KJV advocates ignore the fact that the Received Text has unique readings in the book of Revelation that are not found in any other NT manuscripts, even within the Majority Text. The main reason for that anomaly is when Erasmus edited his Greek apparatus, he had only a few incomplete manuscripts to utilize. He did not have a complete copy of Revelation and had to translate the last six verses from the Latin Vulgate into Greek in order to complete the book. Many of those unique readings stayed within the Received Text and were even translated into the King James. A key instance is Revelation 22:19 which reads “book of life” rather than what is found in the original Greek, “the tree of life.”

7) Are you aware that Modern Versions Reject the Greek Text which underlies the English King James Version, and that this is really what the crux of the matter is – about the King James Version Debate?

That is not true. Those who translated what became the modern versions did not reject the Received Text just because it was orthodox and they were sinister heretics wishing to corrupt the Christian faith as is suggested by the question. They chose to edit a newer apparatus that utilized the readings they believed better reflected what was originally written by the biblical authors. The issue for them was purity to the original text, not corrupting the Bible or throwing away the King James.

8) Do you realize that the Protestant Greek New Testament Textus Receptus, was used not only by the English speaking world in the KJV, but also by almost all other countries in the spread and propagation of the Bible – until 1904?

I personally would like to see his documentation on the Received Text holding sway until 1904. Westcott and Hort’s text was published in the mid-1800s and began to be used in the translation of the Revised Version in the 1880s. Before then, several other textual scholars like Johann Bengel, began editing his own NT text as an alternative to the Received Text.

The author also fails to take into consideration the popularity of the Latin Vulgate, which was used by many Protestants, like John Wycliffe and his Lollard friends, as a base text for their translations.

9) Do you therefore understand that to disagree with the Textus Receptus, is to place yourself against the true history of the Protestant Historical Teaching (in the choice of the Bible Versions that they recommended)???

Our author must believe that is a vital question because he places three question marks at the end. At any rate, he is selective in his history regarding English translations, because before the King James was translated the number one preferred translation for Protestants was the Geneva Bible. All the Protestants preferred it because it had been translated in Geneva, the heart of the Protestant Reformation and was the first true study Bible with Reformational footnotes.

When King James authorized the publication of the new Bible that would carry his name, he specifically ordered that it not have footnotes and that it reflect no Reformed theology. In a manner of speaking, it was a counter-Reformation Bible. I wonder if our KJV proponent is aware of this fact?

10) Have you really stopped to think about the Motives WHY someone might [from a spiritual point of view] have an interest in getting modern Christians to reject the Bibles that upheld their Churches and their Doctrines for nearly 2000 years?

There are a number of statements of misinformation with this question.

First is the idea of questioning someone’s motives from a spiritual point of view. Why is it automatically assumed that there are diabolical motives behind anyone who wants to update and revise the Bible based upon the latest finds and textual criticism? Their motives could be for the sake of purity and integrity in maintaining God’s Word.

It is also speculative to claim those nameless “someones” want to get modern Christians to reject the KJV. That borders on being conspiratorial in nature and wrongfully equates the KJV as being the only Bible that upholds the doctrine in the church.

Moreover, by asserting that the KJV is the one doctrinally pure Bible, the author has erroneously made the claim that the Received Text has always been in existence since the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost. Does he really believe it has been around for 2000 years? Basically he is saying that if you refuse to use the King James Bible, you are rejecting the Bible in whole. Never mind the fact that there were numerous other foreign language translations for the first 1500 years of the Church, then Erasmus edited his NT, and then that NT edition went through numerous revisions and wasn’t even called the “Received Text” until 1633, nearly 20 years after the KJV was first published. This question places the author in the precarious position of defending a falsehood and making his faith look foolish.

Those are the first 10. I’ll tackle the next group coming up soon.

17 thoughts on “Answers KJV Onlyists are Afraid You will Provide [1]

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

  2. One thing you dont’ specifically point out (and is generally true of these types of KJV-only question lists) is that, with the exception of the first two, all of these are leading questions: that is, they suggest the answer the KJV-onlyist wants you to give.

    If you answer “Yes” to the question, “Are you aware of x?” then you are implying you are doggedly stubborn by rejecting KJV-onlyism in spite of the supposed facts. And if you say “no,” you are saying you are not KJV-only because of ignorance. Either way, their position has the appearance of coming off better – regardless of the truth of the question’s implied premise.

    Therefore, this list, and ones like it, are intrinsically dishonest from square one.

  3. Hey Fred Butler. Why do you keep deleting my comments and questions? It’s because you are just another bible agnostic who is now promoting the modern Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET. And you are an unbeliever in the existence of an infallible Bible in ANY language, and you know it. You are just too dishonest to admit it.

    Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET etc. are the new “Vatican Versions”

    I will take on any question you have for us KJB believers. But will you answer mine in turn? Doubtful. My bet is that you will continue to run and hide and refuse to deal with a real Bible believer.

  4. Pingback: The Round-Up (August 2-3, 2014) | Entreating Favor

  5. Will,
    There are a couple of reasons I haven’t approved your comments. Primarily because you have nothing really new or interesting to say. When I see you trolling around the various blogs all you do is cut-and-paste your 4000 worded plagiarized articles – the same ones I saw and answered like 10 years ago. There has been no refinement, or interaction, or attempted rebuttal with critics who have debunked those original articles. Nothing. You just parrot the same old talking points over and over, like “Can you show me a copy of an inerrant Bible,” even though those talking points were refuted back in 2004.

    Recently, you have moved to just linking people to your articles at your website, which spares the reader from having to scroll through 10 printed pages in order to get to the next set of comments, but never do you actually engage the article or the author where you are leaving a comment. Even in my previous, remastered articles on KJV onlyism I recently republished, you never interact with anything I raised in the article itself. Not even this one point. You either just rail against me and my character as a believer and cut-and-paste to some out-of-date material you wrote back in 2002.

    But the main reason I don’t approve your comments has to be that honestly, I don’t like you. I have been interacting with you as far back as 2003 when I was part of a KJVO Yahoo email group. You’re unreasonable, unteachable, strife-stirring, and outright factious. You don’t respect anyone who disagrees with you. You condemn them as being stupid, blind, or unsaved. It’s to the point I wonder about your spirituality. How exactly do you serve in your local church? Are you part of any meaningful, God fearing congregation? Do you interact with the ones who disagree with you like you do me or any of your many detractors in the blogsphere? The Bible warns against entertaining such individuals, so I choose not approve your comments.

  6. The attack on the King James Bible is as old as the hills. For me, this is one strong indication that this would be the Book worth keeping on my shelf and closer to my heart than the rest of the modern publications. Having said as much I also have many other popular versions of the Bible including the King James/Greek Interlinear and it has been my finding that the most accurate, most grammatically correct, most comprehensible, most literately consistent, and most precise is indeed the King James translation. (Yep. Not “version” — translation.) To be fair, I have used the NIV and ASV for years before turning to the King James translation and the current version of that translation is, for me, the most accurate and most comprehensible of all texts. To be clear, I am not referring to that recent abomination called the NKJV. I had already been using the King James Version of the King James translation for well over a decade before I discovered that the texts used for the publication of the majority of the modern bibles embraced in the 19th and 20th centuries were in fact those manuscripts generated by the infamous Darwinist and necromancer theological team, Wescott & Hort. These men were not even Christians. They were theologians and deeply involved in occult practices and rituals. I thank GOD that it was put upon my heart to at least try reading the King James Bible from front to back before concluding the matter. Since then I’ve read it from front to back numerous times. As with all the bibles I have read I’ve found errors in grammar, spelling mistakes, and some minor inconsistencies – yes. Can anything bound by human hands be perfect? I think not. Nonetheless the same approach would apply to the rest of the per-versions out there and I suspect that leaving off the letter and turning to the spirit in which that “received text” was written is more in order than nit picking the King James translation. Just on the merit that so many verses were simply removed in the other “modern” texts is enough for me to stick with what I already know to be tried and tested over the centuries. For those who choose to worship cowhide, ink, and paper I can only say that it hardly matters what they read; but for those who understand that the modern texts have deviated from the original English even more than the original Latin Vulgate I would heartily remind them that they would do well to stick with the tried and proven text as it is evident that no improvement can be made upon it without the latter product becoming even worse than the former.

  7. Fred,

    It seems you have dealt with this issue maybe you can explain the logic of KJVOs. They have made the King James Bible such an essential issue to where you can believe:

    1. The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience.
    2. In [God] there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and the Holy Spirit. All are one in substance, power, and eternity; each having the whole divine essence, yet this essence being undivided.
    3. It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, in accordance with the covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and man; to be Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, and the Judge of all the world. To the Lord Jesus He gave, from all eternity, a people to be His seed. These, in time, would be redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified by the Lord Jesus.
    4. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised – a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person’s giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.

    but if you read a modern translation you might be a “liberal” at best and heretic at worst. Have you been able to comprehend the logic?

  8. Pingback: Answers KJV Onlyists are Afraid You will Provide [2] | hipandthigh

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

  10. “recent abomination called the NKJV.”

    oh Edward, your whole paragraph convinces me that I should not be KJVO (or KJ translation only). The inane illogic, and unsubstantiated accusations you incessantly make, just drive me away from your position. You should listen to Fred. You should try something different, like, interacting with intelligent people in this matter. You really should stop trying to defend a specific English translation (or, the most “current version of that translation”).

    Instead, develop a heart of charity, and as much as is in you, live in peace with all men.

  11. Why do certain KJV-Onlyists refer to the KJV as the PROTESTANT Bible? At the time of its translation, Protestants rejected it as the CATHOLIC Bible! That is because it contained the Apocrypha, and it was suspected that James I, and his son, Charles I, were closet Catholics. James I’s grandson, James II, really was a Catholic, which is what led to the Glorious Revolution in England, and the heirs of the Stuart dynasty are still Catholics to this day.

  12. You say the KJV (1611 – the one supposedly God breathed) has no footnotes, but thats untrue – it has footnotes or margin verse notes which cross refer bible verese, to verses in Maccabees – quoting the book and verses – ie on ‘praying for the dead’. It aslo has notes that cite ather Bible versses as being alternatives..So it is not npost reformation/neutral. It also contained 14 extra heretical apocrypha books and a monthly calender citing Zodiac names – ‘Leo’ etc, saint, pope, Blessed Mary, pagan and other holy-days. KJ-O’s are living in fairy land….. a VERY POPISH version !

  13. This whole debate is confusing, I admit to being somewhat at a loss for words after considering all the many arguments for and against KJV only philosophy. The fact is, as I just stated, it is confusing, so as the Bible says God is not the “author” of confusion, or as some put it, God is not a God of confusion, it stands to reason that any debate which causes confusion is ultimately not conducive top spiritual growth or the advancement of the gospel to the lost. Consider the following as you race to beat the other side;

    1. The Bible never tells us that we are supposed to translate scripture into other languages. It does say we are to preach the gospel the all humanity, but preaching the gospel means telling people they are sinners in need of salvation, not a scholarly effort to render a perfect version of the word of God into a specific language. 2. The Bible tells us it is better to trust in God than in man, as a matter of fact, faith is trust! So, while I do believe there are some verses in the KJV that were not intended to be in it by God, I also believe and can say with confidence that NONE of those verses affects our ability to be saved, to know God, or to detect heresy when it is preached. All but one of the verses that I am aware of that are in the KJV but not in most other translations do not affect strong doctrine at all. It is the same basic thing that would happen if someone were to add “and God is really awesome” to John 3:16. A. God IS really awesome and B. God’s awesomeness or lack thereof takes nothing away from John 3:16 and ads nothing to it that would alter it in any way. In the case of the “coma” or 1 John 5:7 in the KJV, A. that verse does not really teach the Trinity, it merely states a fact that the Father, Word and Holy Spirit are one. Remember, the Trinity is the teaching that Father SON and Holy Spirit are one God in three persons, something 1 John 5:7 neither confirms or denies. B. People who want to back the Trinity can easily use many other well established passages to do so.

    KJV onlyists as well as many on the other side of the argument assume that God would never allow verses to be added to the Bible, but is this the case? I know of several cults which have willfully changed, added to or taken from the Bible and God allowed them to do so. I think what we need to do is shift our thinking to what God would definitely not allow and could not allow, if indeed His chief means of expression to us as humans is the written word. God will not allow the essence of His word to be taken from us, thus taking our ability to be saved and preach the gospel. So, we have two entities in existence 1. The willfully falsified Bibles which have very easily recognizable falsehoods added to them, or which can very easily be examined to see that they have willfully taken things from them. In EVERY case of willfully falsified Bibles, the additions or subtractions add to or take away from hard doctrine. In the case of Bibles which have had honest mistakes made in them by perhaps unbelieving, but not antagonistic persons, NO strong doctrines are taken and no heresy is added.

    So, rather than thinking God could or would never allow people to read Bibles which have accidentally or innocently been added to, we should just trust that in EVERY case, no matter how good or poor the translation is, God will not allow any true seeker of His truth to haplessly be led astray. Do you see what I mean? God rarely interferes with human free will and if He did when it comes to His word, NONE of these versions would be in dispute, because every Bible in the world would be 100% the same! I say that the fact that God works even through and within our mistakes is a greater testimony to His power to save than we would have, if people could not willfully add to His word, or mistakenly add to it. I know of ZERO doctrines taught in the NASB, ESV, NIV or HCSB which contradict any strong or salvation doctrines. I read the ESV and I fully acknowledge the deity of Jesus, the blood of Jesus cleansing us from sin, the fact that salvation is only by grace, through faith and that people who reject God’s gospel or deny the resurrection will be judged and punished severely in hell. So, what falsehoods or heresies do I believe, because I read a supposedly “corrupt” version?

    BTW, I also carry a nice KJV with me to work and read it, I like the “poetic” tone and I am more familiar with it, having grown up with it and having been saved from reading the truth of the gospel in it. I just like the ESV’s clarity and use it more for deeper study and the KJV more for inspiration and reflection. I am aware of the problem passages when I read the KJV, so I can “take them with a grain of salt” so to speak.

    Bottom line, stop bickering and just trust that God is in control, no matter what it may seem like on the surface. Proverbs 3:5-6

  14. Mathew Davidson ‘come let us reason, says the Lord’….and we are commanded to, ‘correct, encourage, and rebuke’…to, ‘condend earnestly for the faith’… ‘preach the word in season and out…with great patience….for many will seek after teachers who teach what their itching ears want to hear…and turn to fables’. I can give you the Bible references whatever, teaching sound theology & trying to reach those blinded by pride & demons in ‘Christian’ sects & cults with the truth is important (though there comes a time to ‘shake the dust off our shoes’ in one to one coversations). The KJV Only teachers are cult leaders; they seek to make an idol of a certain Bible version, sow discord and legalism, and take human eyes off of Christ. That is shown by KJV-O ‘converts’ being eltist, zealously hyper critical of anything less than they follow, knowing very little about being saved by grace or the work of the cross (from my experience), or being free of burdens: their burden is their false idol, the KJV, imo. They even try to lift up King James himselff as being near perfect, and will zealously combat any criticism of him: yet this is the man, a paper Christian, who wanted his son to marry into the RC Spanish royal famiily….and much more beside

  15. NB when I say ‘preach the word’, the KJV does not have the true translation of many Greeks terms – eg the King James translation [due to King James 1st personal interference in the 1611 translation to point Christians to particular buildings] uses the word “church” 112 times, having translated the word ecclesia to mean “church.”; when it in fact means ‘congregation’ a meeting, a gathering of Christians.

Leave me a Comment

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s