​The 1611 King James Version in Today's Church

A Personal View

​

CONTENTS:

​

1: Should We Use the 1611 King James Version?
2: Black is White is Black…
3: Preface To The 1611 King James Version

 

There can never be an English Bible that will be as reliable as the King James Bible...none of the KJV’s ‘special’ words are archaic, but are actually biblical, 'holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners…' words, just like the Word, Jesus Christ (Heb. 7:26).

Gail Riplinger, Which Bible Is God’s Word?

 

1: Should We Use the 1611 King James Version?

 

At the outset I need to clarify the title directly above to avoid misunderstandings and offence: should a believer’s Bible of choice be the 1611 King James Version when there are other fine translations to choose from? Is this a fair question? After all, every genuine Bible scholar knows that the text of the venerable KJV has been a reliable foundation for meditation, evangelism and analytical study for literally centuries. But should our discussion end there?

 

Just recently I was reading a book that described the Authorised Version in this way: “The KJV is a highly reliable version of the Bible. And it rightly remains a very popular Bible version” (Gary F. Zeolla, Differences Between Bible Versions). Here is someone who, I assume, knows more than many of us, and in his estimation the KJV is “highly reliable”, although it’s not his preferred translation. But, aren’t there other versions that are more reliable (accurate) and comprehensible?[1] Wouldn’t it be generally helpful in some local assemblies and for personal study if other quality translations were more popular and central?[2]

 

In a self-defeating ironic twist, over the decades King James Version Onlyism’s implausible and fixated reasoning has resulted in a variety of publications and online sources that draw attention to the KJV’s shortcomings. In case you do not know, Onlyism claims that the KJV is the only version we should use because it’s the only Bible we can trust. But allegiance to a particular Bible translation won’t commend us to God. Infatuated and more extreme Onlyists believe that the KJV is a “perfect” translation, infallible, inspired and without error, God’s “original work of inspiration” as someone astonishingly put it.

 

But, truth be told, such definitions can only be applied to the original manuscripts, all of which have perished. Stated simply, all modern quality translations rely on internal and external evidence offered by a large number of ancient copies that contain Scripture text. Many thousands of these are in ancient Greek. These include portions or small fragments of manuscripts. KJV translators had only a fraction of the source material available to textual scholars today.

 

I won’t be exploring the challenging depths of KJVO dogmatism here, but if you’re interested, and unbiased, there are very good books on the subject. I can recommend The King James Only Controversy by James R. White (much vilified by Onlyists, which is a good sign), One Bible Only? by Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, The King James Version Debate by D. A. Carson and Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible by Mark Ward.

 

But if you research this subject, be warned: there is a strain of Onlyism that is particularly outspoken and noxious, and even nonsensical. Followers often parrot the abrasive or dogmatic personalities and general style of its key champions rather than thinking rationally for themselves. And along the way they often fail to acknowledge how we should treat others (Ephesians 4:29-32, 1st Peter 3:8-12, for example). To bring this into focus, one such follower on so-called Christian social media called me a “liar”, and a “fundamentalist apostate”, whatever that is.

 

Moving on, it’s vital that Scripture texts are as accessible as possible. The revelation and light they offer should never be dimmed by anything that could be easily avoided. We should consistently do all we can to make the Bible as comprehensible as possible without sacrificing faithfulness to the original languages. Recently someone who wrote to me praised the “majesty” of the KJV text, suggesting perhaps that in some way its style offers an advantage over the “modern” versions. Maybe this view is to be expected among those who have fondly used the AV for decades or are under the leadership of those who will not teach from any other translation.

 

But the believer’s goal should always be accuracy and comprehensibility. It’s of little importance that some should have a fondness for a majestic form of English that’s hundreds of years out of date. Surely it goes without saying that anything that makes Scripture harder to understand—that even slightly impairs clarity—cannot possibly be a good thing. 2nd Corinthians 6:11-13 is a classic example that challenges most readers.

 

It can be demonstrated that the KJV’s archaic language does indeed make it harder to understand Scripture, even in the 1769 revision that is in common use today. (This edition differs from the original 1611 version in over 75,000 details, often due to printing errors.) Awkward out-of-date phrases are undeniably unhelpful. For example: “purchase to themselves a good degree”, “superfluity of naughtiness”, “fruits meet for repentance”, “the lively oracles”, “devour widows’ houses”, “altogether on a smoke”, “we do you to wit of the grace of God”, “thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing”, “they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them”, “in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest”, “clouted upon their feet”, “the scall”, and so on.

 

Those who regularly read the KJV will come across a significant number of words that are no longer commonly used today, such as “cockatrice”, “hoised”, “cotes”, “stomacher”, “blains”, “fanners”, “scrabbled”, “strawed”, “froward”, “sackbut”, “wimples”, “habergeon”, “crookbackt”, “cieled”, “glistering”, “suretiship”, and so on.

 

No one can deny that the defunct language and style of the KJV clearly interfere with the clarity and readability of the text. We must wonder how that can ever be acceptable. It certainly isn’t helpful. No heartfelt appeal to the alleged importance of grand and majestic language will entirely justify a dead mode of expression. But worse than the outdated language is a lack of accuracy. Let’s briefly examine some of these.

 

Historic errors that were made during textual transmission were unwittingly included in the original KJV translation and first printing, and remain to this day. In the Book of Revelation you will find verses that contain errors that have no support in any ancient Greek manuscript. “It remains a fact that a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever. In the last few verses of Revelation, a half dozen such inventions occur. These can be traced directly to the fact that Erasmus had to prepare a Greek manuscript for these verses by translating back from the Vulgate” (D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate).

 

In Revelation 16:5 the words “shalt be” are not supported by any Greek manuscript. In Acts 9:6 the words “and he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? and the Lord said unto him” do not exist in any ancient manuscript. The passage at 1st John 5:7-8 is found in four late manuscripts, the earliest from the fourteenth century. In Matthew 23:24, some believe that “strain at a gnat” is an early printing error, which should read, “strain out a gnat”.

 

While reading through the KJV you will come across renderings that can obscure the meaning or sense of the original language: “found mules” for the correct “found water”, “God” for “judge”, “fish” for “soul”, “thou hast destroyed thyself” in place of the correct “he destroyed you”, “the master and the scholar” in place of “aware and awake”, “Abstain from all appearance of evil” rather than the more accurate “Abstain from every form of evil” (NKJV), “changed” rather than the more accurate “exchanged” (Romans 1:25), “to feed” for the more accurate “to shepherd”, “such as should be saved” for “those who were being saved”, “which is corrupt” for “which is being corrupted”, “world” rather than “age”, “Do violence to no man” for “Do not intimidate anyone”, “a lover of good men” rather than the more accurate “a lover of what is good”, “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” rather than the accurate “our great God and Savour, Christ Jesus”, “For in many things we offend all” for “For we all stumble in many ways”, “for the errors of the people” rather than “for the sins of the people committed in ignorance”, “every one that is joined unto them” for “anyone who is captured”, “Thou shalt not kill” for “Do not murder”, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” for “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”, “churches” for “temples”, “itself” rather than “Himself” in reference to the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:26.

 

Although all reputable translations have their issues—none claims to be perfect—I’m bound to ask, Does the 1611 King James Version have more than we should allow? When a believer opens a Bible it’s his or her heart’s desire to clearly understand the text. In this context then, I’d take the view that it makes sense not to choose the KJV as a benchmark translation. This is especially true of those who are young or have recently accepted Christ as Saviour.

 

​

[1] Consider these translations: NASB, NET Bible, ESV, CSB, LSB, NIV, NKJV, Amplified Bible.
 

[2] We shouldn’t choose a Bible version based solely on its popularity or how passionately it is promoted by church leaders.

 

2: Black is White is Black…

 

Across the Internet on social media and on many Christian forums KJV Onlyists relentlessly grind out their idiosyncratic opinions on the magnificent pre-eminence of the so-called 1611 King James Version. Well, it’s a democracy after all. Many Onlyists have at their disposal a mountain of material that they repeatedly cut and paste in the belief that it will conclusively prove their position. It doesn’t.

 

Many Onlyists are obstinate to the point of foolishness. Typically, those who are more extreme in their views aren’t at all interested in what the original biblical languages say. In their thinking the text of the KJV (by this I mean the 1769 revision widely circulated today) is of much greater value than the original God-breathed words in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. But in defiance of such a belief, the vast majority of true believers around the world are devoted to understanding what was originally written by the prophets and apostles. They use their translations to help them better understand God’s living Word.

 

Long before the KJV came into existence men who were moved by the Holy Spirit penned the God-breathed infallible words of Scripture. A very long time before the first edition of the KJV was printed God’s chosen people were able to circulate and believe holy Scripture. 

 

Too many KJV Onlyists have no time for the scholarly disciplines of textual criticism. They believe it’s literally a waste of time analytically evaluating ancient New Testament documents to reconstruct the original words of Scripture. They argue that textual criticism undermines the authority of Scripture, even though the scholars who worked on the original KJV (no longer in circulation) used similar methodology when constructing their text.

 

The same scholars would distance themselves from the claims of KJV/TR Onlyism. In their original Preface to the 1611 translation they wrote: “We affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.” This vital truth applies to the best of the translations currently in circulation. But Onlyists must disagree with the KJV translators. Many Onlyists insist that the KJV translation alone is the Word of God.

 

In online forums probably the most frustrating aspect of KJV Onlyism is its untenable and illogical opposition to every argument brought against it. But a cohesive and scholarly work that irrefutably validates the Onlyist position has never been produced. Ultimately the Onlyist’s best line of defence is a belief—a deeply engrained conviction—that God was providentially responsible for the text of the 1769 edition of the King James Version, (or other editions).

 

There are a good number of scholarly books that discredit the notion that the 1611 KJV version is the most dependable translation available. But the real problem here is dealing with an underlying mindset that stubbornly clings to an unstable tradition that’s hampered by misunderstandings and the misreading of facts. The big issue here is a deeply rooted bias against the balance of evidence.

 

Onlyists have off-pat answers for all the points mentioned above, but they still fail to produce a solid foundation on which to build their somewhat cultic beliefs. When confronted online by constructive evidence, or directed to authoritative resources, they tend to generalise and avoid specifics, and then accuse the other side of doing the same! After all, they have the best, they need listen to nothing more.

 

But worst of all, some of them go so far as to arrogantly tell us that because modern versions contain a corrupted text, the teachings in the KJV text are more pure and therefore superior. By using modern translations, they say, the Church and individual Christians are spiritually weakened and doctrinally compromised. The insulting irrationality of these opinions is truly astonishing!

 

My advice may not be of interest, but here it is anyway: it’s best not to engage with Onlyists at length. Black will become white, and reload-and-repeat will be your never-ending experience. You may make an honest mistake that will be torn apart.

 

We wish that Christ Himself and sound Bible doctrine would be uppermost on the minds of Onlyists. But all too often they give the impression that a single Bible translation has become the idolatrous centre of their affections.

 

3: Preface To The 1611 King James Version

 

Something for some Onlyists to consider:

 

By critically translating the Scriptures into common English, the KJV scholars were acknowledging that the Word of God existed free from all error in the original documents only (the autographs).

 

Quotes from their original preface, The Translators to the Reader:

 

“[There is no] cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

 

“For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?…

 

“We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good…

 

“These tongues therefore [Hebrew and Greek] (the Scriptures, we say, in those tongues) we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.

 

“There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once… so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places… Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? …so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

 

The 1611 KJV translators are making it clear that:​

​

• a translation cannot be perfect; only the original in Hebrew and Greek was infallible (by God’s Spirit),

• their principal translation had made former translations better,

• and such were the demands of translating from Hebrew and Greek that the reader would benefit from marginal notes in those instances where the main translation was unclear.