Biblical & Theological Issues

by Keith Gibson –

If you are seeking a movement built around personal attacks, pseudo-scholarship, faulty logic and the random use of CAPITALIZATION, italics, and Bold text, the King James Only Movement might be just the place for you. The major tenet of the King James Only Movement is the belief that the King James Bible is not merely a good translation or even the preferred translation, but rather that it is completely inerrant, uncorrupted and the only true Bible.

Under the banner of defending the Word of God, King James Only advocates have produced voluminous amounts of materials, which inflame the passions of their readers. These materials rail against newer translations of the Bible and anyone who uses them. They viciously attack Christian scholars of every stripe, charging them with undermining essential Christian doctrines by removing them from the modern translations.

Some KJV-Only advocates even go so far as to claim that the King James is the only Bible regardless of one’s language. Consider the words of Peter Ruckman, one of the more strident proponents of this view. In discussing a letter he received from a Puerto Rican who complained that they had a Bible in their own language before the King James was translated, Ruckman states,

I wrote him back and told him, “If it weren’t for England, we wouldn’t know where you’re at. Latitude and longitude are given to every airplane in the air and every ship in the sea by the equator and England.” You can’t even locate Pensacola without finding England. If you put out a distress call and say, “I’m in trouble,” they ask, “What’s the longitude and latitude?” And you give England as the mark. How do you explain that? Absolute location is English location. Absolute time is English time. Why would you think that absolute truth wasn’t English truth?¹

For Ruckman and those like him, this preference to the English King James Version extends even over the original languages. He complains that most seminary graduates believe that, “A dead language, which God discarded more than five hundred years before the Crusades, is to be the judge of the universal language of the twentieth century; English.”² Ruckman believes that God re-inspired the King James Bible and corrected errors that had crept into the Greek and Hebrew. Therefore, where the original languages disagree with the King James Bible, one is to prefer the King James. Concerning places where ancient manuscripts differ from the King James Bible, Ruckman states, “[Where] the perverse Greek reads one way and the A.V. reads the other, rest assured that God will judge you at the Judgment on what you know. Since you don’t know the Greek (and those who knew it, altered it to suit themselves), you better go by the A.V. 1611 text.”³

One might sympathize with the concerns of those in the movement, if not with their methods. The battle for the Bible is one worth fighting. But in their misguided zeal, KJV-Only advocates have turned the battle for the integrity and authority of the Scriptures into a war for the supremacy of one translation of the Scriptures. They have turned their guns away from the true enemy of our souls and taken aim squarely at other believers.

After briefly touching on the history of the KJV-Only movement, this article will examine the primary charges being leveled against the modern translations. Space will not permit a complete discussion of the textual issues and translational issues concerned. However, these issues are addressed in the other articles in this issue of the Areopagus Journal. The objective of this article is much simpler, to determine if the modern translations are, in fact, guilty of the conspiratorial efforts to undermine the Christian faith with which they are charged.

Cultic Roots

Many within the King James Only camp would be surprised to find out that its roots do not lie in the Fundamentalist circles where it is now so rampant, but in the cult of Seventh Day Adventism. The first book advocating the King James Bible in opposition to modern translations was “Our Authorized Version Vindicated” which was written in 1930 by Benjamin G. Wilkinson. Wilkinson was a former Seventh Day Adventist Missionary and Dean of the School of Theology at Seventh Day Adventist Washington Missionary College, now known as Washington Adventist University. Wilkinson found that verses typically used by Adventists to support their peculiar beliefs were translated in the English Revised Version in such a way that they could no longer be used as proof-texts. Wilkinson’s work received little attention and went largely unnoticed. However, in 1955 Jasper James Ray gave new life to Wilkinson’s ideas when he published his book entitled, God Wrote Only One Bible. This book, which relies heavily on Wilkinson’s work, has been reprinted numerous times.

However, the most influential figure, and the one to which virtually all current King James Only advocates can be traced, is David Otis Fuller. Fuller was a Regular Baptist pastor. He credits J.J. Ray’s book with starting him in this area of study. In 1970 he edited and published an extensive book entitled, Which Bible? The book has a number of contributors and the articles vary greatly in quality. However, by far the largest amount of material was drawn from Wilkinson. No less than 146 pages of Wilkinsons’ Our Authorized Version Vindicated were published in Fuller’s book.⁴ Fuller went to great lengths to hide the fact that Wilkinson was a Seventh Day Adventist. He edited Wilkinson’s work to remove some of the more obvious Adventist distinctives. He said that he taught in a small, obscure Eastern college but did not mention its denominational affiliation. D.A. Waite, an associate of Fuller and himself a King James Only advocate, attempts to justify Fuller’s omission when he writes, “When I quote from an encyclopedia I do not give the author’s church affiliation, do you?”⁵ Waite’s comments are disingenuous both because he is aware that many of Fuller’s readers would have been alarmed to know that he was so extensively quoting a cultist and because of the mileage KJV advocates have gotten out of the religious affiliations of those involved in new translations, Westcott and Hort in particular. Fuller’s book introduced a generation of ministers and lay persons to Wilkinson’s “scholarship” and is the true launching point of the King James Only Movement as we know it today.

The Charges

In their attempt to discredit the work of modern Bible scholars, proponents of the King James Only position offer a series of charges against the new translations. The most common are as follows:

1. The New Translations Change the Bible

In the rhetoric of the King James Only camp this is far and away the most common charge. One constantly reads that new translations have “changed,” “deleted,” or “omitted” a certain aspect of the Bible. These charges are usually made via some type of chart or side by side comparison. For instance, the book, If the Foundations Be Destroyed contains a chart entitled, “Names and Titles of Jesus Omitted in the NIV” which then lists approximately 137 examples comparing the NIV to the KJV.⁶ In fact this book contains nearly 66 pages of such side by side comparisons. New Age Versions of the Bible by Gail Riplinger is absolutely replete with such charts, even documenting every time the NASB uses the term, “slave” instead of the KJV term “servant”.⁷ Other KJV materials follow the same pattern.

These charts are powerful because to those unfamiliar with issues such as manuscript variants and textual criticism, the case seems cut and dried. D.A. Carson summarizes this argument well when he writes, “It begins by presupposing that the [Textus Receptus, the textual basis for the KJV], and therefore the KJV, constitute the final and irrefutable form of God’s Word. Then by comparing other English versions that change this or that, or leave out the other, it castigates them for their omissions and changes.”⁸

James White states the same issue more succinctly, writing that for KJV-Only advocates,

“The King James Bible Alone = the Word of God Alone”⁹

The fallacy of this logic is that the King James Bible is a translation, not an original. None of the biblical authors wrote in King James English. The original Scriptures were written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. Therefore, despite the assertions of Ruckman to the contrary, the test of a translation is not how closely it conforms to the King James Bible, but how closely it conforms to the original words of Scripture.

At this point Ruckman and his ilk will loudly protest that we don’t have the originals and therefore this is just an attempt to cloud the issue and end up with no absolute authority at all. This too is false. Using good textual methods we can get back to the original with an amazing degree of certainty. So much so that less than 2% of the total text of the New Testament is still under any serious debate.¹⁰ The fact is that we can know what the original text said and translations must be compared to this standard not to the words of an English translation no matter how time-honored and loved the translation is.

2. New Translations are Weak on the Deity of Christ

Another claim from Wilkinson and his spiritual children is that the modern translations are corrupt with regard to the deity of Christ. For example Riplinger writes, “New versions are marching in step with Satan and the soldiers of the New World Religion. To stay in stride, ‘They stripped him’ (Matthew 27:28) of his divine titles, tearing him down one step with each title.”¹¹ What follows is the ever-familiar chart comparing every time the newer translations read differently than the King James. Similarly, Salliby writes that “all modern translations are guilty of corrupting the doctrine of Christ.”¹² D.A. Waite, who attempts to distance himself from the more radical members of the movement, fares no better, writing, “Bearing in mind the warnings found in 2 John 1:9-11, concerning anyone bringing not ‘the doctrine of Christ,’ the following doctrinal topics have been tampered with by change or omission in most of the versions or translations [mentioned by name earlier in the book]”¹³ Following this is the subsection titled in part, “I. Omissions Involving the Deity of Christ”.¹⁴

Before examining the newer translations’ handling of the deity of Christ, it would be good to consider the words of D.A. Carson concerning what must be demonstrated in order to show a bias against a particular Christian doctrine. Carson writes, “Moreover, before arguing that an individual manuscript or text-type is at some particular reference interested in denying a specific doctrine, it would be necessary to show that the manuscript or text-type in question consistently tries to suppress or deny that doctrine.”¹⁵ In other words, before accusing a manuscript, text-type, or translation of bias against a doctrine, one must show a consistent attempt to deny the doctrine not merely a difference at one or two verses. One does not have the luxury of simply cherry-picking a handful of verses that make a particular translation appear weak. When the new translations are considered fairly, it becomes obvious that no attempt to deny the deity of Christ exists. In fact, there are multiple passages where the new translations are actually more precise concerning the deity of Christ than the King James. Consider the following comparisons between the KJV and the NIV (the most frequently vilified of the new translations):

Philippians 2:6
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God” (KJV)

“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (NIV)

Stating that Jesus is “in very nature, God” certainly appears to be clearer than declaring that he is “in the form of God.” Consider another example,

Titus 2:13
“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;” (KJV)

^“ while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,” (NIV)

One has to read carefully to even notice the difference. However, the King James translator’s choice to place the word “our” before “Saviour Jesus Christ” makes the verse appear to be speaking of two different beings, whereas the NIV is plain that Jesus is both the “great God” and “Savior.” One more example should suffice to make the point.

Romans 9:5
“Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” (KJV)

“Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.” (NIV)

I well remember witnessing to a Jehovah’s Witness on the subject of the deity of Christ who, when we referenced Romans 9:5, remarked, “Yes. Jesus is blessed by God. He is God-blessed but he is not God.” The NIV however clears up any potential confusion with the rendering, “God over all, forever praised!”

Similar comparisons can be made with all the newer translations. Using verses like the previous ones and other examples, one could easily produce a chart accusing the King James Bible of being soft on the deity of Christ. But the point is not that the King James Bible is attempting to deny the deity of Christ; such is not the case. The point is that there is no conspiracy in any of the translations to deny or delete such an essential Christian doctrine. In fact, if one studies any reputable translation using proper hermeneutics one will reach the same conclusions on the major doctrines of the faith regardless of which translation one chooses. No major doctrine is affected by the textual differences because no major doctrine is established on the basis of only one verse.

3. The New Translations Take out the Blood of Jesus

The article began with the title, “The NIV is Not God’s Word.” In the article, author Perry Rockwood, based on the NIV rendering of Colossians 1:14, asks the inflammatory question, “Do we want a Bible without blood?”¹⁶One of the more despicable attempts to disparage the new translations made by King James Only advocates is that the new translations are attempting to remove the blood of Christ. Salliby writes, “Whether they were scrapping whole verses of Scripture or indispensable words like, ‘through his blood’, the translators of the NIV appear to have had no qualms at all.”¹⁷

In order to examine this claim, we must first examine the passage in question in the two translations:

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins” (KJV)

 “in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” (NIV)

It should first be noted that the NIV does mention in a footnote that a few late manuscripts include the phrase, “through his blood.” But of course this is not enough to satisfy the KJV crowd. This passage provides the KJV advocates with one of their most emotionally powerful attacks because all true believers understand that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Therefore, any apparent attempt on the part of a translation to undermine the central truth of the necessity of the shedding of Christ’s blood is sure to be met with a firestorm of resistance. But is this attack justified? Are the new translations “bloodless Bibles”? The answer is obviously, “no”.

In order to answer this accusation, first consider the parallel passage to Colossians 1:14 which is Ephesians 1:7:

“In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (KJV)

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (NIV)

Notice that both the KJV and the NIV (and all other major translations) include the phrase, “through his blood” in this passage. This brings up the obvious question, “If the translators of the new versions were interested in deleting the blood of Christ, why did they leave it here?” The words of D.A. Carson are once again helpful. He writes, “One must conclude, therefore, that if a heretic changed the particular passage in order to suppress some specific doctrine, then he was singularly incompetent if he did not systematically change all the other places in the document that supported the same doctrine.”¹⁸

The baseless nature of this charge will become readily apparent to anyone who cares to perform a small amount of real research. There are 41 passages in the King James Bible that refer to the blood of Christ. The new translations agree with the King James in 40 of those instances. The only difference is Colossians 1:14. It is therefore obvious that no systematic attempt to remove the blood of Christ exists and that the new translations are not in fact “bloodless.”

Space will not permit an assessment of the other charges made by adherents of the King James Only Movement except to say that they are all supported by the same faulty logic, poor research, bad scholarship, and slanderous accusations.

The Dangers of the Movement

There are significant causes for concern for those involved in the KJV-Only movement, two of which I would like to address as this article concludes. The first is that the movement divides legitimate Christians. No longer is it enough to believe in the authority, integrity, inerrancy and sufficiency of the Scripture itself. KJV-Only advocates demand adherence to one translation as a test of fellowship. This unnecessarily divides the body of Christ. As stated in the introduction, the battle for the Bible is a worthy fight. The efforts of the KJV-Only leadership however, distract believers from providing answers to skeptics who attack the veracity of the Scripture to focus their efforts on slandering Christians who were involved in the production of new translations.

But there is an even deeper issue. In their efforts to defend the King James translation as a perfect standard, King James Only advocates are undermining the church’s apologetic for the Scripture itself. A brief explanation is in order. One of the strongest evidences for the integrity of the New Testament vs. other examples of ancient literature is the number and date of the manuscripts. Christians can assert the fact that the Bible has not undergone significant alteration based on the fact that we possess such a wealth of early manuscripts. The number of manuscripts allows us to detect any alterations to the text. The geographic distribution assures us that wholesale changes could not have been made because no one person or small group ever possessed all the copies. And the dates of the earliest manuscripts are too close to the original writings to have allowed for significant change. All of this is sacrificed by KJV Only advocates for the sake of exalting one translation above all others.

The King James Bible is based upon a limited number of manuscripts, all Byzantine in nature, and from relatively late dates. King James advocates regularly attack the Alexandrian text type as being Gnostic and inferior. In so doing, they are undermining the credibility of the earliest manuscripts the church possesses as well as reducing the argument from geographic distribution. No longer can it be claimed that the church possesses manuscripts within one or two generations of the original. The earliest reliable manuscripts of the New Testament would now be hundreds of years later providing plenty of space for skeptics to claim alteration.

Consider again the ramifications of the statement by Ruckman that those who knew the Greek New Testament, “altered it to suit themselves.” If this is true, then we really have no idea what the books penned by the apostles actually said. The church is forced to assume a mystical belief in the re-inspiration of the King James Bible. Faith in the Bible has been reduced to blind faith.

One can appreciate the zeal of many in the King James Only camp. One can admire their courage to stand for the integrity of Scripture. But they are seriously flawed in their logic and methodology. They are fighting the right battle in the wrong place.

Keith Gibson is founding pastor of Word of Life Community Church in Kansas City, Missouri, and director of ARC’s Kansas City Office.

NOTES
¹ Peter Ruckman, Why I Believe the King James Bible is the Word of God (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1997), 4.
² Peter Ruckman, King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism (Pensacola, FL: Bible Believers Press, 1992), 24.
³ Peter Ruckman, The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence (Pensacola, FL: Pensacola Bible Press, 1990), 126,138.
⁴ Doug Kutilek, “The Great Which Bible? Fraud” (internet article found at http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_ great_which_bible.htm).
⁵ D.A.Waite, The Case for the King James Bible: A Summary of the Evidence and Argument (Collingswood, NJ: The Bible for Today Press, 1998), 6.
⁶ Chick Salliby, If the Foundations Be Destroyed: What does the New International Version of the Bible have against Jesus? (Freeman, SD: Pine Hill Press, 1994), 66.
⁷ G.A. Riplinger, New Age Versions of the Bible (Munroe Falls, OH: A.V. Publications, 1993), 224-225.
⁸ D.A.Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979), 58.
⁹ James White, The King James Only Controversy (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 3.

¹⁰ For a discussion of the methpods of textual criticism and its positive results in recovering the Bible’s original text, see the article by Paul Wegner, “How Do We Know That We Have What the Biblical Writers Originally Wrote?” in this issue of Areopagus Journal.
¹¹ Riplinger, New Age Versions of the Bible, 302-303.

¹² Salliby, If the Foundations Be Destroyed, 1.

¹³ Waite, The Case for the King James Bible, 64.

¹⁴ Ibid., 65.
¹⁵ Carson, The King James Version Debate, 63.

¹⁶ Perry Rockwood, “The NIV is Not God’s Word,” Flashpoint (March 1998): 3.
¹⁷ Salliby, If the Foundations Be Destroyed, 6.

¹⁸ Carson, The King James Version Debate, 63.

(First published in Areopagus Journal Vol. 9 No. 4 – Do We Have the Right Text?)