What is the KJV Only movement, and is it biblical? - GotQuestions.org Podcast Episode 22

Is the KJV the only Bible we should use? Are all English Bible translations other than the King James Version actually perversions of God's Word? What is the Textus Receptus and what does it have to do with the KJV?

---

Disclaimer: The views expressed by guests on our podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of Got Questions Ministries. Us having a guest on our podcast should not be interpreted as an endorsement of everything the individual says on the show or has ever said elsewhere. Please use biblically-informed discernment in evaluating what is said on our podcast.

[lizsteyn]

KJV was after Geneva Bible, some scripture are not translated fully, Eph 6:12

[KM-znlx]

Think ppl that never question their denomination nor their pastor or read the Bible themselves are legalistic. I walk with a Baptist lady and she uses eternal security (not in bible), she attends church twice on Sundays and goes Wednesday, she thinks noone is saved after rapture so I pointed out several things in bible that point to a different conclusion, and only KJV. She was always Baptist. I was a Catholic and left it after questioning my denomination. We are called to be Christian and bereans. Not just listen to a pastor and not question.

[RJLupin-xlyf]

Ex Oneness Pentecostal here, we were taught KJ only. If you used any other version then you literally wasn’t saved.

[curtisw]

I hear so many say that the original were the perfect scriptures. So, which texts would be considered the original Bible?
Did the text begin when the author first made a mark on papyrus or stone? Or did it start when it was edited and added to new scriptural material? Perhaps it began when the books were canonized. If so, which canonization—was it the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint of the Old Testament, or Marcion's first collection of scriptures, which was the earliest collection of New Testament writings? Or was it when the Old Testament and New Testament were combined? Or when the Apocryphal books were removed? Was it the first translation corrected by translators, or possibly even by "God"? Can anyone pinpoint the exact moment when the collection of books, written by 40 different authors over more than 3, 000 years, was truly completed? Was the true text created with the first inspirational translation, or when modern translators discovered and edited interpolations? I would be interested in your answers.

[spartaecus]

Knowledge can be humbling or divisive. Thank God for those who choose the former.

[laracroftismyhomegirl]

Can you please give evidence? So far its anecdotal emotional pulls without any history and evidence why we should trust the critical text.

[carthalcobb]

Hebrew & Greek are the original languages the Bible was written in. English, including the KJV, is a translation.

[user]

I imagine the KJV translators would wonder why their variants and preface, and even the Apocryphal books books between the Testaments were removed.

To be clear, I’m NOT arguing the Apocryphal books are Scripture.

[B_Riley]

Dude got into the vax question and almost totally lost me here… dude do your research about it and maybe don’t confuse this issue with that issue or compare the two

[claytonsmith]

There is tremendous misunderstanding, and for a lack of a better explanation, much ignorance on this subject. Even people who supposedly are educated, or knowledgeable, even what they know is wrong. The linguist was the best part, though I believe he could have explained more? Before I cover the textual aspects of the KJB, and the basis for most modern bibles that the majority of people get wrong? I used the NASB(77&95), and the NIV(78&84) for more than 30 years, along with the KJB. All of the missing verses, phrases, passages etc never set well with me in my spirit? After learning about the differences in textual basis, the Berean in me kicked in to search out the matter! It has brought me to a TR/Majority text/Byzantine type text only, KJB preferred/best position. I do utilize other Bibles from this line, such as pre-KJB reformed era Bibles, newer like the NKJV, and MEV(though they suffer from some of the same issues other modern bibles do), more on this later. As a child I had a learning disability, and a speech impediment. My best friends mom was an English/music teacher, and began working with me using the KJB. I had mentioned that it’s hard to understand, she said no it isn’t that I would see! She explained that it was the highest form of the English language, and that our contemporary use of English was considerably degraded, and our society was being dumbed down! She said the more you read it, the better you will get, and that your reading level will grow exponentially, and she was right! So 50-60 years ago the KJB was considered to be at a 6th grade reading level, by the mid-80’s it was at a 10th grade level, the mid-90’s at an 11th grade level, 2000’s a 12th grade level, and now it’s at a college level? What happened? God’s word did not change, it’s still the same! But it’s a testament to the fact that our society has changed, and not for the better! Reading levels, and capabilities are considerably lower now, than in previous generations, it’s just a fact! So if the kid with learning difficulties, and a speech impediment can do it, anyone can! I will continue with more later.

[Jayhollis]

I go to a Missionary Baptist Church and a lot of missionary baptist churches believe in the King James only movement and I disagree with it I use several different Bible versions. They also believe in landmarkism some people to different degrees but other than that it is a biblically sound denomination we used the 1833 New Hampshire confession of faith.

[makarov]

So, you think your King James Bible is the perfect word of God. Well, can you tell in 1 Thess 4:15&17 that the word “we” is in fact the always expressed-emphatically first-person personal pronoun? I mean, if you cannot determine that by looking at the KJV English text, then it is not perfect! But it's very clear in the Greek from which the KJV was translated! AND! It makes a huge difference in how it is interpreted.

That word is “eg-o'” in the Strong's with the number [1473]. When it is used it is always emphatic, but our English translations do not put it in caps and bold print in order that we get that. This word is in 1 Thess 4:15&17. It should be V15 “For we say this to you by the word of the Lord, that “WE—“ the ones living, the ones remaining until the coming of the Lord— will in-no-way precede the ones having fallen asleep.” V17 “ Then “WE—“ the ones living, the ones remaining— will be snatched-up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we shall always be with the Lord.” Those two “WE's” are emphatic. Paul said it TWICE! Prof Alpheus Crosby, in his 1850 book, “The Second Advent, ” says that these two verses are particularly emphatically strong! And he taught Greek in THREE colleges! Dartmouth was one of them. And a seminary too. A professor of Greek is to be listened to. He said in his book: “In these clauses the pronoun is expressed in the original; so that, according to a familiar law of the Greek language, it must be emphatic and used in marked contradistinction. The form of expression in 1 Thess iv:15, 17 is peculiarly strong.”

Those two “WEs” mean that Paul was saying that those living breathing people hearing his letter read aloud to THEM were the ones to experience the coming of the Lord. Prof. Crosby; “That is precisely how they would have understood Paul. Did they have any reason, of course not, to understand it differently?” Here is where your King James Bible comes up wanting in being the “perfect word of God.

[claytonsmith]

So I am back after too much life happening. Before jumping into the textual discussion, some tips for those who may struggle some while reading the KJB. First of all I was taught that if you do not know something, look it up. That’s what a dictionary, or an encyclopedia are for. But in actuality for a majority of those seemingly difficult words, whenever you read a few chapters before, and after it will tell you within the context what that particular word means. So in most cases when read carefully the KJB is self defining. Another learning tool that I was taught is to utilize an audio version, listening while reading. Then progress to reading out loud while listening. Even playing KJB audio while sleeping does wonders. Now most people are aware that when you see a bracketed verse, or a verse not in the main text? There will then be a note at the bottom with a brief explanation(in most cases, some do not say anything which is even more problematic)? The note may say something like this: “the oldest known, or most reliable manuscripts do not have, or omit this verse or phrase “, or “some manuscripts add this verse or phrase”? All of which is based on an assumption, conjecture, and speculation, and all of which is due mostly to ignorance, and none is based upon facts! Will continue!

[davemitchell]

To say an English version of the Bible (e.g. KJV) is God's only word, denies the 80% of the world that does not speak English God's word. That is actually a form of racism.

[mrobin]

You had me until comment about vaccines. That is such a false equivalency and a completely asinine thing to say.

[davek]

I think making a point that the King James is not written in Old English when people refer to that is nitpicking. Most people are simply saying it is "old English" in that the English language at the time the KJV was translated was older than the English we speak today. Very few are referring to the official term that refers to the oldest known form of the English language.

[chadmeidl]

To establish the supremacy of their new Alexandrian text in 1881, Westcott, and Hort argued that the Byzantine textual tradition (which includes the Textus Receptus) did not originate before the mid-fourth century and that it was the result of merging earlier corrupt texts. This so-called recension of the text was theorized to have been perpetrated by Lucian of Antioch.

They further argued that this text was taken to Constantinople, where it became popular and spread throughout the Byzantine Empire. Westcott and Hort also theorized that such a prevailing text type could only have happened if it was sanctioned by the church.

All of these claim were made without a single shred of historical evidence for this supposed empire-wide church council, these men simply picked out a place (Antioch), and a time (250-350 AD) and a coordinator (Lucian) and concocted a theory. All this sounds impressive but to this day, there is not one piece of historical evidence to support any of this theory.

Westcott and Hort rewrote the history of the text with their "Lucian Recension". For the most part liberals, today reject the validity of the Westcott-Hort Lucian theory. However, this does not repair the damage already done by this fairytale.

One of the most striking revelations is the paradox of textual criticism insisting that manuscripts be extant while being all too willing to theorize why the Byzantine texts were so prolific in the 4th century without even the slightest piece of extant historical evidence.

The Westcott and Hort Lucian Recension is just the first of a series of rationalizations and theories that critical text advocates have produced over the years, to try and explain the situation from their point of view. One such theory is called: "Method in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types of New Testament Manuscripts —Ernest C. Colwell." All of these theories have failed to produce any historical support for their theories and fail to sufficiently account for the widespread dominance of the Byzantine texts among churches in the 4th century.

So widespread was the Byzantine text by the 4th century that it would have taken 100-200 years to become so well established across the known world. It therefore stands to reason, the Byzantine text is much older than many critical-text advocates would have people believe. The New Testament was not complete until the end of the 1st century and so it makes greater sense to conclude that the Byzantine text has been there from the very beginning.

[papadalethebandit]

Ask the KJV only-ists which edition they think is the perfect version: 1611; 1769; 1851, 1873 or 1900?
Most modern KJV Bibles are based upon the 1769 edition.

[DeltaLead]

I agree on this subject. I resent the vaccine remark.

[davewhitehead]

I Have, And Read Modern Bibles. I Like Modern Bibles. I CanUnderstand Them.Thet Are In Our Modern English.