Why Not to be KJV-Only
The Truth about the King James Version: Originally published in Impact Magazine
Some people say that the KJV is the best translation.
Some even insist that it is the only God-approved translation.
They’re called “King James Onlyists.”
Some churches boast of only allowing the KJV to be read from their pulpits. The old joke that some Christians like the KJV because “it was good enough for the Apostle Paul,” is funny because it’s close to the truth of the way many people think. The truth is that any translation that works with the best manuscripts and seeks to translate it as honestly as possible is acceptable. Scripture was not originally written in English.
The truly inspired, inerrant Bible is the one originally penned by the authors themselves, mostly in Hebrew for the Old Testament and in Greek for the New Testament.
Thankfully, God preserved their writings through the centuries for us, fulfilling His promise in Psalm 12:7. God preserved His Word in the way He originally inspired it, in Hebrew and Greek.
So, what about those who can’t easily read Greek or Hebrew? For this, we have translations. But which translation is acceptable? Specifically, is there an English translation that is “God’s Word for English speaking people”? King James Onlyists say it’s only the “KJV.”
The Translation of the KJV
The King James Version has earned a reputation as a reliable translation, which it generally was. However, to insist that it is “God’s Word for English speaking people” is arbitrary and historically nonsensical. The King James Version was not the first English translation. William Tyndale completed the New Testament and was working on the Old Testament when King Henry VIII had him executed.
The English monarchy wanted to control Biblical knowledge. Much of Tyndale’s work was preserved by the Puritans who incorporated his translations into their Geneva Bible (1560). This very popular translation was made by English refugees who fled “Bloody” Queen Mary’s persecution, retreating to Geneva, Switzerland. It remained the translation of choice for several generations of Puritans.
The Puritans were earnest evangelical Christians who sought a thorough Biblical reformation in the Church of England.
They took the Bible very seriously and were unhappy with the unbiblical traditions retained by the established church. When King James came to the throne, in 1603, he sought some reconciliation with the Puritans and conceded to their wish for a new and widely publicized Bible. He did this partly for political reasons as the popular Geneva Bible contained notes that were deemed subversive. He commissioned the Bible that was to bear his name; officially it was called the “authorized version” because it was authorized by a King eager to displace the popular Geneva Bible.
Several translation decisions – under the oversight of an anti-Puritan archbishop – were made that were not literal but to help support the established church. For example, the Greek word ekklesia was translated as “church”, rather than the literal “assembly.” The word “church” conveyed support for the government’s established “church.” Also, the word episcopos, which literally means “overseer,” was translated as “bishop” – quite clearly to lend support to the traditional office of bishop which King James was adamantly supporting. Because the King James Version suffered from political agenda, the Geneva Bible remained popular with the Puritans for at least a generation after the publication of the KJV (1611.)
Problems With the KJV
In addition, there are other significant problems with the KJV. First, the translators did not have access to the best and earliest manuscripts, those that go back as close as possible to the original, inspired, inerrant writings. They had to use later manuscripts that had been copied more often and thus had more errors crept in them. In the days before the printing press and computers, books had to be copied by hand and sometimes errors were made by the men copying them.
For example, the latter manuscripts accidentally copied John 1:18 to call Jesus “the only begotten Son” (as in John 3:16) but the original manuscript actually says “only begotten God,” emphasizing the theme in the beginning of John’s gospel that Jesus is God. Because the KJV is from late manuscripts that were copied more often, it has words, phrases, even a few entire verses, that were added to the manuscripts by copyists over time, like John 5:4 (about an angel stirring up the water in the pool of Bethesda). That verse is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and so wasn’t in the original, inspired Gospel of John.
Further, at a few places, the scholar who compiled the Greek text the translators used, a Dutch Catholic monk named Erasmus, accepted phrases that had been translated from the Roman Latin version back into the New Testament. Thus 1 John 5:7-8, the “Johannine Comma,” was added to the KJV even though it wasn’t in the original manuscripts. Sometimes, the KJV translators didn’t know how to translate a word, like “beulah,” in Isaiah 62:4, so they just left it untranslated. In addition, the KJV has some errors, like “Easter” in Acts 12:4, making it sound like Herod’s guards celebrated Easter. It mistranslates Romans 9:5, missing a statement that Jesus is God.
More practically, there are at least 827 words and phrases in the days of King James that have changed their meaning or are no longer used in our modern, everyday English language, such as suffer, filthy lucre, quick, charity, gay clothing! The major reason to translate the Bible in the first place is to make it intelligible to the average Christian. Changes in the English language over the last 400 years means that the KJV, however beautiful its language is, no longer serves that purpose effectively. The faithful evangelical scholar D. A. Carson comments on this:
“The plain truth of the matter is that the version that is so cherished among senior saints who have more or less come to terms with Elizabethan English, is obscure, confusing, and sometimes even incomprehensible to many younger or poorly educated Christians. . . . For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable' .” (The King James Version Debate: A Plea For Realism, D. A. Carlson, Baker Book House, 1979, pp. 101,102)
So, while the KJV may still reign as the literary king of all Bible translations there is no theological or historical reason to consider it “the Word of God for English speaking people.” I still prefer it for some passages, such as the Lord’s Prayer and Psalm 23. But I know that it too, like some modern translations, suffered from the biases and political demands of its times. Since the purpose of a Bible translation is to communicate God’s Word, we should favor versions that do that most effectively.
John B. Carpenter, Ph.D., is pastor of Covenant Reformed Baptist Church, in Danville, VA. and the author of Seven Pillars of a Biblical Church (Wipf and Stock, 2022).
Let’s look at this article analytically.
1. Use of Psalms 12:7 does not work related to preservation in the CSB or NLT because in those bibles it relates to the poor alone. Is the author stating the CSB and NLT are in error and warning against using these bibles?
2. “He originally inspired it, in Hebrew and Greek.” Daniel was probably written in Aramaic.
3. “The King James Version was not the first English translation” Correct, the KJV is a revision of the Geneva and Bishops.
4. Shocking to see an entire article on the KJV and not even mention the Bishop’s Bible from which it was copied from.
5. “First, the translators did not have access to the best and earliest manuscripts” – Hold on, article starts with Psalms 12:7 and they moves to “earliest” which were not available to the Church for 1500 years. Need to be a bit more consistent.
6. “back as close as possible to the original, inspired, inerrant writings” – If preserved, why does age matter? God preserved till 300 AD and then stopped?
7. “but the original manuscript actually says “only begotten God,” – Because of Codex B (Vaticanus)? But Codex A (Alexandrinus), Syriac, Majority, etc., support “Son.” So we have options for earliest manuscripts, but majority is “Son” so preservation by God would dictate that being correct. I do find it interesting the author states as a fact what the original manuscript says.
8. “Because the KJV is from late manuscripts that were copied more often” -- Well, Bart Ehrman sort of dispel this Bibliology. The Later copies were more formal than earlier manuscripts and less likely to have copy errors.
9. “That verse is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and so wasn’t in the original, inspired Gospel of John.” – See point 7.
10. For John 5:4 - It is found in codices A, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, D, Q, P and the third corrector of C. The Greek minuscules overwhelming support the verse and is contained in 28, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, and 2148. So, sort of amazed the Author is so sure it is not original.
11. “Thus 1 John 5:7-8” – I am going to pass on this one.
12. “KJV translators didn’t know how to translate a word, like “beulah,” – Really? It is translated marry (8x), husband (3x), dominion (2x), wife (1x), married wife (1x), Beulah (1x). I think we are bordering on a bit of dishonesty.
13. Romans 9:5? So the NASB is wrong? If so, please call out that version also.
14. The KJV used today is the 1769, which has plenty of revision from the 1611. Stating King James had power over the 1769 is somewhat ludicrous.
Over all, for a Pastor with a Phd, I think a better job could have been done in this article.