King-James-Only Movement

The King-James-Only Movement is a movement within Protestant fundamentalist Christianity of English-speaking countries which rejects all modern translations of the Bible, and accepts only the King James Version (KJV).

This position is most prevalent within the Independent Baptist branch of the Baptist movement. The rejection is based in part on the different texts which were used to translate the different translations of the New Testament. Most modern translations are translated mainly from the Alexandrian manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and also of the other minority texts numbered around 50, while the King James Version was translated from the Textus Receptus, or Received Text, which is Byzantine text-type (but not a "majority text"). To some extent, doubts are also expressed about the texts used to translate the Old Testament, and in particular the use of the Biblia Hebraica<i> and <i>Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia<i> and the variant readings in their footnotes is condemned.

There are variations within the King-James-Only Movement. For example, the late John R. Rice, who published <i>The Sword of the Lord, took a position that only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are inspired scripture, and that all translations of those done in good faith are useful as scripture, but he expressed a preference toward the King James Version for aesthetic reasons. On the other extreme can be found the teachings of Peter Ruckman, who believes that the King James translation constitutes an "advanced revelation" from God which is superior to even the original Greek and Hebrew texts. Most King James Only advocates hold to a position somewhere between those two extremes.

The roots of the King-James-Only Movement can be found in the controversy over the publication of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible in 1952, which was issued by the National Council of Churches (NCC). Many fundamentalists believed that the NCC was a hotbed of liberal theology or modernism and were suspicious of the new translation. Accusations of Communist and Vatican influence within the NCC were brought up (it being the time of the Second Red Scare and McCarthyism), and fundamentalists largely rejected the RSV, although for three decades it became the most widely used Bible translation within the mainline and liberal Protestant denominations. One particular criticism of the RSV centered around the decision made by the translators to translate a number of Old Testament prophecies, which some scholars believed referred to the coming of Christ, in a manner which did not necessarily imply any connection to Christ. As a result, critics charged that the NCC, in issuing the RSV, had deliberately set out to discredit doctrines such as the virgin birth.

The King-James-Only Movement as it exists today began to take form after conservative and evangelical Christian groups began producing their own modern Bible translations, including the New American Standard Bible, the Good News Translation, and the New International Version. Most evangelicals who were wary of the RSV readily accepted these other new translations, but some fundamentalists did not. Those who rejected all modern translations began to formulate the ideas which are held by the King James Only Movement, such as their belief that the Received Text is superior to the Alexandrian manuscripts, and that Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus have been corrupted by Gnostics. The King-James-Only Movement became one of the core beliefs within the growing Independent Fundamental branch of Baptists. Interestingly, even the use of only the texts available in the early 1600s for the main body of the work fails to placate the supporters of the King-James-Only Movement, who see the New King James Version (1982) as a total counterfeit unworthy of the name "King James."

Within broader evangelical circles, the King James Only belief is controversial and is widely rejected. Most evangelical scholars, in fact, hold that the Textus Receptus manuscripts which the KJV was translated from contain a number of errors, and that the modern translations are translated from the earliest and supposedly more accurate manuscript evidence which we currently have. Most scholars who support biblical inerrancy believe this applies only to the original manuscripts, e.g. the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.

Besides Independent Baptists, there are a number of other denominations which hold, to varying degrees, to a King James Only position. These include the United Pentecostal Church, the Church of God of the Mountain Assembly, and some (but not all) of the more conservative denominations from the Anglican Communion tradition which collectively refer to themselves as the Continuing Anglican movement. Outside the US, the very small Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland has a King James Only position.

The The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also referred to as the LDS or Mormon Church, is not part of the King-James-Only movement but encourages the use of only the KJV in its English-language churches, in an edition with Mormon-specific footnotes and appendices. The LDS preference for the KJV is primarily aesthetic, not based on the views held by other KJV-only groups regarding the accuracy of manuscripts. Indeed the LDS church believes that all Bible manuscripts have had errors introduced over time causing the gospel to be missing "many plain and precious things" (1 Nephi 13:26-28, [1] (http://www.meridianmagazine.com/farms/010305plain.html)) which were only recovered with the translation of the Book of Mormon. Complicating the Mormon position is the existence of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, which is not widely used in the Utah LDS church but is considered part of the canon of scripture by another group within Mormonism, the Missouri-based Community of Christ.

Outside of the English-speaking world, some Brazilian Baptists and Pentecostals hold a similar position regarding the João Ferreira de Almeida translation, which was also based on the Textus Receptus, particularly its traditional Versão Revista e Corrigida.

External links

• Pro
  • Branderburg, K., et. al., 2003. Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the Perfect Preservation of Scripture ISBN 0-974-38170-5
  • Holland, T., 2000. Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version ISBN 0-595-14617-1
  • Way of Life's Electronic KJV Defense Library (http://wayoflife.org/fbns/fbns-index/versfbns.htm)
  • The Great(?) Uncials (http://logosresourcepages.org/uncials.htm) Textual Criticism of Codex Alexandrius, Vaticanus and Siniaticus.
    • Early Witnesses to the Textus Receptus (http://logosresourcepages.org/received.htm)
  • Topical Bible Version Comparison Charts (http://www.seekgod.ca/chart.htm)
  • Complete List of Changes in modern versions. (http://www.av1611.org/biblecom.html)
  • A Defence of the Johannine Comma (http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html)
  • Gnostic Corruptions in the Critical Texts (http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/gnostic.html)
• Con
  • Carson, D., 1978. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism ISBN 0-801-02427-7
  • White, James, 1995. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? ISBN 1-556-61575-2
  • Ankerberg, J. & Weldon, J., 2003. The Facts on the King James Only Debate ISBN 0-736-91111-1
  • When the Bible Becomes an Idol: Problems with the KJV-Only Doctrine (http://www.atlantaapologist.org/kjv.html)
  • The KJV Debate (http://www.thesword.ca/kjv.htm)
  • KJV-Onlyism Page (http://www.bibletranslation.ws/kjv.html)
  • Those Lazy Old Blokes of 1611 (from The Idle Babbler Illustrated) (http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/priddy/ibi_4_2.htm)
  • James White critiques of KJV-Onlyism (http://www.aomin.org/kjvo.html)