KJV Only (1930- ) is the belief that the King James or Authorized Version of the Bible (KJV/AV) is the only English translation that can be trusted. The key word is “only”. The KJV is not merely the “most” trustworthy English translation – but the “only” one! At least in this age.
Trying to separate the arguments that actual KJV Onlyists make from the straw man arguments of their opponents:
The argument goes like this, as I currently understand it:
- The Bible is the Word of God.
- God promised to preserve his word for each generation, not just for certain periods of history. For example, Psalm 12:6-7 says:
“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”
- Therefore the Bible is what has been passed down through the ages. Not what can only be found in manuscripts lost for hundreds of years.
- Therefore the Majority Text, based on what the majority of manuscripts say, should be favoured. Not the Critical Text, which is based on the oldest manuscripts, a text that is constantly updated as lost manuscripts are discovered.
- The KJV translates the Textus Receptus, a Majority Text. Nearly all other current English Bibles – like the NIV, ESV, NRSV, NAB, TLB, etc – translate the Nestle-Aland/UBS (NU), a Critical Text.
- Therefore the KJV only is the word of God in English.
In short: the KJV is what has come down to us (in the English-speaking world) through the ages. Literally. Therefore it is what God has promised to preserve as his word.
The Critical Text currently leaves out Mark 16:9-20 (where Jesus rises from the dead and talks about snakes), John 7:53-8:11 (where Jesus saves an adulteress from stoning) and more than a dozen other verses, like Acts 8:37, and parts of dozens more, like Luke 4:4 (see my post on the ESV for more such verses). If you have memorized one of the affected verses of the King James, it can be pretty horrifying seeing it (or not seeing it) in a modern translation.
The Majority Text: the Textus Receptus (TR) is a Majority Text, but there are others, like the one used by the Eastern Orthodox Church. The two most notable non-majority readings in the KJV are 1 John 5:7-8 (the Johannine Comma) and, ironically, Revelation 22:19. These seem to be outright mistakes! I will do a separate post on the Johannine Comma.
Near, but no beer: The NKJV and the MEV also translate the Textus Receptus. But KJV Onlyists find fault with them too, based on their translation of words. That said, the NKJV does seem to be a gateway drug to KJV Onlyism (maybe because of its footnotes).
The future: KJV Onlyists seem to understand that a clearly better English translation might come along one of these centuries. But part of the KJV’s appeal is its age, archaic language, and fixed, unchanging text – useful qualities for any book that claims to offer the wisdom of the ages.
– Abagond, 2021.
See also:
527
Abagond 
What about the Douay Rheims (Catholic) version – including the Challoner edition?
LikeLike
@ Joe
Good question! Most KJV Onlyists are hardcore Protestants who love to point out the Reformation roots of the KJV. So Catholic translations are not seriously considered. But logically, the same arguments favour the Latin Vulgate that Catholics have read or translated down through the ages, including the Douay Rheims Challoner translation of it.
LikeLike
@ Joe
I said:
That does NOT apply to the “Nova Vulgata”, the official version of the Vulgate the Church has been using since 1979. It is based in part on the Nestle-Aland – which in turn quotes the Nova Vulgata! So – I am going to have a headache.
LikeLike
@ Joe
The Council of Trent was itself Vulgate Onlyist, an argument Catholics used against the new Protestant translations like the KJV! In fact the Douay translators noted in 1609 (while the KJV was being translated):
LikeLike
@Abagond
Thanks!
LikeLike
I have actually run into a few Catholics who are Douay Rheims Onlyists. Is that a typical or unusual stance?
LikeLike
@ Solitaire
I never heard of Douay Rheims Onlyists, but it does not surprise me.
LikeLike
I went to a church that could be considered KJV only. The reason they gave for only teaching from the KJV was 1) consistency of what they taught and 2) some issues with different translations. The example verses they used were Isaiah 14:12 where many translations leave out the name Lucifer but still use the term Morning Star or some variation and Revelations 22:16 where Jesus is referred to as Morning Star.
But the Church pastors were not opposed to any member of the congregation using a non KJV as they Personal and primary Bible. They warned against jumping between translations searching for a verse that says what they want it to say.
LikeLike
Its interesting and remarkable how serious some people take and book of ancient superstitions and fairytales.
Meanwhile over in my quarter its gone from wrong and contradictory to the silliest story ever told.
any serious analysis of their big three
genesis ,noah ark or the resurrection
reveals so many logical contradictions, absurdness and outright plagiarism
that
I must seriously discard certain notions of equal distribution of intelligence reason and morality amongst my species.
And personally I have and still believe delusional things about myself in terms of intelligence ability success happiness and morality.
and of course it has more to do with the lies everyone holds dear
then facts or truth
but as the vast majority of my species currently prefers blatant contradictory lies abuse and suffering
I must assume this is the way
esp if you want to be accepted and mate.
Still the larger facts of philosophy console me
No one choses this life and no one choses to leave it
but as the latter is inevitable
is the former?
what if I already know?
how long will it take before I find out if I find out?
and how does this process work?
I definitely won’t be researching any religious text
or even current academic intuition
but I sure of some investigative pleasure and
also some definite descriptive success.
LikeLike