The King James Only movement (also known as King James OnlyismorKJV Onlyism) asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. Adherents of the King James Only movement, mostly members of certain Conservative Anabaptist, traditionalist Anglo-Catholic, Conservative Holiness Methodist and some Baptist churches, believe that the KJV needs no further improvements because it is the greatest English translation of the Bible which was ever published, and they also believe that all other English translations of the Bible which were published after the KJV was published are corrupt.
These assertions are generally based upon a preference for the Textus Receptus (which is mainly based of the Byzantine text-type, with some influences from other text-types)[1][2] and they are also based upon a distrust of the Alexandrian text-type or the critical textsofNestle-Aland, and Westcott-Hort, on which the majority of twentieth- and twenty-first-century translations of the Bible are based. Sometimes these beliefs are also based on the view that the King James translation itself was inspired by God.
Christian apologist James White has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:[3]
These classifications are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a comprehensive summary describing those who prefer the KJV. Douglas Wilson, for instance, argues that the KJV (or, in his preferred terminology, the Authorized Version) is superior because of its manuscript tradition, its translational philosophy (with updates to the language being regularly necessary), and its ecclesiastical authority, having been created by the church and authorized for use in the church.[8]
Although not expressly "King James Only", The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recommends the Latter-day Saint edition of the King James Version of the Bible.[9]
Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) in which he asserted that some of the new versions of the Bible came from manuscripts with corruptions introduced into the SeptuagintbyOrigen and manuscripts with deletions and changes from corrupted Alexandrian text. He criticized Westcott and Hort, believing they intentionally rejected the use of the Textus Receptus and made changes to the text used in translation using their revised Greek text based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.[10]
Gail Riplinger (born 1947) has also addressed the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible in some detail.[11] A lengthy critical review of her book New Age Bible Versions, originally published in Cornerstone magazine in 1994, authored by Bob and Gretchen Passantino of Answers in Action, described the book as "erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and logically indefensible".[12]
Jack Chick (1924–2016), a fundamentalist Christian who was best known for his comic tracts, advocated a King James Only position.[13] His comic Sabotage portrayed a Christian whose faith was shipwrecked by the rejection of the King James Version as the Word of God, only to be rescued by another character's defense of the King James Version.[14]
The Church Polity of the Dunkard Brethren Church, a Conservative Anabaptist denomination in the Schwarzenau Brethren tradition, states: "To aid in Scripture memorization among our members and our children, to help avoid confusion and to promote sound doctrine in our services, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible shall be used in our Sunday School, Bible Study, and church services. Exceptions may be made where languages other than English are necessary."[15]
The Southern Methodist Church holds the King James Version of the Bible to be a "trustworthy standard to preach from the pulpit."[16] The 2015 Manual of the Bible Missionary Church, a Methodist denomination in the conservative holiness movement, states: "We wholeheartedly endorse the use of the Authorized Version (King James Version) of the Bible as the final authority in our English-speaking churches and schools. We also go on record as being opposed to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, The Living Bible, the New English Translation of the Bible, the Reader's Digest Condensed Version, the New International Version and the public use of other modern versions."[17] The Immanuel Missionary Church likewise enjoins use of the King James Version of the Bible.[18][19]
Agapé Boarding School in Missouri endorsed the King James Only position. One student said that when he first arrived at the school, he was strip-searched and his Bible was thrown in the trash because it was not a KJV.[20]
Other promoters of the KJV Only movement include the following organizations and individuals:
James White has thoroughly researched the background and sources of the Bible as we have it today, and he points out the serious weaknesses of the KJV Only position, a view seemingly based more on faulty, unprovable assumptions than on solid evidence.[7]
One of the saddest signs of legalistic Christianity is the tenacious defense of the KJV as the only legitimate English-language translation. Almost as sad is that countless hours of scholars' and pastors' time must be diverted from the larger priorities of God's kingdom to point out the numerous historical, logical, and factual errors of KJV Onlyism — even though these errors have been repeatedly exposed in the past. Nevertheless, the job must be done, and James White does it masterfully in this book.[7]
The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda.[42]
— Trevin Wax
...and the KJV as a trustworthy standard to preach from the pulpit.
