KJV Only FAQs
by Brother Dan / Discipleship Challenger
Recognizing that it is impossible to sway the viewpoint of those who adhere to the KJV-only position, I offer the following not as an attempt to pursuade nor debate them, but for the humor and the balance value that resides in poking fun at those who take themselves too seriously and begin to proclaim their extreme opinions as God's Own Truth. (After the humor section, I've now added an explanation of the issues and why the KJV-only position is wrong.)
KJV-only FAQ
1. Q: Why dost thou believe the KJV to be the only true and inspired translation of the Bible in English?
A: Why dost thou question our spirituality and statement that the KJV is indeed the only translation of the Scriptures into English which is guided and authorized by God?
2. Q: Why dost thou believe that you have a greater spirituality and are indeed more correct than any others concerning the authority of the KJV?
A: Because, of a truth, we adhere to the reality that the KJV is indeed the only true translation of the Scriptures into English!
3. Q: What are your translation credentials for being able to authoritatively state that the KJV is the superior English translation of Scriptures, and the only one authorized by God?
A: We hast already stated the answer to that, unworthy one. See the prior answer.
4. Q: I thought that the KJV was authorized by King James, yet you say it was authorized by God. Can you explain?
A: Yes? What is the problem?
5. Q: Why dost thou have authority, as a follower of Jesus Christ, to flame those who point out the fallacy of your statements which you claim support the claim that the KJV is the only true translation of Scriptures in English?
A: Claim? Claim? How dare you attack me personally and insult me with such derogatory statements? You are going to burn in hell for all eternity for your heresy, so if I send thee a flame, it is simply to prepare you for your eternal destiny!!!
6. Q: Thou quoteth Solomon wherein he said: " Move not the ancient landmarks". How can you prove that this applies to the Elizabethean English of the KJV?
A: Because I believe in the special revelation of the KJV. I'm tiring of thy repetitious questions when I have already given thee the answer.
7. Q: How do you know that you know God?
A: Because I can quote all the passages about God from the KJV.
8. Q: How do you know the leading of the Holy Spirit?
A: Because I study and defend the words of the KJV!
9. Q: How can you claim that the italicized words of the KJV are the special revelation of God, above all other translations of the Scriptures in English?
A: Because the KJV was given by special revelation and inspiration directly from God.
10 Q: Since the translators of the KJV are all dead, how do you know that they were given special inspiration and the direct words of God for the translation?
A: Because I am spiritual and have the gift of discernment, and have discerned this to be the truth.
11 Q: How do you know that your discernment is true, and that all others, who say that most English translations are just as good, are not true?
A: Because I believe that the KJV is given by special inspiration from God, and I have the verses to prove it.
12 Q: But others do not interpret those verses in the same way.
A: SEEEEE! All who oppose the KJV-only position need to repent and get right with God! Agree with me and thou shalt have the TRUTH. Disagree, and I'll demonstrate the wrath of God.
Now, on a serious note:
King James authorized the translation of the KJV (aka AV) Bible in 1611, NOT God. And, the lifestyle of King James certainly disqualifies him from any Apostolic-like status. That King James did a good thing in the KJV just proves that God can bring good out of bad situations.
There were already good (perhaps even better) English translations in existence at the time the KJV was translated, Tyndale's among those.
While God certainly knew English when the translation was accomplished, stating that the translators heard perfectly from God is a reckless statement .... which is not to state that the translation was fundamentally errant in any essential ... it is not errant in essentials ... but neither are the NIV, NASB or the NEB or the RSV or the NKJV !!!
It is a FACT that the group of Greek manuscripts used to translate the KJV were NOT the best available, even in the early 1600s! And, an even better and more accurate group of Greek manuscripts have been assembled in the nearly 400 years since.
It is a FACT that the translators sought to translate the Scriptures into the common language of the English people of that day ... a sound principle of Scriptural interpretation that should be continued today ... and the NIV certainly is much closer to everyday English than the KJV is, by a long shot.
It is a FACT that the translators of the KJV followed principles of dynamic equivalency in their translation work far more than going literal word for word translation. As a comparison, do some extensive reading in the NASB and you will begin to note the awkwardness of the translation because if the attempt by the NASB translators to keep more to the literal translation rather than the dynamic equivalent. The NIV, on the other hand, is an excellent example of the dynamic equivalent approach to translating.
Dynamic equivalent means that the translators attempted to accurately translate the MEANING of the words from one language to another rather than simply translating a literal word for word. For example: to say "It is cold" in Spanish, one would say: "Hace frio". But, to translate that back into English literally, we would translate "It makes cold". The dynamic equivalent is: "It is cold". Understand? This is the same principle which the KJV and NIV translators used (for the most part) in translating the Scriptures.
BUT, the English of the KJV is archaic, and many of the words and expressions no longer mean the same as they did in that time. Indeed, those who adhere to the KJV usually don't recognize that the KJV in usage is not the 1611 edition, but is a revision from 1881. And, even THIS revision of spelling and updating of words and expressions is now out of date.
Language is not static, it is dynamic. The purpose of language is to communicate (as accurately as possible) concepts and ideas. When words change in meaning and usage, we must change to use those words which communicate what is meant. Failure to do so is a failure to communicate.
Therefore, it is essential that the Scriptures be kept current in language which accurately communicates the message which men of old were moved to record.
Why do I refuse to discuss the issues with proponents of the "inspired" KJV? Because their foundational arguments are faulty and do not have any relationship to the reality of language and linguistics; and because their lines of "reasoning" are specious. And, generally, they resort to personal insults rather quickly with anyone who disagrees with them. I suspect this is because they know their position is ignorant, but they have to hang on to tradition and defend it, so they just attack the spirituality, intelligence, etc, with anyone who disagrees with them.
The bottom line is this: Those who claim that the KJV translation of the Scriptures is more inspired than any other English translation are just defending tradition. Period. They are traditionalists, pure and simple. They are bordering upon idolatry, by worshipping the Book instead of worshipping the Author.
Jesus never said: "Believe on the KJV and you shall be saved". Understand? Demanding special inspiration status for the KJV is adding to the Gospel.
I grew up on the KJV and most of the Scripture I have memorized is from the KJV. However, I have found the NIV is much better for communicating the Gospel and the teachings of Jesus to people today, because it is in ordinary English. Jesus spoke in the language of the common people: Aramaic, not Hebrew! The authors of the New Testament recorded the New Testament in the universal trade language of the common man throughout the known world at that time: Koine Greek. The translators of the KJV sought to put the Bible into English understood by the common man of their day! Therefore, the principle is valid today: Let the ordinary person understand the Scriptures in their everyday language, and don't force them to learn the archaic language of the KJV. If it was good enough for Jesus, it is good enough for me.
Subscribe to the Discipleship Challenger mailing list. © 1997 - Y2k by Brother Dan
