Argument

KJV Only Objection Defeater

Intro

Some Christians hold that the King James Version of 1611 is the only trustworthy English Bible, and that modern translations are corrupt, even satanic. The position comes in a mild form ("the KJV is the best translation and I prefer it"), a textual form ("only the Greek text behind the KJV is the true text"), and a strong form ("the KJV itself is inspired, and where it differs from the Greek, the KJV is right").

The mild form is a reasonable preference. The strong forms run into a problem that comes from the KJV itself. Its translators said plainly that they were translating from Hebrew and Greek, that translation is a good thing, and that some words could be rendered more than one way, which is why they printed thousands of alternative renderings in the margins. A translation whose own makers never claimed it was beyond correction cannot be defended by claiming more for it than they did.

◎ See this page's graph and discover linked topics →

In full

Defeater for the objection: "The King James Version is the only true or inspired English Bible. Modern translations are corruptions, the Greek and Hebrew behind them are corrupt, and God promised to preserve His word in the KJV."

The defeat is five-pronged, and each prong is taken from the KJV's own pages or from the history the KJV belongs to:

1. The KJV was translated from sources, and says so. Its Old Testament comes from a printed Masoretic Hebrew text (Bomberg's Second Rabbinic Bible), its New Testament from printed Greek editions in the Textus Receptus tradition, with the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate consulted (see KJV). A translation made from Hebrew and Greek cannot be more authoritative than the Hebrew and Greek it translates.
2. The translators marked their own uncertainty. In the KJV edition in the codex's text data, 6,575 verses carry a translators' marginal note; 2,900 of those give an alternative rendering introduced by "or", 3,723 give the literal Hebrew and 187 the literal Greek (all measured). Men who believed their English could not be improved would not have printed alternatives to it.
3. "Which KJV?" The 1611 edition included the Apocrypha, and the text most people read today is the 1769 revision, which silently corrected and modernized the earlier printings (see KJV). The strong form has to say which of these is the inspired one.
4. The promise of preservation is not a promise about one translation. The texts cited for KJV-onlyism (Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 24:35; 1 Peter 1:25; Psalm 12:6-7) promise that God's word endures. None names a language or an edition, and the KJV's own margin at Psalm 12:7 points the verse at people rather than at words (see Grammar).
5. It proves too much. If the KJV alone is God's word in English, then English speakers before 1611 (Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible) and every Christian in every other language were without it. The apostles themselves quoted a translation, the Greek Septuagint, as Scripture.

The reciprocal concession closes it: grant that the KJV is an excellent translation, and the objector must grant that translation is legitimate. Once translation is legitimate, the question about modern Bibles is no longer "translation or corruption?" but "which manuscripts and which renderings are most accurate?", a question of evidence, not of loyalty.

Argument structure

Cheatsheet

The 30-second reply:

I love the King James. But its own translators did not believe what you are claiming for it. They said they were translating from Hebrew and Greek, they wrote a preface defending translation into ordinary language, and they printed about 2,900 alternative renderings in the margins, "or, this", "or, that". People who thought their English was perfect would not do that. And if only the KJV is God's word in English, what did English Christians read before 1611? What did the apostles read, when they quoted the Greek translation of the Old Testament as Scripture?

The 5 fast facts:

1. Sources: OT from the printed Masoretic Hebrew; NT from printed Greek editions of the Textus Receptus; Septuagint and Vulgate consulted; the 1611 Apocrypha from the Septuagint and Vulgate.
2. Margins: in the codex's KJV data, 2,900 verses carry an "or" alternative, 3,723 a note giving the literal Hebrew, 187 the literal Greek.
3. Editions: 1611 included the Apocrypha; the standard modern text is the 1769 revision.
4. Psalm 12:7: the KJV's own margin says the Hebrew behind "preserve them" is "him", "that is, every one of them", pointing back to the poor and needy of verse 5.
5. The apostles used a translation: the New Testament regularly quotes the Greek Septuagint, a translation, as the word of God.

The 3 strongest counter-moves:

• "Have you read the translators' preface?" The KJV's own "Translators to the Reader" argues for translation and for marginal alternatives. Ask whether the objector agrees with the KJV's translators.
• "Which one, 1611 or 1769?" The strong form needs one inspired text; the history offers several.
• "Where was the word of God in 1600?" The question forces the objector either to deny that Tyndale's and the Geneva Bible's readers had Scripture, or to concede that translations other than the KJV can be God's word.

Reciprocal concessions (grant the small point, collect a larger one):

• Grant: the KJV is one of the finest translations ever made and shaped the English language. Now collect: then translation as such is legitimate, and the KJV is the proof.
• Grant: some modern translations are weaker than the KJV in places, and some modern paraphrases are loose. Now collect: then the question is always "which rendering is more accurate here?", answered from the Hebrew and Greek, which is exactly the method the KJV translators used.
• Grant: the Textus Receptus is a real Greek text with a long history of use. Now collect: then it can be compared with other Greek manuscripts like any text, and where it has late readings (the KJV page lists 1 John 5:7 and Acts 8:37), the comparison is not an attack on God's word but the recovery of it.

What NOT to defend:

• Do not sneer at the KJV or at people who love it. Its language is the inheritance of the whole English-speaking church.
• Do not claim that every modern translation is better at every point. Argue verse by verse.
• Do not say textual criticism makes the Bible uncertain. The variants in question touch no doctrine, and the surviving manuscripts recover the text with great confidence (see Manuscript Variants Bible Corruption Objection Defeater).

The closing line:

The best way to honor the King James translators is to believe what they believed: that God's word can be faithfully translated, and that the Hebrew and Greek are the standard every translation answers to.

Grammar and hermeneutics

The strong form rests on a reading of a few preservation texts. Read on their own terms, they promise something the objection does not need and do not promise what it does.

• Psalm 12:7, read with the KJV's own margin. The KJV reads "Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever", and it is often cited as a promise to preserve the words of verse 6 in a perfect English form. The KJV translators' margin on the phrase says: "them from: Heb. him, etc: that is, every one of them" (measured). The translators read the pronoun as a person, taking the verse back to verse 5, where the LORD promises to set the oppressed "in safety". On the KJV's own reading, the verse is a promise to protect the poor, not a promise about a translation.
• The endurance texts are about the word, not a wording in one language. "The word of our God shall stand for ever" (Isaiah 40:8) was written in Hebrew; Peter quotes it in Greek (1 Peter 1:25) and adds that it is "the word which by the gospel is preached unto you". An apostle cites a promise of permanence across a change of language, which is the opposite of tying the promise to one language.
• Translation and explanation are biblical practices. When Ezra read the law, the Levites "read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading" (Nehemiah 8:8, KJV). The Scriptures expect the word to be made understood to its hearers.
• The New Testament spells a Hebrew name in Greek. The KJV prints "Jesus" where the Greek Iēsous names Joshua (Acts 7:45; Hebrews 4:8) and adds at Hebrews 4:8 the margin "Jesus: that is, Joshua" (measured). The KJV itself shows a Hebrew name passing through Greek into English.

On the pronoun of Psalm 12:7, the cross-language citation of Isaiah 40:8, and the KJV's own margins, the preservation texts give no warrant for identifying God's word with a single English edition.

P1, The KJV is a translation from named sources

Affirmative case

1. Old Testament: a printed Masoretic text, Bomberg's Second Rabbinic Bible of 1524-25.
2. New Testament: printed Greek editions of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, refined by Stephanus and Beza).
3. Consulted: the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and earlier English Bibles, above all Tyndale's.
4. The margins say it outright: 3,723 notes give "Heb." and 187 give "Gr." (measured), telling the reader what the original says where the English departs from it.

Anticipated objections

1. "God providentially guided the KJV translators so that their English is now the standard."
2. "The Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are lost or corrupt, so the KJV is all we have."

Rebuttals

1. Providential guidance of a translation is not the same as inspiration of it. Every faithful translation is a work of providence; that is not a reason to place the translation above the text it came from. The translators' own margins show they measured their English against the Hebrew and Greek.
2. The Hebrew and Greek are not lost. The same printed texts the KJV translators used still exist, and far older manuscripts have been found since 1611. See Bible Manuscript Reliability.

P2, The translators marked their uncertainty

Affirmative case

1. 2,900 alternative renderings introduced by "or" in the KJV margins (measured), e.g. "atonement: or, reconciliation" at Romans 5:11.
2. The translators' preface ("The Translators to the Reader") argues for translation into the common tongue and defends the marginal alternatives as an aid to understanding where a word admits more than one sense.

Anticipated objections

1. "The margins are not part of the inspired text; only the main text is."

Rebuttals

1. The margins are the translators' testimony about their own text. If they believed the main text was beyond correction, the margins would be pointless. The strong form must disagree with the men who produced the text it defends.

P3, "Which KJV?"

Affirmative case

1. 1611 included the Apocrypha between the Testaments; most modern KJV printings omit it.
2. The standard modern text is the 1769 revision, which corrected printing errors and modernized spelling (see KJV on the "He Bible" and "She Bible" variants of 1611).

Anticipated objections

1. "The changes are spelling and printing only; the text is the same."

Rebuttals

1. Then the objector has conceded that the KJV text required correction, and that corrected editions are still God's word. That is the principle modern translation also rests on.

P4, The preservation promises do not name a translation

Affirmative case

1. See Grammar: Psalm 12:7 on the KJV's own margin; Isaiah 40:8 quoted across languages in 1 Peter 1:25; Matthew 24:35 says "my words shall not pass away" without reference to English.

Anticipated objections

1. "God must have preserved His word perfectly somewhere, and the KJV is where it is."

Rebuttals

1. God preserved His word in the manuscripts and translations of the whole church. The fact that the surviving witnesses agree on the substance of the text everywhere, and differ in details that touch no doctrine, is itself the preservation the promises describe.

P5, It proves too much

Affirmative case

1. Before 1611, English Christians read Tyndale, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible.
2. Outside English, the church has read Scripture in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, German and hundreds of other languages.
3. The apostles quoted the Septuagint, a translation, as Scripture.

Anticipated objections

1. "God used earlier translations until He gave the perfect one."

Rebuttals

1. Then earlier translations were God's word in the ordinary sense, and the objector has conceded that more than one translation can be God's word. What remains is a preference, and a preference is not a doctrine.

Deployment with Hebrew Israelite camps

Most Hebrew Israelite branches read the KJV exclusively, and many of them also teach that God and Jesus must be called by Hebrew names (see The Hebrew Israelite Defense and Sacred Name Yahawah Yahawashi Required for Salvation Objection Defeater). The two commitments contradict each other on the KJV's own page:

• The KJV prints "LORD" (not a Hebrew name) in about 5,550 Old Testament verses (measured) and JEHOVAH only a handful of times.
• It prints "Jesus" for Joshua and explains, in the margin, "that is, Joshua" (Hebrews 4:8).
• Its translators rendered the divine name by a title because that is what Jewish tradition and the Greek translation had done before them.

The move: "The Bible you trust above all others calls Him LORD and Jesus. Either the KJV is corrupt at the name of God itself, or those names are acceptable. Which is it?" See Sacred Names Movement for the forms compared.

Tactical notes

• Open with respect for the KJV; the objector expects an attack on it and will listen differently to an ally.
• Read the margin at Psalm 12:7 aloud from the objector's own Bible. It does more than any argument.
• Do not debate a list of verses first. Settle the principle (translation is legitimate), then discuss particular readings.

Live-cite kit

• Scripture: Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:25; Matthew 24:35; Nehemiah 8:8; Psalm 12:6-7 with the KJV margin; Hebrews 4:8 with the KJV margin.
• Scholarly: the KJV translators' preface, "The Translators to the Reader" (Miles Smith, 1611); James White, The King James Only Controversy; Bruce Metzger on the Textus Receptus.
• Aphorism: "The KJV translators were not KJV-only."

See also

• KJV, the translation's history, textual basis, editions and notable verses
• Septuagint, the translation the apostles quoted
• Vulgate, consulted by the KJV translators
• NKJV, a modern translation on the same textual base
• Bible Manuscript Reliability, the manuscript evidence behind every translation
• Manuscript Variants Bible Corruption Objection Defeater, why variants do not unsettle the text
• The Bible Has Been Recopied and Changed Objection Defeater, the transmission charge from the other side
• Woman Caught in Adultery Was Added Objection Defeater, one of the passages where the KJV and modern texts differ
• Sacred Names Movement, the name forms and the KJV's own practice
• The Hebrew Israelite Defense, where KJV-onlyism meets sacred-name teaching