Why do you King James Only People Divide the Church and Attack the Bible?
Why do you King James Only People Divide the Church and Attack The Bible?
You can now listen to the 46 minute video presentation of this article that brother Dave Falanga and I made on February 16, 2017. Here is the link.
The Bible Agnostic crowd, as usual, has everything backwards, as is witnessed by this recent post by Don B. who himself does not believe that any Bible in any language is now or ever was the inerrant words of God.
Don B. posted: “My complaint is with a minority of KJV extremists who seek to divide Christianity and attack the Bible.”
Let’s address this frequent charge I hear by those who are confronted with the King James Bible issue. I have recently been asked several times: “Why do you King James only people cause divisions in the body and attack the word of God?”
Most of the people asking this question are woefully ignorant of what has been going on for the last 100 years or so, and who started this attack on the Bible. It certainly was not the King James Bible believers. It was the seminaries and the modern versionist themselves who started this attack, not only on the King James Bible but on the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scriptures as a whole.
As for "causing division in the body of Christ" the issue is very simple. Truth always divides. If we who believe in the inerrancy of the King James Bible were to just give up the fight and join in with the crowd by saying: "You know, you guys are right after all. There really is no such thing as an inerrant and 100% true Bible in any language (including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek); No translation is perfect", then we would be "warmly welcomed back into the fold" and united with them in their basic unbelief in the inerrancy of The Bible.
Then we could all just "get along in Christian love and unity". But by God's grace, we are not going to cave in to the ever growing unbelief in the absolute truth of God's written words but will take our stand on the solid rock of "the book of the LORD", the King James Bible, as being the infallible words of the living God of history and redemption.
The Attack Begins
Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) of the Westcott and Hort fame -
In a private letter dated 1851, Mr. Hort betrayed his hatred toward the revered Textus Receptus when he wrote:
"I had no idea until the last few weeks of the importance of texts having read so little Greek Testament and dragged on with THE VILLAINOUS Textus Receptus. Think of THAT VILE TEXTUS RECEPTUS leaning entirely on late manuscripts."
Thus at only twenty-three years of age and having admitted to reading little of the Greek Testament, Hort concluded that the Textus Receptus was "vile" and "villainous."
When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1946 and then was revised three more times till 1973, it did the usual “praise and then blast” syndrome on the King James Bible we see so often today by men like James White, Doug Kutilek, Rick Norris, James Price and D.A. Carson, all of whom have books out there now which say things like “The King James Version is a fine translation”, “I love the King James Bible” and then they proceed page after page to blast away at all the alleged “errors” they think they have found in this Bible they profess to love so much.
In the Preface of the RSV we find them first saying: “The King James Version has with good reason been termed “the noblest monument of English prose.” We owe to it an incalculable debt.” Then in the very next sentence they say: “Yet the King James Version HAS GRAVE DEFECTS....these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation....The KJV of the N.T. was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes.”
The RSV continues attacking the King James Bible by further stating: "The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying....We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the N.T. and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text." (page vii of the RSV Preface.)
And what precisely are these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" these modern versions refer to but never identify? They are primarily two Greek manuscripts that differ not only from the vast Majority of all Greek texts, but also from each other more than 3000 times in the gospels alone! If you want to know the FACTS about what these "oldest and best" texts really contain, then check out my article here:
It’s interesting, isn’t it, that the Bible Critics always pick on the King James Bible, and not the others. Even at the time the RSV came out, there had ALREADY BEEN two revisions of the English translation - the Revised Version of 1881 and the American Standard Version of 1901. Why didn’t the RSV editors mention these?
The NIV Attack
We see this typical "praise and then blast" method used by Mr. Edwin Palmer, the chief editor and translator of the NIV. He wrote the booklet called "The NIV - The Making of a Contemporary Translation".
In Chapter 14 of his booklet, titled: "Isn’t the King James Version Good Enough? (The KJV and the NIV Compared)", Mr. Palmer says: "I love the King James Version. I was converted under it, my first memory verses were taken from it, and I have been blessed by it. And God still uses the KJV to bring many people to salvation in Christ. This version was translated by godly men who did an excellent job with the tools they had in the language of four centuries ago. Countless millions have been converted, sanctified, and nurtured through it. Thank God for that marvelously used translation. THE KJV IS NOT, HOWEVER, THE BEST TRANSLATION TO USE TODAY. THIS IS SO FOR TWO REASONS: (1) IT ADDS TO THE WORD OF GOD, AND (2) IT HAS NOW-OBSCURE AND MISLEADING RENDERINGS OF GOD'S WORD."
Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "DO NOT GIVE THEM A LOAF OF BREAD, COVERED WITH AN INEDIBLE, IMPENETRABLE CRUST, FOSSILIZED BY THREE AND A HALF CENTURIES. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible… FOR ANY PREACHER OR THEOLOGIAN WHO LOVES GOD'S WORD TO ALLOW THAT WORD TO GO ON BEING MISUNDERSTOOD BECAUSE OF THE VENERATION OF AN ARCHAIC, NOT-UNDERSTOOD VERSION OF FOUR CENTURIES AGO IS INEXCUSABLE, AND ALMOST UNCONSCIONABLE." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)
So, do you STILL think the people directly behind the NIV are "neutral", fair and unbiased in their open disparagement and severe criticism of the King James Holy Bible?
It should be noted as well that the NIVs "fresh bread" apparently got moldy after a few years and they no longer print the NIV 1984 version. They have now "updated" it and "got it right this time" by changing more of the Hebrew readings as well as the underlying Greek texts; changing the meaning of literally hundreds of verses and modifying about 40% of the verses from the way they read in the "old" NIV.
See my two articles on the "new" New International Version -
The New Testament in "What about the new NIV 2011?" -
And the new NIV Old Testament of 2011 here -
Dan Wallace and the NET version
Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary and chief editor behind the online NET version, has written an article called “Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available. You can see his entire article here for yourself, if you like.
Here are a few of his remarks.
“First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life.”
NOTE: Well, this sounds very pious and orthodox, but Mr. Wallace uses a present tense verb “IS” when he talks about the inerrant Bible, but he could not tell you were to get a copy of this mystical, invisible Bible he says he believes in if his life depended on it. So, the very first words out of his mouth are deceptive. He wants to give you the impression that he believes in something that he himself does not have.
Next Mr. Wallace begins his attack on the King James Bible. Here are some of the things he says:
“Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places.”
“The King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes!”
NOTE: Proof? Examples? No, just Mr. Wallace's bold assertions. What texts do most modern version promoters recommend instead? The "oldest and best manuscripts" of course. Well, if you want to know what these "oldest and best" really look like, then take a look:
“Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?"
NOTE: There have been no where near 100,000 changes. They merely changed the text from Gothic print to Roman print and updated spelling like sinne to sin; feare to fear and blinde to blind. By the way, Mr. Wallace hypocritically asks “Which KJB is inspired?” when he himself will NEVER tell you which specific Bible he thinks is inspired and inerrant. He doesn’t have one!
See more on The Printing Error Ploy here:
“Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?”
NOTE: - For such an educated man, Mr. Wallace apparently does not know his own English language very well. Look up the meanings of “suffer” in a dictionary, Mr. Wallace. You might be surprised and learn something. By the way, “study” still means “study”!
“SUFFER the little children to come unto me”
2 Timothy 2:15 "Study", "be diligent" or "do your best"?
See my article “The “Old Fashioned” Language of the King James Bible”
“Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.”
NOTE: - Mr. Wallace again shows his ignorance. It looks like he is just parroting the same silly example other bible agnostics like James White are putting out there without ever having looked into it for himself. Matthew 23:24 is NOT a printing error. See
For much more about Dan Wallace, see
Dan Wallace is messing with The Book
When a modern versionist tells the truth about what he REALLY believes.
Most present day Christians actually agree with this guy. They are just too dishonest to admit it.
To see what I mean by this, See my article "Stop Lying About It!"
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
The Scholars Attack
Joel Hoffman, a supposed expert in Bible translation, says the King James Version is the “fool’s gold standard of translation” and claims that it is “monumentally inaccurate” (“Bible Scholar,” Christian Newswire, May 2, 2011). Hoffman, author of And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning, compares the KJV to an undependable ancient map and warns that “those who would navigate the Bible solely with this 400-year-old translation journey in perils.”
The Bruce Metzger Greek Attack
Bruce Metzger (1914-2007) was one of the chief editors of the Nestle-Aland, United Bible Society Critical texts, which are the basis for most modern versions like the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET and Holman Standard versions.
Bruce Metzger believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of "myth, legend, and history," the record of the worldwide flood of Noah's day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain "legendary elements," Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a "legend," Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader's Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor.
Metzger calls the Textus Receptus (which is the textual basis of the King James Bible New Testament" "CORRUPT" (The Text of the N.T., 1968, page 106) and later on called it 'DEBASED" and "DISFIGURED" (A Textual Commentary of the Greek N. T., 1975, pp.xxi, xxii) But when the King James Bible believer shows why the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (upon which most modern versions are based) are in fact among the worst and calls them "corrupt", he is then accused of being mean spirited and unkind!
The Popular Preacher Attack
John Piper Tells us in this short video How to Move a Congregation from the King James Bible to a "Better Translation"
In this short 2 1/2 minute video John Piper refers to his ESV and other modern versions as being "just as accurate and more helpful" and his main reason for "moving a congregation from the KJB to a better translation" is because he says the Bible should be in "a common language, not formal, literary, 300 year old stilted language" and that "we need new translations from time to time."
It never seems to enter the thinking of people like John Piper, John MacArthur and others who glowingly recommend the ESV as being "just as accurate" as the King James Bible that the ESV omits literally THOUSANDS of words from the God inspired texts found in the King James Bible.
For much more information about the every changing ESVs, See -
The Ever Changing ESVs 2001, 2007, 2011 and 2016 editions = just another Vatican Version
The ESV omits some 18 entire verses from the New Testament, even more than do the NASB, NIV and the ESV ADDS literally HUNDREDS of words to the Hebrew texts that not even the NASB, NIV do; and all three of these "just as accurate" modern versions reject scores of Hebrew readings and not even in the same places.
He doesn't even mention the huge textual differences that exist among all these "just as accurate" versions, nor does he refer to the completely different meanings found in hundreds of verses. This would completely undermine his whole position.
Instead he tells us that the main reason for getting away from the King James Bible and embracing a modern version is because "we need new translations from time to time that are not in stilted, literary 300 year old language but in modern language."
His reasoning may sound convincing to those who are either ignorant or unconcerned about the very real and serious TEXTUAL differences between the King James Bible and most modern versions. But how in the name of logic or God given common sense can two very different Texts both be "just as accurate"?!!!?
Oh, and by the way, all those "stilted, literary 300 year old" thee's and ye's are FAR more accurate to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts and often make a very big difference in meaning than Mr. Piper's "common language" use of the generic "you". Here is why the use of Thee and Ye is far more accurate and should be kept -
R. C. Sproul and his opinion of the King James Bible -
"Any time a translation of the Bible enjoys the preeminent position of acceptance and usage over such a long period of time as the King James Version (KJV) has, there are bound to be howls of protest when its position of honor is threatened. The New International Version has outsold the KJV since 1987. Some have charged that to replace the kjv is nothing less than the work of the devil! Others have acted as though it was a verbally inspired translation.
But one fact concerning the King James Version cannot and must not be ignored: it is simply less accurate in its representation of the original writings of Scripture than most modern translations. There is a crucial historical reason for this. The Greek text from which the kjv was translated (the Textus Receptus) IS CLEARLY INFERIOR to more modern reconstructed Greek texts. MANY TEXTUAL ERRORS FOUND IN THE KING JAMES VERSION have been eliminated by more recent translations." Knowing Scripture pp. 132-133 R.C. Sproul
I find it so highly ironic that the Calvinists like R.C. Sproul, James White, John Piper and Dan Wallace have abandoned the Reformation Text of the Bible, as found in the King James Bible and which was done by men who overwhelmingly were themselves strong Calvinists, and they are now promoting the new Vatican Versions like the every changing ESVs, NIVs, and NASBs. Folks, it doesn't get much more ironic than this.
See the documented PROOF that these new versions men like R.C. Sproul, James White and John Piper are pushing are indeed the new Vatican Versions here -
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard, NET, Jehovah Witness NWT etc. are the new "Vatican Versions" Part One - the Documentation
Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, Holman Standard, NET, NASBs, Jehovah Witness NWT are the new "Vatican Versions" Part TWO, which shows the whole verses, phrases and word omissions common to them all.
The Vatican's efforts to destroy faith in the Bible.
If you have some time, here is a well done documentary called A Lamp in the Dark, by Chris Pinto. I has a lot of good information about the Bible version issue and the efforts of the Roman Catholic Church to destroy what it calls "the Paper Pope of Protestantism" - that it, The Bible.
No my friend, it is not the King James Bible believer who is attacking the words of God. On the contrary, it is the King James Bible believer who really and truly believes that God has been faithful to His promises that “The Scripture cannot be broken” and that we do have such a thing as a complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible on the earth today. And we can tell anybody who wants to know, where to get one for themselves.
The King James Holy Bible is God’s perfect and inerrant Book. Get used to it.
Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm