King James Only movement

[

---

thumb|right|The_First_Page_of_the_Book_of_Genesis in the 1611 printing of the KJV] The King James Only movement is a label applied to a wide variety of beliefs concerning the superiority of the Authorized King James Version (KJV) of the Christian Bible; and often to the Textus Receptus version of the New Testament and the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament, from which the KJV was translated.

The origin of the label "King James Only" is unclear, though as early as 1987, [Citation
last = Pement
first = Eric
title = Gimme the Bible that Paul used: A look at the King James Only debate
date = March, 1987
year = 1987
url = http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/5951/KJVOnly.html
accessdate = 2008-03-27] it was being used to refer to claims of exclusivity for the King James Version and the controversy which had been brewing over these claims for almost a decade. [cite book
last = Carson
first = D. A.
authorlink = Don Carson
title = The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism
publisher = Baker Academic
date = 1978
pages =
isbn = 0801024277
oclc = 5122445 pn] [cite book
last = Walker
first = Ronald L.
title = The King James Controversy
publisher = Baptist Bible College
date = 1980
pages =
isbn =
id = ASIN|B000HEDHXG pn] [cite book
last = Chinn
first = Douglas S.
coauthors = Robert C. Newman
title = Demystifying the Controversy over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible
publisher = Interdisciplinary Biblical Research
date = 1980
pages =
isbn = 0944788033
oclc = 25398454 pn] [cite book
last = Custer
first = Stewart
coauthors =
title = The truth about the King James version controversy
publisher = Bob Jones University Press, Inc
date = 1981
pages =
isbn = 0890841373
oclc = 8062344 pn] American church historian and apologist James R. White claims that the phrases "KJV Only" and "KJV Onlyism" are not "insulting" or "inaccurate." [cite book
last = White
first = James
authorlink = James White (theologian)
title = The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
publisher = Bethany House
date = 1995
location = Minneapolis
pages = 248
isbn = 1556615752
oclc = 32051411 ] However, KJV proponent D. A. Waite alleges the term is a "smear word". [Citation
last1 = Waite | first1 = Donald
author-link = D. A. Waite
title = King James Only As Slander #1
date = 2007-02-03
year = 2007
url =
accessdate = 2008-03-26 ] [Citation
last1 = Waite | first1 = Donald
author-link = D. A. Waite
title = King James Only As Slander #2
date = 2007-02-06
year = 2007
url =
accessdate = 2008-03-26 ]

Variations

James White has divided the King James Only movement into 5 main types: [cite book
last = White
first = James
authorlink = James White (theologian)
title = The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
publisher = Bethany House
date = 1995
location = Minneapolis
pages = 1–4
isbn = 1556615752
oclc = 32051411 ]
*"I Like the KJV Best" Though White lists this group as a division of the King James Only group,Fact|date=October 2008 this division does not believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version. Individuals in this category simply prefer the KJV over other translations because their church uses it, because they have always used it, or because they like its style. [cite web
last = Riplinger
first = Gail A.
authorlink = Gail Riplinger
title = The Breath and Heartbeat of God
work = In Awe of Thy Word
date = 2003
url = http://www.chick.com/reading/books/284/0284_09.asp
accessdate = 2008-03-27 ]
*"The Textual Argument" - Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane C. Hodges is a good example of this group. [cite book
last = White
first = James
authorlink = James White (theologian)
title = The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?
publisher = Bethany House
date = 1995
location = Minneapolis
pages = 5
isbn = 1556615752
oclc = 32051411 ] The Trinitarian Bible Society would fit in this division; though "the Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language", [Citation
last1 = Watts | first1 = Malcolm H.
title = The Accuracy of the Authorised Version
journal = Quarterly Record
volume = 578
issue = 1
pages = 8
publisher = Trinitarian Bible Society
year = 2007
url = http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr578.pdf ] , "the Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century rationalistic principles of scholarship." ["The Text of the Bible used by the Trinitarian Bible Society", from "Principles" (http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/principles.asp)]
*"Received Text Only" - Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good. Donald Waite would fall into this category.
*"The Inspired KJV Group" - Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.
*"The KJV As New Revelation" - This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJV supporter.

These latter two views have also been referred to as, "Double Inspiration."Fact|date=August 2008

These types are not all mutually exclusive, nor a comprehensive summary of 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. [cite journal |journal=Credenda/Agenda |title=Hearers of the Word |last=Wilson |first=Douglas |authorlink=Douglas Wilson (theologian) |url=http://credenda.org/issues/10-1thema.php |volume=10 |issue=1 |accessdate=2008-07-01]

ee also

*Bible version debate

Notes

Further reading

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*