KJV-Only proponents claim "The original autographs were inspired. The King James Bible is those same autographs preserved up to today." As Phil Johnson correctly notes, "That statement is laughable nonsense, because 'original autographs' are by definition neither copies nor translations, but the original text on its original parchments. No reasonable or sensible person wishing to make an honest argument would claim that the autographs themselves are 'preserved' in the KJV or any other translation." Homer Kent has rightly stated, "All subsequent copies or translations are 'inspired' only to the extent that they accurately represent the autographs."
John Girardeau has said, "Are translations inspired? The position is here taken that so far as a translation faithfully represents the original Scriptures, it is characterized by the same inspiration with them. If it exactly coincides with the original as to matter, it is substantially the same with it. So far as it deviates from the original, it ceases to be inspired... The translation was effected by fallible men, and therefore contains some errors... The translators were uninspired men, and consequently liable to mistakes; the translation is inspired, so far it exactly gives the original—so far, no more."
Speaking of the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts, the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version said, "The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuity, grauitie, maiestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they vsed it, which they would not haue done, nor by their example of vsing it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene vnworthy the appellation and name of the word of God." Even though the Septuagint was not an entirely accurate translation from the original Hebrew manuscripts, Jesus and the Apostles still used it and called it the Word of God. If you compare the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, you will find that they more accurately reflect the Septuagint than they do the original Hebrew.
The KJV translators themselves condemn what the KJV-Onlyists stand on and have to say. Consider the following, as stated in "The Translators To the Reader":
John Girardeau has said, "Are translations inspired? The position is here taken that so far as a translation faithfully represents the original Scriptures, it is characterized by the same inspiration with them. If it exactly coincides with the original as to matter, it is substantially the same with it. So far as it deviates from the original, it ceases to be inspired... The translation was effected by fallible men, and therefore contains some errors... The translators were uninspired men, and consequently liable to mistakes; the translation is inspired, so far it exactly gives the original—so far, no more."
Speaking of the Septuagint—the Greek translation of the Hebrew manuscripts, the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version said, "The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuity, grauitie, maiestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they vsed it, which they would not haue done, nor by their example of vsing it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene vnworthy the appellation and name of the word of God." Even though the Septuagint was not an entirely accurate translation from the original Hebrew manuscripts, Jesus and the Apostles still used it and called it the Word of God. If you compare the Old Testament quotes in the New Testament, you will find that they more accurately reflect the Septuagint than they do the original Hebrew.
The KJV translators themselves condemn what the KJV-Onlyists stand on and have to say. Consider the following, as stated in "The Translators To the Reader":
- They believed the authority was in the originals.
- They believed in making new translations.
- They believed they were not inspired, but translators.
- They believed in putting varying readings in the margin.
- They said a variety of translations were necessary.
- They believed Scripture should be in common language.
"The originall thereof being from heauen, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets" (p.3).
"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (p.7).
"But the diference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with" (p.8).
"Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make of a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one" (p.9).
"It hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, here and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne saluation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scripture are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment" (p.10)
"That any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine … They that are wise, had rather haue their iudgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be another" (p.10).
"That varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (p.10).
"But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee vnderstood euen of the very vulgar" (p11).
Like every other translation, the KJV has its fair share of errors. In the 1611 KJV, in the margin for Luke 17:36, it states, "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." If we examine the 1560 Geneva Bible we can see that this is true. Verse 37 is verse 36. In modern translations, while they tend to include this verse, they make a marginal note that reads similar to that of the 1611 KJV: "Some manuscripts add verse 36." It is rather laughable how KJV-Only advocates will tell you that you should get a KJV Bible without cross-references, marginal notes, etc. They do so because the marginal notes undermine the position they are trying to make you swallow. The 1611 KJV, in the Old Testament alone, has some 6,637 marginal notes, which is more than many modern translations. They imbibe a steady diet of camels while straining out gnats.
KJV-Onlyists tend to erect many straw men and use many fallacious arguments. One such argument that holds absolutely no water is that regarding Isaiah 14:12 where they state that modern translations have replaced Lucifer with Jesus Christ. Grab yourself a Hebrew Lexicon and look up the Hebrew word for "Lucifer." You will notice that the meaning of the word is "day star" or "morning star." So by translating it in this way, they are not perverting anything. As a matter of fact, Jesus is called the "Bright and Morning Star." Further, in Isaiah it is not capitalized where as in Revelation it is. So it is a weak and ill-founded argument.
KJV-Onlylists also declare that we should only use the Textus Receptus. But which one? What they fail to tell you (and most of them fail to realize) is that there are many TRs: Erasmus [a devout Roman Catholic] (1516), Stephanus (1550), Beza (1565), Elzevir (1624), and Scrivener (1881, 1894) are just a few. Each of these men produced several variations of their TRs that differ greatly one from the others. Their TRs also differ greatly from each other's. There is not 100% agreement between any TR.
I met a man once who claimed Scrivener's text was the best. He said that Scrivener sat down with a copy of Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, comparing them side-by-side, to write his own, and when he came to a discrepancy between them, he turned to the KJV to decide the case. There's just one problem: this "TR" came about 270 years after the KJV was translated (283 years to the 1894 edition). There is no way the 1611 KJV was based off an 1881 or 1894 TR. So it is unreliable, especially considering it turns to a translation in order to sort out discrepancies in the original Greek. This “TR” is based on the KJV—it is not the underlying text of the KJV. Moreover, Scrivener included words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text. They are in italics because the KJV translators added them to help the text make sense when translated into English. Further, Scrivener's 1881 TR has marginal notations that reflect the Alexandrian text and the markings found in our modern translations.
This man who tried arguing for Scrivener's Textus Receptus agreed that the KJV was not without errors (and anyone who is honest will do likewise). He believed we should use the KJV for the Textus Receptus' sake. So I posed him an illustration. I said, "If a group of people are marooned on a remote desert island, having no faith whatsoever, and a plane flies overhead that accidentally drops a crate filled with ESV Bibles; if the people find those Bibles, read them and get saved, is their salvation false because they weren't reading a KJV Bible? Do they not really have the Word of God?" He responded defiantly, "If there was a glass of pure water and a glass of filthy dirty water, my god would never ask a person to drink the glass of filthy, dirty water!" I replied to him, "Oh? What do you call Na'aman? He was told to bob up and down seven times in the dirtiest river in the area in order to be healed" (see the story in 2 Kings 5).
The KJV is not a perfect translational match to either Stephanus' or Beza's TR, so which TR is the KJV supposedly translated from? When the writers of each TR are not consistent in their writings thereof, how can we say that we should use only the TR? And which TR should we use? While the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are indeed corrupt texts, it does not negate the other thousands of New Testament manuscripts that we have in our possession.
KJV-Onlyists state, "Is there one version extant among the multiplicity of versions which is without error today? If there is not, then we worship a God Who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure through the ages." Another classic example of a fallacious argument and the ignorance of the KJV-Only cultists. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. How many copies of those manuscripts do we have in our possession today?!? Clearly, God has preserved His Word. The English translation, whether of the KJV or the ESV, is not a preservation of the original autographs. It is a translation! This argument by the KJV-Onlyists is ill-founded on nonsense, but then again most their arguments are.
Do not be a spoon-fed Christian and fall for the nonsense of one blind man leading other blind men. Be a Berean Christian and obey the command to "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." You'll find great freedom from this immature band-wagon-crusade that only serves to take your eyes off of Jesus Christ. If you want a Bible that is as perfect to the original manuscripts as can get, you should get an Interlinear Bible. Here are the Bibles I would recommend (and essentially in what order):
KJV-Onlyists tend to erect many straw men and use many fallacious arguments. One such argument that holds absolutely no water is that regarding Isaiah 14:12 where they state that modern translations have replaced Lucifer with Jesus Christ. Grab yourself a Hebrew Lexicon and look up the Hebrew word for "Lucifer." You will notice that the meaning of the word is "day star" or "morning star." So by translating it in this way, they are not perverting anything. As a matter of fact, Jesus is called the "Bright and Morning Star." Further, in Isaiah it is not capitalized where as in Revelation it is. So it is a weak and ill-founded argument.
KJV-Onlylists also declare that we should only use the Textus Receptus. But which one? What they fail to tell you (and most of them fail to realize) is that there are many TRs: Erasmus [a devout Roman Catholic] (1516), Stephanus (1550), Beza (1565), Elzevir (1624), and Scrivener (1881, 1894) are just a few. Each of these men produced several variations of their TRs that differ greatly one from the others. Their TRs also differ greatly from each other's. There is not 100% agreement between any TR.
I met a man once who claimed Scrivener's text was the best. He said that Scrivener sat down with a copy of Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir, comparing them side-by-side, to write his own, and when he came to a discrepancy between them, he turned to the KJV to decide the case. There's just one problem: this "TR" came about 270 years after the KJV was translated (283 years to the 1894 edition). There is no way the 1611 KJV was based off an 1881 or 1894 TR. So it is unreliable, especially considering it turns to a translation in order to sort out discrepancies in the original Greek. This “TR” is based on the KJV—it is not the underlying text of the KJV. Moreover, Scrivener included words found in the KJV in italics as missing from their primary text. They are in italics because the KJV translators added them to help the text make sense when translated into English. Further, Scrivener's 1881 TR has marginal notations that reflect the Alexandrian text and the markings found in our modern translations.
This man who tried arguing for Scrivener's Textus Receptus agreed that the KJV was not without errors (and anyone who is honest will do likewise). He believed we should use the KJV for the Textus Receptus' sake. So I posed him an illustration. I said, "If a group of people are marooned on a remote desert island, having no faith whatsoever, and a plane flies overhead that accidentally drops a crate filled with ESV Bibles; if the people find those Bibles, read them and get saved, is their salvation false because they weren't reading a KJV Bible? Do they not really have the Word of God?" He responded defiantly, "If there was a glass of pure water and a glass of filthy dirty water, my god would never ask a person to drink the glass of filthy, dirty water!" I replied to him, "Oh? What do you call Na'aman? He was told to bob up and down seven times in the dirtiest river in the area in order to be healed" (see the story in 2 Kings 5).
The KJV is not a perfect translational match to either Stephanus' or Beza's TR, so which TR is the KJV supposedly translated from? When the writers of each TR are not consistent in their writings thereof, how can we say that we should use only the TR? And which TR should we use? While the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are indeed corrupt texts, it does not negate the other thousands of New Testament manuscripts that we have in our possession.
KJV-Onlyists state, "Is there one version extant among the multiplicity of versions which is without error today? If there is not, then we worship a God Who is either careless or impotent to keep His Word pure through the ages." Another classic example of a fallacious argument and the ignorance of the KJV-Only cultists. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. How many copies of those manuscripts do we have in our possession today?!? Clearly, God has preserved His Word. The English translation, whether of the KJV or the ESV, is not a preservation of the original autographs. It is a translation! This argument by the KJV-Onlyists is ill-founded on nonsense, but then again most their arguments are.
Do not be a spoon-fed Christian and fall for the nonsense of one blind man leading other blind men. Be a Berean Christian and obey the command to "Study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." You'll find great freedom from this immature band-wagon-crusade that only serves to take your eyes off of Jesus Christ. If you want a Bible that is as perfect to the original manuscripts as can get, you should get an Interlinear Bible. Here are the Bibles I would recommend (and essentially in what order):
- Interlinear (such as Jay P. Green's)
- New American Standard Bible (NASB)—This is a strictly literal translation.
- English Standard Version (ESV)—This is a formal or essentially literal translation.
- "1599" Geneva Bible (Published in 2006)—A modern-day spelling edition of our forefathers' Bible of choice; the Bible of firsts (verses, commentary notes, etc.), and the only English Bible to ever reform nations (England, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Hungary, Scotland, etc.) and found a nation (United States of America). The 1560 Geneva Bible was a literal translation, yet boldly idiomatic.
- Authorized Version (AV/KJV)—This is a formal or essentially literal translation.
- New King James Version (NKJV)—Providing it does not contain the triquetra occult symbol on it. This symbol has been associated with the occult for centuries and has never represented Christianity—ever! Start at any point and follow it around until it touches itself and you get "666".
- [Holman] Christian Standard Bible ([H]CSB)—In between formal/essentially literal and Dynamic Equivalency.
- New International Version (NIV)—The 1984 text. Reluctantly recommended simply because it is the most conservative of the DE (Dynamic Equivalency or Thought-for-thought) translations.
- Amplified Bible (AMP)—Contains unhelpful extra words that confuse the text, which Charismatic Word-Faith preachers utilize in support of their false and heretical teachings.
- New English Bible (NEB)—Dynamic Equivalency, Retains Apocrypha, Gender-inclusive.
- New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)—Contains dangerous heresy, Dynamic Equivalency, Retains Apocrypha, Gender-inclusive.
- Revised English Bible (REB)—Deeper Dynamic Equivalency, Retains Apocrypha, Gender-inclusive.
- Contemporary English Version (CEV)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary.
- Good News Translation (GNT)—Formerly the Good News Bible (GNB) and Today's English Version (TEV); Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary.
- God's Word (GW)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary.
- The Living Bible (TLB)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary.
- The Message (TM or MSG)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really, really bad commentary.
- New Century Version (NCV)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary.
- New International Version (NIV)—The 2011 text. Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary, Gender-inclusive. (This is the TNIV text.)
- New International readers Version (NIrV)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary.
- New Living Translation (NLT)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary.
- Today's New International Version (TNIV)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary, Gender-inclusive.
- Open English Bible (OEB)—Loose paraphrase, i.e. really bad commentary, Gender-inclusive.
- Jerusalem Bible (JB)—Roman Catholic.
- New American Bible (NAB)—Roman Catholic.
- New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)—Roman Catholic.