This debate is to me, a bit surprising. Both that it still goes on, and the passion the KJV only group puts into it. I still see people on the internet using the King James version of the Bible, and I know a few people who use it regularly. Before I get into anything, let me be crystal clear- I will never tell people to stop using the King James Version of the Bible.
Some out there regard it as the “safe” version that has never somehow been “tainted” in any way, so that it’s also the “purest” version of God’s word. Some of them know a bit about the manuscript basis that they argue is superior to that of other versions. Some have told me all other versions are Roman Catholic Bibles- and then one name seems to come up again and again.
Gail Riplinger- The writer of “New Age Bible Versions”, The Language of the King James Bible”, “Which Bible is God’s word”, “King James and his Translators”, and more. Her website “avpublications.com”- of course referring to the “Authorized King James version”. I give her credit, she has inspired a devoted following against modern versions of the Bible. Particularly through the use of language attaching them to a satanic agenda that is incendiary to the Christian who knows anything about Spiritual warfare. Call something satanic or demonic, and the fire is lit. The raw emotions are out- the agenda begins on an unstoppable foothold with righteous motivation and certain victory being allied with God. Right?
Like I said, I won’t tell anyone to stop using this version. Riplinger’s followers- many seem devoted enough that it won’t matter what I say. What I will say to the Christian reading this however; Most of the problems facing the Church today have nothing to do with what version of the Bible people are reading. Biblical Illiteracy- or not reading it enough- is far more concerning than which version you read from. I will flip the incendiary language Riplinger uses to advance her agenda and say we are very blessed in this manner that we have an abundance of Bible translations to choose from. The translations themselves will tell you in the beginning- no translation is perfect. Anyone who has ever tried to translate something from one language to another will tell you, it is linguistically impossible to carry over every last nuance, every last bit of meaning, or every word, from one language to another. Anyone who disbelieves that is welcome to try and learn another language, and translate the same message back and forth. Every translation interprets, every translation has to make interpretive decisions about the manner in which to render something in the receiving language. There is more than one way to translate and keep the meaning of something the same- simply because languages have more than one way to say most things.
The King James Version- to the KJ only movement- I’m sorry- your version went through the exact same process all these other ones did. Unless you want to claim to be an expert in both the Textual Criticism surrounding the manuscript basis- or better yet- have training in the original Biblical languages; I’m sorry- don’t pretend you have the upper hand in this debate. Gail Riplinger has neither training in textual criticism nor training in the original languages beyond resources available to all of us in Greek or Hebrew textbooks. That’s right. Her degrees are a B.A. in interior design, M.A. in Home economics, and an M.F.A. in art from Kent State University. I can claim a Bible minor to my name if that means anything- that’s more than what she claims. She has no formal training in theology.
King James only people- your welcome to keep using your version- but don’t tell people to only use it. Don’t tell people all other versions are Catholic or satanic Bibles- it tells the rest of us how passionately you don’t know what you’re talking about and cling to someone who has no training in this field. Find me one Bible the Catholic scholars will claim as the right one that doesn’t have the apocrypha, or Deuterocanonical books- and I will take back this statement. You have an uphill climb. Find an example of the Devil or a demon telling someone to read a Bible period- and I will also take back the criticism for your calling modern versions satanic Bibles. Again- you have an uphill climb. Even if you want to base this on potentially bad verse renderings, please, find me one doctrine that is version dependent. Happy climbing.
I’ve had people criticize me for taking too highly the opinions of scholars. People have cited 1 Cor. 1:27 to me “God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise”. Earlier in the same chapter to give you some context vs 18 ‘For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Nothing in this chapter is about Scholarship- and where Paul speaks about not using eloquence (1 Cor. 1:17)- he’s trying to evangelize and spread the gospel. Do you really want to tell me Paul wasn’t capable of intense study when Peter tells us some of his letters are hard to understand (2 Pet. 3:16)? Seminary didn’t exist at this time – at least not in the modern sense today’s teachers usually go through. You want to undermine the scholars that brought us these versions? They are not the fools this chapter is talking about. Same thing with the scholars that brought you your King James Bible 400 years ago. Not that scholarship makes one perfectly and completely right for sure. But you are dependent on scholarship just as much as I am if you trust your KJV.
The King James Bible is absolutely worth having, reading, and consulting. It was the basis in version transmission that brought us the RSV, ESV, NRSV, NKJV, and more loosely in the same tradition- The NIV. The KJV however- is not how we would say that in English today. I personally think word for word versions are overrated unless you’re a student studying the original language. They take the receptor language and make it sound like the original language so it’s a lot harder to understand. You can experiment with this easily- take the NASB or ESV and read it alongside the NIV or another thought for thought version. Particularly considering those who may be newer to the faith- it makes more sense to translate as much as possible into natural English. Call me biased, I have been more blessed by the NIV than any other version. I consult the formal equivalent ones- but I feel like I’m trying to understand broken English when I do. Do you want English to sound like Spanish- or vice versa when talking to a co-worker? It takes more effort to understand.
Have I set up a strawman? Have I too easily framed this issue to be easily defeated? Have I disregarded Riplinger without reading her books? First, this is not worth damaging anyone’s faith or identity over. It is last of my intentions to cause anyone’s faith to stumble over this. The problem is in attacking the modern versions as this group does- that goes to the basis of how I have been blessed as well, and therefore to an extent, my identity too. I only react against this group with the passion they direct against me, yet without calling their version satanic or demonic. I will take Riplinger more seriously when I hear she has training on these subjects, and other scholars to collaborate her opinions- more than a few. A team of scholars provided us with the KJV, teams of them gave us the modern versions. You can look up who they were, what books they translated, the Seminaries they teach at, and what subjects they specialize in. It’s a fair playing field for further investigation on either side of the debate.
Reading a Bible period, is better than none at all. The modern versions are not Catholic, not satanic, and not full of false translation errors- and to claim they are would be very insulting to the Bible scholars who worked hard to provide them. If you want to keep challenging the point- consider the book from D.A. Carson on this. He is one of the current world authorities on textual criticism and Bible Translation- his translations made it into some of these modern versions. His book- “The king James only Debate” was written more than 50 years ago now. His endorsement of the NIV is right there on the NIV website.
Or consider James White- “The King James only Controversy”- although I know some times he gets a bad reputation for his arrogance.
Bruce Metzger- another now deceased authority on textual criticism to consider- he was part of the team that worked on the NRSV.
FF Bruce- Also deceased- another authority to consider.
Those reading the KJV or any of the modern versions- not including the New World Translation- have all the basis they need to continue. Those telling us to only use the King James Version, do not have a basis to tell us this. I do think it would benefit the Christian Church to stop shooting this issue back and forth at each other in front of non-believers on social media threads and elsewhere. We do a fantastic job demonstrating how divided we are on social media. It is just not necessary on this topic.
Last edited 11/24/2021
Edifying Christianity 