Translators' Preface

Here is a full-text reprint of the translators' preface to the 1611 KJV.

Key sections that undermine the KJVO argument:

• Why translation is necessary
• Why the Bible should be in an understandable language
• Why translations, including this one, can differ from each other without harming the message
• Why ambiguity or impossibility in translating required their addition of marginal notes
• Why the Catholic Bible was faulted for not being understandable enough
  

"For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables?" the 1611 translators asked (17.5).

Indeed! I say. Indeed.

Preservation

Here's a good article titled "The Preservation of Scripture," by Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary professor, William Combs. See also DBTS' resources on the KJV issue.

He classifies the different views of preservation, and then examines the actual verses that are used to support some of the various positions.

I appreciate his consideration of what the "word" of God means in each passage, since this can be interpreted several different ways--from prophecy, to the Scriptures, to Jesus. Unfortunately, many people fail to critically examine the meaning of "word" in the given context before applying it.

He makes an interesting point about John 21:25, also (p.24).

The KJVO myth of certainty (p. 37) is explained. How can I know my Bible is the Word of God?!

Sadly, the KJVO position boils down to a faith decision, in contradiction to the facts about the Textus Receptus tradition, the meaning of simple Greek words, and the amount of energy put forth by so many KJVO-types to present their case as reasonable, scholarly, and Biblical.

KJVO Humor

Here's a classic example of a pithy KJVO one-liner (with grammar error):

I'm still in The Book, you're in many books.

Does anyone remember a name for this type of "argument" in logic--the "my-wit-proves-your-error" argument?

Chicken and the Egg?

"No KJVO church I know of is even borderline charismatic."

What to make of this statement?!

Really, if this is true, what does it mean? Does this mean that the KJV translation, unlike others, somehow makes clear that God is anti-charismatic (and anti-guitar)? Or does this shed light on who KJVO appeals to?

I would have thought that an honest and rational translation philosophy could be shared by members of all denominations, but maybe I'm wrong. So ... what? Only within the Baptist community do we find those who genuinely hear the Lord, who are genuinely spiritual?

If this statement is true, then it may be some of the strongest proof for KJVO having a short history--that the movement hasn't moved beyond a specific denominational flavor or been integrated into a more diverse range of churches, yet. I don't think that Baptists are the only Christians gullible or anti-intellectual enough to fall for this kind of weak teaching; therefore, I would expect that, given time, it would infect the Body of Christ more widely.

Baptist Board forum

Here's a lengthy but interesting KJVO thread at BaptistBoard.com on the origins of the KJVO movement. The thread is interesting because contributors include Baptist missionaries and pastors, and because it references some first-hand experiences with Baptist Bible schools and churches during the early years of the KJVO movement. Beware the last few pages; a couple KJVO folk try hijacking the thread and it starts to deteriorate into typical KJVO-style salvation questioning and red herring flinging.

Posts of note in this thread
1. The Psalm 12 controversy: #27
2. cults' use of KJV: #44
3. KJVO vs. foreign language Bibles and missions: #16, #180
4. reasons for KJV dominance / continued use of other translations: #22, #49, #83, #119
5. The "study to show thyself approved" archaism: #29, #39
6. The "devil's plot" to water down the Bible claim: #16, #189
7. KJVO / Baptist history: #3, #7, #53, #64
8. KJVO / anti-charismatic (& anti-contemporary music) link: #195

Fundamentalist / Baptist History

Some interesting quotes from Fundamentalist and/or Baptist leaders over the years in this article, along with some basic criticisms of KJVO and some thought-provoking warnings about dividing the church.

Fundamentalist History on KJVO

Despite the error in the title, this article gives some interesting quotes against KJVO by fundamentalist pillars, seminaries, etc.

The Point of Translation

A concise reminder of what Bible translation is FOR, and a few examples of the KJV's failings in that regard.

Purified Silver

One explanation of the error in 1) the KJV's translation of Psalm 12, and 2) the KJVO interpretation of this Psalm as a proof text for their preservation doctrine. Another treatment of this error.

The Goliath "Issue"

Who really killed Goliath? Here and here for some reasonable explanation.

Example of KJV Obscuring the Text

Here's a great example of how the KJV's rendering of a passage creates confusion for anyone but a scholar of the original language--not that such a person would then rely on KJV English to explain the meaning....

Isn't it interesting how a KJV user trying to preach or teach will paraphrase the KJV so that it can be understood in English? And how often those paraphrases sound like one of the modern translations?

Bob Jones on KJVO

Fascinating. Never thought I would be referring people to Bob Jones on this topic. Note the other links--to R. A. Torrey, for example, and Spurgeon.

The wit and wisdom of Fred Butler

Excellent first-person story from a former KJVO convert.
Confessions of a King James Only Advocate

Similar to
Leaving King James Onlyism

Then read Fred Butler's
6 Arguments in Defense of KJVO

and his response to each:

• The Exclusivity Argument [1]
• The Exclusivity Argument [2]
• The Promise Argument
• The Textual Argument [1]
• The Textual Argument [2] The OT
• The Textual Argument [3] The NT
• Have Heretics Corrupted My Bible?
• Were Westcott and Hort Apostate New Agers?
• The Line of Good Bibles Argument
• The King James Translators and Their Work
• The Historical Argument

And perhaps, while we're at it, his analysis of the "inerrancy" issue, and the similarities between KJVO folk and the liberal / unitarian types:

• Liberals, KJV Onlyists, and Inerrancy
• Liberals and Inerrancy Part Two
• Responding to Non-Inerrancy Claims