KJV-Only: My Motivation

I’ve been posting some material related to KJV-only belief (see the posts here). The plan is address specific, factual errors continuously put forward by KJV-Only advocates. Others, of course, have done this –people with greater scholarship, credential and experience (some of which is published). So this raises the question: Why spend my time on it?

Both my KJVO brothers and sisters and I have the same goal: we want people to trust that the Bible they’re reading is the Word of God. But we have a decision to make, are we going to try to grow that trust through assertions and axioms or through history and facts.

The Problem

Based on what I know from study and what I have heard/seen by most KJV-Only advocates, they seem to have their truth claims consistently encumbered by truth. This can be seen by YouTube contributors (with an apparently limitless capacity for posting KJVO teachings hereherehereherehereherehereherehere, etc) who continuously repeat false claims like:

  • The Textus Receptus is based on 5,000 manuscripts
  • Biblical manuscripts were copied so carefully they all match completely
  • The Alexandrian text is 3 manuscripts from Alexandria
  • That nothing good can come from Alexandria
  • New Bibles try to delete the deity of Jesus right out of scripture

And so on. Again, none of these are true. They’re just not. And they’ve been shown to not be true over and over and over again. So that’s a problem.

The Stakes

What is at stake here is truth and consistency. We cannot in good conscience teach against the falsehoods repeated by non-Christians without also speaking out against falsehood by my brothers and sisters. And I think we would agree with that.

But more importantly, my motive is for you, dear reader. I know a lot of you personally and I know that many of you have heard these false teachings and I know that some of you think they’re true. My hope is to simply show the facts and to show them so you can see them for yourself.

4 thoughts on “KJV-Only: My Motivation

  • December 2, 2013 at 10:21 am

    It’s good to see you posting on this topic… reminds me of some of our email exchanges years ago. At one point, I had come up with a list of at least six verses that a Bible teacher had used to support questionable teachings, but had misinterpreted them because of the confusing wording that the KJV sometimes presents for a modern reader. And if he only used the KJV to read those verses, this teacher would never know the difference. That’s a practical application of this discussion if there is any.

    • December 2, 2013 at 12:47 pm

      Hey man! Good to hear from you! And I our e-mails; those were good times. I went back and read one a while ago and I think i understand better where you were coming from. But that’s for another time.

      Thanks for your encouragement. Honestly, after I posted this, I watched 2 lectures by Dr. Gipp and some other snippets from some others. By the end of that, I wondered if any work in response was at all worth it.

      But you’re right: limited text exposure can easily lead to a misunderstanding of the text. That’s why we need each other. I need you, I need my church, I need my brothers (including Dr. Gipp), I even need those who think I’m a lunatic. I need them because I need accountability. And sometimes the best accountability can come from those who can never and will never see any good in me.

      Again, I think that’s the biggest difference between KJVO advocate and me. I can say to the KJVO advocate, “I need you to help me grow in my understanding of the text.” But the advocate really has no reason to say the same back to me. They have God’s perfect, preserved word, what else do they need?

      That’s why I’m pretty sure my conclusion will be boils down to a militant view of sola scriptura. I can’t demonstrate it yet, but I’m pretty sure that’s where this is headed.

  • December 2, 2013 at 8:42 pm

    I appreciate the militant humility that you talk about, in asking for accountability… but I don’t yet see where you’re heading yet with a militant Sola Scriptura. I’m interested to see what comes next. And thanks for your accountability in tempering my various arguments over the years.

    • December 4, 2013 at 1:55 pm

      If you listen to Dr. Gipp’s argument, the entire thing predicates on “Scripture” being the “final authority on all matters of faith and practice.” He then equates “scripture” with 1611 KJV and “all matters” as “everything”.

      So, i conclude, the position is a nuance-less simplification and over-application of sola scriptura.

      And I always value your thoughts and comments –even when, or especially when, you’ve been years ahead of your time. :-)

Comments are closed.