Leaving King James Onlyism Behind – Damien’s Story
I didn’t grow up with the King James Version, but I did have an inquisitive nature from a very early age. This would pay off later as I embraced the King James Version Only (KJVO) doctrine. The church I went to from a child used the New American Standard Bible (NASB) as its version of choice. I’d say the church was along the lines of a MacArthur type church: Baptistic, non-denominational, premillennial, Reformed, conservative music and dress, touching the IFB border, but without the ability to decide whether or not they were “in” because the Bible version thing alone had them ostracized (along with obvious other features). Though the pastor was an original member of the Majority Text society (which I found out much later), the Bible version was never an issue. I went to an IFB church as a teenager and was taught the KJVO perspective. Let me be sure to say that the people in this church did not jump down my throat with the issue. They were very charitable. I showed up to my first Bible study with my NASB, and was given a KJV in place of it (for unity’s sake). But as I continued to attend the church, I found that my Bible wasn’t really a Bible at all. I was so soon convinced of the issue that I threw away my copy of God’s Word and bought a King James.
Why was I convinced? Well, the arguments were very simple and at the time I had not heard the other side. Though I had a respect for my former, non-KJVO church, I was learning so much through this new church (plus I had a new affinity for apologetics) that I assumed that everything they taught was right. I embraced the Baptist heritage (including the Trail of Blood), I found everything in the Sword of the Lord to be helpful, and found a new hero in David Cloud. I then began to spend a lot of time on the Internet researching the subject, because I had some doubts. Cloud was a steady guide through this, for if I ever heard a possible plausible objection to KJVO, I’d simply go to his website, type in a phrase in the search box, and get my answer. If he didn’t have one, certainly D.A. Waite or Sam Gipp did. Though I didn’t truly consider the other side of the story, I felt that if I found an answer I was “good.” In fact, I recall not reading entire articles because the fact that there was an answer satisfied me. For instance, I attended a seminar held by a local radio host and Messianic speaker whose church I attended from time to time. It wasn’t on Bible versions, but probably because of the fact that the chapel had KJVs in the pew, he pointed out an error in the KJV. His tone of voice indicated that he had been involved in a scuffle with a rabid KJVO. He was going through a very concise (and well done) history of the Bible and came to Acts 12:4, of which he said, “that is the Passover. The King James has ‘Easter’. I don’t care who you are, that’s an error in the King James Version.” I went home, looked up the controversy, found Sam Gipp’s article, and was relieved. I didn’t read the article. I assumed he was right.
And that was the entire problem of my embracing the KJVO doctrine. I worked backwards. I didn’t do research to gain the truth, I did research to support what I presupposed was right teaching. I fear this is what a lot in the KJVO crowd do, though I obviously don’t speak for everyone. As I entered into Bible college, I hoped that I would gain the knowledge and credibility to go toe-to-toe with guys like James White. The problem was I didn’t really know what people like him believed. I just swallowed everything I heard, that guys on the non-KJVO side ignored Bible verses, were unbelievers, or part of a great new age conspiracy. When I first skimmed through Riplinger’s work, I felt I had a sort of “secret knowledge” of which the overwhelming majority of Christendom was ignorant. But I still had reservations about some of the vitriol coming from her and people like Texe Marrs. I was already told to stay away from Ruckman. I wanted to be more like Waite – scholarly, yet firm. Unfortunatel, 4 years of Bible college left me with more questions than answers. I’ve spent several years trying to satisfy the questions and fill the holes of KJVO. I attended a KJVO IFB church for nearly a decade. I went to a KJVO Bible college. I read Riplinger, Hills, Waite, Cloud, Burton, Daniels, Chick, Marrs, Strouse, Holland, Sorenson, and many others. I attended D.A. Waite’s KJVO seminar twice. None of these things filled the void. I still had biblical, historical, and logical doubts. The problem, again, was that I approached the subject thinking it was right rather than letting the evidence lead where it would. I began to read more into the Majority Text position, and adapted that for awhile.
But then I changed my entire way of sifting through the issue. I prayed. I confessed to God that I’ve been prideful in my theology. I asked Him to solidify my beliefs if they’re right, but to lead me to the truth even if I have to change. I decided to look into the issue from the other side, without the bias against the authors. After all, I’d enjoyed so much written from the perspective of these so-called “new evangelicals” and benefited greatly. Why did I assume that their views on this issue were always wrong? So I read D.A. Carson, then James White, then Kevin Bauder, then James Price. I dug through Doug Kutilek’s archive. I read Dan Wallace. And I purchased the John Ankerberg show on the subject and watched it several times (I recommend this as the best and quickest resource for the entire debate). These men didn’t really tell me anything new: they answered my questions with what I used to fear was right. But I didn’t fear it anymore. I knew the Bible didn’t teach what King James Onlyists say it does. There’s so much more I can add, but this has already been too long. I didn’t talk about specific issues within KJVO because that’s why this site exists. I wanted to provide my story and what I think was the greatest thing keeping me in KJVO – theological pride. My encouragement to everyone, even on the opposing side is this: don’t assume you’re right. Don’t even assume that what you’re taught is right, even from a respected source. Weigh everything by scripture. If the Bereans can do it to Paul, we certainly can do it to each other. And don’t be afraid of where the evidence leads, for God will use it to lead you to Him if you have an open heart. My inquisitiveness only became useful when I allowed the Lord to answer my questions.
http://electofgod.blogspot.com/2009/04/critical-text-products-as-salve-to.html
Great article, Damien. Very similar to my story, which I’ll put up shortly. Lots of questions, few answers — and a bias that says, anything that remotely resembles an answer is probably good enough.
Damien, forgive my brevity, but it appears that you just went from following one group of men to following another. You said that you prayed about it, which is the right thing to do, but you then began to list off a whole new set of authors. You say, “Weigh everything by scripture.”, but you list none, only a long list of new teachers.
I see a great deal of scholarly, if not theological pride driving most of the men on the “non-KJBO” side with whom I have communicated over the last 15 years. I know that pride is a problem on both sides, but it is not a prerequisite for being a KJBO, as I am.
God’s Grace be with you,
Brother Tim Keyes
Brother Tim,
Thank you for your comment and your sincerity. The post probably wasn’t that clear. Let me elaborate a bit.
I should have listed some scriptures, you’re right about that. In this post I tried to be as brief as possible, just highlighting what I think defined my personal reason for leaving the KJVO position. I didn’t delve into actual arguments because that’s what the site is for. In saying that we must weigh everything by scripture, I inaccurately assumed that everyone knew where I was going. Sorry. What I meant was that all the other listed (KJVO and nonKJVO) are using the scriptures as a basis for their respective positions. I started out only considering one side and one interpretation, and I wouldn’t even check the other side. It wasn’t until I asked the Lord to help me and came before Him with an open heart that I took an honest look at the other side.
You’re right about pride being on both sides of the issue. But in my experience, the side that will simply parrot the same old myths over and again with any substantiation whatsoever, taking a dogmatic stand about something which they know very little about, and mis-characterizing the other side to the point that no one really takes an honest look at their arguments is the side that is more guilty of this. In my experience, and I mean my life in particular, the KJVO side is just that. But I don’t deny it can happen on the other side either.
I do not think pride is a prerequisite for being KJVO. Many, including yourself perhaps, are scripturally convinced this is the right position. Perhaps you even considered the other arguments. Fine. I’m just telling you that the greatest obstacle for me was myself. I worked backwards and only did research to justify my position rather than change when necessary. That’s my story and it is what it is. I do not pretend to speak for anyone else, but I do think it’s a good lesson for others to check and see if they are guilty of doing the same thing I did (and probably still do).
God bless,
Damien
One problem is that KJBOs are portrayed to be uncritical and accepting of anything and anyone that is “KJBO”. We all have seen that some KJBOs are quick to take up certain ideas which are really unable to be substantiated, and run with them. Yet, there are clear differences between various KJBOs and their positions, and even disagreements over differences. Certainly, King James Bible only people need to have discernment about what is a good, true and factual argument for their position.
I have found that various anti-KJBO authors, by which I mean people like James White, etc., are able to ridicule KJBOism by exposing and confronting some particular inconsistencies or problems with some KJBOs.
The issue is this: if we approach things Scripturally and honestly, it is the truth itself which must be arrived at. People from both sides can use deceptive or poor arguments. I believe that they abound on both sides of the fence, but that the truth does not require anything but truth to support it.
Also, I think the perspective of both sides is poorly understood, in that the anti-KJBO might be arguing from a variety of positions (predispositions), just as there are a variety of KJBO positions. But if reduced to essentials, I think ultimately that the anti side is arguing that God does not provide a final standard of Scripture today, on the basis of the fallibility of man (emphasising that the autographs have been lost), while I think that ultimately the pro side is arguing that God would provide a final standard today, as consistent with His having given an inspired exemplar in the first place (emphasising the ability of God).
Dear B.P.
Its better than a year since you responded on this blog, I hope you have gained some understanding on the kjv issue in this time.
Several things jump out at me. I have read much that has been written on the kjv issue, I have been on both sides and have definately come out of the kjv only camp. I don’t know if you have read much of James White, but I have and have never found him to be anti-kjv or ridicule anyone. Now on the other hand people like Ruckman, Riplinger and Marrs are downright nasty and use what I would describe as unchristian language. You could almost dismiss their “work” just based on their nasty attitudes.
Now as to your questioning whether or not
God provides a standard for today, what I would really reccomend to you is to find a copy of the “Translators to the readers” that used to be printed with the kjv (along with the apocrypha) please take some time, its some pretty tough reading, but if you can understand the kjv you should have no trouble with it. You will find that the translators themselves certainly didn’t think they were inspired and they also reccomend using several translations. Don’t be afraid of knowledge, the Lord appreciates your curiousity, he made you that way.
God bless you B.P. in your search, its worth it.
In Christ,
Greg
Hi, BP, I appreciate your patience and charitable attitude. I may be wrong, but I can’t help but see an inference in your last statement that the “anti side” denies (or at least de-emphasizes) the “ability of God”. I can tell you whole-heartedly that this is not true.
Yes, God entrusted the care of His word to humans. Just as He entrusted the care of the earth to humans… Just as He uses humans to spread the gospel. The Bible is full of examples of God working through humans.
And yet, providentially, He has used us even in our imperfection to preserve a message that continues to transform lives and bring His message of hope all over the world. If that doesn’t show that God is able; I don’t know what does!
Certainly God’s providence is at work to preserve the message of the Gospel, but that message is still conveyed by words (e.g. John 6:68). Therefore, while the message may be sufficiently communicated with variations in the wording, unless there is a final form of Scripture that has the wording exactly, God’s message would then suffer (or would be fallible). This is not because God is unable to work despite imperfections of sufficient forms of Scripture (e.g. the Geneva Version), but because ultimately every word matters, according to Proverbs 30:5 (see also Matt. 4:4), as well as according to logic (there is no absolutely true message of words without its true ultimate form). I am sure we all agree God’s Word is perfect in a heavenly book today, but the issue is whether or not in history God’s providence has been enough to have an earthly book which we can know today.
Let’s keep the comments charitable and not too personal here.
When I say “I didn’t get many answers”, I really do mean that. The answers I got didn’t fully answer my questions. And I sought those answers from several sources. Sometimes I wanted to believe the answers I received, but the questions kept nagging and remained unnerving.
Again, I’m not saying there are good attempts to answer the questions out there, but even those are few and far between. And obviously in my view they fall short.
Bob,
Do you take the position on the text of God’s people from the 16th to 19th centuries?
What about God’s people from the 1st through 15th, and the 20th and 21st centuries? I believe I do.
This as with many other doctrines, has been developed more precisely over time. Just as support for a pre-trib rapture position is lacking before the 19th century, and as a precise definition of the Trinity was lacking prior to the 3rd century, some of the particulars of my position may have been lacking in the era you mentioned. That being said, textual variants were discussed and compiled by Bible believers, texts were edited, the original scriptures were held to be inspired, inerrant and authoritative.
I wouldn’t say I assume the K.J.B. is right. On the other hand, I’ve never seen anything to prove it wrong, so I do give it the benefit of the doubt. And sadly, most alleged ‘contradictions’ are simple to explain. I mean, I’ve encountered some that made my head spin. And if you were ever in the KJVO camp, you know how shallow some of the arguments are from the higher/critical side. If for no other reason, I’m sticking with the KJV, because I’m not about to learn John 3:16 all over again. lol
THE BEST RAPTURE LOCATER
Guess what. If you can figure out when the “sudden destruction” of wicked persons takes place in I Thess. 5:3, and when “death” is ended in I Cor. 15:54, you will know where to place the rapture on your prophecy chart because those passages talk about the “times and seasons” (and the “when” and “then” ) of the rapture! Neat, huh?
Or what would be easier, is not to believe in a rapture at all.
The Geneva Bible was the “Bible of the Protestant Reformation”, and the Bible of the Puritans and Pilgrims. It was the first Bible taken to America, brought over on the Mayflower. The Geneva Bible is the Bible upon which America was founded. You can imagine, most early American colonists, who were fleeing the religious oppression of the Anglican Church (Church of England), wanted nothing to do with the King James Bible of the Anglican Church!
Textually, the Geneva Bible offered a number of radical never-before-seen changes: It was the first Bible in English to add numbered verses to each chapter of scripture. Also, the Geneva was the first Bible to introduce easier-to-read “Roman Style Typeface” rather than the “Gothic Blackletter Style Typeface” which had been used exclusively in earlier Bibles. Another curious innovation; the Geneva was the first “Study Bible” with extensive commentary notes in the margins. The Geneva Bible is the version quoted from hundreds of times by William Shakespeare in his plays. Also called the “Breeches Bible”, the Geneva Bible is the only Bible ever able to outsell and exceed the popularity of the King James Bible, as it did in the early 1600’s until its printing ceased in 1644. In fact, one of the greatest ironies of history, is that Protestants of all denominations today embrace the King James Version of the Bible (which reads 90% the same as the Geneva), even though the King James Version is not a Protestant Bible (it’s Anglican / Church of England). Most Protestants have never even heard of the Bible of their own heritage: the Geneva Bible. It was produced by John Calvin, John Knox, Myles Coverdale, John Foxe, & other English refugees in ever-neutral Geneva, Switzerland… fleeing the persecution of Roman Catholic Queen “Bloody” Mary in England. Mary would not tolerate the Protestant Geneva Bible, which proclaimed the Pope an “antichrist” in its commentary notes.