A King James’ Journey — Bob’s Story

The King James Only debate played a major role in my journey out of extreme independent Baptist fundamentalism (IFBx).  I’ve written my story elsewhere.  But I want to focus here on my journey with respect to the King James Only debate.

I grew up with the King James Version, but  I don’t believe my church was always officially King James Only.  In the late 80’s or early 90’s King James Onlyism was on the march.  Some area churches were decidedly Ruckmanite, and while we didn’t attend those conferences we fell under the sway of their influence.

I remember knowing only the KJV was acceptable.  At age 12 I was given a Thomspon Chain Reference Bible (KJV), and my uncle showed me how to use it.  His was an NIV, however.  And I was uncomfortable with that already.  His explanation that it is easier for people today to read, just didn’t sway me.  I was already prejudiced in favor of KJV Onlyism.

I didn’t know all the reasons why, however.  Why not the NIV or the New King James?  At age 14, my dad surrendered to be a missionary and we started deputation.  As we traveled around, I’m sure we had the chance to pick up some tracks or pamphlets describing why the King James was the only version to be trusted.  I can remember being in a Christian bookstore in an indepedent Baptist church and seeing Gail Riplinger’s new book: New Age Bible Versions.  I flipped through the book, and I found the freaky cover with the Satanic symbols quite intriguing.

As a teenager, and even earlier, I was privileged to be invited over to my grandparent’s house frequently.  And we would often discuss Biblical topics among other things.  My grandfather was a class mate with Norman Geisler for a time at William Tyndale College (Detroit Bible Institute).  He used the KJV too, but thought other versions were helpful for study.  His father, a missionary to the upper peninsula of Michigan with the Hiawatha Land Mission (from the GARBC, now Continental Missions or something), owned a copy of the Berkley Version and evidently approved of referencing it for study purposes.

It wasn’t until at age 16, when I came across a copy of The Way of Life Bible Encyclopedia by David Cloud, that I really read up on the topic at all.  We also had many pamphlets, booklets, O Timothy papers, Sword of the Lord papers, etc.  On the mission field, there wasn’t much else to read so I devoured much of this kind of literature.  Cloud’s position on the King James Only debate made sense.  The Encyclopedia referenced other articles within it, so I read of the text issue, the doctrine of preservation, Westcott and Hort’s dubious beliefs, Erasmus and the history of the TR, the copying rules for the Masoretes, etc.

I had visited Northland Baptist Bible College while on deputation, and was surprised at their lack of a stand on the King James Version.  My brother and I researched all the College Catalogs we could find.  Hyles Anderson was not an option for us, but everything else in fundamentalism was fair game.  I mailed requests for catalogs from every college I knew about practically.  Pillsbury, BJU, Tennessee Temple, PCC, Northland, Maranatha, Oklahoma Baptist, Texas Baptist, Trinity Baptist in Florida, Piedmont, Fairhaven, and others I don’t remember.  I studied all their positions and learned which ones were KJV Bible schools and as I became more convinced of my position, I preferred those schools.

God lead me to Fairhaven and they were one of the better KJV Only schools I could have chosen.  The offered Greek, and taught that the KJV was not inspired.  They preferred the Textus Receptus as the preserved Words of God, and the KJV was the only faithfully translated copy of it in wide use.  We learned of Dean Burgon and the majority support for the KJV.  We didn’t learn exactly all the ins and outs of the new Majority Text exactly.  I think some of the material we were lectured on was dated.  At the college bookstore, I picked up a copy of D.A. Waite’s Defending The King James Bible.  At one of their conferences, I picked up some other books by David Cloud.  I devoured the material and became more strengthened in my convictions in this matter.

A turning point began in the fall of 1999 for me.  That was when I started learning Greek.  I had some good friends and we discussed the Bible version debate.  I began to encounter the more ignorant version of King James Onlyism that looked down on any Greek study at all, and felt each and every translational choice of the King James Version was perfect and without need of improvement.  I began to see the value of Greek, and I started to disagree with that other view.  And this was when I read more on the issue with some new elements of discernment.

In late 1999 and throughout 2000, my brother and I came together a few times, and I learned he had departed from the KJV Only position, and another new element in my journey began.  He attended Northland and had abandoned what was at one time for him, a fierce loyalty to KJV Onlyism.  We were both so busy in our respective colleges, and with my parents on the mission field or traveling on furlough, we didn’t see each other all that much.  When we did we clashed.  The more we learned at our respective colleges, the more positions we clashed over.  King James Onlyism was a big part of our disagreement, and arguing with him out of the goal of convincing him of my position caused me to dig deeper into my understanding of this issue.

My senior year of College was where my mind was opened in full to the problems with my position.  Our Greek professor had us read and evaluate 2 books on the King James Only debate.  One pro and one con.  I welcomed this as I saw the value in reading what the other side had to say.  The books chosen for us were Edward F. Hills The King James Bible Defended on the pro side, and James White’s The King James Only Controversy for the other.  I believe we started with Hills’ book (my memory is bad!).  I was armed with a lot of facts that hitherto had been ignored or not adequately explained in other works.  Hills actually had a Ph.D. in textual criticism from Harvard Divinity School.  He was not afraid to address the tough questions in the debate.  He dealt with passages in the KJV that were supported solely or almost exclusively on the Latin manuscript tradition.  He explained passages where the majority of Greek manuscripts disagreed with the KJV reading.  He pointed out a few errors in the TR and in the KJV itself.  He discussed the problematic KJV 1611 footnotes.  He wasn’t afraid of these things, and he maintained the common faith in the Word of God and felt it led one to prefer the KJV, even with its few imperfections, as the best form of the Word of God we have today.

This didn’t go down without some qualms from the peanut gallery, however.  Many of us took issue with Hill’s conclusions.  We were forced to think, and most of us in the class loved to do that.  But I remember how 1 John 5:7 in particular became a problem that none of us in the class had a uniform view on.  Most of us quietly kept a few questions and figured we’d find answers.  We knew of some defenses for 1 John 5:7 and I was convinced with Hills’ teaching that in God’s providence both Latin and Greek readings were combined in the KJV.  God mysteriously preserved His Word that way.  After reading Hills, however, I was secretly fearful of reading White.  I didn’t want to be convinced against the KJV Only position due to all the stake I had in toeing the line in that regard.  I remember a similar fear when I read Robert Van Kampen on his pre-wrath rapture position.  I wanted to read the other side, but I was fearful lest I be taken in since I didn’t have a good grasp and confidence in my own position.

White wasn’t extremely careful, in my mind, to distinguish those of us who preferred to call ourselves TR Onlyists from the likes of Riplinger, Ruckman and Samuel Gipp.  That being said, I wasn’t prepared for his arguments.  He showed how the KJV in passages like Titus 2:13 fails to declare the deity of Christ as clearly as the modern versions like the NASB and NIV do.  He explained how the majority of Greek manuscripts actually did not support the TR until the 9th century and later, when copies were being made again and again in the Byzantine empire where they spoke Greek still.  He educated me more on some of the ins and outs of textual variations and criticism.  But I remained unconvinced.  I did go away from the book with more sympathy for non-KJV Only folk.  I also had a desire to be sure we articulate our position accurately and not use arguments that are self serving and not valid.  And I came away desiring all the more to get all my questions answered satisfactorily.  I began to have doubts that the TR was really and truly perfect, and I didn’t know if I could accept that fact.

Debates with my brother continued in 2001 and beyond.  He challenged me to read an article by Will Combs on The Preservation of Scripture in the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary journal.  He gave me some articles by Dan Wallace.  All the arguments I had which seemed so persuasive to me, when used against my brother proved worthless.  They fell to the ground.  He brought up things I hadn’t considered.  This wounded my pride, as I liked to be right.  But I had to be honest with myself and continue to study more.  I prayed sincerely for him as I feared he was moving away from God in part because of his new found Bible position.

I believe it was my senior year or maybe my Master’s year (M.A.) when D.A. Waite first came for a Bible seminar.  I had high hopes that he would answer some of my questions.  I respected him and thought he would have some answers for me, but already I had found his works a bit lacking when compared with Hills.  I was disappointed.  I should have known he would primarily focus on those not as versed in the debate as myself.  And the questions I did approach him with were not fully addressed.  I did receive a big stack of books from the seminar and so I dug in.  For my Master’s course, I was writing a paper on any theological issue, and I chose the doctrine of Preservation.  We had to read 750 pages or so for the paper, and I got every book I could think of and find on the topic.  I read and read and read.  Over 1500 pages worth.  I read Waite, Cloud, Hills, Strouse, Pickering, Moorman, Van Bruggen, Sightler, and others on the KJV side.  I read Will Combs, D.A. Carson, and Dan Wallace (I think) on the other side.  These are just the ones I remember.  I discussed all the passages in Scripture I could muster supporting preservation, and I wrote a polemic for why verbal preservation should be at least given a chance at being taught in these various passages.

After graduation and marriage, we moved out west to San Francisco and were under the ministry of Kent Brandenburg at Bethel Baptist Church.  Brandenburg was finishing up his book on the King James debate which is primarily a Scriptural argument for perfect preservation.  I was able to read the manuscript and eagerly ate it up.  I had a few suggestions and questions.  It was so far along I doubt they were able to be implemented, but this was the best work I had seen so far on the issue.  I enjoyed the privilege of hearing expository preaching from someone who studied the Greek and Hebrew, for the first time in my life.  He had an open door policy to ask questions about the message and learn.  I did.  From time to time I would bring up some of the few questions that were nagging me on the KJV issue, and I really wanted to accept the answers given.  Sometimes the answer was “we have to do some more work on this”.  And book #2 was promised to go into these particulars with more depth.  I found the Latin support argument wasn’t preferred by Brandenburg.  And another scholarly friend there sought to find Hebrew support for some of the issues Hills brought up.  Translational freedom was espoused for why the TR had God, but the KJV Lord in some places in the NT.

In all of this it should be remembered that nagging questions were not really allowed to be dealt with in full.  I was under lots of pressure to stay conformed to the positions of the church I was in.  Both in college and out, I was an independent Baptist and a fundamentalist.  We separated over doctrine and positions like these, and I had every reason in the book to just accept the position of the church and be content.  At times I thought I had the answer to my question, and would convince myself all was well, but I had not really considered objectively the option that the correct position and the true answers would be found outside my theological grid.  Another factor concerns the tendency to conclude that if one Greek or Hebrew manuscript had the KJV reading, then we were good.  The answer is given, there is original language support.  But this is just a small step from saying, well we don’t have any support at all, but we just assume it was there at some point, because after all, we don’t have the KJV translator’s notes — those were burned up in a fire.  We may not have manuscripts today that they knew of then.  This reasoning is not fair with the evidence and really is totally biased.  But if the bias comes from an understanding of the Biblical teaching of preservation, who can question it?

The debates with my brother continued.  And soon I was on the internet and found arguments there.  I came across more articles by Combs and many by Doug Kutilek at kjvonly.com.  When we moved to Minnesota, I was closer to my brother and was able to pursue my studies without as much scrutiny as I may have faced in California.  I don’t really think it was a serious study prior to coming to Minnesota.  It was more about getting answers and preparing myself for continued discussion with my brother.  When we left California, we were still committed fundamentalists and KJV Only.  We didn’t want to change.  But God had other plans.  As I mention in my story, I became filled with unease at our new church.  And I think I came across more internet articles on fundamentalism and KJV Onlyism at this time.  I was also figuring out my position on Calvinism at the time.

One article by Kutilek really helped me, it was his critique of Sorenson’s book, which I had by this time.  He explained many of Sorenson’s errors, and gave a history of King James Onlyism which resonated with all that I had read, and experienced in my life in many fundamentalist churches.  I was also exposed to Benjamin Wilkinson’s influence on King James Onlysim, which we’ll talk about on this blog at some point, I’m sure.  And I agreed with Kutilek’s assessment that King James Onlyism is relatively new and started with a series of textual arguments for the superiority of the KJV, and later was codified by the position that the Bible teaches perfect preservation.  It wasn’t a historic position held by God’s people down through the ages.

By now I was finally willing to admit that the evidence is true.   I couldn’t explain it away; and so with E.F. Hills, I admitted that the TR and the KJV, as well as the Hebrew Masoretic Text had errors.  Given that the KJV disagrees with the TR and the MT in places, any KJV Only person should be able to agree with this assessment.  And when we resigned from our last independent fundamentalist church in January of 2005, I concluded my discussion of KJV Onlyism, in my resignation letter to the pastor, with these words:

In light of these errors and facts, I am not KJV only. I do at this time, however, prefer the KJV and lean toward the position that the TR is the best text available.

I continued to study however, and I obtained a copy of One Bible Only? Examining the Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible.  This book pushed me over the edge.  It was an excellent treatment of King James Onlyism from leaders intimately connected with the movement.  The authors all taught at Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis a fundamentalist school, albeit not KJV Only.  Kevin Bauder’s work was superb in the book.  He shows how Scripture contradicts the KJV Onlyists tactics and beliefs.  It’s the best single book on the topic in my opinion.  We’ll review it on this blog in the future.  I shouldn’t leave out the influence of articles by Dan Wallace either.  He deals with the Majority Text position and shows how and why the textual evidence we have today does not support it.

So I soon picked up an ESV Bible and with caution began to read it.  As a student of the King James, I figured I was not affected by its archaisms and old language.  Boy was I wrong.  The Bible came alive to me in the ESV.  Many places had a new meaning to me as I was misled by the KJV language.  I thought I understood the meaning expressed in 400 year old language structures, but often the true meaning of a passage was obscured.  The ESV has proved a great blessing to me.

This issue is complex and I have Christian charity for those who haven’t made the journey I have.  My journey freed me from exclusive allegiance to a 400 year old text, and it let me learn the wonder of objectivity.  I don’t hold to a position because I have to.  I hold my position because it’s what my conscience can agree is right.  I hope our blog will help others find this freedom, and learn with us as we discuss this often thorny topic.  If you stick around long enough, you’ll find there is ample Biblical support for our position, and many of the arguments for KJV Onlyism don’t hold up to scrutiny.


74 thoughts on “A King James’ Journey — Bob’s Story

  1. Damien T Garofalo April 25, 2009 / 7:17 pm

    The fear of reading the other side because you might be wrong really resonates with me, and goes back to the theological pride that I referred to in my story.

    I think we’re seeing time and again how an open heart is really key to this whole issue. This is not to suggest that those who are firmly persuaded in KJVO do not have open hearts or a desire to know the truth rather than be right. But since the biblical, historical, and logical evidence is all decidedly against the KJVO position, an open heart seems to be the only thing keeping people from leaving it behind.

    Glad to hear your story. I realize it wasn’t easy for you.

  2. Kent Brandenburg April 25, 2009 / 10:02 pm


    I mean this in as kindly a way as possible. I would enjoy writing, “Bob’s Story from My Perspective.” “Sometimes the answer was ‘we have to do some more work on this'” How about, “Every question on this issue that could possibly needs to be answered needs some time to study out. And there are many other things that we have to do in a given day and week and month and year besides answer every question on textual variants that you can think of, and you don’t seem to be somebody who has even hinted that you are ready to leave some position. On top of that, we think you’ve got other things that you need to deal with that are far more important than getting every answer in this area (which I won’t communicate here).” So again, Bob, it is a skewed perspective.

    I haven’t gotten many answers to my questions from Daniel Wallace. He just points me to an article. I read the article and it has blatant errors in it that still haven’t been answered. Still haven’t and won’t be answered because there is no answer. The only thing that Wallace said to me is—“unfair, you’re cherry picking”—when the truth is, I deal with everything he said on preservation in the article. Everything. Did anyone call him on it? No.

    Bob writes: “In all of this it should be remembered that nagging questions were not really allowed to be dealt with in full. I was under lots of pressure to stay conformed to the positions of the church I was in.” What? “Lots of pressure.” It was completely self-imposed. You felt a pressure you imposed on yourself, Bob. I know that and can show it, but I’m sure it will be deleted on this blog.

    Jesus’ yoke is easy and His burden is light. I’ll let you take the proper conclusion from that statement. And it does fit. Believe me, the greater academic and popular pressure is against the King James position. If you don’t think so, I don’t think you guys understand the real world.

  3. dt April 25, 2009 / 10:04 pm

    >But since the biblical, historical, and logical evidence is all decidedly against the KJVO position

    Against the Masoretic/Received Text?

  4. Damien T Garofalo April 25, 2009 / 10:29 pm

    dt, (nice name, by the way)

    no. against the KJVO position.

  5. dt April 26, 2009 / 12:23 am

    So your switch was to (in your experience) easy-reading? Manuscripts don’t matter?

  6. dt April 26, 2009 / 12:46 am

    What I find interesting is the intent to ‘help others’ to ‘make the journey’ you guys did. This implies that reading the King James Version is like being in darkness or being in bondage to some sub-ideal circumstance or something similar. Why do you guys feel this?

  7. Philip D April 26, 2009 / 5:48 am

    Quite the opposite, dt. The KJV has always been a good translation. We are arguing against the position that more recently translated versions are not the word of God, or to use your phrasing, “reading the modern versions is like being in darkness or being in bondage to some sub-ideal circumstance or something similar.”

  8. dt April 26, 2009 / 6:59 am

    I don’t buy that response, Philip. The language being used on this site is language one sees in conversion testimonies. Out of darkness, into light. Thank God. Free at last.

  9. Philip D April 26, 2009 / 8:22 am

    You continue to confuse the two issues of reading and appreciating the KJV and believing it alone is God’s word to English speaking peoples.

  10. dt April 26, 2009 / 9:33 am

    Philip, the language on this site speaks for itself. Out of darkness, into light. Thank God. Free at last.

  11. Chris Cole April 26, 2009 / 12:01 pm

    While I have been around plenty of folks who preferred the KJV, I have never been in a KJV-only environment. One thing I am curious about is why they’ve settled on the KJV. Why not the Geneva Bible, which was the predominant Protestant Bible before the KJV? And why do they approve the current KJV, which is the result of several revisions, over the original KJV of 1611?

  12. fundyreformed April 26, 2009 / 2:53 pm


    I hope you stick around. The conversion emphasis here is only since we just started the blog. We’re giving our background in the movement and our perspective.

    I would echo Phil’s sentiments, we respect and enjoy the KJV. We continue to use it at times. We just don’t believe that Christians today should be judged when they use a NASB.

    Stay tuned for more posts as we flesh out our perspective. Manuscripts do matter. And in fact we on this site believe the majority of the manuscript witness affirms the text of the modern versions not that of the KJV.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob Hayton

  13. Damien T Garofalo April 26, 2009 / 3:01 pm


    you’re reading something that’s not there. you said: “The language being used on this site is language one sees in conversion testimonies. Out of darkness, into light” Where does anyone say “out of darkness”?

    Let’s admit that the KJVO position is a strong position. The authors of this site have rejected it. We are providing reasons why. If you don’t like our reasoning, I’m sorry. But once we are past the “testimony” phase, we’ll delve into actual issues – substance you might be interested in discussing. For now, these are our personal stories. Just a background into who we are and why we are doing what we’re doing.


    those are good questions. Different KJVO will answer that differently. The Ruckmanite would say that God did something akin to inspiration amidst the KJV translators. They, as well as others, would say that the greatest revivals happened with the KJV and not the others. Still others would say the church settled on the KJV, for that was the version around during the writing of the Westminster Confession.

    Most would argue that the current KJV (1769) only differs in spelling, type, and other insignificant corrections from the 1611. That point, however has been proved wrong. There have been minor changes in words. This is a problem for the English-superiority/Ruckmanite position, because they have a problem with any word being changed, even in English. However, it probably isn’t much of a problem for those who subscribe to perfect preservation, such as Waite, Strouse, or even our brother here Kent Brandenburg – they would contend that God preserved the words in the original languages, so that a change in the English wouldn’t really be a problem for their position, for the word is still there in Hebrew/Greek. Now, why they still argue that the KJV is the best for every possible situation as a translation is harder to explain, but that’s their problem.

    • bibleprotector April 26, 2009 / 8:38 pm

      On these issues, different KJBOs will answer differently.

      While it is common to say that we the 1769 Edition is current, it is not actually the case: every King James Bible edition today differs slightly from the 1769, but the 1769 is like the common fountain-head of these editions.

      I would like to hear about what the so called significant differences are between 1611 Edition and the Pure Cambridge Edition of today. All I can see is typographical corrections, spelling and grammar standardisation and other editorial regularisation. None of this is an actual change in the translation or the underlying text. But this is probably an issue to cover is upcoming blogs/discussions.

      It is also worth noting that TROs like D. A. Waite do not believe that the King James Bible actually presents 100% of all the sense of the originals in English. This is where TROs differ from the KJBO view in regards to the perfection in the English. I suppose this also will be covered in future blogs/discussions.

  14. bibleprotector April 26, 2009 / 8:51 pm

    “I agreed with Kutilek’s assessment”
    Certainly, the KJBO view has developed in recent times, but there are clearly roots which go back before the 1900s, and the argument that a Seventh Day Adventist is basically responsible for the doctrine is very flimsy. There are plenty of quotes from the 1800s which are in support of the King James Bible.

    “with E.F. Hills, I admitted that the TR and the KJV, as well as the Hebrew Masoretic Text had errors.”
    Hills did not say “errors” in the KJB. That is too harsh an interpretation. He said, “Admittedly this venerable version is not absolutely perfect, but it is trustworthy. No Bible-believing Christian who relies upon it will ever be led astray. It is just the opposite with modern versions. They are untrustworthy, and they do lead Bible-believing Christians astray.”

    “Given that the KJV disagrees with the TR and the MT in places, any KJV Only person should be able to agree with this assessment.”
    Except that the KJB is an independent variety of the TR, as E. F. Hills stated, and that being a gathered form, it can be argued that it is critically correct, over an above any particular TR edition. (My view is that the KJB is the final form of the Received Text.)

  15. fundyreformed April 26, 2009 / 9:07 pm

    Bible protector,

    I look forward to learning more of your views. I understand the KJV = independent variety of the TR view. But could it really be an independent variety of the Hebrew text, too? It differs from that.

    I’ll have to dig up my Hill’s quotes, but he points to errors in the TR which find their way into the KJV, Rev. 16:5, Rom. 7:6, the “straineth at a gnat” rather than “straineth out a gnat”. I don’t see how these aren’t errors. I suppose we need to define our terms here.

    Yes, differences among the editions will be addressed at some point. I have a copy of a work by Scrivener that deals with that issue in depth. Although of the editions he mentions I’m not sure which would be the ancestor of the Pure Cambridge Edition. I haven’t heard that term until recently.

    Blessings from the cross,

    Bob Hayton

    • bibleprotector April 27, 2009 / 8:38 am

      It is good to have “good spirited” discussion.

      While I don’t agree with every last thing Hills wrote, I am wondering, do you know certainly that he questioned “strain at a gnat”?

      When I said “independent variety of the Received Text” I meant the RT of both Testaments, not merely the Textus Receptus of the New Testament.

      Also, Scrivener’s book deals with the 1611 to the 1769 era, and very slightly with the situation up to about 1858 – 1873. Even David Norton’s book, which is similar to Scrivener’s book, does not go into very much detail of the post-1769 condition. Such studies have been made public on my website. I invite anyone who is interested in the internal history of the King James Bible to consider the facts I present on my site, even if they disagree with my KJBO interpretation.

    • fundyreformed April 27, 2009 / 8:51 am

      I will have to look that up. I thought he did, but maybe that was White. I
      see that in the 1870? paragraph Bible, they corrected that to strain out a
      gnat. Is the paragraph Bible the PCE?

      I’ll have to spend some time at your site, when I pull out Scrivener’s
      book. I know that he does point out some important differences between the
      1769 and the 1611 there, and he points out some errors not corrected in the
      1769 that persist through all KJV editions.

      Can you give us a brief description of how the PCE is different than the
      1769 Blayney edition (that was Blayney’s right?)



    • bibleprotector April 28, 2009 / 3:18 am

      Scrivener’s Paragraph Bible Edition of 1873 is not a Pure Cambridge Edition. Scrivener’s work for Cambridge was a separate branch of the tree that leads to Norton’s 2005 Edition from Cambridge (i.e. a dead end branch).

      This is a simplification: The 1769 Edition by Blayney became the basis of all editions today. However, all editions differ from it, as there have been minor edits in all major publishing houses since that time. On my site I talk about this in a few places.

      I hope you can see these urls:

    • Steven Avery September 6, 2009 / 7:37 am

      Hi Folks,

      I’ll have to dig up my Hill’s quotes, but he points to errors in the TR which find their way into the KJV … the “straineth at a gnat” rather than “straineth out a gnat”.

      I’m have not seen that Hills addresses the gnat, despite some claims that he does, and it is not a TR issue.

      This is actually a wonderful study of a phoney allegation (if a printers error got into the KJB how could it be reliable ?) pushed by Wallace and company.

      This thread picks up steam at the bottom of pg.3

      Straining at or straining out gnats.

      Steven Avery

  16. Damien T Garofalo April 27, 2009 / 10:41 am

    bibleprotector: “I would like to hear about what the so called significant differences are between 1611 Edition and the Pure Cambridge Edition of today. All I can see is typographical corrections, spelling and grammar standardisation and other editorial regularisation. None of this is an actual change in the translation or the underlying text. But this is probably an issue to cover is upcoming blogs/discussions.”

    It can depend on how one defines “significance.” Engaging some KJVO on their own terms, “significance” means changing anything, no matter how minor, that affects the meaning in some sense. I agree with you that is doesn’t quite affect the underlying text, but some of the changes between 1611 and 1769 do change meaning.

    James D. Price, in Appendix A of his book, King James Onlyism: A New Sect says amost 24,000 revisional changes took place between 1611 and 1769. The overwhelming majority of them are indeed insignificant. But there are a few that do change the meaning. Even D.A. Waite says there are 136 substantial changes, in his Q&A appendix of his book, Defending the King James Bible. For example, in 1611, the KJV had “lamb” at Numbers 6:14c; the current one has “ram.” In 1611, the KJV had “prepared” at II Chron. 32:5; the current one has “repaired.” Ezra 2:22 was changed from “children” to “men.” Job 30:3 was changed from “flying” to “fleeing.” Psalm 69:32 went from “good” to “God.” Jeremiah 49:1 went from “God” to “Gad.”

    There are at least three double standards that some KJVO hold to when considering the above facts (notice I said “some KJVO”; I realize many argue differently):

    1) KJVO will point out that a change, no matter how slight, is substantial and affects theology, consequently deeming the Bible version with that change as heretical. For example, in the gospels, there’s an instance in which modern versions don’t have “in me” after Christ says “he who believes has eternal life.” The KJVO will then say, “believe on who? mickey mouse?” And claim that the doctrine of salvation by faith in Christ is at stake. Of course, the context is clear that Christ is in view, and no one to date has attributed salvation to someone else just because of this one verse. Still, the argument is that one change of “in me” taken away has attributed heresy to that Bible. I could play around with the above changes and do the same, couldn’t I?

    2)the changes to the KJV came in gradually, which means between 1611 and 1769, the overall text continued to change (albeit very slightly). Also, differences still remain between editions of the KJV today. So when the KJVO rails about how there are many editions of the Nestle-Aland text or revisions of Bible versions today, it is fair to answer back, “which KJV? Which edition and which year?”

    3) Many of the changes were indeed typographical. Why do we believe God can allow printing errors, but not copyist errors, to make their way into the text? Again, not every KJVO denies the significance of copyist errors, so if that doesn’t define you just ignore it.

    Thanks for the discussion, by the way.

    • bibleprotector April 28, 2009 / 7:02 am

      One important premise is to know what the indented meaning was from the beginning. For example, if the KJB men meant “God” but the typesetter put “good”, we cannot say that meaning ever changed. What we would have is a presentational error in the presswork. Consequently, this is discovered and corrected to the intended rendering. It is easy to put most of the cited examples from Price into this category.

      Of course, this cannot be the case with every difference. Numerous examples can be put under the heading of language standardisation. Our Bible today never has “towards”, yet that form did appear in 1611. Clearly, this alteration is the result of grammatical and orthographical standardisation. In such cases meaning is never actually changed, or it least, it can be argued that while it appears in some cases meaning seems to change, it does not since the latter corrected form is actually communicating correctly to us what was actually the intended meaning in 1611 (but perhaps was not so clear because of the flux in orthography or lack of uniformity in spelling use, etc.)

      Now, to give brief answers to the points:

      1. I am able to clearly delineate changes in the English presentation versus changes in the underlying text/translation. It is not difficult to show that the changes in the King James Bible form into the former category, whereas none fall into the second. It is very difficult (I believe impossible) to make a case for any change which actually alters the basis and theology of the King James Bible.

      2. The differences in editions of the King James Bible are not on the same level as textual variations found in the original languages, in that we have the first edition of the KJB as well as the last, and in all the variations we observe, none are of the level of the types of variations which might be found in particular New Testament manuscript copies. Today the issues surround whether “spirit” or “Spirit” is correct in the English at 1 John 5:8, whereas in the Greek, there has been a massive war about whether the whole of 1 John 5:7 is Scripture or not. The Pure Cambridge Edition is offered as the standard presentation of the King James Bible; there is no possibility (it seems) of having a final Greek text.

      3. Copyist errors, scribal blunders and deliberate changes have occurred in the Greek. We cannot deny this. What we deny is that these things have been enough for us to lose the Word of God, or for God to fail in His promise to bring forth His Word to all nations. Just as writing errors have occurred in Greek copies, so mistakes in printing have been in the King James Bible. God has been able to work providentially, and by men worked to correct and resolve all such issues. Thus, we accept the facts, but also have a logic of faith which looks at the overarching truth, namely, that God has been able to gather His Word — despite defects, sin and corruption. It would be illogical for someone to argue that the printing errors of the First 1611 Edition King James Bible are actually the true, incorrupt, infallible presentation of the Word of God in English. We do have a process which has corrected these typesetting mistakes, and a means of understanding what actually is the Word of God in English. I believe that this is the King James Bible in presentational perfection, specifically, the Pure Cambridge Edition.

    • bibleprotector April 28, 2009 / 7:04 am

      One important premise is to know what the INTENDED meaning was from the beginning. (THIS IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE.)

    • fundyreformed April 28, 2009 / 10:54 am

      You bring up good points. I agree differences among the revisions aren’t as
      significant as differences among manuscripts. Yet it still is true that
      minuscule differences like these are pounced upon by KJV Onlyists when
      present in modern versions.

      There is a verse in 1 John that would represent a substantive change in my
      opinion. About half the verse was changed to italics in the 1769 edition,
      if I remember right. In one of our next posts (maybe next week) we’ll deal
      with some of these changes.

  17. JJ Miller April 27, 2009 / 11:30 am

    Interesting read! I came to Christ reading a Catholic NT. I then got a Ryrie NASB translation.

    A friend came to me and said that the KJV was the only version I should be reading. I tried to read it and it was simply too archaic. I didn’t consider it, because it added nothing to my reading, only clouded it. So, I didn’t consider the arguments for or against it.

    Later, in Seminary, I heard arguments for the KJV family of translations. And the Majority Text and the New King James translation had some solid support, I thought. Zane Hodges was on the translation team, and so, purely from that academic perspective, I gained an appreciation of the NKJV.

    Today I generally read both the ESV and the NKJV. I use Logos to delve into the Greek and Hebrew. It is great to see that there is seldom a big difference between ESV and NKJV, even though they are based on different family of texts. So, my focus is to clearly teach the word of God and encourage myself and other toward love and good deeds.

    • fundyreformed April 29, 2009 / 8:31 am


      Great testimony to the power of God as found in modern versions, and even
      those we wouldn’t necessarily use (Catholic NT). This is what KJV Onlyists
      often ignore. They would burn these Bibles, even when the Spirit uses them
      for the salvation of souls. How sad.


  18. dt April 28, 2009 / 12:27 am

    Damien, it sounds like your source is including the correction of printer’s errors from the early editions.

    And JJ, let’s not continue with the canard that there are no significant differences between the Alexandrian and Masoretic/Received Text. This is an untruth the Critical Text industry has relied on and used shamelessly despite being disabused of it over and over. And over. (And over.) Basically, the Critical Text industry can’t exist without such canards. Not to mention their strawmen they have to beat into microscopic particles.

  19. Tony April 28, 2009 / 9:31 am

    Wow guys, I hesitate to dive in here as my time is very limited to truly engage in a dialogue.

    Bob, really enjoyed reading your story! Thanks for posting!

    DT, I hear you, and hear your concerns. Man, we really want to guard from having a “we’re better than them” attitude, or a feeling that “we’ve figured it all out!” The fact is, we’re on a journey! I think what you sense a little bit in the “conversion language” as you describe it, is not so much the joy at arriving at a certain position, as it is the joy of the FREEDOM to think and study objectively. Any way you slice it, when you discover a “truth” that at one point you were dogmatically pointed away from, there is a sense of liberation. With this in mind, please excuse any “conversion language” as simply that, a joy in being able to objectively scrutinize scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit, without the fear of man. For many of us, this is HUGE and we still rejoice in this freedom that for many years we did not know! God bless you!

    Damien, you’re a nut! 🙂

    • fundyreformed April 28, 2009 / 10:49 am

      Tony, thanks for checking out our site. I think Phil’s story is up next. I
      agree, Damien is our resident nut! 😉 (Better he than me…)

  20. Alan Kurschner April 28, 2009 / 7:22 pm


    Thanks for that post. That is encouraging. I attended a fundamentalist school growing up. I since have rejected KJVO, as well as affirmed the Pre-Wrath Rapture position.


    • fundyreformed April 28, 2009 / 9:23 pm

      Thanks, Alan. I will have to reevaluate the whole pre-wrath debate now that I’m not dispensational anymore. Post-trib makes sense to me, but I lean amillennial right now. I did read Rosenthal and Van Kampen back in my college years. If I have your name right, I think you knew Brandenburg from your college days, and you’re somewhat affiliated with White’s blog, AOMin.org. Am I right?

      Thanks for dropping by, God bless.


  21. Alan Kurschner April 28, 2009 / 9:37 pm


    I knew Brandenburg back in my elementary school days. There is about a ten year difference between us. I knew Strouse and was friends with his family.

    Yes, I blog occasionally at White’s blog.

    I hope you are not reacting against classical dispensationalism to become amill, since Pre-wrath argues voluminously against that dispensational system.

    In any event, best wishes in your exegesis of a Biblical eschatology.


    • fundyreformed April 29, 2009 / 8:09 am

      Thanks, Alan. I can’t really say I’ve studied out the difference between CT
      and progressive dispensationalism all that closely. I do need to do that.
      I try not to have reactionary theology, but we are all human. With Sproul,
      I land like a butterfly with sore feet with regard to eschatology!

      Blessings in Christ,

      Bob Hayton

    • fundyreformed April 29, 2009 / 11:23 am

      Yes, we’ll have to get together. I’ll check out the articles. Thanks, Bob.

  22. dt April 29, 2009 / 11:46 am

    >With this in mind, please excuse any “conversion language” as simply that, a joy in being able to objectively scrutinize scripture with the help of the Holy Spirit, without the fear of man.

    Fear of man plays its role at different levels. If you’re in a little fundamentalist church then, yes, finding the truth, being guided into it by the Spirit, unconstrained by opinion and policing around you is an example of not giving in to the fear of man. But that doesn’t define fear of God vs fear of man in the manuscripts issue. Truth is above our immediate circumstances. Once we get to a point where we can pursue truth on our own, guided by the Spirit, then fear of man vs. fear of God *really* comes into play. Once you are out on a level playing field the strongest current *by far* in the world, in churches, in seminaries, in the Christian publishing industry, in secular academia, etc., etc., is to conform to what the scholars tell you. Fear man! Don’t pretend to fear God, little nobody. You will do what intellectual betters tell you to do. Now, to a Christian this demand is a joke. Academics, with their usual intellectual pride and vanity (and inanity) are a joke. A Christian is a prophet, a priest, and a king. A Christian fears God only, not man. In this environment the Masoretic/Received text is the ‘going against the current of the world’ position. That’s because it is the truth. The authority of God vs. the authority of man (scholars). Fear God, it is the beginning of wisdom. When you fear God you don’t fear man, and you are able to pursue truth. Whatever the world is doing and saying, whatever academia is doing or saying whatever ‘Christian publishing’ is doing or saying, that is the fear of man, and the environments where the fear of man is demanded and policed.

    If you’ve adopted corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts and the various products based on them (i.e. if you’ve adopted the 19th century downgrade on the Word of God) because you were born into some constrictive fundamentalist church then you havn’t adopted your position based on truth. Get out of the bondage, yes, but then look at the issues as one who is free and who fears God only and not man, and who values the authority of God and not man.

  23. Damien T Garofalo April 30, 2009 / 11:54 am

    “In this environment the Masoretic/Received text is the ‘going against the current of the world’ position. That’s because it is the truth”

    By that standard, we should join a church like Fred Phelp’s Westboro Baptist. I’m sorry but that doesn’t define what we stand for here. It seems you’re trying to uncover our motivations rather than just letting our testimonies speak for themselves.

    There’s also a difference between the ‘current of the world’ and the ‘current of Christianity.’ You do realize that those of us who reject KJVO are still swimming against the current of the world, no? Don’t try to make the narrow way more narrow than it ought to be.

    Finally, I get what you’re saying, dt, in your last paragraph and appreciate your concern. We should not adopt a position (eclectic text) simply because of constrictive fundamentalism. I think our initial reaction against the constriction wasn’t to adopt the position, but to examine it. After examination, which is what you seem to be ok with, we have adopted the position. This website will explain reasons why.

  24. dt April 30, 2009 / 5:41 pm

    >By that standard, we should join a church like Fred Phelp’s Westboro Baptist. I’m sorry but that doesn’t define what we stand for here.

    A silly non-sequitur. It borders on a Hitler reference.

    >You do realize that those of us who reject KJVO are still swimming against the current of the world, no?

    Not regarding the little thing called the Word of God. You are right in the same comfortable worldly current with every – *every* – liberal theologian and liberal Christian that exists (and I’m not going to let you define your position as being against ‘KJVO’ because your testmonies goes beyond that; you are being self-serving in narrowing your argument to being solely against KJVO).

    I’m a Calvinist/Reformed Christian. If I walk into any Calvinist/Reformed seminary with a KJV under my arm I will instantly be labeled. And that silent labeling will become vocal criticism if not outright mocking in my first Greek class. If I don’t want to ‘make waves’ I’ll go in with a ‘world-approved’ NASB or ESV.

    Think about that. The Bible of Protestants for the last 400 years is cause for mocking in Reformed (*Reformed*) seminaries.

  25. Damien T Garofalo April 30, 2009 / 7:03 pm

    you need to distinguish between “world” and “other Christians.” The world’s current concerning the Word of God is rather indifferent, many times opposed, and at best, interested only in pseudo-Gospels, lost books, and stuff by Dan Brown and Bart Ehrman. We are miles away from that with respect to our love and reverence for the Word of God.

    But who am I to say that? After all, you’re not going to let us define our own positions so you obviously know better about us than we know about ourselves.

    Oh, and if you’re going to assume that walking into “any” seminary with a KJV will get you labeled, can you please tell us the name of these seminaries and then give us specific proof that that kind of thing goes on?

    Not once has anyone here ever said we have any disdain for the KJV or for KJV users, even KJV preferred Christians. You’re welcome to your views and hope that we can talk about the actual points/counterpoints of the discussion, not try to get into what we think are each other’s motives.

  26. Fredericka May 21, 2009 / 1:18 pm

    Hi Bob. What do you think of the ‘Criterion of Dissimilarity,’ which is the principle used by modern textual critics according to which that reading most unlike what the church believes about Jesus is the one to prefer? Is there any reason why Christians should read Bibles prepared according to that principle?

  27. fundyreformed May 22, 2009 / 12:14 pm


    It’s a misunderstanding to think that every criteria of Textual Criticism is followed blindly by every modern Bible version translator. I would not oppose a reading because I thought it was too similar to my theological views. But on the other hand, I would have to be careful not to oppose a reading that was too dissimilar. We have to objectively deal with the evidence at hand, not craft a Bible we are happy with.

    Hope this helps


  28. kjv.1611 July 13, 2009 / 3:40 pm

    There are many other versions of the Bible in English other than the Autherised Version. They are called Perversions. Because that is what they are perversions of God’s Word.

    Very short example. The Bible tells us not to take away from or add to God’s Word. The NIV takes the word “blood” out of several verses.

    If that alone is not a reason to cling to the good old King James I don’t know what is.

  29. Damien T Garofalo July 13, 2009 / 7:42 pm


    Thanks for chiming in. You have strong opinions, and I applaud you for taking a stand for what you believe is right in the sight of God. We’re trying to do the same here, and I suggest that you carefully read the posts on this site as well as other works that are from a different perspective than your own. We all ought to be good stewards of the wealth of information at our fingertips, no?

    Just some food for thought in the meantime: exactly how many times does the NIV not have the word “blood” where the King James does? Where exactly do these things take place? And finally, how do you know these were “taken out” rather than “added in” the KJV?

  30. kjv.1611 July 14, 2009 / 7:58 am

    COLOSSIANS 1:14: The KJB reads, “In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:” The NIV reads, “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.” The NIV rips out the precious words “THROUGH HIS BLOOD”! Friend, redemption is ONLY “THROUGH HIS BLOOD”. Hebrews 9:22, reads, “. . . without shedding of BLOOD is no remission.” That old song says, “What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS!”

  31. Damien T Garofalo July 14, 2009 / 8:10 am


    Again, I suggest you pray and think these things out a bit more carefully. Do not be hasty in your responses, please.

    First of all, you said the NIV takes out the blood “several” times. I asked you how many, and you only gave me one example in Colossian 1:14. Then you quote Hebrews 9:22. Well, Hebrews 9:22 still has the blood in the NIV. And by the way, “that old song” was written nearly 1900 years after Christianity began.

    Now, here’s the obvious that, unfortunatley, must still be stated: no one is denying salvation through Christ’s blood on the basis of textual variation. Can you provide for me one NIV (or any modern version) translator/editor who denies salvation through Christ’s blood? Can you provide one modern version user or ministry that has done so?

    And then please answer the question in my last comment: how do you know these were taken out and not added in? See, kjv.1611, even if you don’t agree with modern version readings, it is important you understand this: the only reason for variation is evidence, not some great conspiracy to undermine Christ’s blood. The reason most modern versions do not have “through his blood” is because the textual and internal evidence is against its inclusion, not because they seek to deny the efficacy of Christ’s blood. Any reading through a modern version will show you that the blood of Christ was necessary.

  32. Damien T Garofalo July 14, 2009 / 4:50 pm


    I moved your last comment into our spam. Copying and pasting someone else’s lengthy work doesn’t help. It was full of errors, by the way. But still, you have to deal with the things we bring up. We can’t talk past each other. If you’re unwilling to answer the questions or think for yourself, don’t bother. However, if you are unable, then please take the time to do prayerful research and get back to us when you have something substantial to say. God bless.

    • Believer July 14, 2009 / 8:57 pm

      “It was full of errors” I’d very much appreciate it if you would point out those errors, please.

  33. kjv.1611 July 14, 2009 / 8:27 pm


    Thats fine. I see how this site is run. Must have been a tad bit more truth than your used to. Go ahead and send this to spam as well if you wish. I will pray for you and the others here.

    In Christ,


  34. Damien T Garofalo July 15, 2009 / 11:18 pm

    kjv 1611,

    I suggest you get to know us a little better, brother, before you speak the way you do. I also suggest you actually read what we’ve written and respond to those specific things, as well as to the specific questions I’ve asked you. I appreciate your prayers.


    I assume you want to know the errors because it’s your article. You wrote nothing that we haven’t heard before. Your wide-eyed, tabloid like claims bolstered with CAPS LOCK and exclamation marks where enough to want me to dismiss it altogether as the same typical stuff we’ve dealt with time and again. But, I’m being reminded of how I was there once, too. God humbled me and showed me my pride and brought me from unteachable to very thirsty for truth. I don’t trust me anymore, I trust Him! So, by His grace, I will patiently respond to you because I believe the truth is far greater than any level of argumentation. I have no idea who you are or where you’re from and it would be utterly arrogant of me to shun you. All I do know is consider you a brother in Christ, saved by His grace just as I am, and someone who desires truth. I hope we can grow together, brother! All I ask is that you have the same patience with us. Thanks for coming over. Let’s be Christians about this.

    So you want to know some errors. You’ve given me a long article. Here’s 13 I’ve found from the first half:

    1. You falsely tie variations of other areas of church life (music, preaching, dress) to variations in Bible versions without any support whatsoever, ignoring the fact that apostasy has been around since the first century, as well as the fact that Christians have disagreed on certain doctrines and practices for 2,000 years, all the while failing to prove that any of these differences among churches are directly tied to not using the KJV.

    2. You pronounce the same anti-truth spirit of this age on God’s people, ignoring the fact that God has made us new creatures in Him. You therefore remove the benefit of the doubt for those who differ from you. Of course, you don’t know us, but you assume we have the same “hunger for perversion” that the unregenerate world has. This is highly insulting, not Christlike, and extremely ignorant. We have not returned the favor, nor do we intend to (by the way, the things said about us on your message board are utterly untrue. You really ought to get to know us before you make such statements about us being “KJV-bashers” or that we are somehow blinded).

    3. All of the variations in the NIV you have listed are a result of textual criticism, not some grand scheme of perversion. If you can prove otherwise, do so. This goes for I Tim3:16. The editors of the NIV all affirm the deity of Christ. They wouldn’t translate the verse different unless they were convinced it should be.

    4. Philippians 2:6 in the NIV does not in any way “subtly pervert” Christ’s divinity. Just because the sentence is re-worded doesn’t change the meaning of that verse. Do you know anyone who switched to the NIV from the KJV and became a Jehovah’s Witness by reading Philippians 2:6?

    5. The NIV does not pervert the virgin birth, for it contains the prophecy of it in Isaiah 7:14 as well as its fulfillment in Luke 1:34-35. Luke 2:33 does not “deny” the virgin birth simply because it says “the child’s father.” This is a ridiculous assertion. Do you know anyone who denied the virgin birth because of this reading? Was Joseph not Jesus’ earthly and legal father? Is He not called the carpenter’s son in Matthew 13:55? And why does the KJV refer to Mary and Joseph as “his parents” in Luke 2:41?

    6. Your comment on John 3:16 leaves out the discussion of the Greek word translated “begotten.” It has been proved that it comes not from the word “to beget” but the word “unique.” Jesus is God’s “one and only” or “unique” Son. Hebrews 11:17 calls Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son, but we know Abraham had other children.

    7. Mark 1:2,3 is most likely correct in the modern versions, not the KJV. If you think it’s an error because it doesn’t mention both prophets, how do explain Matthew 27:9?

    8. Applying Romans 1:18-32 to your fellow believers who don’t agree on your 17th century Anglican Bible is unwarranted. And there is virtually no difference between “changed the truth of God into a lie” and “exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” You pointing to something that doesn’t exist.

    9. Your assertion that modern versions have something to do with the homosexual agenda is. . .well, it speaks for itself.

    10. Dr. Kenneth Barker, who was on the committee of the NIV (that neither you or I were a part of) explained that Mollenkot’s involvement was merely as a literary stylist. It is not due to her influence that the NIV translators did not use the word “sodomite”. It was because of textual criticism and scholarship that they felt the Hebrew words referred to shrine prostitutes. The reference in I Cor 6:9 to homosexual offenders is not “non-offensive” but rather “all-inclusive” for anyone who practices any form of homosexuality. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim the NIV is not against homosexuality when it clearly is.

    11. Zondervan also published King James Versions, so I don’t know how your guilt-by-association argument holds up for your position.

    12. Your statement about KJV and copyrights is untrue. “The Crown Copyright” (I’m assuming you mean the Cum Privilego) didn’t mean that allowed it “to be published by anyone, anytime without asking anybody for permission.” In fact, what it did mean was that only certain people can print it.

    13. Isaiah 14:12 in the KJV is a transliteration. Lucifer is the English transliteration of the Latin word for “light bearer” or “morning star.” It is therefore an acceptable translation. It certainly does not make Jesus into Satan.

    • Believer July 16, 2009 / 5:06 pm

      No, it’s not my article, I’m just curious.

  35. Tim July 16, 2009 / 12:06 am

    Just some thoughts
    I was a NKJV person after salvation because my pastor told me to be. I had no intention of changing versions. As my wife and I grew, we found that our NKJV bibles did not match. Then, I was stold 1john 5:7 does not belong in the bible. What? I then wondered how can we trust anything in the bible if man can keep changing it.

    I studied the version issue for myself. I settled at the KJV for to many reasons to list. Some are God is not the author of confusion. My KJV reads the same as my Great Grandma’s. Modern versions are changed and dont. God said he preserved his word. I believe Him. The KJV stood for over 274 years to the english speaking people. So why did man think he could improve on it?

    I never press anyone to use the KJV, but to study it out asking for God’s Wisdom. I will share my testamony though and am often riticuled for it.

  36. fundyreformed July 17, 2009 / 9:02 am


    Commendable reasons, but they are a little off. The same arguments you used against the NKJV and modern versions, were used when the KJV and other “modern”, vulgar-language Bibles were supplanting the Latin Vulgate which had been the Bible for a thousand years. Those arguments were also used against Jerome’s version which was based on the Hebrew Old Testament instead of the traditional Greek Old Testament that the church had loved.

    The KJV is going to be 400 years old pretty soon. But for only close to 300 years did it enjoy an exclusive wide acclaim. And then only in English. There are many other Bibles in other languages with equal claims to being “the” Bible we should adopt.

    An emotionally driven, desire to cling to the old book we are familiar with, can easily cloud our minds to what is truly God’s word. We need to prize the rich Greek and Hebrew texts that we have so many of. These are what proves the veracity of the Bible, not mere tradition.

    Blessings in Christ,


  37. kjv.1611 July 17, 2009 / 9:37 am

    Very evil, in my opinion and conviction, that this site lifts up every version except the KJB

  38. Damien T Garofalo July 17, 2009 / 4:09 pm


    every time you chime in, you demonstrate that you have not read our articles and have no idea what our position is. Your opinion and conviction, therefore, have no basis in fact. Not a single one of us here is against the KJV. And we’re not here to “lift up” other versions. We are speaking against a teaching called King James Onlyism, which says that Christians ought to be exclusive to one version, thus denouncing all others. I don’t know how many times I have to say this, brother, but please please please slow down, read what has been written, and respond to specific things, not what you perceive to be. Thank you.

  39. kjv.1611 July 17, 2009 / 4:17 pm

    Well Damien,

    Certainly a Christian can also hold to the view that certain “Bible translations” are an apostasy. Right? So tell me, what is the “Non-King James Onlyism” stance on things such as the Message, or The Living “Bible”?

  40. Damien T Garofalo July 17, 2009 / 4:28 pm

    see, the view that Bible translations are an apostasy is what we’re arguing against. Are some? Maybe. I’m not sure you’ll find much about the Living Bible or the Message on this website. You’re certainly entitled to hold to whatever you like, and I wouldn’t question your Christianity on the basis of your view of the text. But it’s clear you’re not responding to actual arguments made on this site. You’re more than welcome to interact, but please read the posts and respond to specific arguments.

  41. kjv.1611 July 17, 2009 / 4:41 pm

    “You’re certainly entitled to hold to whatever you like”

    Good then I will hold to the King James Bible of 1611. Let us all remember that the Bible is a spiritual book and is understandable to those who are led by God’s Spirit. It is not possible for the natural man to understand it. Hence paraphrasing or simplifying it will do no good. The Bible is not supposed to read like a fairy tale. Peter said, “for we have not followed cunningly devised fables” The words of the Authorized King James Bible are not difficult or in error despite what you may think. they are beautiful and full of God’s power.

    And remember to head your own advice Damien. I did not ask if I would find much about the above mentioned perversions of God’s Word on this page. I asked your stance on them!

  42. Damien T Garofalo July 17, 2009 / 5:20 pm

    And I’ve been pleading with you to actually read and engage in our argumentation because you hardly know what it is we are about. Until you do that, we’re never going to be able to have a coherent conversation. Why not start from our first post? We don’t have too many. Read what it says, and tell us what you disagree with. Or pick another one. We have several already that deal with actual issues.

  43. kjv.1611 July 18, 2009 / 9:00 am

    Hey Damien,

    Just got done reading all the posts. Quick question for you. What is your stance on the Message and the Living “Bible”?

  44. Damien T Garofalo July 18, 2009 / 10:02 am

    thanks, bro. Well, I don’t speak for all the authors on here, but my personal opinion is that paraphrased Bibles such as the Message and Living Bible fall far short of the intended purpose of the scriptures. I don’t think they are devilish as some have said, nor would I discourage anyone from owning one for comparison sake or devotional studies. But in a paraphrase, the reader is subject to the translator’s opinion, and much is lost in translation. I would never advocate one of those as being an official church Bible for public reading or memorization, and I wouldn’t preach from one because I don’t think you can honestly say “thus says the Lord” from someone’s paraphrase. My opinion is that the best Bibles are as literal as possible.

    • JasonS July 18, 2009 / 2:21 pm

      I agree with your take on the issue.
      Of course, we also have some insertion of KJV translator’s beliefs in the KJV.
      Though I love and use the KJV, I must admit that.
      If it were not so, baptizo would have been translated instead of transliterated.
      Though not a paraphrase, the end result is the same.

  45. Tim July 23, 2009 / 4:31 pm

    Hi Bob

    It seems your dead against the KJV. If I am incorrect please say so. You also mentioned that I was emotionaly driven. No sir. I am biblically driven. After much (years) of study, I am led of the Holy Ghost to stick with the KJV.

    Again, you use what you want. I still have never received an answer from anyone that is sound as to why it is ok to make new translations from corupted texts, and to remove words and add words.

    I have no problems with a new translation if it is from the Recieved Text and was done by qualified men. That isnt the case though so I must stick with the KJV.

    As for vular lagnuage, my NKJV did not have vular words, it had different words that caused much confusion. In sunday school, listening to modern versions that did not contain half the verses or had foot notes that said the verses did not belong was a major state of confusion. God is not the author of confusion.

    A study of the vulgar language bibles was a result of mistakes on the new printing presses etc. Not enough room to discuss it here.

    So again, use what you want, but I will stick with the KJV, not because I “feel” that way, but because the evidence lead by the Holy Ghost led me that way.

    God Bless

    • JasonS July 23, 2009 / 5:53 pm

      I don’t presume to speak for Bob, but two things stick out to me:
      1. You assume that being against KJVO’ism is the same as being against the KJV. It is not. I write on this blog and use the KJV exclusively in preaching and primarily in studying. Your assumption is unwarranted and uncharitable.
      2. The word vulgar does not mean dirty. It means common. The common language Bible, not a dirty language Bible is what Bob is referring to.
      Why the reverence for the Textus Receptus?

  46. Tim July 23, 2009 / 7:26 pm

    Hi Jason

    First, I thought I better point out I am not a Ruckmanite and will have nothing to do with his teaching. I switched to the KJV before I even heard of him. (thought I better clear that up to avoid presumptions).

    Thanks for clearing some things up. The tone of what I read seemed to be KJV only. I am severley dyslexic and often miss things in reading.

    THe vulgar words are usually refered to of printing mistakes. Thanks again for clearing that up.

    Why the reverecne for the TR?
    That is self explanitory.
    Study the doctrine of preservation and see what God has said about it. Do a jot and titl(sp) study. Im sure you have spent some time studying word for word translation vs. dynamic equivalancy.

    I have studied about Westcot and Hort, and will have nothing to do with thier workings of the Greek text.

    I guess I am best discribed at only KJV. that is the KJV is the only Translation for me. Again, use what you want.

    Well, we are both set on what we feel God would have us to use. God Bless and keep looking up, Jesus is comming soon 🙂

    Tim signing off

  47. fundyreformed July 23, 2009 / 10:24 pm


    The reason for our site is that there is a lot of misinformation that swirls out there about the Bible version differences. In our personal experience, we have seen this issue split churches and negatively impact our own walk with God and the spiritual growth of others. More than that, it also leads to sincere believers like yourself, who boldly condemn and decry fellow believers over this issue. Good sincere, Bible reverencing, Christ following Christians are made out to practically be little anti-christs. They are judged and motives are given to them, and horrid things are said of them, all in the name of a stalwart defense of truth. This is plain wrong.

    We try not to be unfair in dealing with opposing views and make every effort to understand them before we differ. The same courtesies are not often given back to us. Many read my story and conclude I am anti-KJV and not following the leading of the Spirit. That is not the case, I would protest.

    I must apologize for insinuating that you were emotionally driven. I suppose that charge is a bit much since I would have to know you personally to know that is the case. There is an emotional attachment many have to the KJV which drives their defense of it.

    Your last post to Damien here shows some of the misunderstandings this site aims to clear up. Let me point out a few.

    1) Word-for-Word vs. Dynamic Equivalency is not a deal breaker in this debate. You will find people who prefer the New American Standard over the NIV for exactly this reason. Others cling to the NKJV or the ESV as their preferred alternative. I’m sure many of the commenters here, myself included, are not 100% happy with some of the dynamic equivalent readings the NIV chooses to use.

    2) You mention having studied Westcott and Hort. Perhaps you would be so kind as to check out this post which points out how many KJV Only authors do a great disservice to the cause of Christ and of truth by twisting the words of Westcott and Hort and making them out to be heretics and infidels. Westcott particularly was a great defender of the resurrection and resisted modernist tendencies. Hort too was quite conservative. If you click on the link I gave a few sentences above here, and if you are truly honest and objective, you will have to see that there has been some twisting of their words done. Now whether this was a wholesale hack job, and W & H are completely innocent of the charge so often thrown at them by KJV Only adherents, that is a matter for study. But clearly if you’ve studied the issue out and weren’t aware of the blatant misquoting and twisting of their words, perhaps you should study the issue out again.

    3) Your reference to the Preservation and jots and tittles. First off, the TR never existed in one manuscript before. So before Erasmus had it printed in 1522, or if you prefer, Beza had his form printed in 1598, or as most TR Only people like, Scrivener had his final form of the TR printed in 1894, before one of these three dates, there was no preservation in one book of all the inspired words of God. The people who put together the TR had to take various manuscripts that had errors in them and assemble from them a printed text. If God’s promise about preservation is not kept apart from all the readings being in one book, then God’s promise wasn’t kept prior to 1522. If God’s promise doesn’t mean all the readings will be in one book, but rather preserved in various hand written copies of Scripture, then the position I hold is just as valid as yours. You hold that only the Byzantine manuscripts preserved God’s word and eventually it ended up in the TR. I hold that all the manuscripts contain part of God’s words, but in all the manuscripts we have all of God’s words are there. I believe we get as close to having all the words in one book as we can, (or as we have thus far), in the NA27/UBS4 printed Greek text. So you would say God’s people receiving the TR is why we should say the TR is the one book that has all of God’s words. You forget that God’s people today accept the NA27/UBS4, and God’s people prior to 1522 accepted the Vulgate more or less as being the inspired Bible. John Calvin, John Wesley, John Gill, (lots of Johns here..), Martin Luther, Charles Spurgeon — these men did not hold that the only true Bible is the TR. They pointed out problems in the TR or the KJV. They adopted different readings that they felt were more likely to be the original readings based on their study. They didn’t try to foster a distrust of God’s word as a whole, but were honest in their study of it. In fact the Baptists created two different Bible versions in the 1800s before Westcott and Hort’s work was done and before the 1881 Revised Version. Certainly Baptists count as God’s people, and they didn’t tacitly sit back and receive the KJV. They saw it as having quite serious deficiencies.

    I hope this helps a little bit in your understanding where we are coming from. We prize Scripture, but we want to be honest with the facts. We don’t say more than Scripture does about its preservation, and we don’t condemn you or others for holding a different view. We just fear your view is based on many misunderstandings and hence does not represent God’s truth in the best way.

    May God bless you truly in Christ even if we never agree on this issue,

    In Christ,

    Bob Hayton

  48. fundyreformed July 23, 2009 / 10:31 pm

    One other thing, you said this:

    I still have never received an answer from anyone that is sound as to why it is ok to make new translations from corrupted texts, and to remove words and add words.

    Let me assure you that I don’t think that is okay either. I don’t have an anything flies mentality here. First off, many of the texts claimed to be corrupted, are not. Plain and simple. Much of the corruption talk is based on hypotheses about Alexandrian corruption and Alexandrian cults and the like. This is conspiracy theory stuff, and doesn’t hold water.

    Second, if you compare everything by the KJV 1611, then everything will fall short. But doing that is not fair or honest. We know the words are in the KJV. The question is should they be there, or not. Are they additions, we know scribes made additions to manuscripts. Or are they subtractions, they also made subtractions.

    I’ll say this, the modern versions are following the evidence of texts hundreds and thousands of years old. There is a reason for the changes between a modern Bible and the KJV. Our blog tries to explain those changes. We don’t shy away from giving an answer.

    Feel free to give us specific questions and challenge us on specific points. We’ve looked at the issue closely for many years, each of us. We have answers. And if we don’t we will be honest with you. But we won’t try to evade an honest question. When someone is honestly interacting we respect that. When someone is just cutting and pasting volumes of material at us and not hearing us or responding to the issues being discussed, that’s where we have to step in in the interests of managing our blog well.

    Thanks for dropping by.

    Yours in Christ,


  49. Tim July 29, 2009 / 12:23 am

    Thought I was done till you put words in my mouth.
    “More than that, it also leads to sincere believers like yourself, who boldly condemn and decry fellow believers over this issue.” Where did I say this? If I gave you this impression, im sorry, not my intent. I have said it is each persons choice. I choose the KJV and you clearly have a problem with it by the above statement. I never have nor ever will condemn and decry a fellow believer of this issue. In fact, just the opposite has happened to me. Several MV users have condemned me that I should throw away “that outdated bible”. I will share with them why I stand where I stand if they ask.

    I intended to come here and only give my testamony as to why I stand where I do. I am sorry I have upset some of you by my stance which is lead of the Holy Spirit. So, for the last time brother, use what you will, ill not tell you to change. That is between you and God. I simply shared where the Lord has lead me. If I gave other implication, I appologize.

    As for Westcott and Hort, I read thier journals that they wrote themselves.

    God Bless

  50. fundyreformed July 29, 2009 / 1:13 am


    In such a debate, what we all “hear” tends to be influenced by what we heard from others in the past. I’m sorry I mis-characterized you. Looking back on your posts it doesn’t seem like you were boldly decrying our position here.

    Many sincere believers do end up doing that. I appreciate your testimony and we’ll agree to disagree. BTW, we wouldn’t encourage you to throw away your “outdated Bible” by any stretch.

    Blessings in Christ,


    • greg May 20, 2010 / 11:21 am


      Great work on this kjv only business, even if you are a calvinist (be nice Greg) What you pointed out about about the “father’s” of this movement is critical, best I can tell as you indicated is that Wilkinson got this kjv only ball rolling with his book “Our Authorized Version Vindicated” What you didn’t point out is that he was a 7th Day Adventist, I know that we’re trying to be very nice and christian here, which we should be, but from where I come from we consider them to be a cult.

      What I find to be so funny regarding this issue is that this kjv translation, that so many uneducated, catholic/7th Day Adventist/homosexual hating baptists and others so admire was authorized by a king that good evidence suggests was a homosexual, and the text used was compiled by a roman catholic priest (Erasmus) who remained a good catholic to his dying day, and then comes along Wilkinson and begins the current furor with his book. Anyone else find this ironic?

      Bob you have a good thing going here, educating people and I really love the kind and christian tone you take with these messed-up folks, (I used to be one of them)matter of fact my comments in support of you are the “meanest” on here. I don’t really want to be mean, but I am plain spoken, that’s the way I’m built.

      What is so sad is that these good people sat in pews all across our country and had to listen to foolishness from uneducated pastors that stirred up a great mess. I feel for everyone of them. There is much similaritiy between your story and mine as relates to the kjv only issue. I read many of the authors you did and others. Sadly though I could have used this time to have been studying God’s Holy and Precious Word and winning others to Christ.

      I want to finish with an open book test for all kjv only folks. Open your bibles to 2 Corinthians 6:11-13. Now w/out referring to any other source tell me what these verses are about. How ya doing? Do you think our Lord wants us to understand His Word? Ok I know its tough and I know you wouldn’t have a wicked perverted NIV or other modern version in your house, but I know you have a computer so look it up in the NIV and find out how Paul closes out his thought here. AHHH! Let it wash over you for a moment, reading the precious Word with understanding, feels wonderful doesn’t it? Now let me add here, lest I be misunderstood. This train wreck of old english gobbledygook here doesn’t mean that the kjv is no good or that I’m against the kjv, this doesn’t affect any major doctrine at all. I’m not against the kjv but I am against kjvonlyism. Read your kjv study your kjv love your kjv, its a wonderful translation, but remember its just that, a translation, don’t worship it, because then it becomes an idol.

      Wasn’t planning on rambling this long,tks. God bless you and keep up the great work. In
      Christ, Greg.

    • fundyreformed May 20, 2010 / 11:31 am

      Thanks Greg. Kind words. I wasn’t trying to hide Wilkinson’s SDA mentality, not sure why I didn’t mention it. I did link to the article that deals with that and we have mentioned it in subsequent blogs.

      I like your KJVO test, it is really helpful.

      God bless, brother.

      In Christ,


Comments are closed.