[bibleprotector]

PLEASE NOTE: The following post is not intended to put people into a "box", as many people who are King James Bible only will believe somewhere on a spectrum.

This is my attempt to broadly classify views of the King James Bible in regard to most Christian users or general perceptions of users. This comparison of beliefs is a rough guideline only.

CLASS ONE: KING JAMES BIBLE FAVOURED (PREFERRED)

History: Because for many years the King James Bible was used, and due to tradition and conservative forces, that Bible has continued to have been used in certain movements and ministries, though not exclusively, and often modern versions might be used in conference, and there is a willingness to adopt modern King James Bible editions or versions.

Inspiration: The Autographs are 100% infallible, inspired and perfect.

Preservation: Overall the Word of God is preserved through time.

The KJB text: The KJB text is at least 99% correct.

The text in English: Overall the text of the Word is probably in English versions.

The KJB translation: Very good, but there are occasional areas which can be improved.

The KJB language/style: Generally good, but the archaic language is a stumbling block to new believers, which requires or allows for updating the language or other good versions to bring out the meaning better.

The perfection of the KJB: The KJB is faithful and reliable, but not perfect.

Other versions: Some other versions are valid or acceptable.

Other languages: The Word of God should continue to be translated into other languages.

The future of the KJB: The KJB will probably continue to be upheld by an extreme minority, but generally, with the changing language, new discoveries and progressive revelation of the Church, changes are inevitable.

Which edition of the KJB: Any current one.

CLASS TWO: KING JAMES BIBLE DEFENDED (TR ONLY)

History: Because for many years the King James Bible was used, and due to tradition and conservative forces, that Bible has continued to have been used in certain movements and ministries. The principles of modernism are deficient, which means that the King James Bible must still continue to be the Bible for the present time.

Inspiration: The Autographs are 100% infallible, inspired and perfect.

Preservation: Overall the Word of God is preserved through time, specifically in the King James Bible.

The KJB text: The KJB text is correct.

The text in English: The Bible text is fully presented in English.

The KJB translation: Correct, but it is impossible to translate 100%, even though what it does translate is indeed valid.

The KJB language/style: Very good, but if the English language changes, alterations on the current English of the KJB may be necessary.

The perfection of the KJB: The KJB is faithful and reliable, and will never lead anyone astray.

Other versions: No other present English versions are acceptable.

Other languages: The Word of God can continue to be translated into other languages if they are done from the basis of the TR or from the KJB.

The future of the KJB: The KJB will continue to be used by a faithful minority of believers, and may, in the unknown future before the return of Christ, be yet altered in regards to the English only, and not the underlying texts.

Which edition of the KJB: Cambridge Edition best, but any edition.

CLASS THREE: KING JAMES BIBLE PURIST (ENGLISH PRESERVATIONIST)

History: Because for many years the King James Bible was used, and due to tradition and conservative forces, that Bible has continued to have been used by true believers. The principles of modernism are deficient, and the King James Bible is the providentially appointed correct Bible for the world.

Inspiration: The Autographs are 100% infallible, inspired and perfect.

Preservation: The Word of God is preserved through time, specifically in the King James Bible.

The KJB text: The KJB text is correct.

The text in English: The Bible text is fully presented in English.

The KJB translation: Fully perfect, equivalent to the originals in English.

The KJB language/style: Exact, no updating or changes are to be accepted.

The perfection of the KJB: The KJB is inerrant.

Other versions: No other present English versions are acceptable.

Other languages: With the world becoming conversant with English, the King James Bible alone is now to be promoted as the only form of the Bible for the whole world.

The future of the KJB: The KJB will continue to be used by a faithful minority of believers, and that by true revival, be restabilised as the Bible of the true Church throughout the Earth.

Which edition of the KJB: The Cambridge Edition generally, the Pure Cambridge Edition specifically.

CLASS FOUR: KING JAMES BIBLE EXTREMIST (SOME IS USED AS SLANDER)

History: Because the Apostle Paul used the King James Bible, so should true believers today.

Inspiration: The Autographs are irrelevant. The King James Bible itself was made by inspired men from 1604-1611, and is advanced revelation.

Preservation: The King James Bible is the Word of God.

The KJB text: The KJB text is correct.

The text in English: The Bible text is fully presented in English.

The KJB translation: Superior to the originals.

The KJB language/style: Exact in all editions.

The perfection of the KJB: The KJB is inerrant in all editions.

Other versions: No other present English versions are acceptable.

Other languages: Since the KJB is necessary for salvation, it is the Word for the world.

The future of the KJB: The KJB will continue to be used by a faithful minority of believers, until it is finally destroyed by the New World Order, etc.

Which edition of the KJB: Any edition, but the Cambridge Edition preferred.

[bibleprotector]

Most teachers and leaders from every category would recognise a Cambridge printed King James Bible as the best.

It is universally recognised that the Cambridge Bibles are of a high quality, in presentation, typography, etc. Also, Cambridge has been associated with the King James Bible from the earliest years.

There are some now who are taking the step further and identifying one particular Cambridge Edition as the exact representative, and the one that God has providentially supplied.

[Greektim]

I think you did a good job in classifying all the major areas of KJVOism. Well done.

Suggestion, you might want to add seminaries, colleges, schools, or teachers that espouse these views. That way reading materials can be compiled on each view. Just a suggestion though.

Now are people supposed to openly confess where they fit into the overall scheme of things? If so, where do you fit, bibleprotector?

[bibleprotector]

I am not going to talk about other people here.

No one is compelled to say where they fit in. (After all, someone might disagree, or think that I have misrepresented their position.)

I am a pure KJBO.

[Greektim]

Can you at least disclose colleges or seminaries. I know Ambassador Baptist College fits somewhere near the defended view. How about Hyles-Anderson, Pensacola Christian College, & others?

[bibleprotector]

I said I am not going to talk about other people here. I will let others discuss it if they wish.

Well I see that I have been beaten to the puch.

No matter, I shall post what I was intending to now.

When searching back through the greater part of Church history I do not find the presents of the phrase “King James Only”. These words are absent from the lips or the written pages of countless Christians for the exceptional part of history. The reasons for this are three fold:

• For one, Bible believers of the past believed in the Bible, and not one verse in the Bible tells us to believe in the King James Bible and/or any other Version for that matter. Yet it does lend to the belief in only one Bible which we will discuss latter.

• Two, The King James Bible did not exist throughout all history, nor did the English language; therefore, it could not have been an issue.

• Three, When the King James Bible did appear, it was accepted by the church as the word of God in English, hence there was not controversy accenting it in opposition to any other version.

Although, the phrase was not paramount throughout the better part of Church history, Bible believers of past did recognize that the Scriptures indubitably put-forth the promise of preservation (see Matt. 5:18). Listen to the Westminster Confession of Faith:

[QUOTE;1533] The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the language of every people unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[/QUOTE]

The particular part to pay attention to is “…kept pure in all ages…”. This distinctive expression clearly shows the belief that the scriptures were preserved. And I could list a half a dozen to a dozen quotations that evidence such (whoever would like, I will post them on request). In as much, it makes sense that His word must exist in their day as well as ours. The precise phrase “King James Only” is then, of really recent origins.

Where the phrase exactly came from is unknown. No one knows for sure.

Wikipedia states:

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only

“The origin of the label ‘King-James-Only’ is unclear, though as early as 1987, it was being used to refer to claims of exclusivity for the King James Version and the controversy which had been brewing over these claims for almost a decade.”

By 1995 the phrase was popularized widely through the writing of James R. White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, an apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona, when he published The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Not to mention that John Ankerberg and John Weldon’s book The Facts On The King James Only Debate: How Reliable Are Today’s Bible Versions? further popularized it. Be that as it may, we have the phrase now and must deal with it.

However, was it the product of King James Bible zealots or Modern antagonist? Donald A. Wait in a two part audio sermon claims that the phrase is a ‘smear word’ (see http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2307164925 and http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=260713240 ), while James R. White contends that that the phrase is not insulting nor inaccurate (see The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House. 1995, p. 248.) Why the difference? The answer to this I think, will be found when we determine how broad or who narrow we want to read the phrase ”King James Only.”

Men such a David H. Sorenson limit the phrase to all that are like Peter S. Ruckman:

Originally Posted by Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation, pp. 15-16

The King James Only position of the translation controversy advances the view that the King James Version of the Bible as a translation is inspired. Therefore, the King James Version as a translation is the exclusive Word of God in this age. Though there are several varieties of this position, its most prominent advocate is Peter Ruckman. Among other things, he holds the view that the King James Version as an English translation is superior to the Greek readings of any Greek text. Other proponents of the King James only position advance the view that the King James Version we re-inspired in A.D. 1611 and thus supercedes even the original Greek manuscripts (the autographa) of the New Testament.

He also mentions those who would claim that the King James Bible is not just for English speaking peoples, but also for non-English speaking peoples. Which means, that if a non-English speaking person wants the Word of God he must learn English.

Now, Sorenson’s position is termed The Preserved Text Position (Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation, p. 30). The book is very good in that it makes a good case for our King James Bible as the standard.

On the converse side, James R. White widens the term considerably. He mentions 5 main variations: 1.) I like the KJV best (they prefer the KJV as the best English Translation in existence but who would not be opposed to a better one arriving in the future); 2.) The Textual Argument (they prefer the Hebrew and Greek MSS. underlining the KJV as superior not as inspired but as more accurate to the originals); 3.) Received Text Only (they prefer the Textus Receptus as being inerrant and the received Hebrew text as well, but they do not consider the KJV as inerrant); 4.) The Inspired KJV Group (they believe that KJV in English is inspired and at that inerrant via preservation); 5.) The KJV As New Revelation (they hold to the idea that the KJV is inspired revelation and hence, can correct the Greek and Hebrew MSS.). Of course he also includes in a foot note a sixth group we can call 6.) The Eternal KJV Group; he writes of them:

Originally Posted by The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? p. 6

We have heard of small groups that go ever further, claiming that the KJV was written in eternity, and that Abraham and Moses and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament.

.

Now what is painfully obvious, is that White paints too broad a brush. One I suspect is inaccurate. Yet, Sorenson, in my opinion is too narrow in his limitations. So what do we do? After spending years reading (hundreds of books, hundreds of articles & pamphlets, and hundreds of web-sites), not to mention the dozens audio and video heard and watched; I can say two main things. 1.) Their does exist variation within the King James Only Camp; 2.) Their does exist certain parameters that define one as King James Only.

The Variations (Will delineate upon request)

A. TR is generally accurate, but could use some revision

B. TR is absolutely perfect, and needs no revision

C. The KJB is generally accurate, but could use some minor revising

D. The KJB is absolutely perfect, and needs no revision

The parameters that define KJVO

1. All agree that God’s Authoritative Word exists today.

2. All emphasize the Bible doctrine of preservation

3. All reject the Westscott/Hort textual theory

4. All reject the Westscott/Hort Greek Text

5. All believe that the Modern English Versions are founded on bad and corrupt manuscripts

6. All believe that the King James Authorized Bible is the only link, in English, as to what God actually and originally said

These 6 parameters are what I think define King James Only.
__________________________________

- “One accurate measurement is worth more than a thousand expert opinions”

- “...this is the Word of God; come, search, ye critics, and find a flaw; examine it, from its Genesis to its Revelation, and find an error... This is the book untainted by any error; but is pure, unalloyed, perfect truth. Why? Because God wrote it. Ah! charge God with error if you please; tell him that his book is not what it ought to be. I have heard men, with prudish and mock-modesty, who would like to alter the Bible; and (I almost blush to say it) I have heard ministers alter God's Bible, because they were afraid of it... Pity they were not born when God lived far—far back that they might have taught God how to write.” Charles Haddon Spurgeon (Spurgeon's Sermons Volume 1: Sermon II p. 31)

- “If, therefore, any do complain that I have sometimes hit my opponents rather hard, I take leave to point out that 'to everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the sun' : 'a time to embrace, and a time to be far from embracing' : a time for speaking smoothly, and a time for speaking sharply. And that when the words of Inspiration are seriously imperilled, as now they are, it is scarcely possible for one who is determined effectually to preserve the Deposit in its integrity, to hit either too straight or too hard.” Dean John William Burgon (The Revision Revised. pp. vii-viii)

[Diligent]

Way back when James White was writing his book, I "chatted" with him on a pre-Internet message relay system called Fidonet. At the time, I was newly "converted" to the "KJVO" position and considered the term a smear. White certainly intended it as a smear when he used it.

Anyway, I no longer care if the term was originally meant as a pejorative. Most KJB believers I know are happy to call themselves "King James Only" now. It is, for me, accurate enough.

Although I believe God preserved his words in the original Hebrew and Greek (the Masoretic and the TR), the evidence is plain that there does not exist a single correct and completely collated presentation of God's word in those languages. (That's what Scrivener was trying to create with his edition of the TR.)

If we believe that the KJV translators did a completely accurate job translating God's word and selecting the correct source readings, then it logically follows that we have no true need for the "originals" any more.

It has been said that some people believe that the KJV can be used to "correct the Greek" (TR). I think the TR-only scholars who laugh at this are missing the point -- since we do not have the exact TR text that the KJV translators used as their basis for translation, and yet we have faith that the KJV is 100% correct, we can in fact use it to "correct" any particular edition of the TR. The KJV is a variant of the TR and if we accept it as authoritative, it can be used to select TR readings. However, while Scrivener's attempt at creating a KJV-based-TR is laudable, it did not yield a "perfect TR," so we are left concluding that the knowledge required to purely do so simply does not exist right now. And why should it? God has his pure English Bible; nobody speaks the "Biblical original languages" any more, so what's the need?

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by Diligent

It has been said that some people believe that the KJV can be used to "correct the Greek" (TR). I think the TR-only scholars who laugh at this are missing the point -- since we do not have the exact TR text that the KJV translators used as their basis for translation, and yet we have faith that the KJV is 100% correct, we can in fact use it to "correct" any particular edition of the TR. The KJV is a variant of the TR and if we accept it as authoritative, it can be used to select TR readings. However, while Scrivener's attempt at creating a KJV-based-TR is laudable, it did not yield a "perfect TR," so we are left concluding that the knowledge required to purely do so simply does not exist right now. And why should it? God has his pure English Bible; nobody speaks the "Biblical original languages" any more, so what's the need?

Very well said, Diligent! That a Bible believer can use the KJV to correct the "originals" (so-called, for no true "original" exists anymore) is not an "extreme" position after all. Thank you very much!

[bibleprotector]

Amen, Diligent and Biblestudent!

Now, some comments on what Truth4Today wrote.

Three, When the King James Bible did appear, it was accepted by the church as the word of God in English, hence there was not controversy accenting it in opposition to any other version.

This is strictly true, despite some continuation of the Geneva Version for a few years among some, and clamour from a more extreme minority for longer; and despite the rejection of Hugh Broughton, the King James Bible was indeed accepted without controversy, and it superseded — indeed was seen to be superior to — any other English version.

It was not merely the Westminster Confession (which is a sectarian statement), but the 39 Articles of the Anglicans, and doctrines of other denominations since accepted the Scripture as presently true, plainly meaning in the English tongue.

As for Wikipedia, that is somewhat dubious, in that it may be altered at any moment, and is not actually a tangible scholarly authority.

The precise phrase “King James Only” is then, of really recent origins.

The issue is not to the origin of the name “King James Only”, or as if that doctrine only existed while there was a name for it, rather, it was broadly an idea of the Christian Church since 1611. This may be shown to be the case, despite a few figures from time to time challenging that, especially with more vehemence from the middle portion of the 1800s.

As for James White, his categorisations should be held with little credence. He deliberately misrepresents King James Bible adherents, and gives no place for the pure KJBO view. This man does not seem to have an honest agenda.

James R. White widens the term considerably

or, White confuses/fogs the term considerably

I can say two main things. 1.) Their does exist variation within the King James Only Camp; 2.) Their does exist certain parameters that define one as King James Only.

In reality, “TRO” cannot be “KJBO” because while the TRO accepts the KJB in English, they are open to the original languages and other translations, and are open to the possibility of changes/alterations to the King James Bible.

This is what appears to be the textual positions of people who at least may prefer the use of the King James Bible:

1. TRADITIONAL TEXT. This view is that the Eastern Orthodox manuscripts/Byzantine Family are the best, and whatever is in majority. The King James Bible is the best English Bible based on these. The King James Bible is open to revision in its underlying texts, as was done with the New King James Version. Some may advocate for a New Geneva Version. A lot of changes can be made in the translation. (They believe that no translation is perfect.) These folk reject all other KJB positions, and are among the strongest anti-KJBO people. They may also have some respect for the TROs, but call others heretics. “The authority is in the majority of Greek manuscripts.”

2. TEXTUS RECEPTUS. This view is that the formation of the accepted text that was improved upon through the Reformation, as based upon the widest amount of evidence, including even the Vulgate, but mainly the Byzantine Family, is the best, most especially because God used these by His providence in the getting the Gospel into many languages from Reformation. Principle of all such translations is the King James Bible. They therefore promote any TR translation, even if made from the KJB. They also would uphold the Greek text aligned to the KJB, and have laid aside Lloyd’s TR for Scrivener’s or Berry’s. While they might hold that the underlying texts of the KJB should not be altered, they will still think that the KJB has the possibility for improvements, either in translations, or more often, in updating the old fashioned language. (They do not accept the idea of perfect translation, though recognise that God must be able to use people to make good ones.) These TRO folk may be witnessed to attack both the NKJV and KJBOs. “The authority is in the underlying languages.”

3. ENGLISH RECEIVED TEXT. This view is that the English Bible, namely, the King James Bible is the best and, in fact, perfect text being gathered from the TR sources, and as an independent variety of the TR, is the final form of the text. Therefore, the text in English is matching exactly the words, but for the language, to the autographs. Moreover, the translation is exact, sense for sense, without addition, omission, alteration or substitution. While the KJB is not the only form of the English Scripture, or the only Bible in the world, it is, through various factors and providential signals, beginning to be regarded as the only Bible/Scripture Authority to be used. This means that the King James Bible will, if the logic is followed, have to be viewed in a fixed form, rather than in a continual perpetuation of editions with spelling differences or other even slight variations. However, because the Bible existed before 1611, there can never be the extreme of saying that it is the only Bible, or only edition, rather, that God has providentially brought it about so that in practice (i.e. in current use of the faithful) it is the only Bible. Moreover, if it is linked to true Christianity, at some point the Church using the King James Bible is going to be actually the true Church as opposed to the apostates who do not. “The authority is in the Authorized King James Bible.”

In other words, future “King James Bible only” would be prescriptive of the true Church, (a true Christian could be judged of his trueness on account of it as part of true doctrine), whereas today it is only descriptive (there are as yet true Christians who are not using the King James Bible exclusively). The problem is that most people who have made it prescriptive up to today have held to various positions on the matter which are extreme or illogical. There needs to be a temperate and reasoned move to promoting the prescription position. Foremost in this is (as based on numerous Scriptures themselves:
1. Recognising the KJB as the providentially appointed final text in the Church.
2. Recognising the KJB as a perfect translation in the global language, so that it is viewed as God’s exact message to the world.
3. Recognising the KJB has been presented in a final exact pure edition, accurate throughout, with the proper standard of spelling and Biblical English, without typographical error, without variation and without any other flaw to the jot and tittle.