King James Only

Posted: September 15, 2014 in christian living, ecclesia, Jesus

If you are a believer who simply holds that the KJV is the best common english translation of God’s word I am NOT talking about you.  I am talking about militant KJV only proponents.

It grieves me to hear believers say they are ‘King James Only’ for at least two reasons.  The first is that all believers should be King Jesus Only.  King James didn’t live a sinless life or die for you.  More than that, he was an evil man whose tyrannical nicolatianism was strongly spoken against in the previous english bibles translated from the same textus receptus that KJV only proponents pride themselves on.  That is why you will find the KJV almost identical to Tyndale, Geneva, and YLT* but with a bit of nicolatian language added in.

Is KJV the best common english bible translation?  Maybe.   The only preserved word of God?  Doubt it.  You’d have an easier time convincing me that Rome is the one true church.  Thanks be to God that that every blood bought saint has the living word, the light of Jesus, the Holy Spirit, abiding in their hearts by faith to lead them into all truth.  We don’t have need to idolize a bible version as the militant KJV only crowd does, but if we did I would have to go with Tyndale or Geneva only.**  It seems those translations are much purer having sprung forth from the temporary freedom from persecution true saints found in places such Geneva.  Any honest research shows that King James had more in common with the pope than with these true saints.  He persecuted God’s people and set up his own version of Rome.


**Wycliffe not an official textus receptus version and the way I wrote made it seem like it was.  Should have said YLT although it came later

** Yes, of course there are other translations from the same text, but I am not writing a treatise here


  1. fleebabylon says:

    Reaction of the Catholic Church

    Tyndale’s translations were condemned in England, where his work was banned and copies burned. Catholic officials, prominently Thomas More, charged that he had purposely mistranslated the ancient texts in order to promote anti-clericalism and heretical views, In particular they cited the terms “church,” “priest,” “do penance” and “charity,” which became in the Tyndale translation “congregation,” “senior” (changed to “elder” in the revised edition of 1534), “repent” and “love,” challenging key doctrines of the Roman Church. Betrayed to church officials in 1536, he was defrocked in an elaborate public ceremony and turned over to the civil authorities to be strangled to death and burned at the stake. His last words are said to have been, “Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes.”

  2. Scarlett says:

    I’m a big fan of your posts. Always consise,”scripturally correct”, and straight to the point.
    May peace and grace be multiplied to you, as you continue on to labor in the Word.

  3. Agreed Jim. I often wonder how those who hold to such a strict adherence to a specific translation interact with other believers who choose not to. Somehow I don’t think rejecting other true believers on such a basis is even remotely permissible in any Bible translation.

    Is the King James translation a “good one”- yes it is. That doesn’t give credence to overlooking its obvious errors though- errors which severely warp many words and contexts throughout. See: Church: A word that didn’t even exist when Jesus or His original disciples walked this earth. A word that not only doesn’t stem from the original, but one in which almost entirely contrasts Jesus’ original intent for His people (ekklesia).

    Refusing to acknowledge such obvious errors is sheer neglect for any professing believer. To fail to warn others of the fact is even worse. Yet to act as if any translation is “foolproof” and mandated by Jesus- that’s simply ignoring the obvious and esteeming one’s own opinion as the basis of fact and speaking where Jesus has never spoken- kind of foolish eh?

  4. fleebabylon says:

    James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England.

  5. Alan Ray says:

    Great post, flee, and oh, so needed. The very ones who are so sure their translation is the equivalent of the crucified and risen Lord are blind to their idolatry, ironically condemning themselves as they accuse other believers of their own fault.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s