King James Version Onlyism

An Honest Look

Welcome

Whether you're a committed KJV Onlyist, someone with questions, or simply curious about what KJV Only teaches—welcome. This site takes an honest look at the beliefs and history of King James Version Onlyism, and what I found.

What Started This Honest Look

I've heard "King James Version of the Bible Only" (KJV Onlyism) through the years and experienced it to varying degrees—churches with KJV Onlyist members, conversations, encounters. To be honest, it's hard—impossible, really—to have been in church for the last 40 years and not have run into "KJV Only." While I knew about it, it wasn't something I personally had to deal with.

However, I had never regularly attended a "King James Only" church until recently, when I spent a couple of years at a rural independent Baptist church that preached KJV Only every week.

There were several reasons we started attending, and I thought, "Every denomination and church has its quirks and differing viewpoints—KJV Only is just one of them." But the direct weekly preaching on KJV Only—and statements like "all other Bibles should be burned" and "the whole world must learn English to read the Bible"—changed this from occasional encounters into something else entirely: a belief that I had to agree to or be considered not a Christian.

I had to answer the question: Was this rural pastor correct (along with all the other pastors like him)? Is the King James Version the only true Bible of the Christian faith? Did they hold a secret that mainstream Christianity didn't teach? Or was he wrong and teaching something false?

This site is the result of that search. May it help those who are also searching.

What is King James Version Onlyism?

KJV Only is the belief that the King James Version of the Bible is the only reliable, accurate, and inspired English translation, with most KJV Onlyists claiming it is the only true Bible in any language.

The belief exists on a spectrum:

  • The Best: The KJV is the best translation and should be preferred
  • The Only: The KJV is the only reliable English translation; others contain errors or corruptions
  • The Divine: The KJV is divinely inspired in English, can correct the original Greek and Hebrew, and all other translations are satanic counterfeits

Who Started It?

This surprised me: KJV Onlyism is not an ancient belief. It's a 20th-century movement.

The foundational book was written in 1930 by Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh-day Adventist missionary and college dean. His book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated argued that modern Bible versions came from corrupted manuscripts tainted by Catholic conspiracy, while God preserved His pure word through the King James Bible.

Why did Wilkinson favor the KJV? This is where it gets interesting. Wilkinson had specific Seventh-day Adventist theological motivations:

  • Sabbath-keeping: In Acts 13:42, the KJV includes wording about Gentiles asking Paul to preach "the next sabbath." The newer translations changed the Greek text in ways that Wilkinson felt weakened the Adventist argument for Saturday Sabbath observance.
  • Soul sleep: Adventists believe the dead remain unconscious until the resurrection (called "soul sleep"), rather than going immediately to heaven or hell. In Hebrews 9:27, Wilkinson argued the KJV reading ("But after this, the judgement") supported soul sleep better than the newer translation's wording, which he felt supported the "intermediate state" view (the belief that the soul goes immediately to heaven or hell at death, rather than "sleeping" until resurrection).
  • Ellen G. White: Wilkinson was a conservative Adventist who argued that Ellen White's writings (which Adventists consider prophetic) were inerrant. He drew heavily from her book The Great Controversy for his claims that the Waldenses (a medieval Christian movement that predated the Reformation and was later claimed by various groups as predecessors) preserved both the "true Sabbath" and an uncorrupted Bible text through the centuries.

So the foundational text of KJV Onlyism wasn't just defending the KJV in general—it was defending it partly because it better supported distinctive Adventist doctrines that most Baptists would reject.

Here's the twist: Wilkinson's arguments entered mainstream Baptist circles through a deliberate cover-up of who he was. In 1970, Baptist pastor David Otis Fuller published a book called Which Bible? that copied about half of Wilkinson's work (without permission)—but identified him only as "a godly pastor" without mentioning he was Seventh-day Adventist. This was essential: fundamentalist Baptists would have rejected arguments from an Adventist source, yet the same arguments became foundational when their origin was hidden.

This adds a significant layer of irony: Independent Fundamental Baptists, who would strongly reject Adventist doctrines like Saturday Sabbath and soul sleep, built their KJV Only position on arguments crafted specifically to support those very doctrines.

Key figures in the KJV Only movement include:

  • David Otis Fuller (1903–1988): The Baptist pastor who brought Wilkinson's arguments into fundamentalist circles through his 1970 book Which Bible? Fuller plagiarized about half of Wilkinson's work while hiding his Adventist identity, making these arguments palatable to Baptists who would have rejected them from an Adventist source.
  • Edward F. Hills (1912–1981): The only academically trained textual scholar to defend the KJV Only position. He had a doctorate from Harvard but was "ridiculed and blacklisted" by fellow scholars.
  • Peter Ruckman (1921–2016): Took the movement to its extreme. Ruckman taught that the KJV contains revelations not found in the original Greek or Hebrew, and that the English KJV can "correct" mistakes in the original languages. His combative, insulting style shaped the often hostile tone of the movement. Many KJV defenders distance themselves from Ruckman's extremes, but his arguments have spread widely.
  • Jack Hyles (1926–2001): Pastor of First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana—once the largest church in America. Hyles popularized KJV Onlyism in the mega-church IFB world and trained thousands of pastors through Hyles-Anderson College who carried the teaching into churches across the country.
  • Sam Gipp: A contemporary KJV Only advocate known for his "Answer Book" defending the position and his confrontational debating style. He has trained a new generation of KJV Onlyist pastors.
  • Gail Riplinger: Author of New Age Bible Versions (1993), which claimed modern translations are preparing churches to accept the Antichrist. Even other KJV advocates criticized her book for containing "hundreds of mistakes."

Who Believes It Today?

KJV Onlyism is most common among Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) churches—about 3% of the U.S. adult population. It's also found in some conservative Anabaptist groups, Primitive Baptists, certain Holiness and Pentecostal Holiness churches, and scattered congregations in other denominations.

Notably, many institutions associated with fundamentalism are NOT KJV Only:

  • Bob Jones University uses the KJV as a "campus standard" but officially "does not hold to a King James Only position"
  • Major evangelical seminaries (Dallas, Southern Baptist, Westminster) use multiple translations

KJV Preference vs. KJV Onlyism: An Important Distinction

Before going further, an important clarification: this site is not about preferring the King James Version. There are many legitimate reasons to love the KJV, and many thoughtful Christians prefer it without holding to KJV Onlyism.

Why Many Christians Prefer the KJV (And That's Okay)

  1. It was THE English Bible for 270 years. From 1611 until the Revised Version of 1881, the KJV had essentially no competition. That's nearly three centuries of complete dominance—more than any other translation has ever had.
  2. Memorization. Many people—especially older generations—memorized Scripture in the KJV. John 3:16, Psalm 23, the Lord's Prayer... these are locked in KJV English. A different translation feels "wrong" because it doesn't match what's in their heads.
  3. "It sounds like the Bible should sound." The thees and thous, the formal register, the archaic vocabulary—for many, this IS what sacred language sounds like. Modern translations can feel too casual, too ordinary. The KJV sounds holy.
  4. Literary prestige. The KJV is acknowledged as a masterpiece of English prose. Many who appreciate literature—even non-Christians—prefer the KJV for its beauty.
  5. Cross-denominational neutrality. For much of American history, the KJV was the one Bible Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and even many Catholics could agree on. It became the "common ground" Bible.
  6. Stability in a changing world. When everything else changes, the KJV stays the same. For those unsettled by constant revision and new translations, the KJV represents permanence.
  7. Association with "serious" Christianity. Rightly or wrongly, many associate the KJV with deeper faith, more traditional churches, and more rigorous Christianity. Using the KJV can be a way of signaling theological seriousness.
  8. It was the Bible of the Great Awakenings, the revivals, the missionaries. Whitefield, Wesley, Spurgeon, Moody—all used the KJV. There's a sense of continuity with the great Christians of the past.

The Difference

KJV preference says: "I love the KJV. It's beautiful, I've memorized it, and it connects me to centuries of Christian tradition. But I recognize other translations are also valid ways of accessing God's Word."

KJV Onlyism says: "The KJV is the only true Bible. Other translations are corrupt, dangerous, or even satanic. Using them is sinful."

The former is a matter of taste and tradition. The latter makes the translation a test of your faith—and that's what this site looks into.

What is the King James Version Bible?

How Did It Come to Be?

The King James Version Bible was born from a conference in January 1604 when Puritan scholar John Reynolds proposed a new translation to King James I. The king liked the idea—partly because he hated the Geneva Bible's notes, which he saw as undermining royal authority.

Who Was King James?

There's a certain irony in KJV Onlyism that's worth noting: the man who commissioned this Bible had a complicated personal life that most KJV Onlyists would strongly condemn.

King James I (1566-1625) was King of Scotland from infancy and became King of England in 1603. He married Anne of Denmark and fathered eight children, but throughout his adult life had a series of intense relationships with male "favorites" at court—relationships most historians believe were romantic and likely sexual. Social historian Emma Dabiri summarized the scholarly consensus: "Few historians and biographers doubt that James was either gay or bisexual."

The hypocrisy is notable: In his book Basilikon Doron, written for his son, James publicly condemned sodomy as one of the worst crimes a king must never pardon. Yet his own behavior at court was an open secret.

In addition to his complicated personal life, James persecuted religious dissenters. Baptists, Puritans, Protestant separatists (like the Pilgrims), and Quakers fled to America during his reign to escape religious oppression. The last two men burned alive in England for their faith were burned during James's reign.

None of this affects the quality of the translation itself—King James didn't translate a single word. But it does add irony when KJV Onlyists treat him as some kind of godly figure whose name sanctifies the Bible.

The Translation Process: How Long Did It Actually Take?

KJV defenders often speak of "seven years" of translation work (1604-1611). The reality is more nuanced.

The timeline:

  • January 1604: Hampton Court Conference; John Reynolds proposes a new translation
  • June 1604: King James approves a list of 54 scholars (47 actually participated)
  • 1604-1607: A three-year delay occurs. One source notes: "Vigorous effort was, however, delayed till about 1607, for what reason is unknown."
  • 1607: Actual translation work begins in earnest
  • 1607-1610: About three to four years of translation/revision work by the six teams
  • 1610: A final committee of six scholars (one from each team) spent nine months at Stationers' Hall in London reviewing the entire work
  • 1611: Publication

So the actual intensive translation work was closer to four years, not seven. This relatively short timeline was only possible because the translators weren't starting from scratch—they were primarily revising existing English translations, with Tyndale's work providing the foundation for most of their text.

The structure:

  • 54 scholars were invited to participate, with 47 confirmed
  • They were organized into six teams: two at Westminster, two at Cambridge, two at Oxford
  • Each team handled assigned books
  • Translators first worked individually, then compared results
  • Completed sections were reviewed by other teams
  • The final review committee spent nine months in 1610 before publication

One more detail: King James didn't pay for any of it. He "pleaded poverty," and the expenses were covered by voluntary contributions from bishops and wealthy clergy. The translators received little or no direct compensation for their work—though James later rewarded some with church appointments as positions opened up.

What sources did they use?

King James gave 15 rules for the translation, including that the Bishops' Bible (1568) should be the starting point, but five earlier translations could be used "where they agree better with the text": Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible. The translators used this freedom extensively—which explains why so much of the final product came from earlier work rather than fresh translation.

For the New Testament, the translators used multiple Textus Receptus editions—not a single Greek text. Their primary sources were:

  • Theodore Beza's 1588-89 and 1598 editions
  • Stephanus's 1550 and 1551 editions
  • Various Erasmus editions
  • The Complutensian Polyglot (the Spanish Catholic edition)

Here's the key point: these editions disagreed with each other in hundreds of places. The translators had to choose which reading to follow.

F.H.A. Scrivener's 1894 scholarly analysis identified approximately 252 passages where the KJV's Greek sources differed from each other. In those passages:

  • The KJV followed Beza 113 times
  • The KJV followed Stephanus 59 times
  • The KJV followed other sources (Erasmus, Complutensian, or even the Latin Vulgate) 80 times

This means the KJV is itself an eclectic text—the translators picked and chose from multiple Greek editions based on their judgment. It's not a translation of any single Greek source. When KJV Onlyists claim the KJV perfectly represents "the" Textus Receptus, they're oversimplifying. There were multiple competing editions, and the KJV translators made choices among them.

For the Old Testament, translators used the Masoretic Text, specifically the 1524-25 Rabbinic Bible edited by Jacob ben Hayyim. They also consulted the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint, particularly for the Apocrypha.

They also heavily consulted earlier English translations—which, as noted above, provided the majority of the KJV's actual wording.

It's worth noting that the KJV's language was somewhat archaic even when published. Because the translators relied heavily on Tyndale (1520s-1530s) and other earlier translations, and because they deliberately used formal, elevated language, the 1611 KJV didn't fully reflect how English people actually spoke in 1611.

Was It Actually a Fresh Translation—or Mostly Copied from Earlier Works?

This is an important question, and the honest answer is: both.

Scholars estimate that 83-84% of the KJV New Testament comes directly from William Tyndale's 1526 translation. About 76% of Tyndale's Old Testament work was also kept. The Geneva Bible contributed roughly 19% of readings. The Bishops' Bible—supposedly the "base text"—contributed only about 4%.

One scholar observed that the KJV "is mostly cribbed from Tyndale with some reworking."

This isn't necessarily a criticism—Tyndale was brilliant, and building on excellent earlier work makes sense. But it does raise questions about claims that the KJV was a uniquely inspired, fresh translation.

Was It Readily Accepted When Released?

In short: No.

Historian Adam Nicolson summarized: "It didn't work at all. It was a catastrophe... universally loathed."

Hebrew scholar Hugh Broughton, who had been excluded from the translation committee, declared he "would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation should ever be foisted upon the English people."

The Geneva Bible remained the people's favorite for decades. Between 1611 and 1630, surveys show the Geneva Bible was quoted in sermons far more often than the KJV. Even some KJV translators continued quoting Geneva in their own sermons!

In 1616, King James had to ban printing of the Geneva Bible in England to force adoption of his translation. Publishers responded by producing Geneva Bibles with fake "1599" dates, and copies kept flowing from Amsterdam into the 1630s.

The KJV only achieved dominance after 1660, when the Geneva Bible became politically suspect as a reminder of the Puritan era.

What Was It Originally Called?

The 1611 title page read simply "THE HOLY BIBLE... Appointed to be read in Churches"—no official name was given. For decades it was called "the English Translation" or "the new translation."

The phrase "King James's Bible" appears around 1715-1797. "Authorized Version" as a formal name first shows up around 1814.

Was it actually authorized? Probably, but there's no definitive proof. The official records from 1600-1613 were destroyed in a fire in 1618/19. The phrase "Appointed to be read in Churches" is the closest thing to authorization. It was never formally approved by Parliament, church councils, or royal proclamation.

Is What People Read Today Actually the 1611?

No. This is one of the most important facts KJV Only believers need to know.

The KJV has undergone four major revisions (1629, 1638, 1762, 1769) plus countless smaller corrections. The text most people read today is essentially the 1769 Oxford edition, prepared by Benjamin Blayney, which differs from the 1611 original in approximately 24,000 places.

Most changes are spelling and punctuation (the 1611 used spellings like "sinnes," "olde," "haue," and "euill"). But some are actual word changes that affect meaning:

  • Isaiah 49:13: "God" changed to "Lord"
  • Acts 16:1: "which was a Jew" changed to "which was a Jewess"
  • 1 Samuel 16:12: "requite good" changed to "requite me good"
  • Ezekiel 3:11: "the people" changed to "the children of thy people"
  • 1 Peter 2:5: "sacrifice" changed to "sacrifices"
  • Jude 25: "now and ever" changed to "both now and ever"

And to this day, Oxford and Cambridge editions still differ from each other. For example, Jeremiah 34:16 reads "whom YE had set at liberty" in Cambridge but "whom HE had set at liberty" in Oxford.

The "He Bible" and "She Bible"

The 1611 edition itself came in multiple variants. The most famous distinction involves Ruth 3:15. After Ruth received barley from Boaz, did "he" go into the city or did "she"?

The very first 1611 printing read "and he went into the citie"—but the Hebrew text and the context of the story indicate it should be Ruth ("she") who went. Scholar David Norton identified 351 printer's errors in that first edition alone.

A second edition, also dated 1611 (though some copies may have been printed into 1613), corrected this to "and she went into the citie." These became known as the "He Bible" and "She Bible" respectively.

The printing of the first edition took three years and was split between multiple print shops—Robert Barker, Bonham Norton, and John Bill. With hand-set type and no modern quality control, errors were inevitable. Only an estimated 1,500-2,000 copies of the first edition "He Bible" were printed, making surviving copies extremely rare and valuable today.

All later KJV editions read "she"—meaning even by 1613, the "perfect 1611" had already been corrected.

Which KJV Is the "Real" KJV?

This raises an uncomfortable question for KJV Onlyists: Which KJV is the "real" KJV?

  • The 1611 first printing with 351 errors?
  • The 1611 second printing with corrections?
  • The 1629 revision?
  • The 1638 revision?
  • The 1762 revision?
  • The 1769 Oxford revision (what most people read today)?
  • The Cambridge edition (which differs from Oxford in some places)?

Some KJV Onlyists claim the KJV went through "seven editions" to reach perfection, connecting it to Psalm 12:6's "purified seven times." But this doesn't match the historical record—there were four major revisions, not seven. Getting to "seven" requires counting variants like the He Bible/She Bible separately, or counting Oxford and Cambridge as distinct editions—creative accounting that reveals the number is being manufactured to fit the theory rather than discovered in the facts.

In my experience, KJV Onlyists don't like to acknowledge that there are differing KJVs. When I've raised this question, responses vary—some change the subject, some offer explanations that blur the distinctions ("they're all essentially the same"), and some appeal to the underlying Textus Receptus as the real source of unity. But these responses don't answer the question: if the KJV is "perfect," which edition is perfect?

What About the Apocrypha?

Here's another fact that often goes unknown by KJV Only believers: The original 1611 KJV contained 80 books, not 66.

The 1611 included 14 books called the Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonical books), placed between the Old and New Testaments. The 1611 KJV even had 113 cross-references to these Apocryphal books in its margins.

The 14 Apocryphal Books in the 1611 KJV

  1. 1 Esdras (9 chapters)
  2. 2 Esdras (16 chapters)
  3. Tobit (14 chapters)
  4. Judith (16 chapters)
  5. Additions to Esther (6 chapters of Greek additions)
  6. Wisdom of Solomon (19 chapters)
  7. Ecclesiasticus (also called Sirach; 51 chapters)
  8. Baruch (5 chapters)
  9. Letter of Jeremiah (1 chapter; sometimes counted as Baruch chapter 6)
  10. Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men (additions to Daniel)
  11. Susanna (additions to Daniel)
  12. Bel and the Dragon (additions to Daniel)
  13. Prayer of Manasseh (1 chapter)
  14. 1 Maccabees (16 chapters)
  15. 2 Maccabees (15 chapters)

(The count varies slightly depending on whether some are grouped together.)

King James reportedly threatened heavy fines and imprisonment for anyone printing the Bible without the Apocrypha.

When was it removed?

The Apocrypha was gradually dropped from Protestant KJV printings:

  • 1666: Some KJV printings began leaving it out
  • 1804: The British and Foreign Bible Society dropped it to reduce printing costs
  • 1826: Inclusion essentially ended after a major controversy

The Apocrypha was part of the KJV for 274 years before being removed. That's longer than it's been absent.

How do KJV Onlyists explain this?

When I've asked KJV Only pastors, the typical response is that the Apocrypha "never belonged in the scriptures in the first place." But this seems contradictory—if the 1611 KJV is perfect, why did it include books they now reject? And why has the "perfect" Bible been edited?

Some defenders note that the KJV translators didn't consider the Apocrypha inspired Scripture—they included it for historical reference, not as part of the canon. This is true. But it still means the 1611 KJV contained books that modern KJV Onlyists would reject, and someone made the decision to remove them. The "untouched, perfect 1611" is a myth.

The "Seventh Translation" and "Seventh Revision" Claims

Some KJV advocates connect the translation to Psalm 12:6, which speaks of words "purified seven times." They claim the KJV was the seventh English translation, making it the perfect, purified Bible.

This doesn't add up.

Here are the major English Bibles before 1611:

  1. Wycliffe's Bible (1380s)
  2. Tyndale's New Testament (1526) and Pentateuch (1530)
  3. Coverdale Bible (1535)
  4. Matthew's Bible (1537)
  5. Great Bible (1539)
  6. Geneva Bible (1560)
  7. Bishops' Bible (1568)
  8. Douay-Rheims (NT 1582, OT 1609-1610)

That's eight or more translations before the KJV, depending on how you count. The "seventh" claim requires arbitrarily leaving some out—usually Wycliffe (because it wasn't from the original languages) or Douay-Rheims (because it was Catholic). But you can't have it both ways: if earlier Catholic-influenced work disqualifies a translation, what about the KJV's heavy dependence on the Catholic Erasmus and the Latin Vulgate?

The KJV translators themselves were given a list of earlier English translations they could consult: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishops' Bible. That's six translations—but the KJV would be the seventh only if you ignore Wycliffe and Douay-Rheims, which existed and which the translators certainly knew about.

As for "seven revisions" of the KJV itself—there have been four major revisions (1629, 1638, 1762, 1769), not seven.

What is the Difference Between a "Translation" and a "Version"?

Not much, practically speaking. The terms are often used interchangeably.

  • Translation: Converting text from one language to another (Greek/Hebrew to English)
  • Version: A specific published form of a translation
  • Revision: Updates to an existing translation

The KJV is technically a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which itself revised the Great Bible. "Authorized Version" emphasizes royal authorization; "King James Version" emphasizes who commissioned it. There's no deep theological significance to the terminology.

The False Dilemma: Only Two Greek Texts?

KJV Onlyists often present Bible translation as a simple choice between two Greek sources:

  1. The Textus Receptus (the "good" text behind the KJV)
  2. The Westcott-Hort text (the "bad" text behind modern translations)

They claim Westcott and Hort were not Christians, compiled a text full of errors and bias, and that using modern translations means using "a source text from the devil."

This is a massive oversimplification.

The Reality: Many Greek Texts Exist

Today, scholars have access to approximately 5,700+ Greek New Testament manuscripts. These include:

  • Papyri: Ancient fragments on paper-like material, some dating to within 100-200 years of the originals
  • Uncials: Early manuscripts written in capital letters (200s-800s AD)
  • Minuscules: Later manuscripts in lowercase (800s AD onward)
  • Lectionaries: Texts used in church services

Plus about 10,000 Latin manuscripts, 9,300 manuscripts in other ancient languages (Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic), and thousands of quotes from early church writers.

Here's the key comparison: When the KJV was translated in 1611, the translators had access to approximately seven Greek manuscripts, the earliest from the 1000s AD. We now have manuscripts that are 800-900 years older than anything they could use. It's like the difference between having a photocopy of a photocopy versus having access to something much closer to the original.

What About Westcott and Hort?

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892) produced an influential Greek New Testament in 1881. KJV Onlyists frequently claim they weren't Christians, were involved in the occult, and held heretical views.

The facts:

Both were ordained Anglican clergy. Westcott was ordained in 1849 and later became Bishop of Durham. He founded a mission to Delhi and a clergy training school named after him. Both men devoted their lives to biblical scholarship within the church.

The accusations come from taking quotes out of context, citing their youthful theological questioning, or making much of a "Ghostly Guild" they briefly participated in (a Victorian-era group investigating supernatural phenomena—common among intellectuals of that era, including many Christians).

More importantly: Their theological views don't affect the manuscript evidence itself. The question is whether the ancient manuscripts they relied on are accurate—and we now have even older manuscripts that confirm their general findings.

Modern Translations Don't Use Westcott-Hort Directly

Here's something KJV Onlyists rarely mention: Modern Bible translations don't actually use the Westcott-Hort text. That text is 140+ years old. Today's scholarly Greek texts (like the Nestle-Aland 28th edition) incorporate manuscript discoveries made since 1881 and use refined methods.

The only major modern translation directly based on Westcott-Hort is the Jehovah's Witness New World Translation—not exactly company that mainstream modern translations want to keep.

What is the Textus Receptus?

How Was It Formed?

The "Textus Receptus" (Latin for "Received Text") traces back to Desiderius Erasmus, a Catholic priest who compiled the first published Greek New Testament in 1516.

Here's what most KJV Onlyists don't know about Erasmus's work:

  • He had access to approximately eight Greek manuscripts, all from the 1000s-1400s AD
  • His work was rushed to beat a competitor—the Complutensian Polyglot was nearing completion, so Erasmus printed in just 5-6 months
  • Erasmus himself called it "precipitated rather than edited"
  • The first edition contained thousands of printing errors

The Revelation Problem:

For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had only one manuscript, and it was missing its final page (Revelation 22:16-21). His solution? He translated backward from the Latin Vulgate into Greek—creating Greek readings that exist in no Greek manuscript written before his printed text.

The most significant example: Revelation 22:19 in the Erasmus/KJV text says "book of life" (Greek: biblou) instead of "tree of life" (Greek: xylou). This came from a Latin copyist's error that Erasmus translated back into Greek. Every Greek manuscript has "tree of life."

Where Did the Name "Textus Receptus" Come From?

The term originated not with Erasmus but with the Elzevir brothers' 1633 edition—a printing company in the Netherlands. Their advertising blurb stated: "You have the text now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted."

This was a marketing name, not a scholarly evaluation. The Elzevirs were printers trying to sell books, not textual experts. The term was later applied backward to earlier editions by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza.

A Note on Terminology

"Textus Receptus" is often spoken of as if it were a single text, but it actually refers to a family of printed Greek editions. The major editions include Erasmus (5 editions, 1516-1535), Stephanus (4 editions, 1546-1551), Beza (multiple editions, 1565-1604), and the Elzevir brothers (1624, 1633). These editions disagree with each other in hundreds of places. When someone says "the Textus Receptus," it's worth asking: which one?

Was the Textus Receptus Without Error or Bias?

No. Consider:

Multiple conflicting editions: Erasmus produced five editions (1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535), making corrections each time. Stephanus produced four editions. Beza produced multiple editions. These editions disagree with each other in hundreds of places. There is no single "Textus Receptus."

Catholic influence: Erasmus was a Catholic priest whose work was dedicated to the Pope. He consulted the Latin Vulgate (the Catholic Bible) throughout, especially when his Greek manuscripts were unclear or incomplete. For Revelation, he essentially created Greek readings from the Vulgate.

Limited manuscript base: Only about eight manuscripts, all from the medieval period, all representing one text family.

What KJV Onlyists Don't Tell You

In my experience, KJV Only churches keep information about Erasmus and the Textus Receptus (TR) very thin. The TR is presented as "the preserved Greek text" or "the text used by the Reformers"—and that's about it.

They don't mention:

  • That Erasmus was a Catholic priest
  • That he rushed the work to beat a competitor
  • That he had only a handful of late manuscripts
  • That he back-translated portions of Revelation from Latin into Greek
  • That multiple conflicting TR editions exist
  • That the KJV translators had to choose between these editions

The Textus Receptus is simply presented as perfect, preserved, and unquestionable. Asking too many questions about its origins is discouraged—which should itself raise questions.

The Comma Johanneum Problem

The most famous textual issue is 1 John 5:7-8, known as the "Comma Johanneum"—the only explicit Trinitarian statement in the Bible that names "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

The manuscript evidence:

This passage appears in only eight Greek manuscripts, all from the 1300s AD or later. It's absent from:

  • All major early Greek manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus)
  • All Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavonic, and Arabic manuscripts
  • The earliest Latin manuscripts
  • Quotations from early church fathers (who would certainly have used this verse when debating the Trinity if they had it)

How did it get into the Greek text?

Erasmus left it out of his 1516 and 1519 editions because no Greek manuscript contained it. When critics accused him of denying the Trinity, a Greek manuscript suddenly appeared with the passage—Codex Montfortianus, created around 1500-1520 AD (not ancient at all). Analysis shows it was likely created specifically to challenge Erasmus, with Greek that "clearly betrays a translation from the Latin."

Erasmus included it in his 1522 edition with a footnote expressing doubt—but once in the Greek text, it stayed.

Were There Other Greek Texts at the Time?

Yes. The Complutensian Polyglot (1514-1517), produced in Spain under Catholic Cardinal Ximénez, was actually completed before Erasmus's text but published later. It used different manuscripts and methods.

Understanding Text Families

Here's something that surprises many people: ancient manuscripts naturally group into "families" based on where they were copied and used. Think of it like regional accents—manuscripts copied in Egypt developed certain characteristics, while those copied in Constantinople developed others.

The main families are:

  • Byzantine text-type: The largest family, representing 80-95% of surviving manuscripts. These tend to have longer, more polished readings—possibly because scribes "smoothed out" difficult passages over centuries of copying. This is the basis of the Textus Receptus.
  • Alexandrian text-type: A smaller family, but represented by the oldest surviving manuscripts. These tend to have shorter, sometimes more difficult readings—which scholars often consider more likely to be original (since scribes typically added explanations rather than removing them).
  • Western text-type: Contains paraphrases and additions; found in some early translations and quotations from church fathers.

The TR Is NOT the Majority Text

Here's an important fact that confuses even many KJV defenders: The Textus Receptus is NOT the same as the "Majority Text" (what most manuscripts say).

The TR differs from the Byzantine Majority Text in approximately 1,800+ places. Both major Majority Text editions omit the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8), Acts 8:37, and Luke 17:36—agreeing with modern translations against the TR.

Why? Because the TR contains readings that have no Greek manuscript support at all—like Erasmus's back-translations from Latin. Even if you believe the majority of manuscripts should rule, the TR doesn't represent that majority.

Are Modern Manuscript Discoveries Superior?

The Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls, discovered 1946-1956 in caves near the Dead Sea, were one of the most important archaeological finds in history. They pushed our Hebrew Bible manuscript evidence back over 1,000 years.

Before this discovery, the oldest complete Hebrew Bible manuscript was from 1008 AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls include biblical texts dating from approximately 250 BC to 70 AD—over a thousand years earlier.

The result? The scrolls confirmed the remarkable accuracy of later Hebrew manuscript copying. The Great Isaiah Scroll (about 100 BC) matches our standard Hebrew text in more than 95% of the text. The differences are mainly spelling variations and minor copyist slips.

This is actually good news for everyone—including the KJV. It shows the Old Testament text was carefully preserved.

Ancient Greek Manuscripts

For the New Testament, two manuscripts stand out:

Codex Vaticanus (300s AD) has been in the Vatican Library since at least 1475. Codex Sinaiticus (also 300s AD) was discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery in Egypt between 1844-1859. Sinaiticus is the oldest complete New Testament manuscript we have—predating the next complete one by about 500 years.

When even older papyrus fragments were discovered in the 1900s (some from the 100s-200s AD), they largely confirmed readings found in these ancient manuscripts. This supports the text tradition that modern translations use.

So Are Modern Critical Texts "Superior"?

"Superior" might be too strong a word, but modern scholars have access to:

  • Far more manuscripts (5,700+ Greek manuscripts vs. about 7 in 1611)
  • Far older manuscripts (300s AD vs. 1000s AD)
  • Better methods for analyzing how manuscripts relate to each other
  • Archaeological and linguistic discoveries unavailable in 1611

The goal isn't to undermine Scripture but to determine what the biblical authors originally wrote. About 98% of the New Testament text is the same across all major manuscript traditions. The differences, while real, don't affect any essential Christian doctrine.

Here's the irony: The KJV Onlyist insistence on the Textus Receptus means rejecting these confirmations of Scripture's reliability. When older manuscripts agree with the KJV's text, that's wonderful—but when they reveal the KJV has a later addition (like the Comma Johanneum), the manuscripts are dismissed as "corrupt." You can't have it both ways: either older manuscripts matter or they don't.

Do Other Translations "Change" the Bible?

KJV Onlyists frequently argue that other translations "remove" and "change" verses. They cite Revelation 22:19's warning against taking away from "the words of the book of this prophecy."

It's true that modern translations differ from the KJV in some verses. But the question is: Did modern translations remove verses, or did the KJV add them?

The "Missing Verses"

Several verses in the KJV don't appear (or appear only in footnotes) in modern translations:

  • Matthew 17:21
  • Matthew 18:11
  • Matthew 23:14
  • Mark 7:16
  • Mark 9:44, 46
  • Mark 11:26
  • Mark 15:28
  • Luke 17:36
  • Luke 23:17
  • John 5:4
  • Acts 8:37
  • Acts 15:34
  • Acts 24:7
  • Acts 28:29
  • Romans 16:24
  • 1 John 5:7 (the Comma Johanneum, that we have already covered)

The scholarly consensus: These were later scribal additions, not content removed from modern Bibles.

For example:

  • John 5:4 (the angel stirring the pool) is an explanatory note a scribe added to explain why the man wanted to enter the pool first
  • Acts 8:37 (the Ethiopian's confession) appears first in later manuscripts and sounds like a baptismal formula added by the church
  • Matthew 17:21 is missing from the oldest manuscripts and was likely copied in from the parallel passage in Mark 9:29

These verses often appear first in Latin manuscripts, then in later Greek copies—a pattern suggesting they were additions to the text, not original content that was removed.

The Isaiah 7:14 Debate: "Virgin" or "Young Woman"?

KJV Onlyists frequently point to Isaiah 7:14 as proof that modern translations attack the virgin birth. The KJV reads: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." Some modern translations (like the RSV and NRSV) translate this as "young woman" instead of "virgin."

What's actually going on here?

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is almah, which means "young woman of marriageable age." Hebrew has a different word, bethulah, that more specifically means "virgin." If Isaiah had wanted to emphasize virginity, he could have used bethulah—and he knew the word, because he uses it elsewhere (Isaiah 47:1).

However, in ancient Israelite culture, an unmarried young woman (almah) was assumed to be a virgin. When Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek around 200 BC (the Septuagint), they translated almah as parthenos—the Greek word for "virgin." Matthew, writing in Greek, quotes this Septuagint translation in Matthew 1:23.

Here's what KJV Onlyists don't tell you:

  1. The KJV translators were following the Septuagint and Matthew's quotation, not making a direct translation of the Hebrew word's primary meaning.
  2. Many translations that use "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14 still use "virgin" in Matthew 1:23—because Matthew used the Greek word parthenos.
  3. The virgin birth doesn't depend on Isaiah 7:14 alone. Matthew and Luke both clearly describe Mary as a virgin who conceived by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-35). The doctrine stands on its own in the New Testament.
  4. Even the KJV itself translates almah as "maid" or "damsel" in other passages (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Proverbs 30:19).

This isn't an attack on the virgin birth—it's an honest acknowledgment that the Hebrew word has a slightly broader meaning than the Greek word Matthew used. The virgin birth remains clearly taught in Scripture regardless of how one translates Isaiah 7:14.

Charles Spurgeon's Criticism

The famous preacher Charles Spurgeon—often claimed by KJV advocates—actually criticized the KJV for adding verses. On 1 John, he noted the Comma Johanneum was a later addition and praised the Revised Version for readings not found in the KJV.

Spurgeon said of the KJV: "Do not needlessly amend our authorized version. It is faulty in many places, but still it is a grand work."

He also said: "The more nearly the text of Scripture is restored to its original purity, the more clearly will the doctrines of grace be set forth."

Is the Trinity Found Only in 1 John 5:7-8?

KJV Onlyists argue that without the Comma Johanneum, there's no clear statement of the Trinity in Scripture. This is demonstrably false.

Even if 1 John 5:7-8 in its longer form isn't original, the Trinity is clearly taught throughout Scripture:

  • Matthew 28:19: Baptism "in the name (singular) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"
  • Matthew 3:16-17: All three persons present at Jesus' baptism—Jesus in the water, the Spirit descending, the Father speaking from heaven
  • 2 Corinthians 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all"
  • John 14:16-17, 26: Jesus promises the Father will send "another Helper"
  • Romans 8:9-11: Interchanges "Spirit of God," "Spirit of Christ," and the Spirit who raised Jesus
  • 1 Peter 1:2: Chosen "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ"

The early church debated Arianism (the heresy that Christ was created) extensively in the 300s AD. If the Comma Johanneum existed in their manuscripts, they certainly would have used it as a proof-text. They didn't—because it wasn't there.

Here's an interesting historical note: In 1835, a seventeen-year-old Karl Marx—yes, that Karl Marx, who would later write "religion is the opium of the people" and whose philosophy led to more bloodshed than perhaps any other in modern history—wrote a devotional essay on John 15 titled "The Union of the Faithful with Christ." In it, he clearly articulated the unity of God, Christ, and the believer, drawing from Scripture without any reference to the Comma Johanneum. Even the man who would become Christianity's most influential modern enemy could see the Godhead throughout Scripture.

The Trinity doesn't depend on one disputed verse.

What About Earlier Translations?

Most KJV Onlyist pastors preach that the KJV is "the only and original Bible." In talking with followers of KJV Onlyism, many don't even know there were translations before the KJV and often insist firmly that there were not.

There were many:

  • Wycliffe's Bible (1380s)—the first complete English Bible
  • Tyndale's translation (1520s-1530s)—Tyndale was executed for his work; 83% of the KJV NT comes from him
  • Coverdale Bible (1535)
  • Matthew's Bible (1537)
  • Great Bible (1539)
  • Geneva Bible (1560)—the most popular English Bible for nearly a century
  • Bishops' Bible (1568)

KJV pastors who acknowledge earlier translations sometimes say these were "early works building to the KJV perfection." But this admits the KJV is built upon earlier works—which raises the question of why those earlier translators like Tyndale, who died for giving us the English Bible, weren't producing "the perfect Bible."

One argument goes that God answered William Tyndale's prayer that "every plow boy would have a Bible to read" through the KJV. This is a touching thought, but Tyndale's own translation was that Bible for millions of English readers—and most of his words remain in the KJV.

What About Translations After the KJV?

KJV Onlyists claim all translations after the KJV are corrupted. But this position creates serious logical problems.

The KJV Translators Didn't Believe in KJV Onlyism

The KJV translators themselves, in their original preface "The Translators to the Reader," explicitly stated that translations before them were legitimately God's Word, even with "imperfections and blemishes." They wrote:

"We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

They acknowledged that earlier translations—including ones they were correcting—were still Scripture. If the men who translated the KJV didn't believe only their translation was valid, why should we?

The 1769 Revisers: Were They Corrupt?

The KJV most people read today is the 1769 Oxford revision, not the 1611 original. Benjamin Blayney and his team made thousands of changes—spelling, punctuation, and even some word changes.

If revision work after 1611 is "corruption," then the 1769 revisers corrupted the Bible. But if the 1769 revision is acceptable, then why is revision work after 1769 forbidden?

When Did Valid Translation Work Become Invalid?

Consider the timeline:

  • Before 1611: Translation work was valid and godly (Tyndale died for it)
  • 1611: The KJV was produced (building on earlier work)
  • 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769: Revisions were made to the KJV
  • After 1769: Suddenly all translation work becomes "corruption"?

What changed? Why was it holy work for the KJV translators to improve on the Bishops' Bible, but unholy work for later scholars to improve on the KJV using older manuscripts the KJV translators never had access to?

The Original KJV Preface Answers This

The KJV translators anticipated this very argument. In their preface, they asked:

"Was it treason to the State to correct the Laws... if we be jealous of the correction of Grammer, should we not also be wary of correcting the Translation?"

They were defending their own work against those who said the Bishops' Bible shouldn't be changed. Now, ironically, KJV Onlyists use the same argument against any changes to the KJV.

The translators also wrote:

"Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light... Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with."

They believed the Bible should be accessible in the common language of the people. In 1611, that was the formal English of the church—and even then it was somewhat elevated and archaic. Today, that English is 400+ years removed from common speech. The principle they articulated—making Scripture accessible—actually argues for continued translation work.

Are Other Translations Actually Sin?

If the KJV Only position is correct, this raises serious questions:

Will Christians who use other translations go to hell?

Consider the great men and women of the faith who were not KJV Only:

Preachers and Theologians:

  • Charles Spurgeon used and praised the Revised Version, preached from readings not found in the KJV
  • George Whitefield used multiple translations in his evangelistic ministry
  • John Wesley created his own New Testament revision
  • Billy Graham used multiple translations throughout his crusades
  • John Calvin and Martin Luther produced and used translations that weren't the KJV (the KJV didn't exist yet, and afterward, their traditions continued using other translations)
  • D.L. Moody, the great 19th-century evangelist, used multiple translations
  • A.W. Tozer quoted from various translations in his devotional writings
  • C.S. Lewis used multiple translations and recommended the same to others

Missionaries and Women of Faith:

  • Amy Carmichael, who spent 53 years in India without furlough rescuing children from temple prostitution, used multiple translations
  • Corrie ten Boom, who survived Nazi concentration camps and whose family risked everything to save Jews, used various translations in her worldwide speaking ministry
  • Elisabeth Elliot, whose husband Jim was martyred in Ecuador and who returned to minister to her husband's killers, served as a stylistic consultant for the NIV translation committee
  • Gladys Aylward, the "Small Woman" missionary to China, used whatever translations were available
  • Lottie Moon, Southern Baptist missionary to China for whom the famous offering is named, worked with Chinese translations made from original languages

Historical Figures:

  • Susanna Wesley, mother of John and Charles Wesley, taught her children from available translations
  • Fanny Crosby, the blind hymn writer who wrote over 8,000 hymns, used multiple translations

Are we to believe these giants of the faith—people who sacrificed everything, who led millions to Christ, who endured persecution and death for the Gospel—were all in sin or deception because they didn't use the KJV exclusively?

The fruit of their ministries speaks for itself. If using other translations were truly sinful, would God have blessed their work so abundantly?

What About Other Languages?

Most KJV Onlyists say only English is acceptable—everyone should learn English to read the Bible.

This creates serious problems:

  1. It's impractical. Given birth rates in English-speaking countries, English speakers are becoming a smaller percentage of the world population. Is God's Word to become less accessible over time?
  2. It mirrors medieval Catholicism. For centuries, the Catholic Church insisted the Latin Vulgate was the only true Bible and ordinary people should rely on clergy to read and interpret it. This is exactly what the Reformers died opposing. Martin Luther translated the Bible into German specifically so ordinary Germans could read it themselves.
  3. It contradicts the Great Commission. Jesus said to make disciples of "all nations." How can all nations hear if they must first learn 17th-century English?
  4. It contradicts the KJV translators. Their preface asked: "How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?"

Some KJV advocates (like Gail Riplinger) argue foreign translations should be made from the English KJV rather than from Greek and Hebrew. This mirrors Rome's historic position on the Latin Vulgate—the very thing Protestant martyrs died opposing.

The "Sixth Grade Education" Claim

You'll often hear "you only need a sixth grade education to read the KJV."

This seems like manipulation—making people feel there's something wrong with them if they struggle with the KJV. The reality is more complicated.

The claim is based on the Flesch-Kincaid test, which measures word count, sentence count, and syllables. The KJV scores "easy" because it uses many short Anglo-Saxon words.

The problem: The test completely ignores whether you know what the words mean.

If you don't know what "besom," "chambering," "concupiscence," "emerods," "minish," "neesings," or "ouches" mean, it doesn't matter that they have few syllables. Multiple studies place the KJV at a 12th grade reading level when vocabulary comprehension is considered, compared to 7th-8th grade for the NIV or 6th grade for the NLT.

Beyond unfamiliar words, many KJV words have changed meaning over 400 years. "Suffer" (allow), "let" (hinder), "prevent" (precede), "conversation" (conduct/lifestyle), "charity" (love)—these words don't mean what modern readers assume. Reading "suffer the little children" or "let" in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 with modern definitions produces confusion or outright misunderstanding.

The #1 complaint from people trying to read the KJV is that its language is outdated and many words are no longer in common use.

Could one argue that with a twelfth grade education, you should be able to read the Greek and Hebrew? Perhaps that's what we should all aspire to—rather than insisting everyone use a 400-year-old English translation.

The Gap Between KJV Onlyist Pastors and Their Congregations

In talking with KJV Onlyist pastors and church members, I've noticed a stark difference in their ability to explain why they believe KJV Only.

The pastors can defend, attack, and debate the KJV position. They know the arguments, the history (or their version of it), and the talking points.

The church members often cannot articulate why they believe KJV Only. They can repeat a main point or two, but beyond that, they cannot discuss it in depth or address any arguments against it.

Why Are People Members of KJV Onlyist Churches?

Common reasons include:

  • Brought up in it: They've always been told other Bibles are wrong, so they "know" this without being able to explain why
  • Straight from the apostles: Some genuinely believe the KJV came directly from Paul's hand, with no understanding of translation history
  • They are scared to leave: Born into it or convinced along the way, they believe this is the only true Christianity—and leaving means risking their soul. "What if I'm wrong?"
  • The difficult language is a positive, not a negative: Some like that the KJV is hard to read—it gives them a reason not to read the Bible themselves
  • Dependence on clergy: Others like relying on the pastor to read and explain it—which, ironically, mirrors what the Protestant Reformers died opposing about the Catholic Church
  • The "wizard's book" appeal: Some see the archaic language as holding vast secrets, available to those wise enough to decipher it
  • Gender hierarchy: Some are attracted to the emphasis KJV Onlyist churches tend to place on women's submission to men
  • The "Bible curse words" appeal: Some appreciate that the KJV contains words now considered vulgar giving them biblical permission to use language their church might otherwise forbid. The irony is that these words weren't vulgar in 1611; but for some, having "cuss words" in the Bible is a strange point of appeal.

This gap raises an uncomfortable question: If the pastors are the only ones who can explain the position, are they actually teaching—or just demanding compliance? In healthy teaching, understanding flows from teacher to student. The student learns why, not just what. The goal is to equip believers to "give an answer" (1 Peter 3:15). But when followers can only repeat conclusions without understanding the reasoning, that's not education—it's indoctrination.

This pattern—where leaders hold the knowledge and followers simply trust them—is a hallmark of cultic dynamics. The leader becomes the gatekeeper of truth. Questioning isn't learning; it's disloyalty. And the follower's job isn't to understand, but to believe and obey.

Double Standards Among KJV Onlyist Pastors

KJV Onlyist pastors often hold strict standards about no modern Christian music, dress codes, hair length, divorce, and so on.

Except these standards often have exceptions:

  • Modern Christian music they personally like and approve
  • A family member who gets divorced
  • Other situations where the rules become flexible for the "right" people

This pattern of double standards runs deeper in the Independent Fundamental Baptist movement. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's 2018 investigation documented over 400 allegations of sexual misconduct in 187 IFB churches—many involving pastors who preached strict moral codes while secretly violating them. Pastor Donnie Romero of Stedfast Baptist Church resigned after admitting to gambling, hiring prostitutes, and smoking marijuana—all while preaching that homosexuals deserved death. Jack Schaap, pastor of the largest IFB congregation (First Baptist Church of Hammond, Indiana), was imprisoned for an "inappropriate relationship" with a 16-year-old—while his church taught that women and girls were responsible for keeping men from temptation.

The pattern reveals something deeper than hypocrisy: the strict, legalistic life being preached from KJV Onlyist pulpits isn't actually being lived—not by the pastors, and if we're honest, not by the congregations either. The performance happens on Sunday; the reality is different the rest of the week. Believing in the KJV and preaching its standards isn't enough to keep anyone from sinning. The legalistic life being preached simply isn't sustainable, because keeping rules was never the path to righteousness. "By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight" (Romans 3:20, KJV). No translation can change that—only Christ can.

Why Do People Follow KJV Onlyist Pastors?

This raises an honest question: Why would someone believe a KJV Onlyist pastor—often from a small rural church, without formal theological education, sometimes barely articulate—over centuries of scholarship and the consensus of every major Christian institution?

It often comes down to presentation:

  • They're fiery. The passionate delivery feels like conviction.
  • They're bold. The willingness to say unpopular things feels like courage.
  • They're dogmatic. The certainty feels like faith.
  • They're self-confident. The unwavering stance feels like strength.

In a world of nuance and uncertainty, someone who says "This is THE truth, and anyone who disagrees is a compromiser" can feel refreshing. The authority isn't in the credentials—it's in the delivery.

But confidence isn't the same as correctness. Passion isn't the same as accuracy. And dogmatism can be a substitute for actually understanding the evidence.

The Bereans were praised not for accepting bold preaching, but for checking it against Scripture (Acts 17:11). We should do the same—even when the preacher is fiery, bold, and certain.

Do the Pharisees Survive in the Protestant Church?

This question haunts me.

The Pharisees said: "We have the Torah! We are descendants of Abraham!" They focused on having the right text, the right tradition, the right identity.

KJV Onlyists say: "We have the KJV! We are the true Bible believers!"

I've even had private admissions from KJV Onlyist pastors that too much emphasis is placed on the KJV and not enough on Christ. Is this not similar to how some Pharisees felt about their movement's direction?

Other "We're the Only True Church" Groups

KJV Onlyism isn't unique in its exclusivism. Consider:

  • Churches of Christ (non-instrumental): Some teach that using instruments in worship condemns you to hell, and that they alone are the true church because they alone worship correctly.
  • Certain Pentecostal groups: Some insist that speaking in tongues is required evidence of salvation—if you haven't spoken in tongues, you're not truly saved.
  • Catholic traditionalists: Some claim there's no salvation outside the Catholic Church, and certainly not in Protestant churches.
  • Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons: Both teach that all other Christian churches are apostate and only they have the truth.

The pattern is the same: "We have the right (Bible/worship style/sacraments/organization), and everyone else is wrong."

What they share is the elevation of a secondary issue to a test of salvation or fellowship. And in each case, Christ gets pushed to the side while the distinctive gets elevated.

Jesus warned about this: "They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them" (Matthew 23:4, NIV). Adding requirements beyond faith in Christ is a burden the apostles themselves refused to impose (Acts 15:10-11).

KJV Only Makes Things "Simple"

I understand why KJV Onlyism is appealing. If you believe the KJV is the only Bible, divinely given from God, it takes away the "messiness" of:

  • Different manuscript traditions
  • Questions about the canon of Scripture
  • Having to evaluate different translations
  • Uncertainty of any kind

Everything becomes black and white. You don't have to think—just believe the KJV is perfect and trust your pastor.

But Christianity has never been that simple:

  • The early church debated which books belonged in Scripture. The canon wasn't settled overnight—it took centuries of discussion, with different regions using different collections of books.
  • Church councils wrestled with how to articulate the Trinity. Nicea (325), Constantinople (381), Chalcedon (451)—these councils existed because faithful Christians disagreed and needed to work through difficult questions together.
  • The Reformers disagreed on many points. Luther and Zwingli couldn't agree on the Lord's Supper. Calvin and the Anabaptists clashed over baptism. The Reformation wasn't a unified movement with simple answers.
  • The apostles themselves had disputes. Paul publicly opposed Peter (Galatians 2:11). The Jerusalem Council debated whether Gentiles needed to follow Jewish law (Acts 15). Even in the New Testament, working out the faith required discussion and discernment.

Faith has always required engagement, not just acceptance of easy answers. The desire for simplicity is understandable, but it's not faithful to how God has actually worked in history.

Christ Plus Anything Else

Paul wrote that Christ plus anything is wrong—anyone preaching Christ plus something else is cursed (Galatians 1:8-9). He specifically addressed the circumcision controversy: some insisted new converts had to follow Jewish law. Paul said no—Christ alone.

Consider the strength of Paul's language:

"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all." (Galatians 1:6-7)

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you?" (Galatians 3:1)

"Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all." (Galatians 5:2)

And later:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness." (Colossians 2:8-10)

Do KJV Onlyists preach Christ plus KJV?

Or perhaps more accurately: KJV plus Christ?

When a group focuses intensely on one particular point—demanding others agree or be labeled "sinners"—and when that point becomes more important than Christ Himself, have they at that point become a cult?

I'm not saying all KJV Onlyists are cultists. Many are sincere believers who've been taught this position. But when the Bible version becomes the test of salvation rather than faith in Christ, something has gone wrong.

As Paul asked the Galatians: "After beginning by means of the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by means of the flesh?" (Galatians 3:3)

Are There Reputable Leaders Who Advocate KJV Only?

Most KJV Onlyism seems confined to smaller rural churches, independent Baptist congregations, and their affiliated Bible colleges.

The academic consensus is overwhelming: KJV Onlyism is rejected by virtually every credible biblical scholar and institution.

Consider:

  • No major evangelical seminary teaches KJV Onlyism: not Dallas Theological Seminary, not Southern Baptist seminaries, not Westminster, not Reformed Theological Seminary, not Trinity Evangelical, not Gordon-Conwell, not Fuller.
  • No respected textual scholar holds the position. Daniel Wallace, a leading expert, notes that KJV Only arguments "range from questionable to downright irrational."
  • Edward F. Hills (Harvard Th.D.) was essentially the only academically credentialed advocate, and he was ostracized by the scholarly community.
  • Even conservative, inerrancy-affirming institutions like Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary explicitly reject KJV Onlyism.

This isn't a case of "liberal scholars vs. conservative believers." The most conservative Bible-believing seminaries in America reject KJV Onlyism. The position is held almost exclusively by those without formal training in biblical languages, textual criticism, or church history.

That doesn't automatically make it wrong—but it should give pause to anyone who assumes the academic world is simply biased against the KJV.

A Movement That Can't See Beyond Itself

KJV Onlyism is a movement that thrives in isolation. It can only exist if one never thinks beyond their own church walls—never considering the global church, never learning church history, never asking how Christians in other countries and across centuries have encountered God's Word.

The movement is almost entirely American, and specifically rural American. It thrives in small, isolated churches where the pastor's word is final. The wider Christian world—the global church of 2+ billion believers, the ancient churches of Ethiopia and Syria and Greece, the missionaries translating Scripture into thousands of languages—rarely enters the picture.

When a KJV Onlyist says "everyone should learn English to read the real Bible," they're not thinking about the 7,000+ languages spoken in the world today. They're not thinking about the tribal believer in Papua New Guinea, the house church Christian in rural China, or the new convert in a Brazilian favela. The statement only makes sense if one has never seriously considered what it would require.

There's a relational pattern in KJV Onlyism that's hard to put into words until you've experienced it: they're warm and welcoming—as long as they think you agree with them. The moment you question, push back, or reveal you use a different translation, the warmth disappears. You're no longer a brother or sister to embrace; you're a compromiser to correct, or an outsider to avoid.

This conditional acceptance isn't unique to KJV Onlyism—it's a mark of many high-control groups. The fellowship is real, but it comes with strings attached. Agree, and you belong. Disagree, and you're out.

Yet the Bible they claim to defend says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (John 13:35, KJV). Not "if ye have the right translation"—if ye have love.

The moment you zoom out—geographically, historically, linguistically—KJV Onlyism collapses under its own weight.

The Irony of KJV Onlyism

There is a deep irony throughout KJV Onlyism: not only are their claims wrong, they contradict each other, they contradict the history of the KJV itself—and ultimately contradict the very faith they claim to defend.

For example, some KJV Onlyists make a concession: it's acceptable to use a Bible in one's own language to become a Christian, but afterward they need to learn English and switch to the KJV for true growth and discipleship.

This concession likely exists for practical reasons—without it, they'd face the accusation of preventing people from being saved. After all, someone could die or lose interest while learning English. So salvation gets an exception.

But consider what this actually implies: God's Word in one's native language is powerful enough to save their soul—but not sufficient to sanctify it. The Holy Spirit can use a Swahili Bible to regenerate their heart, but needs the KJV to mature them. Salvation is available in any language; real discipleship requires 17th-century English.

This isn't a thoughtful compromise. It's an admission that the position can't hold together under its own logic.

The ironies are hard to ignore:

KJV Onlyist Claim The Irony
"The KJV is free—no one owns it!" Crown copyright exists in the UK; royalties are paid globally
"Everyone should learn English to read the real Bible" Most KJV Onlyists couldn't learn a second language themselves
"God preserved His Word in the KJV" So God's Word was unavailable to non-English speakers for 1,600 years? And to all humans for the first 1,611 years of church history?
"We're the true Bible believers" The movement started in 1930, built on Seventh-day Adventist arguments
"Modern translations come from corrupt Catholic texts" Erasmus was a Catholic priest; the Textus Receptus was dedicated to the Pope
"The KJV translators were godly men guided by God" Those same translators explicitly said other translations are still God's Word—they'd reject KJV Onlyism
"We stand on tradition and historic Christianity" The KJV Only tradition is barely 100 years old
"The whole world should use the KJV" They've never seriously thought about what that would actually require
"The King James Bible is God's perfect Word" They've immortalized a king whose lifestyle would be condemned from their own pulpits, and who persecuted the very Baptists whose descendants now defend his Bible
One Bible, in one language This is what Protestant martyrs died trying to change

Jesus warned of those who "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel" (Matthew 23:24, KJV)—obsessing over small details while missing what matters most.

KJV Onlyism is a theology that can only survive in isolation. Expose it to the wider world, and it simply cannot answer the questions that arise.

What I Found

We eventually left that little church—for several reasons, KJV Onlyism being the main one. I wondered if I did the right thing going to that church in the first place. It was tough at times, and times when I wondered if I was the one wrong, but I believe the Lord knew I needed it. My resolve as a Christian was tested and forged, and it forced me to finally deal with something I'd encountered my whole life, to really dig into what KJV Onlyism is, and to answer the question: Are the KJV Onlyists right?

No. They're wrong—and they are deceived in what they believe. It is a sad reality, really, and one filled with irony...

But I noticed something else: KJV Onlyists aren't that different from most other churchgoers.

The reality of most churchgoers:

  • Most don't read their Bible anyway—KJV or any other translation. It sits on the shelf or gets brought to Sunday services, but daily reading? Rarely.
  • Their faith is in something other than Christ—the KJV, the denomination, a person, their works. The "thing" has become the object of faith rather than the One faith points to.
  • They want a checklist. Simple rules that make them feel they're going to heaven: use the right Bible, attend the right church, follow the right standards.

Every denomination and person has points they think they're right on and everyone else is wrong about. Some take this to the level of KJV Onlyism, where it becomes the test for salvation. But the impulse is everywhere.

Everyone Wants to Go to Heaven

But few actually want to live out what the Bible teaches. It's a very high calling.

If America were Hindu, most everyone in "church" would be half-hearted Hindus instead of half-hearted Christians. The cultural Christianity that's comfortable with KJV Onlyism is often just as comfortable with not actually following Jesus, as long as they get their ticket to heaven. The destination matters; the journey with Christ does not.

If Everyone Who...

  • Named Christ actually followed Him
  • Entered the church were actual disciples
  • Named a translation actually read it
  • Professed belief actually lived the Lord's Prayer

...this world would be transformed.

Conclusion

The KJV Onlyists have elevated one English translation to an idolatrous position—making the translation itself a test of faith. But the answer isn't to elevate a different translation.

A translation you can hold, define, and control is safer than a living God who speaks, convicts, and transforms. If your god is a book, you can manage it. You decide what it means. You decide who's in and who's out. You're not submitted to it—it's submitted to you.

That's the opposite of biblical faith. God is not controllable—He's the potter, we're the clay. But surrendering to a God you can't control is terrifying. So people find ways to shrink Him down to something manageable. KJV Onlyism does exactly that: it replaces the living Word with a printed one, and calls it faithfulness.

The answer is to get as close to the original as we can, using all the tools available to us, and to remember that it's Christ we're seeking to know through His living Word—not merely a text about Him, but the Scriptures through which the Spirit speaks.

In my research on KJV Onlyism, I noticed something: the great men and women of God learned the original languages. Perhaps that's what we should all do, instead of debating over translations and reading levels...

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." — Acts 17:11 (KJV)

The Bereans didn't take anyone's word for it—not even Paul's. They searched the Scriptures themselves. May we do the same.

A Final Word to KJV Onlyists

If you've read this far, thank you. I know much of this challenges what you've been taught.

I'm not asking you to abandon the KJV. It's a historic translation with magnificent literary qualities that has served the English-speaking church for centuries.

What I'm asking is that you consider whether what you've been told and taught about the KJV is actually true. Search the Scriptures. Check the historical claims. Look at the manuscript evidence.

And most importantly: keep your eyes on Christ. He is the Word made flesh. The Bible points to Him. Don't let any translation—no matter how beloved—become an idol that takes His place.

Sources and Further Reading

Books

On the KJV Only Controversy:

  • D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism — A balanced scholarly examination
  • James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? — Comprehensive response to KJV Only arguments
  • Douglas Wilson, The Case for Classical Christian Education — Includes discussion of Bible translation issues

On Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence:

  • Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration — The standard academic introduction
  • F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English — Readable history of English Bible translation
  • F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives — Detailed scholarly analysis of KJV editions and revisions

On the KJV Translation History:

  • Adam Nicolson, God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible — Engaging narrative history
  • Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture
  • David Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible — Scholarly analysis of changes between editions

Primary Sources:

  • "The Translators to the Reader" — The original 1611 KJV preface (often omitted from modern printings; available online)
  • Benjamin Wilkinson, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) — The foundational KJV Only text (read to understand the movement's origins)

Online Resources

  • Bible.org — Articles on textual criticism and translation issues
  • Daniel B. Wallace's writings — Leading textual scholar's accessible explanations
  • Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (CSNTM) — Digital images of ancient manuscripts

Key Historical Documents

  • The 1611 KJV title page and preface (shows original context and translators' own views)
  • Erasmus's prefaces to his Greek New Testament editions
  • The Hampton Court Conference records (1604)

For Those Wanting to Learn the Original Languages

  • Bill Mounce, Basics of Biblical Greek — Standard seminary textbook, accessible to self-learners
  • Thomas Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew
  • Free resources: biblehub.com (interlinear texts), blueletterbible.org (word studies)

A Note on Sources

When researching this topic, I tried to use primary sources whenever possible—the actual documents, the actual translators' words, the actual manuscript evidence. Much of what circulates in KJV Only circles is secondhand, often distorted or taken out of context. I encourage anyone reading this to check the sources themselves rather than taking anyone's word for it—including mine.

As the Bereans did: "Search the scriptures daily, whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11).