KJV Onlyism is one of the pettiest of all disputes in the Christian world today. While it expresses itself in many forms, KJVOnlyism is a very divisive belief, taking a preference for the KJV to a whole new level. Rather than being a mere preference, it enshrines this preference as a whole doctrine, suggesting that the KJV is perfect, and that other Bibles (the NIV being the most commonly attacked) are in some way intentionally corrupt, and that their usage is problematic at best, sinful at worst.
For the most part, KJVOnlyists are usually well-meaning Christians with a warped view on Biblical translation, but this often leads to problems, with some even suggesting that if you do not use the KJV exclusively, you are not saved. For several reasons, KJVOnlyism is problematic, and should be discarded by all faithful Christians.
We're not anti-KJV
While KJVOnlyists love to bash other translations, you will rarely find other Christians bashing the KJV. That's not to say it never happens, of course. Sadly, some Christians just love to squabble, and every error tends to have an equal and opposite error. Nevertheless, the dominant, persistent (more on that later), and correct position is that the KJV is an entirely valid English translation. It is often used on this very site, it is a very popular translation, and for many people, it is even the primary translation. You do not have to be KJVOnly to have a preference for the KJV, just as you don't have to be NKJVOnly to have a preference for the NKJV.
In fact, there is not even an appropriate name for anti-KJVOnlyism. That is, unless you count "Bible study", because non-KJVOnlyists are united by only one common goal: Studying scripture in our own language. This whole discussion exists only because KJVOnlyism exists. Thus, KJVOnlyism carries with it a sense of arrogance that few other Bible students have. Now, through a friend, I have heard of a single ESVOnlyist (though I have never spoken to, nor examined the views, of this individual), so it's not like KJVOnlyists are absolutely unique. Nevertheless, it is almost unique in its haughtiness, as those who use other translations do not view their preferences as superior to anyone else's, including a preference for the KJV.
This is the exact opposite of what you would expect if the situation was as described by many advocates of the KJVO position. Typically, when you are self-interested, you exalt your interests and downplay dissenters. The opposite of KJVOnlyism should be anti-KJVism. If there was something special about the KJV, would Satan not attack it? If Satan was trying to pervert God's word, why would he direct people towards it? Yet, Christians who use other translations, even if their preference is strong, are quite happy for other Christians to use the KJV. Only KJVOnlyists are so haughty as to attack any preference that differs from their own.
Blasphemy in KJVOnlyism
These attacks often border on, and I would say actually cross the line of blasphemy. For example, the most hated Bible among KJVOnlyists is, without equal, the NIV. They do attack other Bibles, of course, but the NIV is their favorite. This, they have the audacity to call the "Not Inspired Version".
It shouldn't take much to see why this quip is problematic. The NIV, however much KJVOnlyists may attempt to charge it with error, is still a translation of the inspired word of God. Though KJVOnlyists often claim it removes verses and dims down the language, nothing uninspired has been added. The NIV seeks to present the inspired word of God in the English language. Thus, to call the NIV not inspired is to directly attack the word of God. In fact, as we'll see later on, the very translators of the KJV believed that a translation, even a less than perfect one, is as authoritative as the original document.
A second blasphemy is the argument from preservation. KJVOnlyists argue that if you're not KJVOnly, you believe God broke His promise to preserve His word. But this presupposes the KJV is the word of God, and necessarily implies that the KJV is better even than the originals.
See, a non-KJVOnlyist is perfectly comfortable suggesting that if all KJVs were deleted or destroyed, and even if the same thing happened to any translation prior to 1600 A.D., we would still have the word of God preserved. But if KJVOnlyists are going to suggest the doctrine of preservation proves their point, they have to say that the pre-1611 evidence we have of the word of God, including that from which the KJV was translated, is inferior to the KJV. That is, man's efforts to translate the word of God are better than the word of God. Clearly, this is insane.
The KJV translators were not KJVOnly
The translators of the KJV agreed. In their mind, there was nothing particularly special about the KJV. Indeed, it would be quite out of step for them if they did. The KJV is of "Protestant" origins, and so even lacking explicit statements from the translators of the KJV, it is fair to assume they followed the Protestant tradition of presenting the Bible in the common language. In fact, much of the KJV owes its existence to the Reformer William Tyndale, who was so passionate in his beliefs that he told one Catholic Bishop "I defy the Pope and all his laws! If God spareth my life ere many years, I will cause the boy that driveth the plough to know more of the scriptures than thou doth!"
With this in mind, the burden of proof would actually be on the KJVOnlyist to prove the KJV translators held other beliefs than their fellow "Protestants". Nevertheless, the non-KJVOnly position is so strong that we can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the KJV translators were quite open to the possibility of other translations, both past and future. In The Translators To The Reader, which was the original preface to the KJV, we read "Now to the latter we answer that we do not deny--nay, we affirm and avow--that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the king's speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the king's speech, though it be not interpreted by every translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere."
Here, the KJV translators liken Bible translation to translations of royal speeches. A translation of the king's words, even a poor one, is still considered the word of the king. In like manner, a Bible translation is still considered the word of God, even "the very meanest translation" set forth by other translators.
They further stated "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk); but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against, that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose, there were many chosen that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise."
In other words, the translators of the KJV were quite aware that there were other English translations prior to the KJV, and they had no desire to criticise those translations. They explicitly called them "good", and did not feel the need to replace them, but to improve upon them.
"Ah, but it says they aim to make a principal good one!", the KJVOnlyist might reply. Indeed it does, but they never stated they intended to create the last translation, and indeed, they agree with the non-KJVOnlyist in that there are many equally valid ways to translate the same phrase. Responding to criticisms that they were inconsistent in their translation methods, they wrote "Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader: that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere [polushma]), we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word, as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, etc--thus, to mince the matter, we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free?."
And so we see that, far from being KJVOnly, the translators of the KJV made the anti-KJVOnly case for us even before KJVOnlyism became a thing. It is so firmly against the KJVOnly position that I believe, and fully intend to test in the future, that if it was cited without credit to a KJVOnlyist, they would begin opposing it as if it was written by James White.
Jesus and the Apostles held similar views
One strange, yet interesting counter argument KJVOnlyists could use is that even if the KJV translators didn't think they were creating the ultimate Bible, they were. After all, they're not infallible in and of themselves, and God can even draw the truth from the mouth of the devil if He seeks to do so, so if He wanted to produce an infallible translation at the hands of those who didn't believe in infallible translations, He can. This would be quite unorthodox, but it's the only realistic way to defend against their opinions.
If you want to invalidate the opinions of the KJV translators, you're quite within your rights to do so. To oppose the opinions of Christ and His Apostles, however, is significantly less defensible. Obviously, neither Christ nor the Apostles commented on the KJV. It wouldn't exist for nearly 1600 years after Christ's ascent into Heaven. Not even the English language existed at the time of the Apostles. This is the reason behind the joke "if the KJV was good enough for Paul, it's good enough for me". Nevertheless, while we cannot see specifics, we can draw principles. Yet, the principle we see in scripture is the exact opposite of KJVOnlyism.
Christ and the Apostles had easy access to their own translation: The Septuagint. The Septuagint is the Jewish equivalent of the KJV, being a Greek translation of the original Hebrew scriptures. Much like the KJV, it is a mostly literal translation, but at least occasionally favors dynamic equivalence. Even in these places, the New Testament authors treated it as being authoritative scripture, citing it as such.
One example of this is Hebrews 10:5's citation of Psalm 40:6. In the KJV, Psalm 40:6 reads "Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required." Yet, when Hebrews 10:5 cites this verse, it reads "Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:"
Notice the difference. "Mine ears hast thou opened" and "a body hast thou prepared for me" are hardly the same thing. This is because while the KJV is translating the original Hebrew form of Psalm 40:6, Paul was citing the Septuagint translation, which renders Psalm 40:6 as "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require,"
The translations vary so wildly because the Hebrew itself is confusing. A straightforward literal translation would be "you have dug out ears for me", which, to modern ears, and evidently even to first century Jewish ears, is as confusing as a fart in a fan factory. The KJV translators themselves offered alternative renderings, and other translations use different renderings.
But you don't even need to dive to this depth. If perfection in translation was important to Christ and the Apostles, and the KJV was a perfect translation that reflected that, then every citation of the Old Testament would be identical in the New. In reality, however, we find there are few citations that are so perfect. In fact, I can think of none, and have been shown none. Aside from the above example, however, I can find many examples of inexact Old Testament citations.
Because of this, we can draw only two conclusions:
Christ and the Apostles did not care about perfection in translation.
They did care, but the KJV fails to reflect that, and thus is heretical.
Any other conclusion is contradictory.
God's word is intended to be for all
There are many purposes and effects of God giving His word to us. One of those, according to Psalm 119:130, is that even the simple should gain understanding. This echoes the stated aim of William Tyndale, as we saw earlier. A plough boy in his day wouldn't have the education of a Catholic Bishop, certainly not to the extent of understanding Latin, but Tyndale wanted such boys, and indeed all commoners, to be able to study the scriptures in all their glory. To this end, he and his successors, including the translators of the KJV, translated the Bible in the common language of their day.
This makes sense, as the original Bible was likewise written in the common language of its time. In 1 Corinthians 1:27-29, we read "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." It should not surprise us, therefore, that the New Testament was not written in classical Greek, but in Koine Greek.
Koine Greek basically means "common" Greek. That is, Greek that is distinct from classical Greek because it was not the language of the scholars. For a significant amount of time, even in the time of the KJV, Koine Greek was confusing to scholars. There were theories that it was a mixture of Greek with Hebrew and Aramaic, and others assumed confusing words of phrases were "Holy Ghost Greek". That is, they believed maybe God came up with a new version of Greek specifically for the Bible. It turns out, however, that the Bible was never written in the scholarly language of its time. Rather, studies of Greek papyri from the time show that the Greek used in the New Testament (and the Septuagint, which we must remember was recognised and used by Christ and the Apostles as authoritative scripture) was also used by the common folk of the time. It was the language people used in wills, private letters, and even shopping lists.
In other words, in the first century, the Bible was translated, and even written, in the common language of the people, not the scholarly language. It was designed to be understood by people of all educational, and even ethnic backgrounds. Unfortunately, in the modern day, the KJV does not fulfil this role.
That is not to say the KJV is a bad translation, that it isn't the word of God, or even that it isn't the "best" translation. Best, after all, is a relative term. For many Christians today, the KJV remains sufficient as a primary, or even sole study translation. But for many others, this isn't the case.
One thing KJVOnlyists fail to recognise is that not everyone learns in the same way, and not everyone is of equal skill. I've seen a few of them boast that their children are quite capable of understanding the KJV. I'd be curious to see how they deal with it when their kids come across 2 Kings 18:27 and start running around saying "piss" in front of their grandmothers, but suffice to say for now, while it's great that their kids are engaging with the Bible, not everyone is capable of engaging with the KJV.
An excellent example is the Hungarian family who used to serve in my congregation. While they spoke sufficient English to communicate, and the husband even served as assistant pastor, their grasp on the language was clearly lacking. The assistant pastor even once sent out a group text to our small group which was 100% innocent in his mind, but unfortunately, in our language, ended up accusing us of doing something particularly inappropriate. Luckily for him, we knew what he meant, and we were able to gently correct him, but suffice to say both he and his wife could not pass for native speakers.
Because of this, they struggled to understand the KJV. During the early days of my faith, I myself was KJVOnly, but often had to translate it for him. Unfortunately, I must confess that while I would probably still be able to do so, even my own ability to read the KJV has diminished. I still use it, but without large amounts of caffeine, I simply cannot read it as easily as more modern translations. I am not alone in this.
English continues to evolve
One reason the KJV is so difficult to read, be it for foreigners for whom English is a second language, or even for fluent native English speakers, is because the English of the 1600s is not the same as the English today. Many words have changed meaning, or even dropped out of use completely.
One example that is particularly close to my heart as a Creation apologist is Genesis 1:28, in which God commands Adam and Eve to fill and subdue the earth. In the KJV, the word is "replenish", which heretics like Hugh Ross are fond of using to support their long-age doctrines. Old Earthers suggest that God uses the term "replenish" because Genesis 1 does not record the beginning, but rather a new beginning. They were being told to replenish a world that was once destroyed.
But back in 1611, "replenish" did not mean what it does today. Back then, it simply meant fill, which is why most modern translations render it "fill". Of course, if you already know this, you're not going to be tripped up by it, but if you don't, you very well may. To this, a KJVOnlyist may reply that it is wise to remember from the beginning that the KJV isn't a modern translation, but to that I say you shouldn't need an uninspired, 17th century dictionary to read a Bible today.
This is far from the only example of a word that has changed meaning since its inclusion in the KJV. Many words have changed meaning, to the extent where some websites, such as CARM, actually provide translation guides for archaic words in the KJV. Some of these cause confusion, others aid doctrinal error, and some, as I have alluded to already, may actually be offensive. Ordinarily, I would not use the word "piss" on this site, but there are 8 places in the KJV in which it appears. In the KJV, it is used innocently, and in its proper context (for the time), but in the modern day, it is offensive.
KJVO criticisms often backfire
As we've just seen, there are places in the KJV that, in the modern day, aid doctrinal error. That is not to say that the KJV promotes those errors, of course. Genesis 1:28 did not suggest or support Old Earth heresies in the past, and "Young" Earth Creationism was the practically unanimous view of both Jews and Christians right up until the 18th century. Nevertheless, because of the changing language, the KJV can be used to support doctrinal error today. Yet, ironically, this is the chief criticism of modern translations by KJVOnlyists.
For one thing, the NIV, supposedly, is designed to be significantly softer on homosexuality. It's especially amusing when KJVOnlyists make this claim to me, as before I became a Christian, I actually was gay. As shown in my testimony, I considered homosexuality as a large part of my identity, and even after my conversion, I had neither plan, nor desire, to change that. That is until my atheist friends started trying to poison me against my newfound faith by showing me what the Bible said about homosexuality. I was resistant at first, coming up with many silly excuses in an attempt to justify my sexuality, but eventually, I simply accepted that my lifestyle and my faith could not be reconciled. Therefore, I surrendered to the Lord, and at the time I write this, I am seeking a wife.
Here's the catch: At the time of my surrender, my first, primary, and only Bible was the so-called "gay translation". When I became a Christian, I was gifted an NIV. When I was told what the Bible says about homosexuality, I looked it up in the NIV. When I finally surrendered to God and repented, I was still reading the NIV. I had not yet become KJVOnly, I didn't even own a KJV. Now, if the NIV is somehow pro-gay, why did a stubborn gay man repent while reading it exclusively?
But this particular criticism cannot be turned back on the KJV. Not that I'm petty enough to want to show the KJV presents some false doctrine. I hope I have conveyed throughout this article that I have no beef with the KJV, nor do I want to discourage people from reading it. Nevertheless, the criticism of other versions is that the KJV gives the strongest presentation of doctrinal truths, whereas other Bibles, whether intentionally or not, present errors great and small. Therefore, if it can be shown that other Bible translations are stronger than the KJV in some area, the criticism fails, and the KJVOnly movement falls with it.
Therefore, a more profitable discussion would be the Deity of Christ. This is a very important doctrine, and a popular talking point for KJVOnlyists. According to them, the KJV is the strongest Bible on this topic, and there is some Satanic conspiracy among other translations to downplay, remove, or outright deny this doctrine.
While this may be true of cultic translations, such as the New World Translation produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, it is clearly not true for other more reputable translations. Even many heretical denominations acknowledge the Deity of Christ, regardless of translation preferences, which means A. they have no motive to diminish the doctrine and B. the Bibles which supposedly do diminish it are clearly failing rather miserably.
But what's more is that we shouldn't be judging a Bible by its doctrines, but its doctrines by the Bible. Observe: "In the beginning was the word, and the word was Jesus Christ, who is God, the Creator of all things, the second person of the Trinity". This statement, while 100% true, and so explicit on the Deity of Christ, is not an accurate rendering of John 1:1. Just because it's strong on the Deity of Christ doesn't mean it's right. In much the same way, there are verses which, in the KJV, are more strongly supportive of the Deity of Christ, as KJVOnlyists are quite fond of demonstrating, but that doesn't make them more accurate. But here's the real problem for KJVOnlyists: There are verses in other translations, including the NIV, that are stronger on the Deity of Christ than the KJV.
One example is Titus 2:13. In the KJV, it reads "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;". In the NIV, however, it says "while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ,". Now, the difference is trivial, and if you have two brain cells to rub together, not only will you see that they're basically identical statements, but you'll see the Deity of Christ. But the KJV's statement is easier to twist as somehow separating the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, whereas the NIV's statement "our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ" is harder. Not that a heretic can't do it, but it's harder.
2 Peter 1:1, in a similar way, can be seen as making more of a distinction in the KJV. In the KJV, it reads "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:". In the NIV, "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours:" The KJV states it in a way a modern Christian might say "God and Jesus", as if they are separate beings, but the NIV says it in such a way as to apply two separate titles to one being, that being Jesus.
And that's just the NIV, the most hated translation for KJVOnlyists. Should we therefore run around shouting "We should only read the NIV because the KJV diminishes the Deity of Christ"? Of course not, that would be stupid, and it's stupid when KJVOnlyists do the same thing to other translations.
No doctrinal errors can be traced to other translations
At the end of the day, heretics will be heretics. Mormons tend to be KJVOnly, yet still think the Book of Mormon is "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" (and believe all of Mormonism's other ridiculous errors). Gay people can be given an NIV and still repent. The heart of the believer matters more than the translation they read.
One thing is absolutely certain: If a faithful person studies any reputable translation, they will come away with the same set of doctrines as those who prefer the KJV, and even if an unfaithful person reads the KJV, their errors will remain. A translation of the word of God is still the word of God, and is therefore useful for doctrine, rebuke, correction, and instruction in righteousness. The KJV will give you nothing the NIV, NKJV, HCSB, ESV, NASB, or any other reputable translation cannot, nor will these other translations lead you to an error the KJV could not. In fact, quite often, the only real doctrinal dispute between KJVOnlyists and other Christians will be KJVOnlyism.
Conclusion
From all of the above, we see that the King James Only position is completely unsustainable. All arguments in its favor fall woefully short, whereas there are many powerful arguments against it. Those who are capable of grasping the KJV should continue to read it, as it is the word of God to His English speaking children. Nevertheless, those who cannot grasp the KJV, but learn well from more modern translations, should not feel hindered in using those translations instead, as they, likewise, are the word of God. Modern Christians should find themselves united with the translators of the KJV, the Reformers before them, and even the Apostles and the Good Lord Himself, in this one belief: As surely as an English king's word remains his word when translated to Dutch, so also does God's word remain His word when translated in modern English. Therefore let us cease this most petty of squabbles and unite in prayer, in faith, and most importantly in love, for one another, and for God. In Jesus' name, amen.