KJVonlyism and Creation Compromise

The KJV is an extremely popular English translation of the Bible. In fact, it is the most popular version. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. The KJV is, after all, the Bible, and so if people are studying it and applying it faithfully, there is no issue. Unfortunately, there are a large group of Christians with whom the KJV is not only popular, but is equal, maybe even superior to the original texts.

Now, we can completely ignore any crackpot who thinks a translation could be superior to the original. It doesn't take a scholar to know that God's work is always greater than man's work, and thus if there is so much as a jot or a tittle out of place, that is immediately an inferior work (Matthew 5:18). Unfortunately, there is just no way to reason with those who think otherwise.

But what about those who believe the KJV is equal to the original? That the KJV is a word-for-word perfect translation of the original word of God, and that any other version is inferior, or even, as one KJVonlyist once said, "if you do not have a KJV, you do not have a Bible"?

One argument often used by these people is that the newer translations alter some doctrine in some way. For example, it is claimed that the KJV is the most obviously Trinitarian Bible, whereas newer versions allegedly erase the deity of Christ (which can be easily countered by places where newer translations are more clear on the deity of Christ than the KJV, such as Romans 9:4-5, 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13). It is also claimed that the NIV, specifically, was designed to support homosexuality. As an ex-gay who abandoned homosexuality while I was still reading the NIV, I am living proof against this claim.

It is a simple fact that unless you are reading an abysmal translation, you will come away from any Bible version with the exact same theology as if you had read the KJV. To be sure, such translations do exist. The New World Translation, for example, was designed by the Watchtower for the Watchtower. But good translations, such as the NKJV, HCSB or ESV, all present the exact same Gospel, the exact same doctrines, the exact same history etc.

Unfortunately, they all do so in different ways. One of the most notable qualities of the KJV is its age. Whereas newer translations use newer language, the KJV is over 400 years old. The result is that it uses words which, in their modern form, mean completely different things. As an example, the KJV renders the word "mil’û" as "replenish". In 1611, this was perfectly fine. Replenish simply meant "to fill".

But in the late 1800s, a shift occurred in the culture. A small group of atheists invented a religion called Evolution; a myth that attempted to explain the origins of the creation, especially human beings, without any reference to God. Rather than God creating the heavens and the earth in 6 days, then on the 6th day creating one man from the dirt, his wife from his ribs, and the rest of the human race being descended from those two, Evolution has it that humans are actually descended from ape like creatures, billions of years after the earth just magically formed from floating space debris that came from a magical explosion. And unfortunately, in an attempt to seem intelligent, many Christians attempted to merge that creation myth with Genesis.

Thus came the invention of "gap theory"; the belief that there was an initial creation in Genesis 1:1, but that at some point between then and the creation week Genesis continues to describe, there was a gap. Adam and Eve were thus not the first or only human beings, nor were they commanded to simply fill the earth, but rather, God set them apart and told them to replenish the otherwise empty creation.

Now, any educated Christian can tell you the problem with this. That's not to say they all will, but they all can. It's completely loopy! But the KJV gives the compromising Christians the edge in spreading their compromise, and indeed, prominent compromisers, such as Hugh Ross, use this very argument.

Now, this is not even an error in the KJV. The KJV is not at fault for being more accurate in the day it was translated than it is in today's world. But the archaic language, sometimes including "extinct" words (e.g. collop in Job 15:27 and bruit in Jeremiah 10:22), and even including what is today considered a swear word (e.g. 2 Kings 18:27), means that the KJV really should be considered an "advanced" translation. If you are gifted with the KJV, good for you. And if this is the version you wish to raise your children with, use in your study groups or churches, or even use in your ministry, great. But to condemn other translations as somehow being inferior, especially to the point of aggressively disputing with believers who use it, is very counterproductive.

For the sake of protecting sound doctrine, it is better to reject the unsound doctrine of KJVonlyism. Let us leave KJVonlyism to cultists like the Mormons (who are also KJVonly), instead edifying each other with the words of the Lord Himself, whether that be in Old English, modern English, French, Spanish, whatever language is best understood by the reader, let him read it in that language. God, after all, does not reign only over 17th century England, but over all the world, and for all eternity.