The racist motivations of KJVOnlyism

The title of this article is quite intentionally provocative. Obviously, I do not believe, nor do I intend to defend, the idea that KJV Onlyists are racists, or that there are literally racist motivations behind the view. Rather, I chose the title to illustrate the absurdity of ascribing motive where it ought not be ascribed. Take, for example, the meme I recently received from a KJVOnlyist who took issue with my statement that translation and preservation are separate issues.

The first issue with the meme is that it immediately dive-bombs into a straw man. It correctly states that we say a perfect Bible translation isn't possible, but continues to say that this is because "no translation can capture the full meaning of the original languages". It further claims "They teach that it's literally impossible to transfer the words from one language to another without losing some meaning in the process." But this, of course, is the exact opposite of what we are saying. The point of translation is precisely to preserve the meaning. But word for word translations (which not even the KJV actually is) tend to fail.

A great example is the Hebrew word "owph". In the book of Leviticus, bats are listed among the owph that the Jews were not permitted to eat. In English translations, including the KJV, "owph" is translated as "bird". In English, this leads to an errant statement. Bats, of course, are not birds. This does not, however, mean the Bible is in error, it means God wasn't speaking English. Only an atheist would be so arrogant as to suggest the Bible itself is in error because, when translated to English, this statement becomes errant.

When translating anything, the goal is precisely to preserve the meaning of the original statement in the new language. With the above example, this is done correctly, because the meaning of the original passage isn't to say bats are birds, but that bats are unclean, and the Jews could not eat them. Now, you could say that the translators should have come up with a new word for owph, or left owph untranslated, or even that we should simply say bats are birds (because of course, where man's word contradicts God's word, God is right and we are wrong). But because owph, at present, has no perfect English equivalent, Leviticus 11:13-19 cannot be perfectly translated into English, and not even the KJV does so.

We can add extra fuel to this fire by pointing out that even if the KJV was a perfect translation for its time, it would no longer be so today simply because the English language has evolved. There are words in the KJV that have since changed meaning, and even words that are now extinct. KJVOnlyists may argue "but you can learn what those words actually mean", but in doing so, they only prove the point. No one speaks Old English today, and if you did run around speaking the same language as the KJV, you would get some quite funny looks.

The meme continues, claiming this discussion is "self serving propaganda".

As an ex-KJVO, this is certainly news to me. In the meme to the left, you see a KJV I bought when I, myself, was KJVO. This Bible is particularly precious to me. You will notice it features in several of my other memes, regardless of the topic. 2 of my 4 physical Bibles are KJV. Every footer-verse for the main sections of this site is KJV. My reasons for rejecting and arguing against the KJVOnly position, far from being "self-serving", are quite sincere. Put simply, I have a basic understanding of the Bible translation process, I have more than a basic understanding of the word of God itself, and that knowledge has lead me to believe that the KJV is a good translation, but not the one and only perfect translation.

This, in itself, is clear evidence that our motives are not self-serving. Those who argue against KJVOnlyism don't actually argue against the KJV. In fact, as admitted by the very meme against which we are arguing, we don't even attempt to oversell our own translation preferences. Sometimes, those who argue against KJVOnlyism do prefer the KJV! There is no sensible motive you can ascribe to anti-KJVOnlyists that makes any sense. To claim it is self-serving propaganda is literally insane.

But the meme suggests it must be, because travel catalogues, brochures, websites, business agreements, and even treaties, are translated into other languages. Ok, first question: Which version of the languages? Translations made today are made for today. I've never seen a travel brochure that says "If thou doth seeketh the Eiffel Tower, thou mayest desire also to observe the Triumphal Arc". No, they're translated in my language.

And the meme is right, there often is money on the line. Such as when Pepsi tried to break into the Chinese market, translating their slogan "Come alive with the Pepsi generation" into... "Pepsi brings your relatives back from the dead". Well oops.

KFC didn't have much better luck in China at first. We all know KFC is "Finger lickin' good", but in China, apparently it's so good, people "eat your fingers off".

Translation fails will give you hours of fun. It happens, quite frequently, demonstrating just how difficult it is to preserve meaning during translation. This, of course, does not mean it's impossible. But to suggest that, since corporations put money on the line, that must mean perfect translations from Hebrew to English are possible, and the KJV is the one and only perfect translation, is a serious stretch of the imagination.

But surely God is better at translating His word than man is at translating ours, right? Well, of course. But He never promised to do such a thing. Search your KJV, where does it say "and lo, in 1600 years, the Lord shall provideth a book in Ye Olde English, after which time He shalt destroy thousands of manuscripts, lest any man should suggest this KJV is not superior to the original words of God"? It's not in there. When you say "Christian Biblical experts don't give God any credit", you're adding to His words, and equating 47 dead men with God Himself.

This is why proponents of other translations are not so haughty. We don't say "you're not giving God any credit" because although we believe God can help with translations, and we certainly hope translators would rely on God to help them with their efforts (Psalm 127:1), it is very dangerous to ascribe actions to God that He did not perform. Man's effort is just that: Man's effort. So, while God may have helped with the translation process, we cannot guarantee that He prevented translation errors (and scholarly cross-examination shows that, at least sometimes, He did not prevent those errors).

In other words, the fact that there are very few HCSBOnlyists, or ESVOnlyists, or NIVOnlyists etc., is actually a great strength of the anti-KJVOnly position, not a weakness. We refer to the Bible "generally" rather than "by brand name" because the Bible is not a brand name.

Think of it this way: Would you expect a representative of Nike to present Adidas as a perfectly valid alternative? Would you expect McDonalds to direct customers to KFC? Would you expect a Coke employee to show up to work with a can of Pepsi? I remember one meme (which I sadly can't find right now) pointing out the irony that a speaker for one technology company was using a rival company's laptop to present his Power Point presentation. The fact that there are so few Onlyists for other translations proves beyond dispute that this is not a self-serving issue.

The ultimate irony here is that the meme concludes with "by the way, buy my book". It promotes Jack McElroy's book "Which Bible Would Jesus Use?: The Bible Version Controversy Explained and Resolved", which, of course, is copyrighted, and costs money. But wait, I thought if something is sold and copyrighted, that means there's dubious motives at play?

As you can see, this meme is entirely incoherent, yet it is an excellent representation of the KJVOnly position. Translation preference is the pettiest dispute in all the Christian world, and KJVOnlyists are the source of the controversy. Most other Christians are quite content reading the translation that gives them the best access to God's word, but a KJVOnlyist will quite happily accuse you of heresy if your only disagreement with them is the KJVOnly position. But in reality, the Bible was not intended to be translated once in 1611 and never again. There are many people, speaking many languages, who have just as much access to God's word as a KJVOnlyist, and it's high time they grew up and recognised it.