top of page
  • Writer's pictureBible Brian

Using the KJV against the KJVO position


"I defy the Pope and all his laws. If God spareth my life ere many years, I shall cause the boy that driveth the plough to know more of the scriptures than thou doth." These are the words of William Tyndale, a Reformer who, as the quote suggests, sought to make the word of God available to the common man. In his day, Bible translation was actually illegal, and sadly, Tyndale felt the full force of that law when he was strangled, and burned alive for doing so.


Thankfully, though Tyndale himself never succeeded, his mission was not in vain. The Reformation continued, the Catholic Church lost its power, and eventually, the Bible became available in many languages. Unfortunately, there is a minority among the Church who forego this privilege, instead insisting that only the KJV is acceptable, with some of them going as far as to say if you don't have a KJV, you don't have a Bible.


In reality, not even the KJV supports the KJV Only position. Obviously, as it is a translation, there is nothing wrong with the KJV. Whereas I have heard some rather terrifying statements from KJVOs (such as "the NIV = the Not Inspired Version"), I have never met any English-speaking Protestant who claims the KJV is a bad translation. That's not to say they don't exist, it's just that I've yet to find one. I would suggest the reason for that is because, for all its flaws, the KJV is a good translation of scripture. But of course, it is a translation.


There is a reason translations exist. Aside from the fact languages themselves evolve, not everyone speaks even a variant of the original Bible languages. But God doesn't want only the Greeks or the Hebrews to understand the faith. Christianity was designed for the entire world. If you speak English, you should have an English Bible. If you speak French, you should have a French Bible. If you speak German, you should have a German Bible. Mandarin, Arabic, Russian, Swahili, whatever your language, God wants us to know His word "in our own tongue, wherein we were born".


This, of course, is a paraphrase from Acts 2:6-8, as shown in the header image. The Apostles didn't go around speaking languages no one understood, nor did they speak in outdated language, they spoke in the language of the people they spoke to. Now here's the thing: None of us were born into King James English. The English language has evolved over the last 400 years. There are words and phrases in the KJV that were fine in 1611, but in 2021, they mean completely different things. Even many English speakers struggle to understand the KJV. Those who aren't native? Put it this way: My church used to have a Romanian assistant pastor. English was his second language, and so he couldn't stand the KJV because he couldn't figure it out. If we're supposed to have the word of God in the language we were born to, we should be allowed to read a more modern translation.


And what of those who don't speak a word of English? There are two choices for the KJVO camp. Either we wait for God to give them something as allegedly perfect as the KJV, or we demand they learn King James English just so they can read the KJV. Alternatively, we can accept the KJV for what it is: A good translation for its own time into just one language.


Due to the very nature of translation, there will never be a perfect English translation of scripture. English and Greek/Hebrew just don't line up that way. The KJV is a good translation, but it is neither perfect, nor superior. English speaking Christians are lucky in that, whereas most of the world's most common languages have two or three translations, we have a wide variety for comparison. By using these, we can gain a rich understanding of the scriptures, and we will lack absolutely nothing if the KJV is not on our top 5 list.

9 views
bottom of page