An Explanation of My King James Only Position

I read with interest Wink Wilson's article printed in the April 19 issue of The Voice entitled "The King James Bible." I happen to be a pastor of one of those independent, fundamental, King James Bible-believing Baptist churches to which he referred. I took the author's advice and both watched More to the Point, and visited the website that he recommended. Having done that, and having read the strong slander against Bible scholars contained in the recommended website and hearing their vague generalization of the King James Only position, I felt it necessary to write a response articulating my position for all who are interested.

First of all, I would like the readers to know that I did not always hold to a King James Only position. I have a Bachelor's of Science in Bible from Baptist Bible College in Clarks Summit, PA, and I am currently working on a Master of Theology degree from Baptist College of America. I have three years of Greek and study the original languages for sermon preparation on a weekly basis. While at BBC, I learned all of the arguments against the King James Only position, and for a long while believed them. There was one event that started me down a pathway of open-minded investigation that finally led to the conviction that I embrace today. There were a couple of "witnesses" who came to my door and tried to convince me that Jesus Christ was someone less than very God in the flesh. I had just read 1 Timothy 3:16 in my devotions and I couldn't wait to use it to demonstrate the truth of the Deity of Christ. The King James Bible that I read that morning said this: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

God was manifest in the flesh! Now, my King James Bible was upstairs and so I reached for my NIV, expecting to be able to prove this fundamental truth from this translation as well, because, after all, I had been taught that no major doctrine was affected by the miniscule differences in the translations. This is what I found: "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."

I was shocked! The punch of the entire verse rested upon the word "God," yet the NIV left it out. I ran upstairs to get my Greek New Testament and it had the word "Theos," or God. The NIV left out a word that changed and watered down a fundamental doctrine! That sent me on the journey into the King James controversy.

The first thing to consider when looking into this issue is the idea of the inspiration of Scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:16 gives us this insight: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." —KJV

The Greek word translated in the English is "Theopneustos," which is a compound word literally meaning "God-breathed." I have always believed that the Bible is the perfect "God-breathed" Word of God. This doctrine was under fire in the early part of the last century. Liberal scholars held that it was the thoughts of God that were important, not every word. There were many conservative movements that came out of this controversy. Again the argument was: did the Bible "contain" the word of God, or was every word inspired? Those who call themselves fundamentalists held to the latter view, as do I. Many who reject the King James Bible as the perfect word of God for English-speaking people also claim to hold to an every-word inspiration. However, I find this to be inconsistent because of the implications of the next doctrine to be discussed: preservation.

When considering the doctrine of preservation, one must determine if the Bible claims that every word is not only inspired in the original manuscripts but also preserved in the textual copies throughout the centuries. In general those who embrace the NIV, NASB, etc. believe that God inspired His Word in the original manuscripts, but they are lost, and that is as far as it goes. It seems to me, then, that this is the same position taken by the liberals of the early 1900s. The Bible contains the word of God. Now, that is fine as long as you do not masquerade as a conservative. However, it is nothing less, in my mind, than the liberal position of the 1900s repackaged to be more palatable to those who claim to be theologically conservative.

We must remember that this is the very same attack that Satan first leveled upon Eve, just before she ate the fruit that put all of nature under the curse of sin. "Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" (Genesis 3:1—KJV)

Satan, then, from the very beginning did not at first change God's command, he merely cast doubt upon its reliability. This is why the doctrine of preservation must be considered as well as the inspiration of Scriptures. Do we have a perfect and reliable copy of Scriptures? I hear the hiss of a snake. "Ssss … hath God said?"

Let us consider two questions regarding the doctrine of preservation. First of all, does God's Word claim that He will preserve every word throughout the corridors of time? The answer is found in Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. " —KJV

Notice the claim of preservation is not made on God's thoughts, or His Word, but on His words. So, then, the modern scholar scoffs and states that God has never preserved copies of His Word. Let us examine that claim in the light of Holy Scriptures. In Joshua 8:30-35, we find Joshua to be commissioned with the task of copying the words of the books of Moses. Look at verse 32: "And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel." —KJV

Now look a little further down the passage and see what God says about Joshua's copying work: "And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them." (Joshua 8:34-35—KJV)

It was my discovery then, along my journey to the truth in this matter, that God did indeed have His Word perfectly preserved, and that He did not lose it with the original manuscripts. Once I came to that conclusion, then I needed to find out which of the many differing versions of the Bible was the perfect preserved Word that was promised in Psalm 12.

I found out that there were two families of manuscripts. There is a group of manuscripts that have been used throughout the history of the early church originating in Antioch Syria (known as the Textus Receptus), and there were the fragmented manuscripts found as ancient discards, originating in Alexandria Egypt (commonly called the Critical Text). These ancient discards, much of which were compiled by Wescott and Hort (two people who denied the inspiration of the Bible in the first place), give us the source of every modern English Bible translation. As I studied, I found out that the reason for my problem with 1 Timothy 3:16 was that this discarded family of manuscripts had corrupted the Words of God! Now, I know that it may seem like a small deal, but if God really did preserve His Word, then every variance is a big deal!

The Alexandrian texts (the Critical Texts) are so fragmented that there are 12,000 variations with itself in the Gospels alone! The Antioch texts (the Textus Receptus) are remarkably similar! They have been preserved! There is no variance! It is interesting that of the existing 5,500 fragments of copies of the New Testament, the modern Critical Text uses only 1% of the total, while 99% of the existing copies of the Greek manuscripts support the Textus Receptus.

Here is where the rubber meets the road. The only English translation that still comes from 99% of the existing Greek manuscript copies is the King James Bible. I am a King James Only preacher, not because I have followed some preacher or religious leader blindly as some allege, but because of long, hard, serious study of both God's promises and manuscript evidence.

I suppose that one other thing that could be dealt with when it comes to this subject is the many horrible things that the Critical Text does to God's holy and perfect Word. I am sure that if I were to list the hundreds of examples, this article would be too long to print. Let me just articulate a few of the gravest concerns. Once again let us get our guide from scriptures: "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19—KJV)

Here is a list of Holy Scriptures that the modern, Alexandrian Text-based translations have omitted: Matthew 17:21; Matthew 18:11; Matthew 23:14; Mark 7:16; Mark 9:44; Mark 9:46; 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. Now, if you hold the liberal view of scriptures—that the Bible contains the Word of God—then these omissions are not a big deal, because you can find His thoughts in the other parts of Scripture. If, however, one claims to be a fundamentalist, holding to the fact that God has inspired every word of the Bible, then one should have a big problem with these omissions.

As I stated earlier, this article is not meant to start a blow-by-blow debate over this issue in The Voice. The intent was merely to clearly articulate a view and expose the logic that is behind it. If you have any specific questions regarding this issue, and if you think that perhaps I could help, feel free to e-mail me at: <ebc@cleaninter.net>. Thanks again to The Voice for providing this wonderful forum in which we can discuss this very important issue.