The Case For KJV Onlyism

Alot of people I talk to really like somethings I have to say on this blog, yet they are perplexed when they learn I am King James Version only.

“Seriously, you sound like you have very progressive ideals. Why are you a conservative KJV Christian?” – anonymous

Oh I am not one bit progressive, yet others will call me a far right bigot, I simply read the Bible for what it says. Politically I am quite libertarian conservative. I know full well there are people who twist it, but I take it seriously when the bible says: ‘lean not on your own understanding’. What most people like to do, whether conservative or progressive, is try to conform the written text to their own preconceived ideals. The bible itself tends to speak very plainly for itself, it’s just that when you read it for yourself over other people’s interpretation, you tend to learn some things people might not expect the book to say. I could see why people take me in extremes, but all I’m ever saying for scripture is just what it says. I am always of course open to being proven wrong in my understanding, and of course I have on several occasions. Simply point to me where on scripture or history alone I am wrong, I’m only interested in facts not opinions.

I am convinced KJV is the only credible text with good reason. Like many I have noticed there plenty of people who ardently adhere to this Onlyism but it’s questionable as to why…. I can not answer for them, I can only answer for myself. There is a reason for it, and as it turns out it’s actually a pretty good reason.

Blah Blah Blah just get on with it

To make this case I can only start at the beginning from the translators of the KJV perspective. At this time the protestant reformation was in full swing, the animosity of the corrupted Catholic church was growing very prevalent among a group of people called Protestants or “Protesters”. These were the very best learned scholars of scripture and former members of the church clergy, whom found for themselves the traditions and teachings of the church was not based at all in the Latin scripture. What else was there were many different types of Latin scripture the church would use to manipulate the traditions of the church or its doctrines in the very rare occasion the church ever even cited scripture. Vaticanus Sinaticus, Codex Sinaticus, Textus Receptus, Critical text and many several others. What the protestants wanted was the exact same text the disciples of christ used and read, and translate that text into their own language. The problem with that was there were so many different Latin translations that sometimes said slightly different things… they were never word for word, so which Latin text should they use?

They studied up some history of the texts, and followed where they came from and how the texts got in the library. They reviewed church history and some of the oldest records available. What they found was this.

The Vaticanus Sinaticus or the Codex Sinaticus came from Alexandria, Egypt. Where as the Textus Receptus came from Damascus Syria. The Critical text, being from Greece was written by the apostles themselves. Where as the Alexandrian texts had the apostles writings copied somewhat differently. The other thing they found was the Alexandrian texts came about 600 years after the Syrian text… which means the most original copy of the Bible is the Textus Receptus for the old testamate and The Critical text for the New testamate. They also found that the people in Syria were very meticulous in coping the text by hand. Where as in Egypt they, not even being Christian, were quite sloppy. The result was around 600 ad, when the scriptures came to Rome, there were over 5,000 Syrian texts that all said word for word exactly the same thing. Where as there were over 40,000 Egyptian texts, most of which didn’t word for word repeat itself. What the Catholic Church did was look at the quantity rather quality. Obviously 40,000 texts is so much more therefore it must come from Christ. Also Egypt being so much richer then Syria, at the time, was evidence in itself it was blessed by god to do his work… while the Vaticanus texts remained the catholics main scripture, all the same they translated every single text into Latin, and maintained them by copying the text over and over for nearly a millennium.
Though well intentioned the church actually was with the texts, they weren’t really looking at the finer details. Nor themselves really looking at the text, Infact they found scripture to be very ‘trivial’.

Upon this discovery through researching church records, the Protestants came up with a theory. That since the disciples never went to Egypt, they took the scriptures with them into Jewish areas in Syria after fleeing Judea, then later greece. (As recorded in the book of Acts by all of the Latin texts) Eventually the Syrian and greek scripture made its way into Egypt. The Egyptian scribes were gnostic and later muslim, so there isnt a guarantee the scribes there cared much for detail in Christian literature, where as in Syria the texts we know for sure were maintained by Christians – and it shows itself in the consistency of the texts themselves. The church maintained the texts as meticulously as the Syrians did. All of this and here we are in 1590 with all these Latin texts, some are very different then others. If they wanted the original, untarnished bible, to translate then all signs point to the Textus Receptus and The Critical – who’s source comes from the texts in Syria and Greece.

Now listen clearly because this is also important. Over 50 of England’s most intelligent Latin scholars got together and began their work translating in Geneva Switzerland. They agreed with each other, they would continuously cross check each others work as they translate the bible. If one word was wrong or one period was out of place, they would scrap the whole book and start everything all over again from scratch. The first 3 years of their work the catholic church was threatening to send in the church’s army to slaughter every one of them. Then of course burn whatever work they had. The only trouble the church had was they didn’t know where exactly they were translating the book…. It was in a monastery very well hidden in the Swiss alps, not only was nothing around for miles, but being so high in the mountains it was tough to get an army there… Regardless King James got word from a bishop when the church found out where they were. That was when he sent in his military to protect them so they can continue their work. It was because the kings army got to the monastery first, the church could not stop the translators. The church’s army was forced to back down, meanwhile Rome would instead threaten the king… but they couldn’t really do anything about him either, though they did try assassinating him a few times. 7 years later the translators sent in their final copy to king james. The king arranged it to be published and copies were made available to the people of England.

The reason we call it “King James Bible” doesn’t have anything to do with the fact king James translated it. I think a lot of people are mislead to think such. It has to do with him simply being the guy who paid the publisher. The translators were acting independently of the king, they were going to do their job with or without him, King James merely tried to help in anyway he could…. as it turned out they needed him. The only alternative motive King James had was he was sick of the Catholic church too…. Mind you, there were many reasons at the time people, of all classes and stations, were provided to despise the Vatican. Any enemy of Rome, was a good friend – there were plenty of them to be found.

Now what is also important, is no I am not really KJV only, I am Textus Receptus only. The difference is this, the German Lutheran Bible is also translated from the Textus Receptus. The French Bible comes from the Textus Receptus. The Japanese Bible comes from the Textus Receptus. You get the idea, and yes I do sprechen sie Deutsche, mit Groß Lieben für Deutschland Bible!!

The new translations are not a result of mistranslating of the text, or better ways to translate the text. They are the result of utilizing the alexandrian texts… They are entirely different texts altogether from the KJV. A lot of people think perhaps onlyism is just being nit picky, and it is, but there is a reason for it, though I know even many onlyist don’t find this to be common knowledge. I hope now atleast you understand what that reason is. You might still prefer NIV or some other thing, if you think it’s somehow “better”, I won’t fault you for it. Just know that it isn’t based on something “new” it’s actually still quite old.

New translations are only different because of what text they translate from, not so much that they are alternatively translated from the same book. ESV is a great modern text as it comes from the same text as kjv they simply used more modern use of the English language. NIV however is aweful. The operative word here is “Sinaticus”, because it means the text came from Alexandria. The trouble with Alexandrian texts is the gnostic influence, sometimes the scribes intentionally “sloppied” their copies to conform to their gnostic views in the early 1st millennium. NIV is based entirely on the alexandrian texts aswell as an ambiguous fluffed interpretation by the scholars. That’s what makes it loose all credibility. The other end of that is new translations I can see aren’t really translated with as much attention to detail. They were translated with in a 2 month period by maybe 3 people. which I mean what kind of “care” are they really putting into it? In the 1500s there is just more care that’s very hard to compete with, and the people translating it were actually risking their lives and entire career as enemies of the state. The modern text scribes are only looking to build their career, in itself suggests a certain lack of honorablity. Finally I’d conclude it with the fact simply the test of time. The KJV has been banned, burned, people have died for it, stolen it, and sailed across the Atlantic just to keep it. I think it is self evident the hand of God went into preserving the text, considering it was even a church possessed by evil whom sought most to get rid of it. Though I am sure ESV will probably prove it’s worth as well given time – talk to me about it in 300 years. I myself just value quality over quantity and happen to know all the hard part has already been taken care of with a very trust worthy sources.

This is simply my case that I present to you, as to what convinced me of my conclusion KJV is the best version.

“Here I stand, I can do no more. God help me. Amen” Martin Luther


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s