Cult of the Idol King: An Analysis of the ‘King James Only’ Position

Post to your social and share your thoughts!

There is a growing strife in the Church, one that need not be present. There has become a sect of the Church that clings to the King James Version of the Bible (particularly the 1611 version) and condemns the use of any other, some even going as far as to say that Christians that did the translating and those that read them, unless they repent, are children of Satan and are going to Hell. They have become known as King James Onlyists (referenced also as KJVO’s). They argue these translations produce heresy and false converts. On that note, I 100% agree, BUT so does reading the KJV. Now before we go further I want to make clear that this is not condemnation of the KJV or its use, but a clarifying on the misinformation and frankly dishonesty (some intentional, some not) from the KJV Onlyist crowd.

In 1 Corinthians 1 and 1 Corinthians 3 Paul condemns sectarianism. He uses the example of “I am of Paul” or “I am of Apollos” and the same happens today with people clinging to different pastors, but we also have a new version of that today. Instead of Paul or Apollos, it is “I follow the King James” or “I follow the NIV”. If the same Christ is preached, it matters not. The KJVO’s would argue the modern translations do not and are responsible for heresy in the church. My response to this is heresy has always been fighting the Church since it began in Acts, and ultimately further if you looking to the Prophets and what they had to condemn. I see the KJVO argument as a reflection of the Roman Catholic Church that condemned John Wycliffe and William Tyndale as heretics for translating Scripture into English (Wycliffe from the Latin Vulgate and Tyndale from the Original Hebrew and Greek). Tyndale was even strangled and burned at the stake for his efforts. This is an irony as Tyndale’s work is largely responsible for bringing about the King James Bible nearly 80 years later. It is spitting on his legacy to condemn those for trying to reach people that are not well versed in Elizabethan English and it is pride that dictates that Elizabethan English is inherently more authoritative than modern language. It is a mind game, like Yoda speaking backwards makes him sound wiser. As for heresy, like I said before, it has been around a long time. Modalism (God is one person shifting between 3 roles), Pelagianism (original sin did not taint our existence but human will alone can lead to sinless life) , Adoptionism (Jesus was a man and adopted as the son of God at the baptism, resurrection or Ascension) and Arianism (Jesus had been begotten in time by the Father and was God) and are just some of the few early heresies that started in the early Church over a millennium before the King James Bible existed and persist to this day in a more lowkey fashion.

Now let’s get to some of the heresies and problems the KJVO crowd claims modern translations are perpetuating. For the sake of time and space we will be comparing the KJV primarily to the NIV. Let’s get started on these accusations.

  • Modern translations promote homosexuality

The only verse I’ve been given on the issue is based on Deuteronomy 23:17

KJV: “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.”

NIV: “No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute.”

The argument goes: Because they took out Sodomite it is condoning homosexuality. This is very easy to debunk. First let’s look at context by adding verse 18

KJV:There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

18Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the Lord thy God.

NIV:No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute. 18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute[d] into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow, because the Lord your God detests them both.

Now looking at context you can see that the law hear is specifically addressing acceptable worship at the tabernacle/temple. Prostitution was a common practice in pagan cultures as apart of worship to their deities. God is telling His people, who had come out of a 400-year captivity in a pagan land this is not acceptable. Further evidence of this is in the Lexicon. According to the King James’s very own lexicon these are the words and definitions for whore and sodomite

qdeshah (ked-ay-shaw’)
a female devotee (i.e. prostitute) — harlot, whore.

qadesh (kaw-dashe’)
a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (technically) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry — sodomite, unclean.

keleb (keh’-leb)
a dog; hence (by euphemism) a male prostitute — dog.

The words qdeshah and qadesh are merely masculine and feminine forms of the same word. This is to make a distinction in the law, prostitution and the wages thereof are equally banned as worship for both men and women. Based on that alone, the NIV is actually translating the verse better than the KJV. I frankly don’t see where the translators got Sodomite from, at least in the strictly homosexual sense that some modern commentators would suggest (although homosexuality acts would have likely been practiced by temple prostitutes). The KJVO position here has also created a logical hole in the Law. If Sodomite is strictly refences homosexuality, then it stands to reason that with the feminine word for prostitute preceding it then men can prostitute themselves as worship to God as long as the client is female. The use of male prostitute closes this loophole while staying true to the text. It also does not negate passages on homosexuality.

Leviticus 18:22

NIV:“‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.”

NLT:”Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin.”

 KJVO’s pine that detestable is undercutting the seriousness of the sin, but by definition detestable means abominable so it’s a non-argument.

Leviticus 20:13

NIV:”If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

NLT:”If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.”

1 Corinthians 6:9-10

NIV:”Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.”

NLT:”Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,10 or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God”

We could go on, but I think it’s pretty clear these do not endorse homosexuality so let’s move to the next issue.

  • Modern translations attack the deity of Christ and even call Him Satan (or Satan Jesus)

We will start with the comparison to Satan as the rest of this portion should lead us into our next section. The comparison to Satan comes from a comparison of two verses Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16. Let’s take a look.

Isaiah 14:12

KJV:”How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!”

NIV:”How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!”

Revelation 22:16

KJV:”I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.”

NIV:“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

Now at first glance this argument may seem compelling with the replacement of Lucifer with morning star which is clearly a title Christ claims in Revelation, but with research and a bit of common sense this argument falls apart. First off, let’s look at the simple distinction in wording. In Isaiah it simply uses morning star, while in Revelation is says THE morning star. This is a small, yet important distinction. Ancient rulers used the title of morning star (sometimes morning and evening star) to signify their importance and even deify themselves. Jesus’ claim to this title as THE Morning Star places Him above all others (like King of Kings and Lord of Lords). Now let’s look at the context of Isaiah. Isaiah is in the middle of prophesying to Israel about their restoration and in verse 4 begins to prophesy against the king of Babylon. While it is believed that the following section references Satan that is not necessarily the case. It could be merely referring to the great pride of the king or though it could be an intermingled prophesy referring to both Satan and the Babylonian King. In any case the morning star title here is given in mockery. This is much like when Jesus refers to the Jews as gods in John 10:33-35 (quoting Psalm 82 where gods is also used mockingly). Furthermore, let’s look at the KJV lexicon. 

heylel (hay-lale’)
the morning-star — lucifer.

That alone discredits the KJVO position for if the NIV and other translations using “morning star” are calling Jesus and Satan the same then that means the KJV is as well and it would also be a corrupt text. Deeper study reveals the term Lucifer comes from the Vulgate, which is the Latin translation of the Bible, which is funny considering how KJVO’s tout the KJV as closest to the original languages, but is grabbing from the Latin, when the original languages are Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic. The Hebrew word heylel is also translated Shining One.

Another supposed attack is on the deity of Christ. This is attributed to some verses that are not in the modern translations at least not in the main body of text, but we’ll get to that in the next section. One of these supposed attacks on His deity is the omission of part of 1 John 5:7

1 John 5:7

KJV:”For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

NIV:”For there are three that testify:”

Once again compelling at first, let’s give it context.

1 John 5:6-8

KJV:This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

NIV:This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.For there are three that testify:the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

We’ll get more into why omissions are made in the next section, but here’s what you need to know on this one. The missing portion of the text is from the Vulgate and not found in any Greek manuscripts prior to the 14th Century. With the original manuscripts being Greek how come we can’t find it in ANY of the Greek until much later? It was added. Whether purposely or incidentally inserting a margin note into the text. It’s good theology, but it wasn’t a part of the original manuscripts and quite frankly it disrupts the text a bit. Verse 8 is referring back to verse 6 when it is listing the three that testify. Now what is it the three Spirit, Blood, and water testify to…back up to verse one, “That Jesus is the Christ born of God.”KJVO’s assert that the verse is vital to Trinitarian Theology (One God in three persons Father, Spirit, Son). I assure it is not. Take a look.

John 10:30

NIV:“I and the Father are one.”

NLT:”The Father and I are one.”

1 Corinthians 8:6

NIV:”yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.”

NLT:”But for us,

”There is one God, the Father,
    by whom all things were created,
    and for whom we live.
And there is one Lord, Jesus Christ,
    through whom all things were created,
    and through whom we live.”

Colossians 1:15-17

NIV:”The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. “

NLT” Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
    He existed before anything was created and is supreme over all creation,[a]
16 for through him God created everything
    in the heavenly realms and on earth.
He made the things we can see
    and the things we can’t see—
such as thrones, kingdoms, rulers, and authorities in the unseen world.
    Everything was created through him and for him.
17 He existed before anything else,
    and he holds all creation together.

Matthew 28:19

NIV:”Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

NLT:”Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations,[b] baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”

Notice the singular use of name. Whether in use of the actual name or in the sense of a singular cause it brings unity between the three. John 1 speaks directly to the deity of Christ and His unity with the Father. For the sake of space, I’m not putting it in this paper. Let’s dive into the next topic.

  • The Missing Verses.

KJVO’s tout the missing verses as one of their main arguments against modern translations. It is felt that the publishers are intentionally whittling away at the Bible corrupting the text and omitting things of doctrinal importance. This fear is seemingly given validation by the fact that Zondervan is owned by Harper Collins that publishes some questionable content including a satanic bible. With a little research you’ll find once Harper Collins bought out Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, they created a separate division for them essentially making them nearly autonomous under Harper Collins Christian Publishing. That should alleviate some fears. Now back to the missing verses. Due to the archeological finds over the last few centuries, we now have access to more manuscripts than back in 1611, many of them dated earlier than the manuscripts. In comparing the texts, they’ve discovered two major things: the first being, in the gospels, scribes would sometimes add a verse from the same story in another gospel to help the gospels line up better, and the second being that scribes either intentionally or not, took margin notes and copied them into the text. The translators have a lot to consider when making the decisions on this. This is especially true since when the King James was translated, very few manuscripts were available to them. They primarily used the Byzantine text commonly known as the Textus Receptus (Latin for “the Received Text”). This name was used as a marketing tool and declare it the superior text to other manuscripts as it was used as the primary source for the KJV. When compared to other Byzantine texts, they have found all of the Byzantine texts have a large degree of variation… no two of them are alike, but the Alexandrian texts, which have been dated earlier than the Byzantines, are found to be much more consistent. This is why they are believed to be truer to the original author’s intent and why they are used in the modern translations. KJVO’s argue though that the Alexandrian texts are corrupt because they originated from Egypt as opposed the Byzantine’s which were found in locations of New Testament churches. They argue that because Egypt is often used as a villain when referenced in Scripture, this archetype automatically stands, so any Scripture coming out of there automatically is corrupt. This is a pure bias argument if there ever was one. This argument assumes basically that either Christianity can’t make it to Egypt and if it did any attempts to preserve the texts would be lost or they would stay written in Byzantine type (kind of like that Elizabethan English…). We can simply look at the Bible and see how absurd this is. During the Captivity and Exile, the Jews were still copying down the Bible (what was written of it at the time at least) God used this to help His Word to spread outside of Israel and Judah. This is how the kings traveled to Bethlehem knew of the prophecy of the Messiah, hundreds of years later. Were the Scriptures they had corrupt (they quoted the Prophet Micah to King Herod)? By the KJVO logic it had to be, Scriptures copied in foreign lands by Gentiles. Some of the kings are even believed to be from nations like Persia and Babylon and Babylon has as bad a reputation in Scripture as Egypt if not worse. Also what is the last reference to Egypt in its contemporary state in the Bible and not used as reference back to slavery or an archetype? That would be harboring the Savior. That is THE last reference. Outside of that, Scripture speaks of God gathering His people from ALL nations, tribes, and tongues. So, making this argument is pushing against Scripture, and quite frankly racist.

  • Contradictions

KJVO’s point out what they believe to be contradictions in the modern translations to support their position. Here’s a few that are often pointed to.

  1. The similar passages of Matthew 10:10, Mark 6:8, And Luke 9:3

Matthew 10:10

ESV: “no bag for your journey, or two tunics or sandals or a staff, for the laborer deserves his food.”

Mark 6:8

ESV: “He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in their belts—”

Luke 9:3

ESV:“And he said to them, “Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.”

KJVO’s cite that in the KJV with the use of staves (plural of staff) instead of staff makes it clear that Jesus sent them away with a staff in all three accounts, and the use of staff singular in Matthew and Luke provides a discrepancy in the accounts, putting an error in the Word of God which is problematic as God’s Word is supposed to be inerrant. There are a couple things though to consider that shows that this really isn’t the case. The use of staff instead of staves doesn’t necessitate no staff at all, but can reference the purchase of an additional staff lining up with the KJV. Additionally, it is quite possible that Jesus sent the Twelve out on more than one occasion. Mark’s account could be referencing a separate occurrence. Either way the contradiction is solved.

  1. Psalm 10:4-5

KJV:”The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

5 His ways are always grievous; thy judgments are far above out of his sight: as for all his enemies, he puffeth at them.”

NIV:”In his pride the wicked man does not seek him;
    in all his thoughts there is no room for God.
His ways are always prosperous;
    your laws are rejected by[a] him;
    he sneers at all his enemies.”

If you don’t see the problem here, it is the beginning of verse 5. The use of “grievous” becoming “always prosperous”. KJVO’s cite this as approving wickedness and contradicting Scripture where it is stated that the wicked fall or come to ruin. Let’s begin the counterargument by looking at how the translators came up with such different words. The Byzantine and Alexandrian texts appear to use two different iterations or just simply definitions of the root word Chul/chuwl. This root word is often defined as a twisting. This can “twisting” can be literal or figurative and can metaphorically refer to twisting like corrupting or twisting as strengthening. A good example of “twisted strength” would be the three-fold cord in Ecclesiastes 4:12, the cords do not become stronger until twisted together. This iteration of Chul is what is used in the Alexandrian text. This however does not bring a contradiction to Scripture. The use here can be seen two ways. First as a hyperbole, for the author’s witnessing the finite prosperity of the wicked. This is a hyperbole we’ve all used at some point, “So-and-so ALWAYS does ____”. Also, with Psalm 73:3, Proverbs 29:16, Ecclesiastes 7:15 all pointing to wicked people prospering in this life it would seem contradiction averted. Secondly, one must note that while Scripture is God inspired, the Chapter and verse system is not. It sometimes puts gaps in place that break up Scripture in our minds and can cage us into the seeing verses applying only a certain way. If we forget the verse gap and just look at it is a whole, you can see that it’s possible to apply that first half of 5 to the prideful thoughts of the wicked in verse 4. That pride continues into verse 5 by rejecting God’s laws and sneering at their enemies. Once again that solves the contradiction and both explanations fit the context of the prideful mindset the psalmist is painting better than the KJV, though make no mistake the ways of the wicked are grievous, indeed.

  1. Deuteronomy 22-29

KJV:if a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

NIV:If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Due to modern language this may not seem like a contradiction on the surface but indeed it is. This verse is often used to say that the bible condones rape, it does not. The KJV is referring to sex outside of marriage and what would be essentially what we know as a “shotgun wedding”. This is an actual translation error. This is not a problem with the manuscripts as NASB and some others translate this in the fashion of the KJV and are based off the Alexandrian texts. However, this does not affirm the translation as corrupt or else the KJV would also need to be put that category. The KJV has some translations errors of its own, most notably the very name of God. KJV translates His name into Jehovah which is actually a combining of YHWH (the actual name of God, typically pronounced Yahweh) and Adonai (a title prescribed to God meaning My Lord). See the Jews in their writings, placed the vowels below the consonants for pronunciation. They believed the Lord’s name too holy to utter so they placed the vowels of Adonai underneath YHWH, so when the reader came across the Lords name, they would know to say Adonai in place of YHWH. Should you throw out your KJV for this. I would say not. This simply highlights the need to A) study and compare multiple translations and B) refer back to the original language. 

  • Translating: Word-for-Word vs Thought-for-Thought

KJVO’s argue is the more true text because they claim the KJV uses a more a literal word for word translation method (which is finding the exact meaning definition for every word) verses the modern translations using a more thought for thought method (which is trying to capture more of the intent of the author instead of each individual word) because translators are putting in their own biases and such. Yet again on the surface this argument seems valid at first glance. There have been made charts comparing the bible translations rating them from “Word- for Word” to “Thought for Thought” to “Paraphrase” (some add a 4th category “Meaning-for Meaning” but that really is just another way to say thought for thought). The scales vary on what all translations make it on this list, but the main ones always make the cut. Here’s what you’ll see, with the exception of the Interlinear Bible (which is just a Greek and Hebrew Bible with a Strong’s concordance and Lexicons for the NASB and KJV) the NASB, ESV, and RSV are all rated more “Word for Word” translated than the KJV. Both the KJV and NKJV sit at the tail end of the “Word-for-Word” closer to thought for thought. NIV sits directly in the middle of thought for thought, with CSB leaning slightly toward Word for word or dead center between the two. NLT is usually centered between Thought for Thought and paraphrase, while the Message and GNT are both near the very end of paraphrase. This rating system isn’t perfect, but it does help put a hole in their argument. For if Word for Word translating is always superior then you’ve got at least 3 different translations that beat out the KJV in this area. It gets better. A pastor that I was listening to explain the KJVO position (where most of these points in this article come from), was explaining his distrust for the Thought-for thought translations (while expounding on his thoughts that modern translations affirm homosexuality) was pointing out the following passage:

1 Kings 15:22

KJV:” And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.”

NIV: He expelled the male shrine-prostitutes from the land and got rid of all the idols his ancestors had made.

The pastor was concluding that the “took away” is referring to the having killed the “sodomites” basing this off of the Leviticus 20:13, that homosexuals are to be put to death. Because later it is said the King Asa who did this had his heart with the Lord. Here are the problems with this. First off, he ironically had to use a thought-for thought process to come to his conclusion betraying his own argument against it. Secondly, “sodomite” is once again the word qadesh, which we covered at the beginning of this article and The KJV’s lexicon on “took away” doesn’t specify killing.

And he took away
`abar (aw-bar’)
to cross over; used very widely of any transition (literal or figurative; transitive, intransitive, intensive, causative); specifically, to cover (in copulation)

To bring more clarity to the definition let’s take a look at the Strong’s concordance.

Strong’s H5674- ‘abar

  1. pass over or by or through, alienate, bring, carry, do away, take, take away, transgress
    1. (Qal)
      1. pass over, cross, cross over, pass over, march over, overflow, go over
      2. pass beyond
      3. pass through, traverse
        1. passers-through (participle)
        2. to pass through (the parts of victim in covenant)
      4. pass along, pass by, overtake and pass, sweep by
        1. passer-by (participle)
        2. to be past, be over
      5. pass on, go on, pass on before, go in advance of, pass along, travel, advance
      6. pass away
        1. to emigrate, leave (one’s territory)
        2. to vanish
        3. to perish, cease to exist
        4. to become invalid, become obsolete (of law, decree)
        5. to be alienated, pass into other hands
    2. (Niphal) to be crossed
    3. (Piel) to impregnate, cause to cross
    4. (Hiphil)
      1. cause to pass over, cause to bring over, cause to cross over, make over to, dedicate, devote
      2. cause to pass through
      3. cause to pass by or beyond or under, let pass by
      4. cause to pass away, cause to take away
    5. (Hithpael) to pass over

Now with all those definitions attributed to that one word, death is only referenced once, so it is mighty presumptuous that death is implied here. The word here is a verb implying movement from one place to another, even with the definition of death passing from this life to the next. The assumption is that because his heart is with the Lord (verse 14) King Asa had followed through on Levitical Law and killed the “sodomites”, BUT it specifies that Asa was committed to the Lord despite having not destroyed the “high places” which is where the people worshipped pagan gods yet he was still considered being dedicated to the Lord, so it stands to reason that he drove them out of the land, though I don’t doubt the imminent threat of death and even following through were very likely. So, this man actually proves Word for Word for appropriate in this instance while simultaneously proving they aren’t really against Thought for Thought, as long as it is their own thoughts.

  • Miscellaneous

Here we’ll look at some other various attacks used by the KJVO’s: simple wording disagreements and alleged contradictions. The pastor mentioned above in this instance was using 2 Kings 23:7 

2 Kings 23:7

KJV:”And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove.”

NIV:”He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes that were in the temple of the Lord, the quarters where women did weaving for Asherah.”

It’s claimed that this change of location here profanes God because it places this immorality directly inside the temple instead of beside it and that God would have killed them for doing such. Once again there are problems with this these assumptions. One is the once again clinging to the word sodomite as strictly homosexuals, which as we addressed earlier, is not the case. and In Scripture the only temple laws in which a man was automatically killed by God was in relation to the Holy of Holies, which is the furthest point inside the temple where the High Priest made atonement on behalf of the people. Also, historically we know that Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who was one of the generals Alexander the Great divided his empire between, erected an idol of Zeus over the altar of incense and sacrificed a pig on the altar around 168 B.C.

KJVO logic would say God strikes him down immediately, but he lived approximately 4 more years. Now here’s a question for you, in the end does it REALLY matter whether these cult prostitutes or sodomites were living “in” or “by” the temple. The KJVO claims that this inconsistency casts doubt on the inerrancy of Scripture and preservation of His Word. In Hebrew as well as Greek, the articles and prepositions are within the word itself, so depending on the form of the word you get your different article. This difference could be simple transcription error by the scribe or intentional bias. In any case, in the end, for our sake in the modern age, what difference does this ultimately make. Whether they were in or by the temple, they were STILL rebelling against God and ultimately profaning the temple and worship of the Lord. THAT is the important factor. This is precisely the kind of thing Paul is referring to in his second letter to Timothy:

2 Timothy 2:14

KJV:”Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.”

NIV:”Keep reminding God’s people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen.”

KJVO’s bring forth other examples of this such as the preference of “in” or “on” in reference to the placing of the mark of the beast or the use of “in” referring to God’s instruction to board the ark. The arguments are pointless, fruitless, and certainly not worth demonizing others over.

Another problem the pastor poses of this text is the use of Asherah in place of grove. He claims he has no idea where the translators got that. Here is that word according to the KJV Lexicon:

‘asherah (ash-ay-raw’)
happy; Asherah (or Astarte) a Phoenician goddess; also an image of the same — grove.

So, either this man is suffering from ignorance and not studying properly or is being deliberately dishonest, both are serious problems coming from the pulpit. Frankly what needs to be explained is how the KJV came up with grove. Perhaps groves were made as places of worship to the goddess, or the translators put that in to justify their wording, but that is more questionable than use of Asherah.

It is also argued that trusting the Alexandrian texts in no better than trusting the Septuagint, the original Greek translation of the Old Testament. This stems from the Septuagint being Greek ergo alleging pagan roots (just like with the Alexandrian texts) along with it containing the Apocrypha which is a collection of books during the Intertestamental Period. The legitimacy of these books and whether or not these books should be contained in the Bible is still debated. Here’s the thing though, if the Septuagint is not to be trusted then why was it so commonly used by the early Church? This would mean most if not all the Early Church used a corrupt translation according the KJVO logic. Also, the King James Bible originally contained the Apocrypha in 1611 when it was originally was translated. The King James Bibles in use today are mostly, if not all, actually the 1796 edition which contains a lot of edits in and of itself. So not only does this defeat the premise of needing a 1611 version since apparently even KJVO’s don’t even own these, but the including the Apocrypha would make the 1611 edition corrupt as well, and so then their 1796 is based off a corrupt translation.

  • Conclusion

So, in looking at these arguments you can these that the KJVO position doesn’t carry much weight.  The KJVO arguments often create pause at first but are found null and void. Proverbs 18:17 comes to mind.

NET:The first to state his case seems right,
until his opponent begins to cross-examine him.

Don’t get me wrong, it is good to keep an eye on the preservation of the integrity of the Word of God, but it needs to be well researched before making such accusations. Plus, there are indeed some problematic translations, mostly in the Paraphrase end of the translation spectrum, adding to the words of the author’s or putting their personal beliefs into translating the author’s words. The Message and Passion translations are among these. There is also the New World Translation where the text has been deliberately altered to fit with the doctrine of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. These problems however are not enough to pigeonhole ALL other translations. The accusations are based on inadequate research if not flat out, deliberate lies. Then, the attacks against other Christians that use the other translations calling them hateful things even as far as children of Satan is very ungodly. Jesus did not say “Use this translation and be saved”. He said to believe He is the Son of God, died and risen again. As long as we believe the same essential doctrine no such accusations should be made. This brings us to the title of this essay.  The King James Bible is held in such high esteem that it seems to replace God. The devotion to it is incredible as if it were the very original Scriptures. One of the definitions of a cult is:  a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, 

ideal, etc.

This fits most if not all KJVO’s to a T. The KJV was a major accomplishment of its time and is still a literary marvel to this day, but it was a much a political tool as it was religious and does not require the devotion to it KJVO’s demand. The Pharisees and religious leaders of the day had the Scripture in the original language and still missed the point, something Jesus directly calls out in John 5:38-40. The hate spewed from a lot of KJVO’s gives evidence to the fact that they have as well. The love of God and His commandments is what’s important. That is what should be analyzed over what translation is being used. There is no problem with using with KJV, but demanding others must as well (especially when a lot of people have a hard time understanding it) is wrong and being hateful about it just makes it worse. End the hate and love your brothers and sisters in Christ. Not everyone has to be uniform and walk in the exact same step to be a follower of Christ. On that note I will conclude with this verse.

Luke 9:49-50

NKJV:Now John answered and said, “Master, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow with us.”50 But Jesus said to him, “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against [h]us is on our side.

error: Hello! Thanks for being part of the HoweItWorks community. Content is copy protected. Got questions? Contact us.