“I Accept No Corrupted Versions, I Read the King James ‘Only.’ ”

This was the caption of a cartoon I viewed on the internet recently, which boldly claimed that all English translations of the Bible, except the King James Version (KJV), are corrupt. Unfortunately, there are those who hold to an even more extreme view and declare that the only acceptable English translation of the Bible is, specifically, the original 1611 version of the KJV. If you’re engaged with Christian social media long enough, you’ll find many cartoons and memes making similar statements.

As a Christian community, we should ask ourselves, is the original 1611 King James Version really the only translation we should use? Although many claim this version to be the only authoritative English version — that somehow this translation is the only version ‘God-breathed’ — there is absolutely no biblical evidence to suggest this. This is the dangerous consequence of placing tradition on the same level as biblical authority. 

Many in the “King James Only” camp have harsh words for any other translation of the Bible, and some go so far as to say that any Bible other than the original 1611 is from the devil (ironically, most KJV Bibles in print today are actually the 1769 updated edition); even the NKJV is considered a counterfeit. Let’s address some of the common misconceptions made by the “KJV Only” crowd.

First, the claim that the KJV translation is infallible and inspired by God is totally false. Only the original autographs (original copies of each book of the Bible) are infallible, inspired, and the perfect Word of God. In fact, no translation can make that claim. With just a little research, we can see plainly that the original translators of the KJV were never foolish enough to make such a bold claim; in fact, they said the very opposite. The original 11-page preface of the 1611 King James Version says that there is “no cause therefore why the word translated should be…forbidden to be current.” The translators of the KJV welcomed the idea of constantly updated Bible translations so modern readers could understand the Scriptures better.

Next is the claim that there are parts of the Bible removed in modern translations. This shocking allegation likely originates from a failure to accept the fact that since 1611, many older manuscripts have been found which reveal that some texts were added to the Bible at later dates. 

These verses and passages do not appear anywhere in the oldest manuscripts and modern translations do not include them (or identify it and add a footnote) because they were, most likely, never a part of God’s Word from the beginning. In fact, not including these texts is much more accurate and faithful to the Word of God. Another reality related to this point is that if you remove those few debated verses and passages from Scripture(a full list of those verses/passages can be found here), they will have no effect on any major theological Christian creed, belief, or doctrine. 

Furthermore, some in the KJV-Only crowd claim modern translations attack the very deity of Christ, as they claim the words “Lord” and “Christ” do not always accompany the name of Jesus and are removed from several verses. However, the reality of the matter is that the oldest manuscripts we have access to (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus) have proven that the manuscripts the translators of the KJV used contained additional uses of “Lord” and “Christ” by scribes who most likely wanted to show reverence for Jesus, but in reality took more liberties with the translation than they should have. 

Again, the lack of “Lord” and “Christ” in some instances in the Word of God takes nothing away from the clear presentation of Christ’s divinity as present in the Bible by reliable modern translations like the NASB or ESV. Some modern translations even offer a clearer presentation of Christ’s divinity (John 1:18) as they are translated more faithfully due to the number of older manuscripts discovered since 1611 and correcting some of the translation errors in the KJV.

William Combs, author of The Preface to the King James Version and The King James-Only Position, sums up the original mindset of the translators of the KJV, saying, “All modern versions are ‘welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks…and in danger to be condemned.’ But, as demonstrated, it is quite evident that the translators of the KJV would disagree with the arguments advanced for the King-James-only position. They certainly did not believe that their version was the final authority for the English-speaking world.”

A great video on the accuracy of the KJV can be found by Dr. Robert Plummer, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, entitled, Is the King James Version of the Bible the Most Accurate Translation? For a more detailed and in-depth look at the King James Only controversy, pick up the acclaimed book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? By Dr. James R. White.

If you are interested in knowing which translations of the Bible to use for personal Bible study and which should be avoided at all costs, consider my previous articles on those areas, 5 Bible Translations You Should Use and 5 Bible Translations You Should Avoid.