Bible Versions: King James—Only Advocates Experiences Renaissance

Among conservative Christians, a grassroots backlash against contemporary English-language Bibles has triggered a renewed interest in the famed King James Version with its word-for-word translation and its longstanding authority.

Commonly known as the “King James—only” movement, a small group of authors and other Christian leaders have been sharply critical of contemporary biblical translations for straying from the word-for-word approach. However, many modern scholars of Scripture say if Christians consider the King James Version as the most reliable translation, they will be turning their backs on nearly four centuries of important discoveries about sacred texts, ancient languages, and translation methods.

READERS CHOICE? Some of the momentum for the movement comes from the dizzying array of new biblical products on bookstore shelves today. These translations, paraphrases, and commentaries range across the theological spectrum. For example, the so-called PC Bible—The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version—from Oxford University Press replaces references to God as “Father” with “Father-Mother.” In addition, evangelical publishing houses have brought to market new study Bibles, new translations, and other Bible products, including the popular paraphrase The Message, author Eugene Peterson’s literary rendering of the New Testament, Psalms, and Proverbs.

Bible translations can be classified into three categories. First, word-for-word translations, such as the King James, focus on taking the original words and phrases and providing the most suitable literal translation. Second, in “dynamic equivalence” translations, such as the New International Version, scholars seek to translate the meaning and context of a scriptural passage. Virtually all translations use some measure of dynamic equivalence, including the King James Version.

Third, Bible paraphrases use everyday language and popular idioms to present a highly readable version of the text, such as the Living Bible.

Because these categories do not have hard lines of definition, and meaning of Scripture is at times elusive, Christians often find themselves consulting many translations to enhance their understanding. The origin of the King James—only movement can be traced in part to one such confusing encounter.

About ten years ago, a young student asked Gail Riplinger, then an architecture professor at Kent State University, whether Isaiah 14:12 refers to Lucifer or Jesus Christ. Riplinger compared their Bibles. What her King James translation rendered “Lucifer, son of the morning,” the student’s New American Standard Version rendered as “morning star,” which also occurs in the New Testament as a reference to Jesus Christ.

This puzzling situation led Riplinger on a personal quest. For six years, she collated word-for-word contrasts and comparisons between the King James and newer versions. “The new versions give a picture of the widening apostasy,” asserts Riplinger in her book New Age Bible Versions.

Riplinger’s book, which was published in 1993 and has 100,000 copies in circulation, has itself prompted vigorous rebuttal from many quarters. Christian apologist James R. White, in his book The King James Only Controversy, dismisses Riplinger’s work as “a plethora of out-of-context citations and edited quotations.” White says many new-translation opponents are unnecessarily disrupting churches around the country.

“King James—only advocates, due to the nature of their beliefs, are often disruptive of the fellowship in churches, feeling that their message of ‘God’s one true Bible’ needs to be heard by all,” White writes. “Distrust of others who use (or would even defend) those [other] translations often results in schisms within the fellowship.”

In the less sensational instances, Christian leaders have questioned translation methodology and ease of memorization between different versions.

“I don’t call it [the 1611 KJV] the inspired Word of God. I call it the preserved Word of God,” said Samuel Gipp, an evangelist, during a recent television appearance with John Ankerberg, a leading conservative religious broadcaster. Among hard-liners, even the New King James Version, published in 1979, is not an acceptable alternative. Some King James—only advocates contend God has preserved the KJV as his sole English translation choice.

TRANSLATION DISPUTES: Marketplace realities and consumer tastes have changed the landscape of Bible sales. In just 17 years, the New International Version has sold 100 million copies, making it the best-selling current version of the Bible. It took the KJV about 400 years to sell 350 million copies.

Kenneth Barker, executive director of the NIV translation center, told CHRISTIANITY TODAY that much of the resistance by King James advocates is because of the NIV success in the marketplace. After “almost 400 years a translation has dared to come along that actually outsells the King James,” Barker says.

Critics of new English translations cite hundreds of word-choice differences from the KJV that they allege soften church doctrine. For instance, “Lord Jesus Christ” sometimes is rendered simply “Lord”; “Holy Ghost” is presented as “Spirit”; “Jehovah” becomes “Lord”; Godhead in some places is interpreted “divine being.” Defenders of modern versions argue that these are simply more accurate translations of the Greek and Hebrew texts.

The King James New Testament was largely based on the Textus Receptus, a Greek text compiled and published by Erasmus in the 1500s. King James advocates have claimed that straying from Textus Receptus has led to watered-down passages and is contrary to God’s providential care of his “pure Word.” Others are critical of modern translations for allegedly favoring mysticism or Roman Catholic doctrine.

QUEST FOR CERTAINTY: Analysts of the King James-only movement suggest that its promoters are ultimately on an unachievable quest.

Gordon Fee, professor of New Testament at Regent College in Vancouver (B.C.) and one of the world’s leading textual critics, says the movement is a pursuit of certainty that “blows apart in light of the evidence.”

Fee notes that no two historical manuscripts in the Textus Receptus or beyond are precisely alike, defying claims that pure uniformity can be discovered. He says that King James-only advocates “want to believe something so badly that truth … is simply irrelevant.”

In addition, biblical historians have noted that:

• There were other English translations before the 1611 KJV, which itself was revised in 1769.

• The early, fifth-century Latin Vulgate was consulted by King James translators. And, until 1966, it was the basis for all official Roman Catholic translations.

• Scripture states God’s promise to keep his Word pure, which scholars believe applies to translations conducted by godly scholars in every age.

Daniel Wallace, assistant professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, says the debate boils down to what constitutes an inspired, inerrant Bible.

“The original is what is inspired and inerrant. And insofar as a translation accurately represents that original, then we have an inspired, inerrant Bible,” Wallace said recently on an Ankerberg telecast.

Fee says King James advocates are mistaken in seeking a definite lineage of inspiration through the centuries that is nonexistent. “It’s the view of inspiration that credits to fallen human copyists the same degree of inspiration by way of preservation as was afforded to the inspiration of the authors themselves.”

Nevertheless, King James-only advocates see a grave danger in varying translations. Joseph Chambers, a Charlotte, North Carolina, pastor, said recently in his newspaper The End Times, “Are twentieth century Christians cast upon a sea with varying compasses each reflecting a different nuance of what the Scripture would instruct us?”

Wallace told CT, “There are no doctrinal problems with the manuscript basis behind the newer translations. There is no deviation from orthodoxy in translations such as the NIV.”

Wallace says he considers the King James to be a fine translation, but it should not be considered the only translation. He says he knows of 20 churches that have switched to using only the KJV after reading “conspiracy theories” promulgated by Riplinger.

“They seem to be more interested in the pursuit of certainty than the pursuit of truth,” Wallace says.

In coming years, new English Bibles are expected on the market, including the New Living Bible, an update of the well-known Living Bible from Tyndale.

By Joe Maxwell.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.