Thursday, January 11, 2018

Answering A King James Only Conspiracy Theory About The Roman Catholic Church

        "Don't you know about the counter reformation? How that Catholic Jesuits use many tactics including false bible versions to blind men's eyes to the pure truth of the word and bring them back under the bondage of Rome and eventually the Antichrist."

        We should take into account that the King James only stance is impossible to verify. We do not possess the original, inspired Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments. If we did have them, then we would not need to consult the King James Version because we could compare our modern Bible translations directly to the original source. 

        The Counter Reformation argument is an ad hominem fallacy. Catholic scholars can understand Hebrew and Greek, just as well as any non-Catholic scholars. One's worldview does not necessarily disqualify his or her scholarship.

        Note that in the preface to the New King James Version, the Thomas Nelson Publishers quoted eighteenth century Roman Catholic theologian Alexander Geddes. He said the following concerning the King James Version, "If accuracy and strictest attention to the letter of the text be supposed to constitute an excellent version, this is of all versions the most excellent." How could such a statement be made if there was a Vatican conspiracy to discredit the King James Version through the circulation of bogus Bibles?

        The King James Version originally had contained the Roman Catholic apocrypha, and is ultimately a product of the Latin Vulgate. The 1611 King James Version is based primarily on the Textus Receptus, which was assembled by the Catholic Erasmus.

        We can trust our Bible translations because they have so much manuscript support. The New Testament alone has much earlier and wider source attestation than any other document of antiquity. It is almost one hundred percent textually pure.

        Unlike the translators of the King James Version, the scholars of today know much more about Koine Greek. Scholars have learned much about the Hebrew and Greek languages since the seventeenth century. We also have discovered thousands of manuscripts and fragments which date much closer to the timing of the apostles. Our language has also changed. Thus, we can see the need for modern translations of the Bible.

        Even if King James Version only advocates were correct in their argumentation, there are still important questions that need to be answered. Who gets to protect and publish this so-called inerrant Bible? Why must we assume that modern translations add or delete verses of Scripture, instead of accusing the King James translators of adding to the Bible?


  1. Hello There. I discovered your blog the use of msn. That is a very well written article.
    I will be sure to bookmark it and come back to read more of your useful
    info. Thank you for the post. I will certainly comeback.

  2. What I find interesting is that there are many KJV versions as updates and corrections were made. So which one is the most accurate? Certainly not the 1611 version with the Apocrypha and errors, or it wouldn't have needed to be corrected and updated! So much for being inspired by God.