- General Points Of Consideration:
-Throughout King James only literature, whether it be written by notorious proponents such as Gail Riplinger, Dr. Hovind, or Jack Chick, we see a commonly set forth proposition that has never been verified, namely that the King James Version (which one?) is the divinely inspired Word of God. These apologists for this movement never really seem to tell us why this particular translation should be treated as the standard by which all others be judged. But how can one build a house without a foundatiofn? This is a textbook example of circular reasoning. Why are we not allowed to judge the King James Version by older translations such as the Geneva Bible? No reason has been given. Thus, we see that the King James Only Movement is based primarily upon inherently fallacious reasoning. Each translation should be judged in accordance to the best available manuscript evidence. What is even more, is that the earliest Christian Fundamentalists were never King James only.
-There are probably around twenty different Textus Receptus manuscripts, all of which also contain a number of different textual variants, in our hands today. Which ones are accurate? When the Textus Receptus manuscripts and the King James Version conflict with each other, why must we automatically assume the K.J.V. rendering to be correct? Why must we assume that the King James Version is right every time we come across an apparent discrepancy in modern translations? Why must we assume that modern translations add or delete verses of Scripture, instead of accusing the King James translators of adding or taking away from the pages of the Bible? What if I had decided to be N.I.V. or N.A.S.B. only? These are more questions which I believe illustrate the overall level of absurdity among the folks who proclaim all modern translations to be corrupt. Even if we could prove the New King James Version beyond a reasonable doubt to be a corrupt translation, that still does not prove that all translations are corrupt, or even that the King James Version is inerrant.
- Getting To The Critique Of The King James Onlyist Arguments:
-"some of these bibles have occult symbol on them..."
Ah, this symbol, known as the Triquetra, has been used by Christians for centuries as an expression of their belief in the Holy Trinity. To accuse this symbol of being pagan is to engage in a guilt by association fallacy. It also involves a genetic fallacy. It would also be like arguing that the Trinity doctrine itself is of pagan origin. The truth of the matter here is that pagans have historically used all sorts of symbols as ways of portraying their beliefs. The meaning of a symbol is based entirely upon the context in which it is used. Can anybody justify the wacky symbolism present on the cover of Gail Ripingler's book titled New Age Bible Versions, or the creepy stuff presented throughout her literature? Why is not the original 1611 King James Version criticized for all the artistic design and symbolism contained within its pages?
-"Heb 3:16...was it not all who came out...? The way they put this verse it implies everyone who came out of Egypt rebelled but we know Joshua and Caleb Wholly followed the Lord. Num 32:11-12"
In short, the context reveals to us that the author is telling a Jewish Christian audience to remain faithful to the God who created them, lest they provoke Him to anger through sin which hardens the heart. This text is saying to remain faithful to the sovereign Lord. Hebrews 3:16 simply illustrates this point by using the Jews of the Exodus time period as an example. The Israelites began worshiping strange gods. The problem with the King James only argument above is that it takes the word all too literally. Of course, God is not going to punish the righteous with the wicked, as He is a just God (i.e. Genesis 18:22-33). God will reward all who trust in Him for salvation and deliverance, whereas He punishes all the unrepentant and unbelieving in the literal flames of hell. God rewards all who are righteous in His sight; God punishes all who are unrighteous in His sight. Again, let us not throw common sense out the door.
- For Further Reading: