125 thoughts on “KJV Declaration”

    1. Not just smarter. Also more educated. Obviously they knew more than the scholars today. There was more to know then. And everything since then is deception. Puleeze 🙄

      1. I have never understood how it is a proper argument to say that the KJV proves itself in such-and-such verse. Any book can say what it wants about itself; doesn’t mean it’s true.

        This was one of the first arguments that got me doubting the KJV-only issue. Once I started learning critical thinking skills I quickly realized my dad and ex-pastor were full of dookey. =P

        1. I’ve noticed that this argument is very popular among Biblical literalists: The Bible is literally true, because the Bible says it is. You don’t even need to check whether or not the Bible really says that to see that this argument is worthless. It only works if you already accept its conclusion.

          In formal logic, this is called Begging the Question: Taking the conclusion as a given, and then using it as a premise to prove itself.
          In essence, it’s the same argument as, “I, the Gary, am infallible, because I say I am, and what I say is true, because I’m infallible.”

          None of the above, of course, proves that the Bible is NOT literally true. My point is it doesn’t prove anything about the Bible at all.

  1. God is not the author of confusion that is “so obvious”

    I have to wonder exactly how much time this person has spent in churches where people use different versions?

    1. Exactly, it’s not unusual to be a Bible study in my church and have 4 or 5 different versions around the room. I don’t find it confusing, I find it helpful. Your best translations all bring something a little different that doesn’t change the meaning of Scripture, but rather helps to illuminate it. It’s like looking at a diamond from a different angle. Each facet provides slightly different picture, but it’s still the same diamond.

      1. This argument is basically specious. Of course having multiple translations in an interactive Bible study can be helpful. In a Church service it is my experience as a minister in conservative Evangelical Churches that Churches can (and most do) have an “official version” that is used in the pulpit and found in the pews (or chairs). While members are free to use whatever version they like, they will in fact know what version will be read from, even by visiting ministers (who ought to be sensitive to the Church preferred translation).

        Ministers who constantly use different versions are either showing off, or more likely trying to find a reading that best fits what they want to do with the passage!

        1. Found this on random post, and I just have to comment!

          My pastor did this! It was before we started projecting the passages on screen. He read a passage and proceeded to base his sermon largely on one word in that passage (there was more to the message than that, but that word came up LOTS). Those around me are looking around in confusion; I spent most of the service unsuccessfully trying to find what version he was using on my Bible app. Only found out asking him after service (I think it turned out to be NLT). Turns out, NLT is one of the few or even the only version with that particular word in that passage.

          If you want to use a particular word as a sermon theme, at the very least tell people what version you are using, and possibly read the passage to them more than once. When the pastor says “the Bible says” and I look at my Bible and it’s not there… Weird feeling…

          Thanks for letting me share 🙂

    2. Again demonstrating that the fundy god is small and powerless. The God of creation can and does overcome such obstacles as numerous translations (and languages) to spread His message of love. He is an awesome God.

  2. I purchased a copy of the 1611 KJV 400 year anniversary edition from Walmart. It looks very different than the KJV I grew up with. Evidently, they forget that the KJV went through revisions, corrections, etc…

    1. Ah, but that doesn’t matter, you see. But if you dare update the language today, there are those who will declare that you have created a “Counterfeit KJV” and anathematize you, because the very number of letters in words is important. Apart from that terminal ‘e’ in the original KJV. And spellings matter. Apart from spelling ‘Believe’ “Beleeve”, of course…

      1. Using different translations is a mixed bag; for some words, having synonyms help. But in other areas, it causes confusion — such as in place names. If the one Bible says that Jesus went to Bethesda, and another says in the same passage that He went to Bethsaida, that only causes confusion.

        Then you have all of the passages that exist in the KJV that are left out of the majority of the other translations… That cannot help in understanding.

        1. I’m not aware of whole passages “left out.” I am aware of several “missing” verses that occur because William Whittingham made a mistake and skipped some numbers, and then those gaps were filled in by the KJV editors to hide the mistake. Some “missing” verses actually occur in ZERO Greek manuscripts but are only found in the edition of Latin Vulgate from the 1500’s, such as 1John 5:7.

  3. It’ AMAZING to me to pick up on so much of the absurdity in this article that I used to never see. I feel like my eyes are finally open (and after 19 years of IFB garbage it’s about time).

    What really disgusts me is how they claim “throughout the earth” and consequently require all “missionary translations” to be from the KJV manuscript! 👿

    My wife bought me an “original” translation of the Luther Bible and what a difference it makes reading it in German than my KJV in English! The translating part brings a much deeper meaning than at first glance in the KJV.

    That of course is lost when the undereducated can’t handle any version greater than a 6th grade reading level and won’t really learn the Greek or Hebrew enough to study their KJV for themselves!
    *End rant*

    1. I was thinking it looks exactly like one of those online petitions that everyone tries to get you to enter your information in! It’s the EXACT wording and style. 💡

    1. It assumes either that the minister will be using a different version every week (which is a situation I have never come across, though I have been to many Churches), or that there will be a whole load of different versions in the congregation (which is probably true, since my congregation has at least 4, the KJV, the NKJV, the ESV and the RSV). In that case that is down to the personal choice of the congregants (something Fundamentalists fear more than most things), since the Church has adopted a particular version for reading.

  4. Trying to dialogue reasonably with fundies (of any religious persuasion) is about as fruitful as trying to nail jello to a tree. Let them seclude themselves and rant against every form of evil they perceive in their little ol’ pea brains and continue to receive the scorn they so rightly deserve.

  5. I remember using “Whereas” clauses as a first year associate. Then a kind partner told me that using the “whereas” clauses just made it look like I was trying to sound smart and that good attorneys wrote in a way that people could understand and relate to. Then he asked me which client to bill for that advice. 😆

    1. In Legal Writing my professor emphasized using clear and concise writing. Yet ultimately I think law students graduated writing in legalese. It’s one of the least accessible kinds of writing out there. Case law and judicial opinions are awful.

      1. The challenge to legal writing is that you write with a goal of eliminating ambiguity. Over time, attorneys have exposed flaws in certain language, so in the next round the language gets redrafted to eliminate those flaws. Multiply that process over years of practice and thousands of lawsuits, and even the most “Plain English” document ends up getting edited into indecipherable legalese.

      2. Depends on the judicial opinion you’re reading. I read a quite pleasant judicial opinion a few months back. It was about a copyright dispute over a 7-word e-mail; the plaintiff raised the issue of whether Shakespeare could have copyrighted “To be, or not to be?”. The judge’s round rebuttal was complete with a footnote suggesting that Much Ado About Nothing would have been a better citation :).

      3. Dear God yes. I’m in the midst of a Criminology degree, and the law classes naturally force us to read 600 pages of cases. Dear God. It’s like reading Shakespeare – first you read it, then you try to figure out what each word could mean, then you try to arrange those meanings in a way that could make sense.

  6. Having projections of Bible verses on big screens is just about as wicked as you can get. Next thing you know, you’ll be listening to rock and roll and losing your virginity. No, no, we must maintain purity and keep our Bible verses off the big screens! That’s what God was talking about in I Corinthians 14:33, clearly!

    1. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that the whole reason 1 Corinthians was written? Because the church at Corinth was having problems with abuse of overhead projectors?

    2. Your comment made me laugh, but if I think about it too long, it would make me cry. We’re surrounded by people whose lives have been ravaged by sin and its consequences, and instead of helping them or sharing the Gospel with them, too many churches are proclaiming the evils of projecting Bible verses on a screen.

  7. I think the improper appeal to authority is interesting. At the end of each whereas clause a scripture reference is given as if the clause is explicitly stated in the scripture.

    It would be far more clear if the scripture was quoted and an explaination given on how the scripture supports that specific clause. Apparently the writers believe that adequate discussion has already been completed.

    The resolution seems weak compared to the whereas clauses. The clauses seem to say “Word 0f Life is the King James Bible”, but the resolution is more a call to use the “Word of Life” which just happens to be the King James Bible.

  8. I have still never received a beyond-doubt explanation for why they insist the KJV translators were so “inspired.” There is absolutely no proof of this whatsoever. As far as I can tell God only inspired one set of people–the ones who originally wrote the Scriptures down in Greek and Hebrew. Why fundies can’t let this one go is beyond me.

    1. I know. I have no idea why they are so insistant on revering these scholars from 400 years ago, that they are so convinced at how holy they were, more so than any other translators ever.

      They DO know that they were probably Anglicans, right? And I wonder if they realize that the Pilgrims and the Separatists did NOT use the KJV.

      1. I love how the KJVO defenders are quick to praise the righteous, upstanding, moral character of any and all those who had “anything” to do with the King Jimmy version, but are just as quick to condemn, vilify, and pass judgment on the hearts of those who had anything to do with any other translation. Hypocrisy much??

      2. I agree, PW. The original KJV translators baptized babies, believed in repentance as necessary for salvation, held liturgical services, and were A- or Postmillennial. In other words, pretty much everything IFB’s are not.

  9. Sometimes I’ve thought that someday when we all get to Heaven that we’ll ask God which versions really are the best & worst. Then I remember that we’ll be in the presence of our Lord & we just won’t care about Bible versions anymore.

  10. I felt like I was reading a resolution at an Annual Conference!

    They are correct, I believe in evolution and I don’t believe the Bible is inerrernt or infallible. Do they believe that the writers went I into a trance and their hands just moved?

    Where did this document originate?

    1. The inspired, inerrant, infallible, preserved, perfect Word of God.

      That is the mantra that pastors, missionaries and true M-O-g are publishing, repeating, preaching, and programming their sheeple with. That is the SOTL battle cry this year of the 400th anniversary of the 1611 King James Bible.

  11. “… men that denied inspiration and inerrancy, men who were evolutionists, rationalists, and theological liberals”

    This is a textbook example of an ad hominen argument. It’s irrelevant who translated something; the question to ask is how good the translation is. If the best Bible translation had been made by an adulterous, drug-addicted, jaywalking anarchist, it would still be the translation you’d want to read, wouldn’t it?

    Footnote: It looks as though the author couldn’t decide whether “that” or “who” was the correct relative pronoun here (hint: it’s “who”), so used “that” the first time and “who” the second time. 😉

    1. But so much easier than actually demonstrating that the modern versions contain errors, don’t you know? Now, not one of the KJV translators would have given a Fundamentalist the time of day, and at least five would have thrown them in the deepest darkest dungeon with the thing without a head (or something like that). Every KJV translator was an Anglican, all but one were Anglican ministers, some were Arminian, others were Calvinists, one was an alcoholic who enjoyed translating rude Latin poems in his spare time, and one shot a gamekeeper while hunting (fatally). Several had totally dysfunctional family lives, and one walked out of a long sermon declaring that he was off down the pub! None of which matters a jot, or affects the KJV in any way.

      1. and one shot a gamekeeper while hunting (fatally).

        Wouldn’t happen to have been named Chaney would he?
        (sorry, couldn’t resist picking low hanging fruit that was that ripe..) 😈 😆

  12. Ah, a little King James Only Blasphemy:

    “Be It Resolved the English speaking Christian needs to keep reading, studying, memorizing, teaching, preaching and holding forth the Word of Life -The Old King James Bible, Amen.”

    The written word is NOT the “Living Word”, nor is it the “Word of Life”, those two titles are references to Christ and Christ alone. The King James translation is not Christ, yet there are those who worship this translation more than they do the one it is written about.

  13. I love this site, but every once in awhile there is something I take issue with.

    I am KJVO

    It is all I read, memorize, study, teach, preach, and recommend. I believe it is the perfect Word of God – without error.

    True Story!

    1. How do you define an error? How do you define perfect? To make a statement like this you must have some kind of model or metric to determine that your translation is perfect or error free. I am curious to know what your metrics are. What are you measuring this against?

      1. The only way you could verify that any of the books of the Bible are inerrant is to actually have, you know, Paul’s original Epistle to the Romans, for example.

        But having it wouldn’t make it true. That is a different question altogether.

    2. No error in the KJV? Really? Are you sure? Please explain 1 John 5:7b-8 then. Because the last part of verse 7 and all of verse 8 only appear after the 10th Century AD in any Greek manuscript. That’s just one example. John 8 and the adulterous woman before Jesus is another.

      Just to be clear, I’m not anti-KJV, but I am against saying it is without error. If you prefer it, great. Go ahead and use it, but don’t make it into something that it’s not. Even the KJV translators didn’t want their translation to be worshiped and that is what KJVOism has become. It’s simply an idol that is raised up as a god.

    3. From a purely factual perspective, your statement about the KJV being error-free is not true.

      There are all sorts of numerical errors in the KJV OT, not to mention the John and Mark passages that aren’t included. There are also some widely-disputed, but very important and influential punctuation errors in the Pauline epistles that have been causing problems for the church since around…. oh, 1611.

    4. Unfortunately this KJVO error keeps people in cultic fundy churches – cause no other church will tolerate this bad teaching. KJVOs will tolerate a lot of bad stuff just to remain in a KJVO church and sadly believe there are no God honoring churches in the entire area (other than the KJVO fundy church).

    5. Enigma? It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma!

      If only you knew what I knew about it than you would know.

      KJVOnlyism is the foundation of the modern Colossian Heresy
      Legalism and Gnostic mystery religion with a little mosaic law thrown in by the judiazers for good measure to give them the upper hand of control over their cult members.

  14. remember this from the conference?
    Quotable Quote: “let’s just take the Bible issue.. this is not hard its in the bible, right here (points to his KJV) This Thing. Put your Calvinist Commentaries on the shelf for a minute. Let’s just go with what the Bible says. Put your manuals up. Let’s just look at the Bible ok? I know it’s gonna be hard for some of us but that’s ok.

    You know this verse, you know it… I know. 1 Timothy 3:16. Listen… This is King James. I’m gonna give you King James, some of you w/those wacky Bibles in your lap, don’t even look at them just listen, ok? Ready? “ALL” (the house gets to rockin again) You got that part? I could stop right there. “ALL” scripture is given by…. In-spir-ation of God. “PERIOD” … that’s it! You don’t need anything else. He just told you …Hey! He just told you that the Bible is inspired of God. Put a period there! You don’t have to go to a seminar to find out its inspired, he told you it was.”

    Of course, according to this fundie logic, my ESV was actually breathed out by God if we use 1 Timothy 3:16 to prove inspiration…

    1. woops, my bad 2 Timothy 3:16. I’ll have to re listen to that portion to see if he said 1st or 2nd. I should have double-checked… I guess my writing isn’t inspired by anyone other than george.

    2. Why are they so insulting to their audience? It’s like they think the audience are their enemies or something… smarmy comments about putting their calvinist books away. It would make me want to go buy some, and I’m not even calvinist.

      1. His actual voice was exponentially worse. It was dripping with contempt at this point. He was going to show who’s who and what’s what with this jewel in his sermon.

  15. A smart person I know once told me that there are only two types of people – those who are persuaded by facts, and those who are persuaded by emotions. The problem with this article and the sentiments it embodies is that it does not comport with the facts. This is usually referred to as “lying” – and it is pandemic in fundamentalism.

    1. The Textus Receptus is NOT the same thing as the Byzantine majority text. The TR is a critical text that was compiled by a Roman Catholic and reflects his theology. Daniel Wallace has documented almost 2,000 significant word/phrase changes between the TR and the majority text. DIFFERENT TEXT.

    2. The Masoretic texts were created several hundred years A.D. and include many differences. For example, Ps. 22:16 in the Masoretic text reads “They are like lions at my hands and feet”. The KJV retained the “They have pierced my hands and feet” from the Vulgate. The Dead Sea scrolls, which are at least 1,000 years earlier than our earliest Hebrew mss., actually include the language of piercing. The M.T. got it wrong.

    3. “Heavily influenced by corrupted texts”? How do you know that…unless you engage in text criticism? What constitutes a corrupted text? What is your metric? We have no two identical texts – and we have over 5,000 of them. Is the TR with its inclusion of the Comma Johanium corrupted (the CJ appears in only one text, and as a marginal note)? Or did every other Christian in history have only a corrupted Bible? If only the TR or the KJV got it right, what about the 1500 years prior to the creation of the TR? Were those people without God’s word?

    4. I suspect most of this boils down to insecurity. It is so much easier to proscribe the KJV as God’s one true message, when in fact this conversation is much more nuanced and requires some careful thinking. Unfortunately (or not), God has this habit of acting in ways that stump fundies, from the Pharisees until now. This being entirely unacceptable, some stoop to recreating history. Postmodernism, meet your religious baby-daddy.

    1. There are in addition multiple versions of the TR, and the one most KJV-Onlyists have is a 19th-century text based on the King James.

      In my experience KJV-Only types use Majority-Text arguments most of the time, but when you bring up the numerous minority readings in the KJV they use arguments that would logically lead to a text very different from the KJV. The Comma Johanneum (spelling checked)is found in a grand total of 0 Greek manuscripts before about the 14th century, and obviously arose in the Latin tradition. Even worse is the KJV reading in Acts 9, which appears in a grand total of 0 Greek manuscripts of any date. Yet there are KJV-Onlyists who attack modern versions for ‘changing’ the Bible. No, it is that Latin tradition that the KJV-translators followed that caused the problem!

      But as my Seminary New Testament instructor said, “some people prefer certainty over truth.” Insecurity. The fact is that some 95% of the NT text is absolutely certain.

    2. From discussing this issue with fundies I believe that many of them think that a book exists somewhere that has “Textus Receptus” printed on the spine and that is what scholars are referring to. Most do not even have a basic understanding of the deeply complicated translational issues that are at play.

      1. IFB’s don’t like complicated stuff (except for Larkin’s Dispensational charts). That’s why it is easier to make a “Textus Receptus” Greek text from the KJV. What they mean by TR is Scrivener’s after-the-fact “reconstruction” of the TR texts, nothing more.

  16. I seem to recall reading that the correct translation of II Tim. 3:16 would be “All scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable…” and not the usual “All scripture IS given by inspiration of God, and is profitable…”. Anyone comment?

    To me, it was always unsettling that the “all scripture” phrase was automatically assumed to be the 66 books of the Bible as commonly accepted (in this part of the world, anyway) as if the leather-bound canon just dropped out of the sky. That, and the insistence that revelation/scripture stopped after the 66 books were in place. Anyone writing under claimed inspiration after that was considered a false prophet or heretic. Who’s to say? “When that which is perfect is come…” In my BJU-outpost fundy HS, we were taught that the perfect thing was in place at the closing of the canon. This always seemed speculative. It is not indicated anywhere in the Bible what the “written word” would include, some writings alluded to or quoted within scripture itself are not canonical (??) — not to mention all the translation and version debates!

    If anybody writes something it is technically “scripture,” right? So ultimately the fundy’s trust lies in the opinions of the creators of the canon (and the translators of their favorite version, AND their choice of teachers), as to what the Bible consists of, and means — which amounts to, well, (gasp) *tradition*!

    Nothing new to anyone who frequents this site, but personally it took a long time (and wasn’t easy) for me to come to terms with some of these realities, and inconsistencies, and to see them for what they are.

    1. That’s a disputed point among non-KJV Greek students. I haven’t studied it myself but if I remember correctly, Wallace isn’t a fan. I usually take what he says at face value. Regardless your questions are valid.

  17. I can’t help but wonder what the KJVO folks do with the fact that it is an ENGLISH Bible. What about the billions of people around the world who read and speak other languages? If the KJV is the only acceptable translation of the “Textus Receptus,” doesn’t it then follow (according to fundy logic) that the only acceptable translations in other languages are those that are direct translations from the KJV? Or do they assume that everyone needs to learn English?

    1. Your logic is correct. Yes, it’s an English Bible and yes, there are those who teach that a person can only be saved from the KJV or from a translation of the KJV. Which is just another example of why fundy logic doesn’t work. The KJVO argument must logically be taken to it’s final conclusion which must be that any other language translation is a false translation. 😯

    2. In the “camp” I was in, it was required a new convert learn to read English, if it was not their first language. The native language Bible’s were not trusted (unless it was translated from the KJV), so if they learn to read English, they have the pure word in the KJV. 🙄

      1. That’s so sad. One of the most precious thing about one’s culture is the language. As I said in my own comment, I view the KJVO position to be such a gross ethnic superiority complex – something Jesus would NEVER have wanted.

  18. THEOPNEUSTOS God-breathed.

    God breathed on Adam. That did not make him inerrant.

    2Tim3:16 is in the Mormon Bible, the Greek orthodox bible, the Siriac Bible (The one with the Didache,) the roman Catholic 79-book bible, the Jehovah’s Witness bibles, and more.

    And if we go with context, clearly Paul’s followers who wrote this did not really refer to the New Testament.

  19. I sincerely wonder if some of the belabored ‘read your bible pray every day’ sermons would be less needful if good fundies used the NIV. I actually started enjoying reading my Bible once I could understand the words.

    1. I know what you mean. I do love reading Elizabethan English (I’m an English major, after all!), but I was amazed how vital and personal and ALIVE the Word became with more modern vocabulary.

      1. I believe their shoes are already full of something… I just didn’t realize they could put a suit and tie on it and get it to walk and talk and preach, and go soul winning….

  20. According to the Gospel of John, the “Word” (greek: logos) is Jesus. Jesus is the perfect witness to God, not the Bible. I believe in the infallibility of Holy Scripture, but it should never be confused with God. The Bible is among the bests witnesses to God we have, but it is not God. The Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is God, venerating anything else is called idolatry.

  21. I am in the legal profession and read documents with “WHEREAS” clauses all the time. The fundamental difference between legal documents and this document is there is a lack of sense being made in the subject document. All in all though, it gave me a chuckle.

  22. I pointed out to a KJVO once that my NASB, ESA, NIV, etc all had the same verse he was quoting to “prove” the legitimacy of the King James. His response was a jaw drop and a glazed expression. I guess that thought had never occurred to him.

    Other questions they can’t answer are: 1611 or 1769? Which TR? Who was Erasmus? Have you actually read the letters of Westcott and Hort, or are you just repeating urban legend? If there is only one proper translation, why did Jesus quote the Septuagint when he could have quoted original Hebrew to His Jewish listeners?

    Just a few things to ponder.

    1. “… why did Jesus quote the Septuagint when he could have quoted original Hebrew …?”

      Don’t you mean “… when he could have quoted the King James Version …?” 😈

  23. Ugh. I finally actually read through this silly declaration. It sounds like some preacher wrote his stream-of-conscious thoughts and sprinkled “whereas” throughout to make it sound more authoritative. Obviously unsubstantiated statements and proof-texting speak for themselves. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter!

  24. What bothers me most about the KJVO position is that it totally takes away the glory and credit from God (how amazing is it that a book penned by so many different authors over such a vast amount of time is still preserved today – not only that, is still the most popular book in the world?!) and gives it to man. By giving the translators the “gift of inspiration” via a KJVO belief system, you invalidate God’s great work through ALL people to preserve His word, instead giving it to one small group of people.

    Another thing that bothers me is that in the very preface of the Authorized KJV, the translators note that their version is NOT the only inspired version. If they didn’t even think that, how did some other person hundreds of years later get that opinion?

    Lastly, I think it’s another demonstration of racism. By assuming the only inspired word of God is written in English, they presume superiority over other tongues. Having studied many languages, and read the Bible in those same languages, I almost wish I was more fluent in them, because the Bible is so much more beautiful and descriptive in them. Languages with larger vocabularies have the ability to be more expressive, which I love.

  25. WHEREAS any ridiculous rant can be made to seem “biblical” by use of parenthetical scripture references, (III John 2:4)

    BE IT RESOLVED that blah blah blah pants rock music raise your hand the pianist won’t you come donuts blah blah blah. (Gen. 1:1, Gen. 1:2, Gen 1:3, Gen. 1:4…)

  26. I,Myself, come from a very legalistic background, and have found out the hard way that we are told to “study to show thyself approved”. It wasn’t until I began to look at the history of the KJV, Greek and Hebrew, that the ‘scales’ fell off my eyes and realized that what I had been fed my WHOLE life, simply was untrue. I have found your posts to be very affirming of that very thing. I believe there will be a lot of people held accountable for simply shoving the KJV down our throats as THE only inspired Word of God…I am finally studying and thinking for myself!

  27. I was never even taught to ask questions about things like inerrancy – it was simply TRUE!

    Of course now I realice its more complicated. To be fair i dont think we can even claim any of it as inerrant. When you realice many of our earliest manuscripts are decades after authorship and that we have no copying records from first century christian scribes to verify manuscript descent, we dont even know what “no errors” would look like.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.