In my last post, I discussed the question posed by some King James Onlyists (KJO), “Why would you change the Word of God?” The question refers to the King James Version itself. While most people acknowledge that in trying to understand the word of God, we can entertain alternate vocabulary choices to get a better understanding of the text, the KJO question suggests that to change the words of the King James Version is to change the word of God.
Doctrinal statements imply the same notion when they say, “the King James Version is the preserved Word of God for the English speaking peoples.” If the KJV is the Word of God, as such it is unchangeable in any way. I say this because of the Biblical directive found in Rev 22.18-19.
Rev 22:18 ¶ I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.
The passage speaks about the individual words of the Word of God. “I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them… and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy…” The passage suggests that God is serious; God prohibits anyone adding one word to His Word. It also prohibits removing one word from His word. For this reason, we hold the original autographs sacrosanct. The apostles wrote them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they are inviolable. God doesn’t permit any change.
At this point, we might do well to recall one sentence from the King James translators, in their preface to the translation:
“Whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”
The translators meant that perfection of any document requires an “apostolick” hand, i.e. only an apostle or one closely connected to the apostolic company (Luke, for example). Would the translators consider themselves in that number? I suspect that if you had asked them, they probably would have replied, “God forbid!”
The effect of extending God’s prohibition of change to a translation is to make the translators as gifted by the Spirit as the apostles themselves. In effect, it makes the translators out to be apostles. It gives translators the same authority over us that the apostles (legitimately) hold.
Can you see the serious doctrinal problems the notion of King James inviolability raises?
The fact is that if we may not change the King James Version, it is inspired. If we can’t correct, update, or question any word in the King James Version, then it is the very Word of God. Any deviation (i.e., any other translation) cannot be the word of God. It falls under the curses of Revelation 22.18-19.
Are you comfortable with that notion?
The King James Only controversy is a fundamental level doctrinal issue, because its errors go right to the very understanding of the doctrine of inspiration itself. Errors here demand sober reflection on our procedure in terms of Christian fellowship and cooperation.
The persistence of this controversy among us isn’t simply a matter of our love of controversy or unwillingness to get along. The reason the controversy persists is that believers can sense (even though perhaps unable to pinpoint why) that the controversy is a root issue controversy. It’s a matter of fundamentals.
Thus, we need to keep thinking this through. What do we do from here? What decisions should we make with respect to allowing a preference for the KJV mean intolerance of other versions or the Christians who use them? Should we not speak out against this attitude? To answer these questions will call for a post to follow this one.
— Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Previous Posts in this Series
Why Can’t We Update the Words?
Switching Tools in the Translation Debate – Brent Niedergall
Comments