When you report on the KJV, get it right

King James IC

Image via Wikipedia

As I was politely reading the newspaper this morning, politely, I ran across a ‘story’ by Ron Grossman of the Chicago Tribune about the King James Version of the Bible. It is littered with bad facts, to be honest. First, King James Only is not a denomination, as Ron grossly misstates,

The suburban Chicago church belongs to a loosely defined denomination known as the “King James Only” movement. Members believe that the King James version is not just another translation, but the indispensable underpinning of a Christian’s faith.

No such thing as a loosely defined denomination. I mean, you have oneness, trinitarians, baptists, and pentecostals who subscribe to it. It is a corrupt doctrine, based only in misinformation. It is not something to be lauded, but something to be corrected. The reporter then gets the history of it wrong,

From the perspective of the throne, a Bible was needed that would command respect — an English version that, as the translators wrote in their preface, “containeth the word of God, nay is the word of God; as the King’s speech which he uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latin, is still the King’s speech.”

Th Geneva Bible anyone? James wanted a bible which was more in line with his politics, such as the divine rights of kings, and that entire two men in a bed thing.

Pastors of “King James Only” congregations feel much the same way. Some believe the King James version to be every bit as divinely inspired as earlier Hebrew and Greek texts.

Well, some may, but many KJVO’ers feel that the KJV is more inspired than the original texts and will go so far as to say that the KJV corrects the original texts.

In another article, a pastor gets it really, really bad when he says,

Randy Brock, senior adult pastor for Lakeland’s Victory Church, said while the King James Version certainly provided groundbreaking insight for churches, it is just one of many valuable versions available.

Brock said that his personal insight as a pastor — not particularly that of his church — is that the release of the King James Version had great impact. “It was the first version in modern day English for the times, and that was huge,” he said. “But it is a translation. They call it the ‘authorized version,’ but it is not the only version — King James authorized it.

No, good pastor, it was not. It was not even a real translation, but more of a revision. It revised other English bible, notably from William Tyndale’s version, some 80 years before. Plus, by time the KJV came out, it was outdated with the thees and thous.

KJV-Onlyism is an outdated and disastrous doctrine. It flies in the face of Scripture and Church Tradition and is completely unfounded. I wish that people wouldn’t try to tie this horrible doctrine to the love and respect for the beauty of the KJV which we should all share.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Post By Joel Watts (10,115 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

Leave a Reply, Please!