Recently I have stumbled upon the King James only crowd. Now, I knew they were out there, but I had never taken the time to pay much attention to their views, but wow, they are pretty extreme in my opinion.

Now before I continue, allow me to say that I personally like the KJV. I have used the KJV for scripture references in my writing more than any other translation of the Bible. There are multiple reasons why I have done this. One is that the KJV is generally recognized and accepted by most Christians, even by those who prefer a different translation. Another reason is that I simply did not want to deal with people who might complain about my using a translation they viewed as corrupt, so the KJV was a safe translation to use. I also used it because I actually like it, and because it is in the public domain, so I didn’t need to be concerned about any copyright issues.

With that being said, I am not a King James only advocate, and quite honestly I don’t comprehend how anyone who actually gives any time to critical thought on the issue could take such a position. It’s one thing to prefer the KJV version, it’s another to claim that it is the authorized version and all other English translations are corrupt.

I find the argument that the KJV is the only reliable English translation, while all other English translations are corrupt, sadly lacking any sound reasoning. Now, this will not be an exhaustive rebuttal to King James only, not by any means, but maybe it will help others sort through the confusion.

Before starting this article, I came across another article titled, “Why I Am King James Only.” Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I did not read all of the article, but I read enough to draw an example from that I see from the KJ only crowd.

The author of the article talked about the time when he switched from the KJV to another translation many years ago and later discovered that the other translation was corrupt. The other translation was NASV according to his article, but I think he meant the NASB because the two “corrupted” texts which he cites reads exactly as it appears in the NASB.

One of the verses referenced was Luke 2:33. Here is how they appear in the NASB in contrast to the KJV.

And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him. ~ NASB

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. ~ KJV

Because Joseph and Mary were referred to as Jesus’s father and mother in the NASB (which is a reference to Jesus in his childhood), the writer of the article has ascertained that the NASB was denying the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. He writes: Did you notice the difference in the two versions? In the NASV, Luke 2:33 refers to Joseph as the father of Christ which would deny the Virgin birth.

Full stop! No it doesn’t. 

This is the kind of thing I am referring to when I speak of the need for critical thought. If the NASB were trying to deny the virgin birth, why would there be the detailed account of the angel Gabriel appearing to the virgin Mary, telling her that she is pregnant and will give birth to the Son of God, Jesus?

Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And coming in, he said to her, “Greetings, favored one! The Lord is with you.” But she was very perplexed at this statement, and was pondering what kind of greeting this was. And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.” But Mary said to the angel, “How will this be, since I am a virgin?” The angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; for that reason also the holy Child will be called the Son of God. ~ Luke 1:26-35 NASB

How can anyone read these verses and reach the conclusion that the NASB is denying virgin birth in 2:33? Yet this is the kind of thinking I see among the KJ only crowd. They seem to like cherry picking certain texts and projecting onto those texts accusations that are easily proven to be false.

And it gets even worse, I recently came across a King James only advocate who claimed that the King James Bible supersedes the Hebrew and the Greek. He has a YouTube Video with that very title.

Hearing someone claim that the KJV somehow supersedes the original texts which were given by the Holy Spirit to the prophets, apostles, and holy men of God is quite disturbing, especially when we consider that Jesus’s incarnation, death, resurrection, and ascension were the fulfillment of what was written in the holy scriptures concerning him.

Jesus fulfilled those scriptures more than 1500 years before King James was even born, so no one should elevate the King James Version as being the authorized Word of God and superior to the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the scriptures. Without the Hebrew and Greek texts, the KJV would not exist.

How anyone could promote the idea that elevates the KJV to the status of the scroll of the book of Isaiah that Jesus read from when he said “this day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” is beyond me. Many scriptures were fulfilled many centuries before the KJV translation existed. It cannot possibly supersede what it is translating.

Furthermore, the King James Version was translated from later manuscripts which date from the 5th to the 12th century. In contrast, the NIV was translated using earlier manuscripts than the KJV. The NIV does not answer to the KJV, but to the manuscripts from which it was translated.

Even so, the King James Only crowd likes to pile on the NIV as corrupt, but it only takes a little investment of one’s time to find out that their claims are flawed.

One argument that is made is that other translations such as the NIV detracts from the deity of Christ. For example, the NIV uses the words, one and only rather than only begotten, when referring to Jesus as the Son of God.  Yet, these expressions are saying the same exact thing. A translation does not have to use the words only begotten to communicate that Jesus is God’s only Son, having the same divine nature as God the Father.

Another text that the King James Only crowd makes an issue of is 1 Timothy 3:16, which in the KJV says, God was manifest in the flesh.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. ~ KJV

I actually love this translation that God was manifest in the flesh, but if it is worded differently in another translation that does not mean that it is corrupted. For example, the NIV rendering of the same text says the following.

Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. ~ NIV

Using the pronoun “He” in 1 Timothy 3:16 is not an attack on the deity of Christ. How can you attack the deity of Christ when you say “He” in whom the mystery of godliness is revealed, has appeared in the flesh? That is exactly what the NIV is saying.

The one in whom the mystery of godliness dwells appeared in the flesh. No other person in scripture is spoken of as appearing in the flesh. Not Abraham, not Moses, Not David, not the prophets, not anyone. Only Jesus. The declaration that the mystery of godliness has been revealed because “He appeared in the flesh” speaks overwhelmingly to the deity of Christ.

Now, consider the following texts which all confirm the deity of Christ in the NIV. There are more, but these ought to suffice. If the NIV were corrupt and attempting to detract from the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16, they would not have overwhelmingly affirmed Christ’s deity in other texts.

In Matthew 1:23, the NIV confirms that the name Immanuel means God with us. Don’t get hung up on the Elizabethan English of the KJV which spells Immanuel with an E instead of an I. They are communicating the same message, that Christ incarnate is God with us.

In Titus 2:13 the NIV refers to Jesus Christ as our great God and Savior.

If the NIV is some sort of corrupt translation that hides the deity of Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16, then why doesn’t it hide the deity of Christ Titus 2:13?

Just a little bit of critical thought would guide a person to consider the whole of a translation’s texts to determine if that translation is in opposition to orthodox truth. The NIV (as with other translations) confirms the deity of Christ over and over again.

Most English translations of Titus 2:13 refer to Jesus as the great God and Savior. One translation says, “Mighty God and our Savior.” Is that translation corrupt because it uses the word mighty rather than great? Absolutely not! God is referred to as mighty in the scriptures, and in the KJV! Thus, no one should have a problem with it because it is a good rendering of the same truth.

Why anyone needs to explain such is what is most concerning to me. If I say my wife is my bride, I am in no way denying that she is my wife. The fact that all English translations refer to Jesus as God in Titus 2:13 is evidence that there is not a collective effort by those translations to deny his deity.

In Colossians 2:9 the NIV says in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.

In John 8:58, the NIV quotes Jesus as saying,  “before Abraham was born, I am!” The name “I Am” is the name that God told Moses would be his memorial to all generations. When Jesus says “I AM” he is claiming to be God and the NIV doesn’t hide this from us.

Consider the NIV translation of John 1:1-4, 10, and 14

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. ` v.1-4

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. ~ v.10

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. ~ v.14

All of these verses speak of Christ’s deity. Now consider Colossians 1:15-16 where the NIV once again confirms that Jesus is the creator.

The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

The NIV testifies that Jesus is the Almighty God in Revelation 1:8, 17, and 18

“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” ~ v. 8

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. Then he placed his right hand on me and said: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last. ~ v. 17

I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades. ~ v.18

The NIV speaks of Jesus again, as the Word of God in Revelation 19:11-13.

I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. ~ Revelation 19:11-13

Furthermore, in Hebrews 1:8 in the NIV speaks of Jesus as God.

But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
There are other texts that could be given, but these ought to be enough to show that the NIV is not a corrupt translation that detracts from the deity of Christ. Making such claims is simply a false witness.

It is fine to love and cherish the KJV, and there is nothing wrong with it being a person’s favorite version or only choice they want to read and study, but to refer to other translations as corrupt because of your personal bias is not good.

We need to mature in our thinking.