he King James Version of the Bible is the most widely known and respected English translation of the Bible in the world today. It has been spread around the entire globe, and withstood the test of time, having recently celebrated its 400th anniversary. But is the King James Version the only authoritative translation of the Bible? Fred Butler used to think so, and he joins me for this episode to tell the story of why he believed that, along with the arguments that others who believe that make to bolster their view. He also explains what eventually changed his thinking and opened his mind to modern English translations, how textural critics investigate the transmission of the Bible through history, and why it’s important to believe that we can trust other versions of the Bible.
Fred is the coordinator of volunteer ministries at Grace to You, the radio ministry of Pastor John MacArthur. He also blogs at Hip and Thigh, and keeps up the skills he learned in seminary by teaching the volunteers that come in to the ministry to assist with the handling of ministry material requests and orders.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:10:11 — 32.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS | Subscribe to Echo Zoe Radio
Discussion Outline
- Fred's experience with KJV-Only
- After being saved in college through his experience with the Baptist Student Union, Fred's zeal for the Lord and His Word led him to really devour the scriptures.
- When presented with the case for KJV Only, Fred was shown differences between the KJV and modern translations, and was uncomfortable with what appeared to be an under-appreciation for the divinity and Lordship of Jesus. The majesty of the KJV resonated with his reverence for the Scriptures.
- He tracked down the author of a book that made the case for KJV Onlyism and called him. From that conversation, he got a list of additional books and materials that made the same case, which he pursued.
- He soon became a strong advocate of the KJV as the only authoritative translation of God's Word.
- He remained a KJV-Onlyist for about 10 years.
- Arguements made by KJV-Only advocates
- People are drawn in to KJV-Onlyism by a high view of the Scriptures.
- The case is made that the KJV does a much better job of resolving difficult passages of Scripture than the modern translations.
- Fred had six key arguments that he made for the KJV Only:
- The King James alone is the Word of God (a presupposition).
- God promised in verses like Psalm 12:7 to preserve His Word. KJV-Onlyists argue that God does so through the King James Version.
- The argument is made that the KJV is translated from the original text, and only the majority texts are used. Many variants were a minority, which the KJV-Only crowd argues is because they were't trusted or revered by the early church as the majority text was.
- Psalm 12:6-7 says that God's word is purified seven times. The KJV-Only crowd argues happened in the English through the translations leading up to the King James:
- Wycliff's Lollard translations
- The Tyndale's Bible
- The Coverdale Bible
- Matthew's Bible
- The Geneva Bible
- The Bishop's Bible
- The King James Bible
- The King James, they argue, was translated by the greatest scholars in church history.
- The King James Version had an unmeasurable impact on Church history during and after the Reformation.
- What brought Fred out of KJV-Onlyism
- God's patience for Fred allowed for him to be drawn back out of the movement in due time.
- Fred had a high view God's word and an overall love of truth, he didn't like being lied to.
- G.A. (Gail) Riplinger wrote a book called “New Age Bible Versions” that was heavily footnoted (to her detriment, Fred says).
- Fred investigated the footnotes in Riplinger's book while he was in seminary and had access to a vast library of Christian materials. Among her claims was that Westcott and Hort were deeply involved in New Age cults. This case was made based on a confusion of BF Westcott with Occultists William Wynn Westcott.
- Many of the claims about Westcott and Hort were outright lies.
- Fred began to understand and appreciate the Doctrines of Grace, which most KJV-Obly advocates reject. They detest Calvinism and Calvinists. Fred began to wonder that if they were misrepresenting Calvinists, could they be doing the same with King James Onlyism?
- Textual Criticism and the truth about modern translations
- Doesn't mean that scholars criticize the scriptures.
- Scholars seek to resolve issues with manuscripts by investigating the notes copyists make, and the differences between variants.
- Different readings are often very minor, such as an extra word or an extra letter.
- The majority of manuscripts were transmitted to us from the Byzantine Empire. North African variants are typically in the minority, and the reason is most likely that most of the manuscripts were destroyed by the Muslims.
- The goal is to determine what was in the original.
- It's not just the Bible, there are textural critics of Jonathan Edwards' letters. He wrote in very small, often difficult to read handwriting.
- Most copyist revisions were accompanied by notes in the margins explaining why there was a revision. This helps greatly in resolving other variants. These notes were copied in later manuscripts, and passed down with the text itself.
- We're not missing portions of the Bible. In fact, we likely possess around 120% of the original. It's the extra 20% that critics investigate.
- Strengths of the KJV
- The British Crown owned the copyright for the King James Version, meaning it was the only version that they would print on their printing presses. This led to widespread use throughout the British Empire.
- Many colloquial phrases in English come from the King James Bible, such as “skin of our teeth” (Job 19:20.)
- People need to understand where our Bible came from and how it was transmitted to us through history.
- Regrettably, not only do most Christian not understand how we got our Bible, but most pastors don't either.
Scriptures Referrenced
- Judges 15:8
- 2 Samuel 8:4
- 1 Chronicles 18:4
- Psalm 12:7
- Job 19:20
Additional Resources
- [7/1/2014] Questions and Answers with the KJV Onlyists – Fred follows up on KJVO questions
- Fred's Bible teachings on KJV Only
- James White articles & debates on KJV Only – Alpha & Omega Ministries archives
- The King James Only Controversy – James White (Book)
- The Unbound Scriptures – Rick Norris
- The Unbound Scriptures: A Review – Fred Butler
- KJV Only Articles by Doug Kutilek
- Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books – Michael Kruger (Book)
- The Six Arguments in Defense of King James Onlyism – Fred Butler
No Comments “Fred Butler: King James Only”
Thanks for posting this. I’ve often tried to get my mind wrapped around the (various) KJVO “arguments”…and I generally come out with my mind numbed. This helps simplify things!
New Age Bible Versions was also the beginning of the end of my adherence to KJV Onlyism. It is a very dishonest, inaccurate and poorly written book.
A much better book advocating a more intelligent case for KJV Onlyism is The King James Version Defended by Edward F. Hills. Dr. Hills studied under the first generation faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary and was there motivated to enter the field of textual criticism for himself for two decades before he wrote his concise, but well-informed book. Primarily, Hills’s desire is to reintroduce the 19th century “Traditional Text” arguments of Dean John William Burgon. His use of what he calls “the logic of faith” appears to be an application of Westminster-developed presuppositional apologetic method (now called Covenantal Apologetics), it gives concise histories of liberalism and textual criticism which are very informative, and his index detailing the manuscript sources of all the major variant readings is worth the price of the book alone. It actually helped me see through Riplinger’s “Inspired KJV” presentation based on 1 John 2:23. Although I now disagree with his conclusions, The King James Version Defended is a worthy effort to retain this translation of the post-Reformation era as the standard text for theologically conservative Protestants.
Just an FYI to commenters: I appreciate discussion, but I don’t plan to approve or allow comments by people simply looking for another venue to pick a fight. There are plenty of forums, Facebook groups, and Reddit sites for debates, and you’re free to invite people to any of them via these comments, but please do so respectfully. Calling people liars, apostates, false converts, or any other ad hominem attack will be disapproved and/or deleted.
I have not yet listened to the podcast but three claims in this summary spur me to ask for clarification:
(1) It is claimed that most KJV-Only advocates “detest Calvinism and Calvinists.” I challenge the notion that most KJV-Onlyists detest Calvinists. You are saying that KJV-Onlyists hate — detest — Calvinists. Seriously?
(2) It is claimed that “Most copyist revisions were accompanied by notes in the margins explaining why there was a revision.” That is simply ridiculous. Notes accompany only a smattering of the thousands of translatable textual variants in NT manuscripts.
(3) It is claimed, “We’re not missing portions of the Bible. In fact, we likely possess around 120% of the original. It’s the extra 20% that critics investigate.” This sounds very much like something that Dr. Daniel Wallace has said, but the less-wrong statement is 102%, not 120%. If we had an extra 20% of textual variants, that would be a mountain of variants larger than then entire text of the book of Acts.