It’s amazing how the internet can provide both a wealth of information and a wealth of disinformation. It’s also amazing that in our modern age, with our technology, historical knowledge, empirical and factual evidence (i.e. without a question) that King James Only-ism is so persistently propagated about. King James Only-ism is the idea that the King James version (KJV, Sola KJV :)) is the only pure, authorized, sanctified standard in the English language, given to us by God. All other standards are not only sub-par, but tainted by a work of the devil in their corruption.
Dr. Sam Gipp, a leading extreme proponent of this view, has released a new video defending the purity and sanctity of the King James version against all other English versions. Dr. James White has responded. I’m posting in them in order here. You decide which is the better, more faithful argument.
Dr. Sam Gipp video:
Dr. James White refutation:
(Part 1)
(Part 2)
(Part 3)
(Part 4)
(Part 5)
robwest
The KJV remains a great translation. The language and clarity of the translation in the early 1600’s from the original languages made an accurate translation accessible for the first time. But the simplistic acceptance of KJV only today was shredded well by James White.
An interesting show on TBN was a historical reenactment of the life of King James, how he grew up in Scotland under the tutelage of a great scholar to become quite an intellectual and Biblical scholar himself, and how after ascending the thrones of Scotland and then England, he brought two widely differing belief systems together to produce a new version of the Bible translated directly from the original texts: the KJV. The way he played the two sides against each other – Catholic/Anglican vs Calvinist Presbyterian – to produce an unbiased translation is amazing. I’d recommend it if you can catch a replay on TBN: ‘KJB: The Book That Changed the World.’ Of course, I’m assuming the reenactment is true to life. 🙂
David Westerfield
Absolutely. The KJV is a good, solid translation, done by faithful men who did the best they could do in translation work at the time. I read it still. There’s no issue with it’s validity as a translation. It’s just is it the ONLY translation to be used? I think not. Oddly enough, in their own letter to the readers, the translators of the KJV said, paraphrasing, that they hoped a better translation would come along. What else needs to be said? On top of that, this movement is only a little over 30 years old. It’s so myopic, a-historical and a-doctrinal it’s hard to reconcile with a serious scholarly analysis of the subject. Bart Ehrman would hand these guys’ heads to them on a platter in a formal debate (figuratively speaking of course :)).