Fails When It Discusses The King James Bible Part 2

We found another article by the guys at about the King James Bible.  They are some really smart and talented guys and they definitely have a love for the Lord, but they really blow it when they try and comment on the King James Version debate.  

As with many debates today, I would like to point out that most of their concerns about King James Onlyism are not really that big of a concern to them.  I’m trying to say this: their doctrine of NOTHING ONLYISM is often just as guilty of the charges they throw at King James Onlyism.  If they believe that it is ok for their Nothing Onlyism then they must admit that it isn’t really a big deal.  

Muslims are guilty of this when they mockingly ask about the Crucifixion of the Lord Jesus Christ (God manifest in the flesh): How can God die?  They are implying how can God “cease to exist”?  But their own theology has to admit that death never means “ceasing to exist.”  It’s a hypocritical question that literally doesn’t matter in the discussion about the Crucifixion of Christ.  They don’t really believe the question is worth asking.  They ask it because they want to attack the doctrine of the Gospel, i.e. the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (I Cor 15:1-4).  

Atheists are guilty of this when they claim that everything must be scientifically proven but ignore the fact that this claim has never been scientifically proven!  Therefore, they don’t really believe it.  They just throw the idea out when it suits their purposes.  In this case, they just want to attack Christianity and belief in the supernatural in general.  

Examples of this type of bad and unbalanced reasoning will be highlighted in this article.

One last note before we dive in, the author refers to KJV-Only people as “The Haters”.  That is a good thing as David was a great hater, too.  We could all do well to be a little more like David in this Laodicean world we live in.

“Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning  all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” Psa 119:128

As usual, my comments will be in bold.

Begin Article:


The Haters: The KJV Only Movement

Thankfully, advocates of KJV Onlyism are not “hating” on us as frequently as they used to. This guy needs to not be so sensitive.  I can’t speak for all KJV Only people, but as for me and my friends, we don’t hate the guys at, we hate their stance on the Bible version issue.  I think the site is a great resource on many topics, but they align with the Devil himself when they go against the KJV.  I don’t know if this is due to the movement dying out No. or due to its advocates becoming more civil (highly unlikely), Nothing onlyists aren’t always that civil, but who cares.  Grow up and don’t be so sensitive.  but I am thankful that we do not have to deal with KJV Onlyism as much as we used to. I remember the first time I was exposed to KJV Onlyism. “eXpOSed!” I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I did not know anything about the Textus Receptus, or Erasmus, or King James VI. All I knew was the idea that English speakers are required by God to use a Bible translation from 17th century England is ludicrous. The idea that English speakers are required by God to use the Greek and Hebrew to get the pure word of God is ludicrous.  He doesn’t really believe what he wrote, as I noted in the introduction to this article.  As I am now much more familiar with the arguments, I am still absolutely convinced that KJV Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ.  I am very familiar with the arguments and I am absolutely convinced that Nothing Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ.  See how that works?  We get it, is against the KJV, but their alternative doctrine is much, much worse… according to their own standards.  

What is the true origin of KJV Onlyism? What is the true origin of Nothing Onlyism???  My informed speculation is that it is due to a resistance to change. Nothing Onlyism comes from the Devil in Genesis 3.  “Yea, hath God said?”  In the 20th century, when English translations of the Bible other than the KJV started becoming popular, those who were used to the KJV did not want to change and relearn all the Bible verses they knew. False, KJV onlyism goes back much further than that, and their “reasons” for believing it are much different.  The best book to document this is called “The Word: God Will Keep It” by Joey Faust.  There were a whole bunch of KJV Onlyists before the 20th century and their reason for that belief wasn’t “resistance to change”.  But, they couldn’t just admit, “I’m an old fuddy-duddy and don’t want to change,” so they began developing arguments for the KJV and against all the new translations. On the other hand, Nothing Onlyists can’t admit that they believe GOD LIED when he promised to preserve his words.  These arguments have been improved upon, and have gained traction, and have been passed on to new generations of English-speaking Christians.  The arguments of Nothing Onlyism remain the same despite being discredited as anti-Bible and anti-history since the first century.  

While they rarely admit it, advocates of KJV Onlyism essentially believe that God re-inspired the Bible in AD 1611. You found someone that admits it, sir.  Call it what you will, KJV onlyism is the only theory about the Bible that takes into account Psalm 12:6,7: “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”  The purification process involves some sort of “re-inspiration” since all scripture is given by inspiration (II Tim 3:16).  Note the tense of the verb in the verse.  “Is” is present tense.  Not “was”.  That would be past tense.  Ultimately, they have to go there because if they place their loyalty on the Textus Receptus (the Greek manuscript compilation used by the KJV translators), that would open the door to new translations being created. Careful son, you’re about to confuse KJV-only and TR-only.  You have done this repeatedly in your other articles on the subject.  And, we can’t have that, so, God must have perfectly superintended the KJV translators into creating a perfect representation of His Word in English. From their writings, Whose writings? TR people or KJV people?  If you are going to write a precise article, you need to have precise arguments and precise definitions.  it appears advocates of KJV Onlyism hate the NKJV, KJ21, and MKJV just as much as they hate the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, CSB, etc. No, in order for KJV Onlyism to be true, God had to have re-inspired the Bible through the KJV translators. True.

Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn’t make any sense to me. Does Nothing Onlyism make sense to you?  It sure doesn’t make any sense to me.  Now, the more scholarly KJV Onlyites will make arguments for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV. There you’ve done it.  You have not officially conflated two different ideas about the Bible.  Your “more scholarly KJV Onlyites” are TR Onlyists.  Before you run your mouth (or word processor), you should be knowledgeable enough to not mix these two ideas together.  But, if you ask them if a new translation could be created from those manuscripts, watch out. I would advise body armor and ear muffs. Others will argue against the translation methodology of the new translations. But, with the more literal modern translations, like the NASB and ESV, the translation methodology is not dissimilar from what the KJV translators employed. But the MANUSCRIPTS that form the basis of the translation are different.  Come on, this is just silly.  Regardless of “translation methodology” if the text is different, then the rejection is valid.  I wish I had better things to say, but COME ON…  Still others will attack the integrity, morals, and motivations of the modern translators. This has always been a secondary issue.  Nevertheless, if you think that Westcott and Hort, Virginia Mollenkott, and the Roman Catholic protectors of Vaticanus are better instruments than the KJV translators, then you cannot be reasoned with.  So, evidently, the group of 17th century British Anglicans behind the KJV were sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives.  Again, the lack of precise writing is very annoying.  Only half of the KJV translators were Anglican.  The other half were Calvinist/Presbyterian.  Also NO ONE believes the KJV translators were “sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives.  Was David “sinless”?  I wouldn’t trust him with my wife, but he was still used of God to write scripture.  Did Peter have “perfect theology” when he stopped eating with the Gentiles in Galatians 2?  Of course not.  But he was still used of God to write scripture.  As far as “ulterior motives”, let the translators speak for themselves.  Their purpose was to make “out of many good ones one principal good one.”  They wanted the Christians to have an absolute Final Authority in writing.  What is the purpose of the 300+ other English versions?  Few would claim that “Final Authority” had anything to do with them.  Most Modern Versions are a money making scheme, but I digress…

KJV Onlyism is a good example of Solomon’s words in Ecclesiastes that there is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Technically, EVERYTHING is an example of “nothing new under the sun”.  That’s what the verse says… Poor reasoning by an otherwise smart guy.  When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he was labeled a heretic by some for daring to “change” the Bible. Well, did he change the Bible or not?  Whether he was labelled a heretic doesn’t matter.  If you look into the issue, you realize that Jerome DID change the Bible.  There were already proper Latin translations, Jerome made his Latin version fit with newly established Roman Catholic doctrine and he added the Apocrypha.  But this author won’t let facts get in the way of his argument… Centuries later, when Jerome’s Latin Vulgate became nearly universally accepted in the Western church, You mean the apostate Roman Catholic Whore of Babylon that used Inquisitions, Crusades, and Excommunications to spiritually dominate the nations of Europe???  He should know better than to call that shipwreck “the Western church”!!!  many who dared to attempt updates were murdered. Then, when believers in Germany, England, and other countries began translating the Bible into their common languages, they were labeled heretics, and some were burned at the stake for their vulgarity. True.  And remember that the KJV is in ENGLISH, more or less the “common language” of the world today.  KJV Onlyism makes the exact same mistake.  No.  Nothing Onlyism and “going to the Greek and Hebrew”  makes the same mistake.  Instead of focusing their loyalties on the original Hebrew and Greek, they make their preferred translation of the Bible the only true Bible and persecute anyone with a different preference. Instead of focusing their loyalties on the KJV, guys like make the non existent “Original Greek and Hebrew”  the only true Bible and persecute anyone with a different preference.  See what I did there???  There are movements similar to KJV Onlyism in other languages as well, although, thankfully, not with nearly the same followings.  I would love to see documentation about this claim…

Don’t be deceived by KJV Onlyism. Don’t be deceived by Nothing Onlyism.  God did not re-inspire the Bible in AD 1611. God did not lose the words that he promised to preserve.  The King James Version is not the only Bible we can use. Use whatever you want, but there is still only one Final Authority.  Unfortunately, doesn’t have a Final Authority in writing.  The new translations are not a part of a grand conspiracy to spread false doctrine. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  This is such an ignorant statement that it doesn’t deserve comment.  When the Bible was written, it was written in the common and current language of the people of that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into the common and current language of the people. As stated earlier, the KJV is written in Modern English.  If you can find a more “common and current language” today then I’ll eat my left sock.  My first reaction to being exposed to KJV Onlyism was precisely correct. Correct according to what authority? has no Final Authority in writing.  So we are to assume that HE MEANS it is correct according to his opinion.  Who cares about opinions on this topic? To force the English-speaking world to use an archaic and antiquated translation is ridiculous. The KJV Onlyites can bemoan all they want, but their concupiscence for disputation is verily brutish.  Good attempt at trying to prove that the KJV is “archaic and antiquated”.  “Concupiscence” doesn’t work in this sentence.  But his incorrect use of the word and laziness to get a dictionary doesn’t prove much.  Just remember that although there are KJV words that have fallen out of regular use in 21st century America, that doesn’t mean no English speakers use them today.  And also, gotquestions would have you get rid of “concupiscence” and replace is with the much more modern and less archaic and less antiquated “έπιθυμια”. would like to make you think that the issue is KJV vs. Modern Versions.  If he were honest, he would have to admit that the issue is KJV vs. lost originals that, if they were found, would be written in Koine Greek and ancient Hebrew.  Any problems that might come up about “concupiscence” are nothing compared to the problems with “——” from the lost originals or “έπιθυμια” from the Greek manuscripts that we have, but can’t be sure of.  

S. Michael Houdmann

When you look at the issue, we can be sure that doesn’t really think that archaic language is an issue.  Any flaw in the doctrine of KJV Onlyism pales in comparison to the flaws in Nothing Onlyism.  Read, believe, and live by the King James Bible.  The Final Authority in writing.  The Scriptures in English. needs to remember the words of the Lord Jesus Christ:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. Mat 7:3-5

They think there are problems with KJV Onlyism, the real flaw is Nothing Onlyism.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s