Why I Use the King James Version

Some who read my previous post about the coming drought of God's word might have questions regarding my choice of Bible translation. In my study, personal devotions, and in my preaching and teaching, I use the King James Version exclusively. Some would label me a "King James Only" preacher, but they would be wrong. Some might also be surprised to find that my views on this issue have changed dramatically in the past three years. This is an issue I think needs to be approached logically, and discussed intelligently. Too much of the Bible translation argument is characterized by misrepresentation and name-calling.

When I was in college, very little attention was paid to our Bible translations in our youth group. Perhaps the leader of the group felt that he should focus on more pressing matters (salvation and getting us to stay out of sin). Or perhaps he did address the issue, and I wasn't there. Or maybe I didn't pay attention. I don't know. I have nothing but nice things to say about the man.

However, when I joined Rocky Springs, I was informed that they were "King James Only." So, in an effort to get along, I carried a KJV to church, but continued reading from my NLT and NIV. I was later saved, and eventually went to using a KJV because I got to where I preferred it.

I took my KJV to seminary, during which I was taught that all literal translations of the scriptures were valid (which included the New King James Version, the New American Standard Bible, and even the NIV. Some of my fellow students even carried the English Standard Version). So, while I was in seminary, and during the early part of my ministry, I used the KJV, but vehemently defended other translations. At times I would dabble in a modern translation, maybe preach a sermon or two from it, but I couldn't get comfortable (and no, comfort is not why I use the KJV.)

After a few years of sparring with KJV-Only preachers over arguments about translation by committee and whether the person who led in the translation of the NIV was a lesbian, and whether modern translations were counterfeits, I came across some research by Bro. James Snyder. Bro. Snyder's research, his thesis for the Louisiana Missionary Baptist Institute and Seminary, did something no other discussion on the KJV did. It presented the argument in a purely logical form. Oh, and Billy Howard posted some info, but I rejected it from the hardness of my heart. Sorry, Bro. Billy.

Anyway, what separated Bro. Snyder's research is that it didn't focus on committees or conspiracy theories, but rather the texts and manuscripts that the various translations came from. His research also dealt with textual criticism.

What Bro. Snyder's research revealed to me is that the KJV is taken from the Received Text (Textus Receptus) while modern translations are taken from the Wescott and Hort text. Up until this point, no one had told me that the modern translations and the KJV were taken from completely different documents.

Now, the question is which text is the Word of God? The Received Text, or the Wescott and Hort Text. Seeing how the Received Text was widely regarded as the Word of God for centuries, and the Wescott and Hort Text wasn't finished until the late 1800s, are we to assume that the Received Text was not God's Word and the Wescott and Hort Text finally revealed it to us? Isn't this how cults get started? Or do we believe that the older text is closer to the original? Would God have allowed us to go centuries with a faulty copy of His word?

Seeing the Received Text has been accepted as God's Word for centuries, and it has been what has been used to spur revivals in countries around the world, I believe that we should accept the Received Text as the Word of God. As for the Wescott and Hort, it has significant differences from the Received Text, and comparing the two texts age wise and historically, I can't see how anyone would be able to say that it is the preserved Word of God and the Received Text is flawed.

So, until a modern translation advocate is able to demonstrate to me why the Wescott and Hort Text, a document completed in the late 1800s, super cedes the Received Text, and is able to prove the Received Text to be defective, I will continue to exclusively study, preach and teach from literal translations of the Received Text. The only reliable literal translations of the Received Text that are on the market today are the KJV, the KJV Easy Read, and sources say the up and coming KJV 21st Century, though I haven't had the opportunity to research that edition.

Which translation should you use? A literal translation of the Received Text. There are various translations of the Received Text available in most languages.

So, don't accuse me of believing in an immaculate translation or idolizing a translation, or being a stick in the mud. All I am doing is using the translation that I believe is the true word of God.