Calvinism is a system of Christian thought known for a specific view of the predestination of believers. Molinism is a letter-known system known for a different view. If you’ve ever wondered about soteriology – that is, the doctrine of salvation – this podcast might be helpful to you.
The operative question in this debate is whether we make the choice to be saved, or whether God chooses who will be saved. Neither side of the debate accepts the idea that we can save ourselves, of course…but the two sides differ on whether free will is involved in salvation.
What is it?
The KJVO controversy is about whether Christians should consider only the King James Version of the Bible to be reliable and trustworthy. While there are a variety of views within the KJVO movement, the basic idea is simple: no other Bible will do.
The King James Only movement is largely built on the claim that modern Bibles are doctrinally corrupt…that they have strayed from responsible and accurate translation of the Greek texts. There are a variety of other claims in the movement. Here are a few:
- The KJV is the only true word of God.
- The KJV is the only English translation that can be trusted.
- The KJV contains no errors.
- The KJV was supernaturally translated by God.
- The KJV is more perfect than the manuscripts from which it was translated.
- The KJV contains no errors or problems with translation.
- To understand God’s Word, everyone on earth should learn English…so they can read the KJV.
- Any deviation from the KJV is wrong, and may create doctrinal errors.
- Translators (and possibly readers) of modern Bibles have a sinister ulterior motive.
- Modern Bibles are a perversion of God’s Word.
- Modern Bibles like the NASB and NIV are part of a satanic conspiracy to lead the world astray.
- People who use other Bibles are not Christians.
There are a number of different versions of the King James Version. Most KJVO advocates do not use the version finished in 1611, but the Blayney version from 1769. Between the two are revisions from 1613, 1629, 1638, and 1762. After many years of discussing this issue, no KJVO person has suggested to me that one is better than the other. This is a serious problem for their point of view, as each differs from the others.
Errors in the KJV
Most KJVO advocates claim that the KJV is better than all other Bibles because it alone is without error. This is absurd, and demonstrably false. The errors in the KJV are too numerous to list here, but it only takes one error to prove them wrong. I’ve made note of a few that should be persuasive for anyone willing to consider the evidence. Unfortunately, I’ve never met a KJVO advocate that was willing to consider the evidence…they usually run away from it. If you’re a KJVO person who wants to discuss the evidence, please leave a comment!
Most adults realize that unicorns don’t really exist. KJVO advocates must overlook the nine times that the word “unicorn” appears in the KJV: in Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9, Psalm 22:21, Psalm 29:6, Psalm 92:10, and Isaiah 34:7 (read on Biblegateway). The Hebrew word is RE-EM, and probably means an auroch or other, now extinct, wild bull.
Easter / Passover
In Acts 12:4, the KJV mistranslates Pascha as Easter, rather than Passover. I’ve written more about this in Easter in the KJV.
In Acts 14:12, the KJV says that the people in Lystra called Paul “Mercury” and Barnabas “Jupiter”. This is in spite of the fact that the Greek uses the words “Zeus” and “Hermes”. (read on Blue Letter Bible)
Don’t trust the demons
In Acts 16 we read about a young lady, possessed by a demon, who followed Paul and Silas. The demon – according to the KJV – said that they were servants of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation. Unfortunately, this is simply wrong. The Greek (the original language of the New Testament) doesn’t say “the way of salvation.” It says “a way of salvation.” The Greek word is Hodos, which means “a way” (see the definition in context). The demon wasn’t agreeing that Paul and Silas taught the only way to be saved…it suggested that they taught one of many ways. The King James is simply inaccurate here.
Listen to the KJV translators
Most Bibles have a preface, in which the translation team explains their motives and methodology. The KJV is no different. The 1611 version of the KVJ had an extensive preface, removed from later versions. Read the full preface. In it, the translators themselves demolish the KJVO controversy:
- They didn’t intend to make a new translation, but to improve on previous ones
- They acknowledged that previous Bibles were “the word of God” despite containing “imperfections and blemishes”
- They wrote that translations will never be infallible.
- They noted the supremacy of the original manuscripts over any translation
- They wrote that one should not object to the continual process of correcting and improving English translations of the Bible
- They were often unsure how to translate specific words or phrases
- They did not always translate the same Greek or Hebrew words into the same English words
Questions and Objections
But the NIV takes out stuff
The primary target of KJVO folks is the New International Version (NIV). Their claim is that the NIV translators have removed crucial words and phrases from the Bible, undermining God’s word and leading unwitting people astray. There is a very serious flaw in this argument: they invariably use the KJV as the standard. Any word or phrase that differs from the King James is then suspect.
Is this logical? Of course not. The KJV translators themselves would object to this method. They would never consider the KJV to be the standard by which all future Bibles should be judged. Instead, they would recommend exactly what the NIV translators have done: go back to the manuscripts, in their original languages, and try to improve on the Bibles that already exist.
Trickery: comparing the KJV and NIV
The KJVO folks like to compare verses side by side, to show how the NIV (or other Bible) differs from the “right Bible” – that is, the KJV. That seems reasonable, on the surface. It’s a serious problem, however. It presumes that the KJV is always right, and that other Bibles are corrupt because, well, they’re not the KJV. The proper approach is not to compare one translation or version with another, but to compare all of them with all available ancient manuscripts.
There are more scholarly ways to describe this controversy, involving more complex considerations like different manuscript families, formal vs dynamic equivalence, and so on. This article is meant as an overview…a summary of the controversy and why I believe the KJVO folks have no real argument. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask them.
What I am NOT saying
I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with the King James Version of the Bible. In fact, I recommend it. One could read the KJV and learn all they need to know about being in a right relationship with God. I’m not criticizing the KJV here…only the idea that the KJV is in any way superior to every other quality Bible. I agree with the KJV translators: it’s good, but not perfect. Those who claim that the KJV is better than any other Bible must not only claim it, but also demonstrate it. Simply put: they cannot.
Would you protest a politician and then donate to their campaign? Of course you wouldn’t. When so many who are involved in porn are doing so against their will, why would you protest human trafficking and continue to watch porn?
Get involved. Take a stand. Make a change.
I read a lot about religion stuff, theology stuff, and church stuff. Two of my favorites are J. Warner Wallace (Cold Case Christianity) and Bobby Conway (One Minute Apologist). This video combines the two in a short clip about some of the reasons for young people leaving the church.
I would add to this another reason that young people leave the church: that many churches simply aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do. A friend told me last Sunday that their young adult son doesn’t want to come to church anymore because “it’s not relevant”. Who’s going to argue with that? Either the church is actually addressing issues that matter, or they’re not. While I don’t believe the church’s mission is to meet every need for every attendee, most of the churches I’ve been to in the past 40 years are missing the boat in significant ways. Those churches that seem to understand their mission (as laid out in the New Testament) seem to be larger, growing, and able to retain a larger number of young people.
I heard someone say we are in a culture war. What is a culture war?Sandra
That’s a good question, Sandra. A “culture war” is when one group’s ideas about what society should be like conflicts with another group’s ideas about what society should be like. One historical example of a culture war is modern slavery, as it was practiced in Europe and America from the 1600’s to 1800’s. Some believed that slavery was wrong, and others believed that slavery was just fine. They fought over these ideas for a long time, and (thankfully) the non-slavery side eventually won the legal battle. Slavery still exists, of course…so the two sides keep fighting. The difference is that while slavery was once legal in the West, it’s now illegal.
Most religions are at odds with the culture around them. Christianity, for example, teaches that we should love our enemies. Western society, on the other hand, accepts concepts like revenge as generally acceptable. These ideas conflict, so there’s a “battle” between those with different viewpoints over how society will end up. Clearly, there’s very little actual “battle” going on about love and revenge. More commonly, conflicts occur between Christians and Western culture over moral and ethical activities related to politics and abortion and sex and freedom.
It’s worth noting that the early church (as we see in the New Testament) wasn’t engaged in a culture war. They lived in the Roman Empire and were subjects of a foreign power that threatened their existence…but “changing the culture” wasn’t a priority for them. They worked to spread the gospel. While I’m all for individual Christians taking part in the political process, the marriage between Christians and positions of power have historically caused problems. Were the church to stick with simply preaching (and living) the gospel, it’s my opinion that we would see a very different, and much better, world in a very short period of time. Christians are called to support one another, preach the gospel, and love everyone in practical ways. We are not called to change the cultures we live in, to create “heaven on earth” by dominating the political landscape, or to force anyone to live as believers should live.