Berean Fact Sheet Number 028

This Fact Sheet is best viewed in Times New Roman font. It is also available in PDF format. For more information, click here.

Debating King James Onlyism – Part I
Copyright © 2006 by Larry G. Overton

A few years ago, a man I’ll call “Charlie” contacted me by email. He was an advocate of the doctrine of King James Onlyism, and he wrote to me to contest my quoting from versions besides the King James Version of the Bible (more specifically, against my use of the NIV) on my web site. We exchanged a number of emails after that, and our electronic debate tracked with what anyone familiar with King James Onlyism (a.k.a., KJO) might expect: Charlie challenged my faith, argued presuppositionally, blatantly disregarded any evidence that challenged his preconceived notions, etc.

For those not as familiar with what it is like to debate this issue with KJOs (i.e., advocates of the KJO doctrine), this correspondence should be both enlightening and instructive, so I am going to take excerpts from our email correspondence and share them with you in the form of this Fact Sheet. However, the very format of my Berean Fact Sheets precludes an exhaustive treatment. Notice, I referred to taking “excerpts” from the emails that Charlie and I exchanged. Our correspondence extended to 22 pages worth of emails before the dialogue was shut down. So this article is just a sampling of my correspondence with Charlie, of what it’s like to debate with a KJO.

In his very first email to me, Charlie wrote, “if you believe that the bible is the inspired word of God - then how can you possibly quote from the NIV, which clearly omits passages, changes verses, and adds words?” His challenge to my faith aside, Charlie’s claim that the NIV is plainly guilty of omitting and adding words to the Scriptures was based upon its reading differently than the KJV at various points. He followed this claim with a list of more than 20 Bible verses that read differently in the KJV from other versions. I replied to this by saying, in part,

That, sir, is a presuppositional statement. You are presupposing that the KJV/TR is sacrosanct, that it is the one holy standard by which others should be judged, and therefore whatever reads differently is automatically condemned. In contrast to this approach, an objective, unbiased investigator should start from the position of examining the evidence to see whether other translations “omit…change…add” to the text of Scripture, or if it is the KJV/TR which adds, changes and omits.

Charlie responded to this challenge to his basic approach by ignoring the principle issues and by simply sending me another list. He wrote, “Here’s some 200 changes from the KJB.. It and [sic] scares me.” My next reply was to point out three aspects of his previous correspondence which contained errors. I then closed that email by saying

If this is going to be your continued approach to our exchanging emails, then I propose that we save ourselves a lot of time. I am not interested in carrying on a correspondence that consists of nothing more than your parroting arguments that are illogical and factually inaccurate, of you ignoring anything that doesn't already fit your preconceived notions. If this is all that I should expect in the way of forthcoming emails, then let's just end the correspondence here.

Charlie’s reply was to continue to ignore my challenges to his approach in principle, and to instead fall back on the lists he had sent me. In his words, “I was still waiting on your reply to the omitted,, and changed verses in the NIV - that I sent and asked you to explain second e-mail to you.” [sic] And so I replied,

You have yet to address the subject of your illogical presuppositions and factual errors, which I first pointed out to you roughly ten days ago, which I reminded you of in my last email…

Your sending me lists of passages which you presumptuously claim have been “changed or omitted from the KJB” proves nothing. Your lists are nothing more than a documentation of passages that read differently from one another in these two different versions. You present no evidence to support your accusations. The proposition statement below might well represent your premise. [I take the wording of this proposition from your initial question, 7/28/99 3:15:26 PM.]

PROPOSED: The NIV omits passages, changes verses, and adds words to the word of God.

However, the opposite contention could just as easily be made, as illustrated by the proposition below.

PROPOSED: The KJV adds passages, changes verses and omits words from the word of God.

Well, there you have it. Two proposition statements, both diametrically opposed to one another. Which position is right? Making lists of differences between them proves nothing but the existence of differences. Determining which version accurately represents the original text of Scripture requires more than a comparative list of verses. It requires an examination of manuscript evidence. It requires textual criticism.

I am willing to continue correspondence, but only within certain parameters. If I allow you to continue in your presuppositional tactics, nothing can be proven. In your correspondence to me, don’t just claim that the KJV and the so-called TR represent the only true text of the NT. Offer evidence as to why you believe this to be so. Until you address yourself to the factual errors and faulty judgment of your previously stated positions, we will not move on to a consideration of lists of verses. If you steadfastly refuse to address yourself to your errors, then the dialogue ends.

Charlie never did address the issues. The subject header of his last email summed up his attitude toward dialogue. It read simply, “It ends.”

I have mentioned “Charlie” before. See Berean Fact Sheet No. 011, Isaiah 14:12 – “Lucifer” or “Morning Star”?