Why I am not King James Only

I grew up King James Only (KJVO from here on out), but I am no longer.  There are several reasons for my transformation.  Before I get into that let me preface everything I say with the fact that I have no problem with someone being King James preferred.  There is nothing wrong with the King James Version and I have no qualms with someone who prefers it above all others. My difficulty lies with the 'onlyist' position and I believe none of their arguments hold any water because they are coming from an assumption that the KJV is perfect. This assumption leads all their arguments into circular reasoning.  Here were some of my arguments that came crumbling down as my presupposition about the perfection of the KJV began to shatter... (this is not exhaustive, but simply a sampling of the KJVO position)

Argument #1:  The KJV is 100% inerrant, in that every word is 100% correct and since every other translation doesn't match the KJV then it/they are perversions.  

This argument fails in many ways.  If that is the case then which KJV is the correct one?  The Cambridge and Oxford KJV's differ in three different places:  

Jeremiah 34:16 - Oxford ~ 'whom ye';  Cambridge ~ 'whom he' 

2 Chron. 33:19 - Oxford ~ 'sins';  Cambridge ~ 'sin'

Nahum 3:16 - Oxford ~ 'fleeth';  Cambridge ~ 'flieth'  

I realize this seems like nothing, but if your view of 'inerrancy' is that every word has to be 100% perfect or you have a 'perversion', then either the Oxford or Cambridge is wrong and therefore not the Word of God (obviously we realize they are both very much the Word of God and small differences such as these mean very little).

Another example is the word 'Easter' found in Acts 12:4.  It is the greek word 'pascha' (transliterated) and it is found 29 times in the N.T.  It is the greek word for 'passover' and is translated so 28 times as such in the KJV.  The only place it is not is in Acts 12:4 where it is somehow translated 'Easter'.  It is simply the wrong word.  It should not be Easter it should be passover and is translated so in every other translation.  Again, I have no problem w/ the KJV, but you simply cannot ignore this and say the translation is 100% perfect.  

These are simple things, but they started me on the road to realizing the my KJV only view of God's Word was not biblical and not a reality.  

Argument #2:  God promised to preserve His Word and if he didn't do it perfectly then He wasn't telling the truth.  Since God doesn't lie then His perfect Word must be on earth and it is found in the KJV.  

Tony handled this one quite well in the above post.  The beauty of preservation isn't that God perfectly and inerrantly preserved His Word in the KJV.  This was never a promise in God's Word.  The beauty of preservation is that of all the manuscripts ever found, they agree completely 98% of the time and they never vary on major doctrine.  We can know we have the Word of God when we hold modern translations in our hands because of God's preservation of His Word.  

Argument #3:  Comparison Literature.

This is where KJVO advocates compare other versions to the KJV and then claim that Satan is using the modern 'perversions' to slowly take away the blood of Christ, or baptism, or the virgin birth, etc.  

This argument fails on many levels.  One example is the claim that the MV's are 'bloodless'. The KJV does, in Colossians 1:14 have the phrase 'through his blood' where the modern versions do not.  This certainly does not render the MV's 'bloodless', but rather seems to make them more accurate than the KJV.  This phrase cannot be found in the majority of texts from any textual family.  It neither has support from the oldest manuscripts, nor does it have support from the majority of manuscripts.  If the NIV and other MV's are bloodless, then so are the majority of manuscripts from which both the KJV and MV's are translated.  Of course it is silly and not accurate to say any MV is 'bloodless' especially when one of the main principles of our Bible study is to compare Scripture w/ Scripture.  

The 'comparison literature' argument also fails in that it automatically considers the KJV to be perfect and thus is simply a circular argument w/ no basis in fact.

Argument 4:  The KJV isn't copyrighted and thus all the MV's that are copyrighted are just an attempt to make money.  

This argument is handled well in this article.

In 400 years none of the versions we have will be copyrighted either.  This is a non-argument that has zero credibility.  

Argument 5:  The Psalm 12:6-7 argument.

This argument states the God was speaking of the KJV in Psalm 12:6-7.  Most credible KJVO's have stopped using this one because of it's absurdity, but you still see it from time to time.  

Contextually this obviously has nothing to do with God's Word, but His promise of help and rescue from earlier in the context.  I'll let you check it out for yourself.  

Argument #6:  The 'I just believe it by faith' argument.

This is often used when all debate and arguments fail.  It is the 'I just know it's right' fail-safe.  The problem is, you can know the sky is orange, but it simply doesn't change the fact that it isn't.  Faith based on something that doesn't exist is not faith, but blind followship and has no place in the life of a child of the true and living God.  

Conclusion:  These were some of my arguments, and although I had some doubts from time to time I would have never dared question the Word of God.  That all changed one day when I was on the phone with Tony and he told me he wasn't KJVO any longer.  I didn't know whether to hang up on him and never speak to him again or listen to what he had to say.  I listened and God used that conversation to help me start asking some difficult questions and start diving into a deep study of the issue.  Finally, my presuppositions began to crumble as my arguments failed to live up to what God's Word truly has to say on the issues of inspiration and preservation.  I poked my head out of the box so to speak.  

God's Word is beautifully preserved and it is found in many different translations.  Sure they differ and I have my preferences, but I can boldly claim I have the Word of God as I hold my NIV, ESV, KJV, NKJV, etc.  If you are KJVO, let this be a challenge to prove out your position Scripturally and contextually.  If you are starting to question then let this be an encouragement to begin to ask the hard questions and not simply take someone's word on something so important.  Most importantly, may we glorify our great God and Savior in how we handle this debate and His precious Word.  

Trevor