Our View of Scripture
Sola Scriptura, Original Languages
We firmly believe in the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture. However, elevating any translation to equal or above the original texts is a form of idolatry that Scripture itself warns against. The Reformed tradition has always placed the authority of the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) above any translation.
Walk318's Position
We recognize the value of all faithful translations, including the KJV. However, no translation can replace the authority of the original language Scriptures. The claim that only one particular translation is the 'true Bible' lacks historical, theological, and linguistic foundation. This contradicts the teachings of the Reformers and Puritans.
KJV Only vs Reformed Tradition
An objective comparison of the key differences between these positions
| Topic | KJV Only Position | Reformed Tradition |
|---|---|---|
| Biblical Inerrancy | Claims the KJV translation itself is inerrant. Some even claim KJV 'corrects' errors in the original texts | Inerrancy applies only to the original autographs. Translations have authority insofar as they faithfully represent the original (WCF 1:8) |
| Position of Original Languages | Claims English KJV is clearer or equal to Hebrew/Greek originals | Hebrew and Greek texts are the final authority. All translation disputes must appeal to the original languages (WCF 1:8) |
| Translation Authority | KJV is the only English Bible preserved by God | Various faithful translations convey God's Word. Translators are also subject to error |
| Textual Criticism | Distrusts all textual criticism or views it as satanic attack | Reverent textual criticism is an essential scholarly tool for recovering the original text |
| Manuscript Basis | Only trusts Byzantine manuscripts (Textus Receptus). Rejects Sinai, Vatican manuscripts, etc. | Evaluates all ancient manuscripts academically. Recognizes value of various manuscript traditions |
| Nature of Translation | Implies special inspiration in the KJV translation process ('re-inspiration theory') | Translation is human scholarly work. Inspiration applies only to original authors |
| Church Historical Basis | KJV's 400-year use proves God's approval | Latin Vulgate (1000 years), Septuagint (Greek OT) were used far longer |
Reformed Orthodox Understanding of Scripture Preservation
How historical Reformed theology understands biblical preservation
The tradition of loving and respecting the KJV within Protestantism is long-standing. However, the so-called KJV-Only position, which claims 'the KJV is the only complete Bible,' has clear differences from historical Reformed orthodox theology. This is not to denigrate the KJV, but to clarify how Reformed theology has understood Scripture preservation.
1. The Location of Authority Differs
KJV-Only tends to attribute the final authority of Scripture to a specific translation—the 1611 English KJV. Reformed orthodoxy, however, places Scripture's authority in the Hebrew and Greek original texts and the textual tradition that God has preserved throughout church history. Translations carry derivative authority but are not claimed to possess the same inerrancy as the originals.
2. Understanding of Preservation Doctrine Differs
Reformed orthodoxy confesses that Scripture has been 'kept pure in all ages' by God's special providence. This preservation is not fixed to a specific year, language, or edition, but is a providential preservation spanning from the apostolic age throughout church history. If preservation is limited to one translation as KJV-Only claims, it leads to the conclusion that the church before 1611 existed without a complete Bible—which conflicts with historical Christian understanding.
3. Attitude Toward Textual Tradition Differs
Reformed theology respects the Textus Receptus used during the Reformation era. However, it does not absolutize it as the only definitive text. Comparing and studying later-discovered manuscripts is not automatically condemned as unbelief or liberalism, though such work is approached carefully so as not to undermine the church's faith. This clearly differs from KJV-Only's rejection of textual criticism itself.
4. Theological Understanding of Language Differs
Reformed orthodoxy confesses, as the Pentecost event demonstrates, that God's Word is not bound to any particular language. The claim that English—specifically 17th-century English—has special spiritual status lacks biblical foundation. The holiness of the Word lies not in the language itself, but in its content and revelation.
5. The Problem of Internal Consistency
The KJV used today is not the 1611 first edition but is based on the 1769 edition. Considerable differences exist in spelling, words, and sentences. So which edition is the 'only complete KJV'? This question reveals a problem that the KJV-Only position struggles to resolve. Reformed orthodoxy, by contrast, explains such variations naturally within the preservation tradition.
In conclusion, Reformed orthodoxy respects the KJV as a great translation but does not confine Scripture preservation to a single English translation. Scripture is not a single edition, but the Word that God has faithfully preserved throughout church history. Discerning between loving the KJV and absolutizing only the KJV is the theological maturity needed today.
The Danger of Translation Idolatry
Theological problems that arise from absolutizing a particular translation
What is Translation Idolatry?
Translation Idolatry is attributing to a particular translation equal or greater authority than the original texts. This deifies the human work of translation and can become a form of 'blind devotion to something other' that Scripture itself warns against. The authority of Scripture lies in the original language texts given by God, not in any translation.
Signs of Translation Idolatry
- •Rejecting or dismissing original language study as unnecessary
- •Questioning the salvation of those who use other translations
- •Prioritizing translation choices over the original text
- •Viewing any criticism of the translation as 'attacking the Bible'
A Healthy View of Scripture
- •Studying original languages and acknowledging translation limitations
- •Comparing and referencing multiple faithful translations
- •Appreciating translators' work without deifying them
- •Appealing to the original text for final judgment in all translation disputes
Irrefutable Historical Facts
The KJV 1611 vs 1769 editions and the history of the KJV Only movement
The 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha
The original 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc.) which most Protestants today do not recognize as canonical. The KJV that KJV Only supporters use today is a later version with these books removed.
Thousands of changes exist between the 1611 and 1769 editions
The KJV used today is the 1769 version revised by Benjamin Blayney. Compared to the 1611 edition, over 100,000 changes were made in spelling, punctuation, and word choices. This contradicts the claim of 'the only preserved Bible.'
The KJV translators themselves did not claim KJV Only
In the KJV preface (The Translators to the Reader), the translators explicitly stated that 'previous translations were also God's Word.' They never claimed their translation was the only correct one, but rather acknowledged the value of various translations.
The KJV Only movement is a 20th-century phenomenon
The KJV Only movement began with Benjamin Wilkinson's writings in the 1930s and was systematized by Peter Ruckman in the 1970s. In 400 years of church history, this movement is less than 100 years old.
Reformers and Puritans used multiple translations
John Calvin used Latin and French translations, Martin Luther created a German translation. Puritans used the Geneva Bible alongside the KJV. Single-translation absolutism was a concept foreign to the Reformed tradition.
The Textus Receptus itself is not a single unified text
The Textus Receptus (Received Text) that underlies the KJV was compiled by Erasmus from only a few late manuscripts, and multiple versions exist. Erasmus even back-translated parts of Revelation from the Latin Vulgate.
Conclusion
The KJV has played a precious role in English-speaking church history, and we respect its value. However, no translation can replace the authority of the original language Scriptures.
A healthy view of Scripture acknowledges the authority of the original languages, recognizes the value of faithful translations, while humbly acknowledging the limitations of all translations.
Our faith is founded on the Word of God itself, not on any particular translation.