King James Only movement

Short description: Movement asserting superiority of the King James Bible

The First Page of the Book of Genesis in the 1611 printing of the KJV.

Template:Textus Receptus sidebar The King James Only movement (also known as King James Onlyism or KJV Onlyism) asserts that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other English translations of the Bible. Adherents of the movement, mostly certain Conservative Anabaptist, traditionalist Anglo-Catholic, Conservative Holiness Methodist, Primitive Baptist and Independent Baptist churches, believe that this text has been providentially preserved as a perfect translation of the Bible into English, or at least is the best translation of the Bible in English.

Most radical factions argue that the King James translation itself was divinely inspired, superseding the original Greek itself or that the King James translation was preserved while the other manuscripts became corrupted. However, other factions who follow the view of Edward Hills maintain that the KJV is not merely a translation of the Greek text, but an independent edition of the Textus Receptus in its own right, faithfully rendered in English and representing the most accurate expression of the Textus Receptus tradition. Others prefer the KJV simply because it is in the public domain in most countries (with the United Kingdom being a notable exception), which allows them to freely copy any amount of the translation without worrying about royalties or copyright.[1][2]

## Contents

* 1 Variations
* 2 History
* 2.1 Early views
* 2.2 Background
* 3 Beliefs
* 3.1 Doctrine of preservation
* 3.2 Byzantine text-type
* 3.3 Textus Receptus
* 4 Criticism
* 5 Modern advocates
* 6 See also
* 7 References
* 8 Bibliography
* 9 Further reading
* 10 External links

## Variations

Christian apologist James White has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:[3]

Church sign indicating that the congregation uses the Authorized King James Version of 1611.

* "I Like the KJV Best" – Although White lists this point of view as a subdivision of the KJVO group, this is disputed by some. This group simply regards the KJV as a very good translation and prefers it over other translations because the church which they attend uses it, has always used it, or prefers its style, or the individual person uses it, or has always used it, or prefers its style.
* "The Textual Argument" – This group believes that the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual base is more accurate than the alternative texts used by newer translations. Many in this group might accept a modern Bible version based on the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts which are used in the KJV. White claims that Zane C. Hodges was a member of this group.[4] However, Hodges considered that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received Text (Byzantine priority), and this view is generally distinguished from the views of the Textus Receptus advocates.[5]
* "Textus Receptus Only"/"Received Text Only" – This group holds the position that the traditional Greek texts represented in the Textus Receptus were supernaturally (or providentially) preserved and that other Greek manuscripts not used in this compilation may be flawed. The KJV is viewed as an exemplary English translation that is based on this Greek grouping of Bible manuscripts put together by Desiderius Erasmus, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be of equal quality. The views of the Trinitarian Bible Society fit into this TRO division. The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe that the Authorized Version (KJV) is a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language.[6] The Society believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which use texts that incorporate as their basis a relatively few manuscripts from the 4th century, and some going back to the early 2nd century.[7]
* "The Inspired KJV Group" – This faction believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They view the translation to be an English preservation of the very words of God and that they are as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Often this group excludes other English versions based on the same manuscripts, claiming that the KJV is the only English Bible sanctioned by God and should never be changed. White believes most KJV-Onlyists would belong to this group.
* "The KJV As New Revelation" – This group claims that the KJV is a "new revelation" or "advanced revelation" from God, and it should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, have been corrected by the KJV and that the KJV should be followed if it differs from them. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of this view.[8][9]

These classifications are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a comprehensive summary describing those who prefer the KJV. Douglas Wilson, for instance, argues that the KJV (or, in his preferred terminology, the Authorized Version) is superior because of its manuscript tradition, its translational philosophy (with updates to the language being regularly necessary), and its ecclesiastical authority, having been created by the church and authorized for use in the church.[10]

## History

### Early views

Controversy surrounding the Textus Receptus already occurred in the early 18th century, as John Mill (1645–1707) collated textual variants from 82 Greek manuscripts. In his Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707) he reprinted the unchanged text of the Editio Regia, but in the index he enumerated 30,000 textual variants. After Mill published his edition, Daniel Whitby (1638–1725) criticized his work, stating that the text of the New Testament had never been corrupted and he effectively equated the autographs with the Textus Receptus. He regarded the 30,000 variants in Mill’s edition as a threat to Holy Scripture and called for the defense of the Textus Receptus against these variants.[11][12] Among some Reformed theologians, the Masoretic text was often treated as the Old Testament equivalent of the Greek Textus Receptus, applying the doctrine of providential preservation to these texts. Francis Turretin (1623 – 1687) and Johannes Heidegger (1633 – 1698) argued so far as to make the affirmation of such belief a matter of Reformed orthodoxy. However, this view was rejected by other Reformed theologians such as Richard Baxter (1615 – 1691), who clearly distinguished the autographa and its copies, and unlike Francis Turretin and John Owen, he did not argue that God's word had to be preserved within one tradition of manuscripts.[13]

The exclusive use of the King James Version is recorded in a statement made by the Tennessee Association of Baptists in 1817, stating "We believe that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not to be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them".[14]

Some contentious Textus Receptus variants such as the Johannine Comma were also explicitly defended by authors such as Matthew Henry (1662–1714), John Gill (1697 – 1771), and John Brown (1722 – 1787), whose arguments influenced modern Textus Receptus primacist authors.[15][16][17]

### Background

John William Burgon

The Textus Receptus and the King James Version were defended by John William Burgon (1813–1888) in his The Revision Revised (1881) and also by Edward Miller in A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (1886). Burgon supported his arguments with the opinion that the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Ephraemi were older than the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus; and also that the Peshitta translation into Syriac (which supports the Byzantine Text) originated in the 2nd century. Miller's arguments in favour of readings in the Textus Receptus were of the same kind.[18] However, despite defending the Authorised Version and the Textus Receptus, both Burgon and Miller believed that although the Textus Receptus was to be preferred to the Alexandrian Text, it still required to be corrected in certain readings against the manuscript tradition of the Byzantine text (thus advocating the Byzantine priority theory).[19]

In that judgement, they are criticised by Edward F. Hills, who argues that the principle that God provides truth through scriptural revelation also must imply that God must ensure a preserved transmission of the correct revealed text, continuing into the Reformation era of biblical translation and printing. For Hills, the task of biblical scholarship is to identify the particular line of preserved transmission through which God is acting; a line that he sees in the specific succession of manuscript copying, textual correction and printing, which culminated in the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. Hills argues that the principle of providentially-preserved transmission guarantees that the printed Textus Receptus must be the closest text to the Greek autographs and so he rejects readings in the Byzantine Majority Text where they are not maintained in the Textus Receptus. He goes so far as to conclude that Erasmus must have been providentially guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text;[20] and even argues for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.[21] As to the relationship of the King James Bible to the Textus Receptus, Hills argued that the King James Version is not merely a translation of the Textus Receptus, but an independent variety of the Textus Receptus tradition.[22] The view of the supremacy of the Textus Receptus was also defended by the Lutheran Theodore Letis, but rather on grounds of the authority of the institutional church.[23]

Another known defender of the King James Only movement was Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872–1968), a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, who wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated (1930) in which he asserted that some of the new versions of the Bible came from manuscripts with corruptions introduced into the Septuagint by Origen and manuscripts with deletions and changes from corrupted Alexandrian text. He criticized Westcott and Hort, believing they intentionally rejected the use of the Textus Receptus and made changes to the text used in translation using their revised Greek text based mainly on the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus.[24] Gail Riplinger (born 1947) has also addressed the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible in some detail.[25] A lengthy critical review of her book New Age Bible Versions, originally published in Cornerstone magazine in 1994, authored by Bob and Gretchen Passantino of Answers in Action, described the book as "erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and logically indefensible".[26] King James Onlyism has been taught by many earlier Independent Baptists such as Jack Hyles (1926–2001), who argued that the King James Version has preserved the word of God perfectly.[27][28] Another Independent Baptist, Jack Chick (1924–2016), who was best known for his comic tracts, advocated a King James Only position.[29] His comic Sabotage portrayed a Christian whose faith was shipwrecked by the rejection of the King James Version as the Word of God, only to be rescued by another character's defense of the King James Version.[30]

During this time, a more radical form of King James Onlyism emerged through the teachings of Independent Baptist minister Peter Ruckman (1921–2016). Unlike more moderate King James advocates, Ruckman advanced the idea that the 1611 King James Version actually constituted a form of "new revelation" from God. He maintained that the KJV was superior even to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, claiming that where the underlying texts included any unclarities, the English of the King James Bible could correct or clarify them. In his view, the KJV had been more than divinely preserved, but rather improved from the originals and was thus not only inerrant but also surpassing the original autographs themselves in accuracy. [8][31] This position began to be named "Ruckmanism", due to the association with his teaching.[8] However, in stark contrast, John R. Rice (1895–1980), despite being an independent Baptist, in his critique of Peter Ruckman's radical form of King James Onlyism argued that the King James Version (although preferable to the American Standard Version) is still not perfect.[32] This view has also been rejected by modern King James Only advocates such as David W. Cloud, arguing that while God has providentially preserved the Bible in the King James Version, inspiration applied only to the autographs.[31]

## Beliefs

### Doctrine of preservation

Those who advocate for the exclusive use of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version often do so on the basis of a theological commitment to the doctrine of verbal plenary preservation. This view holds that God has not merely inspired the original autographs of Scripture but has also preserved every word of the Bible in its pure form through a specific textual tradition, as represented in the Textus Receptus. Proponents of this perspective frequently argue that the modern critical text reflects an overreliance on human reason and scholarly reconstruction rather than divine preservation.[33][34]

The doctrine of the verbal plenary preservation of scripture was advocated by Carl McIntire.[35]

To argue for this position, those who prefer the King James version often appeal to a number of passages in the Bible which they see as affirming the divine promise of perfect textual preservation. Some among these are Psalm 12:6–7: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.", Psalm 119:89: "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven", Matthew 5:18: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.", Psalm 117:2: " For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord", Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.", and 1 Peter 1:25: "But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.". These verses are often cited by proponents of the Textus Receptus as scriptural support for the doctrine of divine preservation, believing that these verses teach God has preserved his word intact through all generations, not just in meaning or in a general sense but in every word and detail.[36][37]

These interpretations of these multiple verses, however, has been challenged by critics of the Textus Receptus who often assert that these scriptural passages pertain either to God's oral communication with humanity rather than the written scriptures or to a more general preservation in the New Testament manuscripts as a whole.[38][37][34]

### Byzantine text-type

The advocates of the Textus Receptus and the King James Version often prefer the Byzantine text-type, often arguing that the numerical superiority of the Byzantine text-tradition should give it more weight despite the later age of many of the Byzantine manuscripts.[38] However, this approach differs from that of Byzantine priorists like Zane Hodges, who supported the broader use of the Byzantine text-type more broadly than the Textus Receptus. Hodges even produced his own edition of the New Testament based on textual-critical methods within the Byzantine tradition. While advocates of the Textus Receptus also prefer the Byzantine text-type, they fundamentally reject modern textual critical method, especially its denial of plenary verbal preservation, arguing that variants like the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), though found in only a minority of Byzantine manuscripts, should be regarded as authoritative because of their long-established usage in the Christian church and their presence in a number of relatively early Latin manuscripts.[39][40] Thus, Textus Receptus primacists often borrow the arguments of earlier writers such as Matthew Henry and Robert Lewis Dabney for the inclusion of such verses, such as claiming that the comma was lost by an occurrence of a homeoteleuton or by purpseful exclusion by antitrinitarian copyists.[17]

### Textus Receptus

Edward Hills believed that the King James translators did not merely translate the Greek Textus Receptus, but simultaniously made an independent edition of the Textus Receptus, which is authenticated through "common faith" to be the most accurate edition of the Textus Receptus tradition.[22] This view is also today held by many advocates of the King James only movement.[41] However, more radical individuals such as Peter Ruckman believe that the KJV itself is inspired, being above the Greek and Hebrew texts themselves.[31]

## Criticism

> James White has thoroughly researched the background and sources of the Bible as we have it today, and he points out the serious weaknesses of the KJV Only position, a view seemingly based more on faulty, unprovable assumptions than on solid evidence.[8]

— Gleason Archer

> One of the saddest signs of legalistic Christianity is the tenacious defense of the KJV as the only legitimate English-language translation. Almost as sad is that countless hours of scholars' and pastors' time must be diverted from the larger priorities of God's kingdom to point out the numerous historical, logical, and factual errors of KJV Onlyism — even though these errors have been repeatedly exposed in the past. Nevertheless, the job must be done, and James White does it masterfully in this book.[8]

— Craig Blomberg

> The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda.[42]

— Trevin Wax

## Modern advocates

A preference for the King James Version and the Textus Receptus is today most common among Independent Baptist congregations.[43][44] However, it is also taught by Primitive Baptists[45] alongside by some within conservative forms of Laestadianism,[46] Anabaptism,[47] Methodism,[48] Pentecostalism.[49] Such views are also held by a few groups often regarded unorthodox such as the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement, started by Steven Anderson[50][51] and the Alamo Christian Foundation.[52] Alongside this, among some Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists, a form of Textus Receptus onlyism is taught by advocates of "confessional bibliology". However, this view places more emphasis on the Textus Receptus tradition than the King James Version itself.[53]

The Church Polity of the Dunkard Brethren Church, a Conservative Anabaptist denomination in the Schwarzenau Brethren tradition, states: "To aid in Scripture memorization among our members and our children, to help avoid confusion and to promote sound doctrine in our services, the Authorized King James Version of the Bible shall be used in our Sunday School, Bible Study, and church services. Exceptions may be made where languages other than English are necessary."[47] The Apostolic Christian Church, a Conservative Anabaptist denomination, uses the King James Version of the Bible.[54]

The Southern Methodist Church holds the King James Version of the Bible to be a "trustworthy standard to preach from the pulpit."[48] The 2015 Manual of the Bible Missionary Church, a Methodist denomination in the conservative holiness movement, states: "We wholeheartedly endorse the use of the Authorized Version (King James Version) of the Bible as the final authority in our English-speaking churches and schools. We also go on record as being opposed to the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, The Living Bible, the New English Translation of the Bible, the Reader's Digest Condensed Version, the New International Version and the public use of other modern versions."[55] The Immanuel Missionary Church likewise enjoins use of the King James Version of the Bible.[56][57] The King James Version of the Bible is used exclusively by the Apostolic Faith Church, a Holiness Pentecostal denomination.[49] Agapé Boarding School in Missouri endorsed the King James Only position. One student said that when he first arrived at the school, he was strip-searched and his Bible was thrown in the trash because it was not a KJV.[58]

Among others, the exclusive use of the King James Version is also endorsed by the Florida Bible College of Tampa (which has been a major institution to promote Free Grace theology),[59][60] writing on their statement: "Although we do not believe the translators of the Authorized King James Bible were inspired, we do believe that the Authorized King James Version, based upon the Textus Receptus, is the best translation. Therefore, the Authorized King James Bible shall be the Bible used by Florida Bible College of Tampa."[61]

The Textus Receptus primacist view has been majorly defended by the Trinitarian Bible Society which was formed in the 1800s.[62] The Trinitarian Bible Society has been associated with the King James Only movement, due to its exclusive sales of the KJV Bible in English and number of articles defending the KJV and against other modern versions such as the NASB, NIV, ESV, and NKJV.[63] However, the Society stated "The Trinitarian Bible Society does not believe the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language."[64]

In the modern day, multiple individuals have advocated for the primary or exclusive use of the King James version, these include the following:

* M. R. DeHaan[65]
* Ian Paisley[66]
* Carl McIntire[67]
* Kent Hovind[68]
* Dave Hunt (Christian apologist)[69]
* Jack Hyles[70]
* Texe Marrs[71]
* Michael Pearl[72]
* Peter Ruckman[73]
* Shelton Smith[74]
* Brother Stair
* Jimmy Swaggart
* Steven Anderson
* Lester Roloff[75]
* Gerardus D. Bouw[76]
* Paul Chappell
* R. L. Hymers Jr.
* Jack Chick[43]
* Gail Riplinger
* Douglas Wilson
* Clarence Sexton

## See also

* Bible translations
* Bible version debate
* Biblical canon
* Biblical criticism
* Biblical infallibility
* Biblical inerrancy
* Biblical literalism
* Douay-Rheims Only movement
* Historicity of the Bible
* List of English Bible translations
* Textual variants in the New Testament
* List of New Testament verses not included in modern English translations
* Modern English Bible translations
* Sola scriptura
* Textual criticism
* Verbal plenary preservation
* Byzantine Priority Theory

## References

1. ↑ "Rights and Permissions: KJV" (in en). https://www.cambridge.org/gb/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv.
2. ↑ "Why do modern translations of the Bible have a copyright? | GotQuestions.org" (in en). GotQuestions.org. https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-copyright.html.
3. ↑ White 1995, pp. 1–4.
4. ↑ White 1995, p. 5.
5. ↑ "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? | Bible.org" (in en). https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical.
6. ↑ Watts, Malcolm H. (2007). "The Accuracy of the Authorised Version". Quarterly Record (Trinitarian Bible Society) 578 (1): 8. http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr578.pdf. Retrieved 3 March 2008.
7. ↑ "The Text of the Bible used", Principles, The Trinitarian Bible Society, http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/principles.asp, retrieved 10 October 2008 .
8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 White 1995.
9. ↑ "King James-only adherents apply inerrancy to 1611 Bible translation". Baptist News Global. 21 April 2011. https://baptistnews.com/article/kingjames-onlyadherentsapplyinerrancyto1611bibletranslation/.
10. ↑ Wilson, Douglas. "Hearers of the Word". Credenda/Agenda 10 (1). http://credenda.org/issues/10-1thema.php. Retrieved 1 July 2008.
11. ↑ Whitby, Daniel (1 January 1710). "Additional Annotations to the New Testament: With Seven Discourses; and an Appendix Entituled Examen Variantium Lectionum Johannis Millii, S.T.P. in Novum Testamentum". W. Bowyer. https://books.google.com/books?id=B_sqAAAAYAAJ.
12. ↑ T. Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Nashville: Broadman, 1925, pp. 107–108.
13. ↑ Ross, William A.; Lanier, Gregory R. (2025-10-30) (in en). The Authority of the Septuagint: Biblical, Historical, and Theological Approaches. InterVarsity Press. ISBN 978-1-5140-0973-4. https://www.google.fi/books/edition/The_Authority_of_the_Septuagint/lJlBEQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Turretin+textus+receptus&pg=PR66&printsec=frontcover.
14. ↑ Tennessee Association of Baptists. Minutes of the Tennessee Association of Baptists. Heiskell & Brown, 1817.
15. ↑ Editor, The (2022-04-14). "John Gill on the Comma Johanneum" (in en-US). https://www.textandtranslation.org/john-gill-on-the-comma-johanneum/.
16. ↑ Editor, The (2025-03-07). "John Brown of Haddington on 1 John 5:7" (in en-US). https://www.textandtranslation.org/john-brown-of-haddington-on-1-john-57/.
17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible, Trinitarian Bible Society
18. ↑ Edward Miller, A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (The Dean Burgon Society Press: 2003), pp. 30–37. 57–59.
19. ↑ Heuer, Mark (1995). "An Evaluation of John W. Burgon's Use of Patristic Evidence". The Evangelical Theological Society. https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/38/38-4/38-4-pp519-530_JETS.pdf. Retrieved 29 September 2024.
20. ↑ Edward F. Hills, King James Version Defended!, pp. 199–200.
21. ↑ Edward F. Hills, King James Version Defended!, pp. 209–213.
22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Hills, Edward F (1983), The King James Version Defended
23. ↑ Hutcheson, John K. (2016). "The Heritage of American Orthodoxy". God's Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us. Ambassador International. p. 54. ISBN 9781620204986. https://books.google.com/books?id=oerKDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT54. Retrieved 5 September 2023.
24. ↑ Westcott and Hort, The New Testament In The Original Greek (New York: 1882).
25. ↑ Riplinger, Gail A. "Settings of the King James Bible". Our KJV. http://www.ourkjv.com/KJB.pdf.
26. ↑ New age vers., Answers, 9 August 2020, http://answers.org/bookreviews/newagevers.html, retrieved 12 July 2014
27. ↑ "Logic Must Prove the King James Bible - The Jack Hyles Home Page". https://www.jackhyles.com/logic.htm.
28. ↑ Hyles, Jack. Enemies of Soul Winning.
29. ↑ "FAQ's Concerning Bible Versions". Chick.com. http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/.
30. ↑ "A Critique of the King James Only Movement", James R. White, chapter in  Translation that openeth the window: reflections on the history and legacy of the King James Bible. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. 2009. pp. 200–201. ISBN 978-1-58983-356-2.
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 31.2 Cloud, David. "What About Peter Ruckman?" (in en). https://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html.
32. ↑ Teis, Josh (2019-11-25). "The History of KJV Onlyism" (in en-US). https://joshuateis.com/2019/11/25/the-history-of-kjv-onlyism/.
33. ↑ Andrews, Edward D. (2023-06-15) (in en). THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS: The "Received Text" of the New Testament. Christian Publishing House. ISBN 979-8-3984-5852-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=i2LFEAAAQBAJ&dq=John+Calvin+textus+receptus&pg=PA47.
34. ↑ 34.0 34.1 Wettlaufer, Ryan Donald (2013-03-01) (in en). No Longer Written: The Use of Conjectural Emendation in the Restoration of the Text of the New Testament, the Epistle of James As a Case Study. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-23533-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZmaOrfp0vBoC&dq=textus+receptus+preservation+bible+passages&pg=PA47.
35. ↑ "PREMARITAL COUNSEL FROM THE BIBLE | THE GOOD OLD DOCTRINE OF PERFECT BIBLE PRESERVATION | DR CARL MCINTIRE ON THE BIBLE" (in en). https://www.truelifebpc.org.sg/church_weekly/premarital-counsel-from-the-bible-the-good-old-doctrine-of-perfect-bible-preservation-dr-carl-mcintire-on-the-bible/.
36. ↑ "Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture". https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/DoctrineofScripture.
37. ↑ 37.0 37.1 "What is the Preservation of Scripture?". https://theaquilareport.com/what-is-the-preservation-of-scripture/.
38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Andrews, Edward D. (2023-06-15) (in en). THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS: The "Received Text" of the New Testament. Christian Publishing House. ISBN 979-8-3984-5852-7. https://books.google.com/books?id=i2LFEAAAQBAJ&dq=Textus+Receptus+preservation&pg=PA56.
39. ↑ Moorman, J. A. (October 2010) (in en). When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text. Old Paths Publications, Incorporated. ISBN 978-1-56848-098-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJ8YYgEACAAJ.
40. ↑ "Why the Modern Majority Text Should Not be Preferred". https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/ModernMajorityText.
41. ↑ "My Position on the King James Bible" (in en). https://www.wayoflife.org/database/mypositiononkjv.html.
42. ↑ Wax, Trevin (7 August 2007). "The King James Only Controversy". https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/the-king-james-only-controversy/.
43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 Teis, Josh (2019-11-25). "The History of KJV Onlyism" (in en-US). https://joshuateis.com/2019/11/25/the-history-of-kjv-onlyism/.
44. ↑ White, James R. (June 2009) (in en). The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations?. Baker Books. ISBN 978-0-7642-0605-4. https://books.google.com/books?id=q7H_2eQC91kC&dq=King+James+Only+independent+Baptist&pg=PA139.
45. ↑ "Primitive Baptist Library: Why We Use the Authorized King James Version of the Bible". http://pblib.org/Bible.html.
46. ↑ Suominen, Edwin A. (2012-01-26) (in en). An Examination of the Pearl. Ed Suominen. ISBN 978-0-9851362-1-5. https://books.google.com/books?id=uI1FY2xOL-QC&dq=KJV+Lestadian&pg=PA19.
47. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Dunkard Brethren Church Polity. Dunkard Brethren Church. 1 November 2021. p. 7.
48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 Kurian, George Thomas; Day, Sarah Claudine (14 March 2017) (in en). The Essential Handbook of Denominations and Ministries. Baker Books. ISBN 978-1-4934-0640-1. "...and the KJV as a trustworthy standard to preach from the pulpit."
49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 Lindsey, Joshua (11 August 2024). "Holiness Pentecostal Denominations Compared". Ready to Harvest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDInb69ky6g.
50. ↑ "What it Means to be King James Only - Pastor Steven Anderson". Strong Hold Baptist Church. 24 October 2019. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbI651WHl8.
51. ↑ "Steven Anderson | Monergism". https://www.monergism.com/steven-anderson.
52. ↑ Lewis, James R., ed (2001). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions (2nd ed.). Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. pp. 42–43. ISBN 978-1-57392-888-5.
53. ↑ Ward, Mark (2020). "Which "Textus Receptus"? A Critique Of Confessional Bibliology". Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 25 (1). https://www.galaxie.com/article/dbsj25-1-03?highlight=union with christ.
54. ↑ "Statement of Faith" (in en). Apostolic Christian Church. https://www.apostolicchristian.org/statement-of-faith.
55. ↑ (in en) Manual of the Bible Missionary Church, Inc.. Bible Missionary Church. 2015. p. 138.
56. ↑ Discipline of the Immanuel Missionary Church. Shoals: Immanuel Missionary Church. 1986. p. 17.
57. ↑ Handel, Paul S. (2024). "Can Anger Be Justified in a Sanctified Experience?". The Immanuel Missionary 85 (2): 3.
58. ↑ Briquelet, Kate (4 July 2022). "Ex-Students Reveal Abuse at 'Christian Torture Compound'". The Daily Beast. https://www.thedailybeast.com/agape-school-ex-students-reveal-abuse-at-christian-torture-compound-in-missouri.
59. ↑ Lazar, Shawn (10 July 2012). "The Restart of Florida Bible College Update – Grace Evangelical Society" (in en-US). https://faithalone.org/blog/the-restart-of-florida-bible-college-update-posted-by-scl/.
60. ↑ "The Gospel Driven Man – Grace Evangelical Society" (in en-US). https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/the-gospel-driven-man/.
61. ↑ "Florida Bible College of Tampa, Inc.". https://www.floridabiblecollege.us/what-we-believe.html.
62. ↑ "Our History - Trinitarian Bible Society" (in en). https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/OurHistory.
63. ↑ "Articles - Trinitarian Bible Society". https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/articles.
64. ↑ "Quarterly Record no. 578, p. 8.". http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_reports/66-1.pdf.
65. ↑ Adair, James (2015-05-11) (in en). M. R. DeHaan: The Life Behind the Voice. Our Daily Bread Publishing. ISBN 978-1-57293-886-1. https://books.google.com/books?id=N8GWCgAAQBAJ&dq=Bible+Versions+and+Perversions+DeHaan&pg=PT156.
66. ↑ "Testimonies of Kjv Defenders - Ian Paisley". https://www.wayoflife.org/database/paisley.html.
67. ↑ "new bible why christians should not accept it – Remembering the Ministry of The Reverend Dr. Carl McIntire" (in en). https://carlmcintire.net/new-bible-why-christians-should-not-accept-it/.
68. ↑ "Kent Hovind - Why KJV ONLY ??? Why not other versions?". Jeff The Watchman. 25 March 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QCB7BXKDTM.
69. ↑ "QUESTION: YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO USE THE KJV BIBLE. WHY NOT USE THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS THAT ARE SO MUCH ...". https://www.thebereancall.org/content/september-1992-q-and-a-3.
70. ↑ Enemies of Soulwinning by Jack Hyles, pp. 46–47.
71. ↑ Unholy Bible Versions of the New Age.
72. ↑ "Why King James Bible Only? Bible Questions with Michael Pearl - Episode 027". 22 February 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ1mAFHpRkg.
73. ↑ Ruckman, Peter (1990). The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. Pensacola: Pensacola Bible Press. https://books.google.com/books?id=G9zznQEACAAJ.
74. ↑ Sword of the Lord, issue from Dec 27, 2019
75. ↑ "Was King James Onlyism Invented by a Cultist?". https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/was_king_james_onlyism_invented_by_cultist.php.
76. ↑ Mandelbrote, Scott, ed (2009-01-31) (in en). Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present. Brill. pp. 449–450. ISBN 978-90-474-2524-3. https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/17821.

## Bibliography

* Hudson, Gary; Kutilek, Doug (Summer 1990), "The Great 'Which Bible?' Fraud", Baptist Biblical Heritage I (2): 1, 3–6, http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_great_which_bible.htm .
* White, James (1995), The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, Minneapolis: Bethany House, p. 248, ISBN 1-55661-575-2, OCLC 32051411, https://archive.org/details/kingjamesonlycon00whit/page/248 .

## Further reading

* Anderson, Robert (1903). The Bible and Modern Criticism.
* Ankerberg, John; Weldon, John (2003). The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House. ISBN 0-7369-1111-1.
* Beacham, Roy E.; Bauder, Kevin T (2001). One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications. ISBN 0-8254-2048-2.
* Carson, D.A. (1978). The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-2427-7.
* Comfort, Phillip W. (2000). Essential Guide to Bible Versions. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers. ISBN 0-8423-3484-X.
* Dewey, David (2005). A User's Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. ISBN 0-8308-3273-4.
* Hillis, Edward F. (1973). The King James Version Defended. Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press.
* Macgregor, Alan J (2004). Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV and NKJV. Salisbury, Wiltshire, ENG, UK: Bible League. ISBN 0-904435-87-3.
* Mauro, Philip (1924). Which version?: Authorized or revised?. Boston: Hamilton Brothers. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1924_mauro_which-version.html. Retrieved 23 July 2008.
* Paisley, Ian RK (1997). My Plea for the Old Sword. Emerald House Group. ISBN 1-84030-015-9. http://www.ianpaisley.org/plea.asp.
* Riplinger, G. A. (1993). New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications. ISBN 0963584502.
* Ryken, Leland (2002). The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books. ISBN 1-58134-464-3.

## External links

* The Holy Bible: An Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI. Oxford: The University Press, 1833, "a scrupulous original-spelling, page-for-page, and line-for-line reprint of the 1611 edition (including all chapter headings, marginalia, and original italicization, but with Roman type substituted for the black letter of the original)". Complete PDF of the original book.

Template:King James Version

0.00

(0 votes)

Original source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King James Only movement. Read more

|

Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Religion:King_James_Only_movement&oldid=4237067"