View source for King James Only movement

{{Short description|Movement asserting superiority of the King James Bible}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2020}}
[[File:KJVGenesispg1.gif|thumb|The First Page of the [[Book of Genesis]] in the 1611 printing of the [[Authorized King James Version|KJV]].]]
{{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 [[Bible translations|translations of the Bible]]. Adherents of the movement, mostly certain [[Conservative Anabaptism|Conservative Anabaptist]], traditionalist [[Anglo-Catholicism|Anglo-Catholic]], [[conservative holiness movement|Conservative Holiness Methodist]], [[Primitive Baptists|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. However other factions who follow the view of [[Edward F. Hills|Edward Hills]] maintain that the KJV is not merely a translation of the Greek text, but an independent edition of the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} in its own right, faithfully rendered in English and representing the most accurate expression of the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} tradition. Others prefer the KJV simply because it is in the [[public domain]] in most countries (with the [[United Kingdom]] being a [[King James Version#Copyright status|notable exception]]), which allows them to freely copy any amount of the translation without worrying about [[Royalty payment|royalties]] or [[copyright]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |title=Rights and Permissions: KJV |url=https://www.cambridge.org/gb/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions/rights-and-permissions-kjv |access-date=2025-05-25 |website=Cambridge University Press |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":1">{{Cite news |title=Why do modern translations of the Bible have a copyright? {{!}} GotQuestions.org |url=https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-copyright.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250324195102/https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-copyright.html |archive-date=24 March 2025 |access-date=2025-05-25 |work=GotQuestions.org |language=en}}</ref>

==Variations==
[[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[James White (theologian)|James White]] has divided the King James Only movement into five main classifications:{{Sfn|White|1995|pp=1–4}}

[[File:KJV 1611 Rice Baptist Church New Market Alabama 2012-06-13.jpg|thumb|right|Church sign indicating that the congregation uses the Authorized King James Version of 1611.]]
* "I Like the KJV Best"&nbsp;– 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"&nbsp;– 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.{{Sfn | White | 1995 | p = 5}} However, Hodges considered that the [[Byzantine text-type|Majority Text]] "corrects" the Received Text ([[Byzantine priority theory|Byzantine priority]]), and this view is generally distinguished from the views of the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} advocates.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical? {{!}} Bible.org |url=https://bible.org/article/majority-text-and-original-text-are-they-identical |access-date=2023-12-24 |website=bible.org |language=en}}</ref>
* "{{lang|la|[[Textus Receptus]]}} Only"/"Received Text Only"&nbsp;– This group holds the position that the traditional Greek texts represented in the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} were [[supernatural]]ly (or [[Divine providence|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.<ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Watts | first1 = Malcolm H. | title = The Accuracy of the Authorised Version | journal = Quarterly Record | volume = 578 | issue = 1 | page = 8 | publisher = Trinitarian Bible Society | year = 2007 | url = http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr578.pdf | access-date = 3 March 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110728130216/http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/qr/qr578.pdf | archive-date = 28 July 2011 | url-status = dead }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Citation | contribution = The Text of the Bible used | publisher = The Trinitarian Bible Society | title = Principles | url = http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/principles.asp | access-date = 10 October 2008 | archive-date = 7 May 2010 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100507004141/http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/principles.asp | url-status = dead }}.</ref>
* "The Inspired KJV Group"&nbsp;– This faction believes that the KJV itself was [[Biblical inspiration|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"&nbsp;– 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.{{Sfn|White|1995}}<ref>{{cite news |title=King James-only adherents apply inerrancy to 1611 Bible translation |url=https://baptistnews.com/article/kingjames-onlyadherentsapplyinerrancyto1611bibletranslation/ |access-date=21 October 2025 |work=Baptist News Global |date=21 April 2011}}</ref>

These classifications are not mutually exclusive, nor are they a comprehensive summary describing those who prefer the KJV. [[Douglas Wilson (theologian)|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.<ref>{{Cite journal| journal = [[Credenda/Agenda]] |title=Hearers of the Word |last=Wilson |first=Douglas |author-link=Douglas Wilson (theologian) |url=http://credenda.org/issues/10-1thema.php |volume=10 |issue=1 |access-date=1 July 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070927223854/http://credenda.org/issues/10-1thema.php |archive-date = 27 September 2007}}</ref>

==History==

=== Early views ===
Controversy surrounding the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} already occurred in the early 18th century, as [[John Mill (theologian)|John Mill]] (1645–1707) collated textual variants from 82 Greek manuscripts. In his {{lang|la|Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS}} (Oxford 1707) he reprinted the unchanged text of the {{lang|la|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 {{lang|la|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 {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} against these variants.<ref>{{cite web |last=Whitby |first=Daniel |date=1 January 1710 |title=Additional Annotations to the New Testament: With Seven Discourses; and an Appendix Entituled Examen Variantium Lectionum Johannis Millii, S.T.P. in Novum Testamentum |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=B_sqAAAAYAAJ |publisher=W. Bowyer |via=Google Books}}</ref><ref>T. Robertson, ''An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament'', Nashville: Broadman, 1925, pp. 107–108.</ref>

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".''<ref>''Tennessee Association of Baptists. Minutes of the Tennessee Association of Baptists.'' Heiskell & Brown, 1817.</ref>

Some contentious {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} variants such as the [[Johannine Comma]] were also explicitly defended by authors such as [[Matthew Henry]] (1662–1714), [[John Gill (theologian)|John Gill]] (1697 – 1771), and [[John Brown of Haddington|John Brown]] (1722 – 1787), whose arguments influenced modern {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} primacist authors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Editor |first=The |date=2022-04-14 |title=John Gill on the Comma Johanneum |url=https://www.textandtranslation.org/john-gill-on-the-comma-johanneum/ |access-date=2025-07-30 |website=Text and Translation |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Editor |first=The |date=2025-03-07 |title=John Brown of Haddington on 1 John 5:7 |url=https://www.textandtranslation.org/john-brown-of-haddington-on-1-john-57/ |access-date=2025-07-30 |website=Text and Translation |language=en-US}}</ref><ref name=":6">[https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/1John5verse7and8?srsltid=AfmBOoqVT6zlnDeqhLDEESDHSzB4-thYHiTZeUqn1Aluu6UzTOs5T_FF Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible, Trinitarian Bible Society]</ref>

=== Background ===
[[File:John William Burgon 001.jpg|thumb|John William Burgon]]The {{lang|la|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 [[Codex Sinaiticus|Sinaiticus]] and the [[Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209|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 {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} were of the same kind.<ref>Edward Miller, ''A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament'' (The Dean Burgon Society Press: 2003), pp. 30–37. 57–59.</ref> However, despite defending the Authorised Version and the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}}, both Burgon and Miller believed that although the {{lang|la|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]]).<ref name="pe">{{Cite journal |last=Heuer |first=Mark |date=1995 |title=An Evaluation of John W. Burgon's Use of Patristic Evidence |url=https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/38/38-4/38-4-pp519-530_JETS.pdf |journal=The Evangelical Theological Society |archive-date=11 December 2021 |access-date=29 September 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211211011224/https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/38/38-4/38-4-pp519-530_JETS.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

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 {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} and the King James Bible. Hills argues that the principle of providentially-preserved transmission guarantees that the printed {{lang|la|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 {{lang|la|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;<ref>Edward F. Hills, ''King James Version Defended!'', pp. 199–200.</ref> and even argues for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.<ref>Edward F. Hills, ''King James Version Defended!'', pp. 209–213.</ref> As to the relationship of the King James Bible to the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}}, Hills argued that the King James Version is not merely a translation of the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}}, but an independent variety of the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} tradition.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Hills |first1=Edward F |title=The King James Version Defended |page=171 |year=1983}}</ref> The view of the supremacy of the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} was also defended by the [[Lutheranism|Lutheran]] [[Theodore Letis]], but rather on grounds of the authority of the institutional church.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Hutcheson |first1=John K. |title=God's Word in Our Hands: The Bible Preserved for Us |date=2016 |publisher=[[Ambassador International]] |isbn=9781620204986 |page=54 |chapter=The Heritage of American Orthodoxy |access-date=5 September 2023 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oerKDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT54}}</ref>

Another known defender of the King James Only movement was [[Benjamin G. Wilkinson]] (1872–1968), a [[Seventh-day Adventist Church|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 [[Brooke Foss Westcott|Westcott]] and [[Fenton John Anthony Hort|Hort]], believing they intentionally rejected the use of the {{lang|la|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]].<ref>[[Brooke Foss Westcott|Westcott]] and [[Fenton John Anthony Hort|Hort]], [https://archive.org/stream/newtestamentinor00westrich#page/n5/mode/2up ''The New Testament In The Original Greek''] (New York: 1882).</ref> [[Gail Riplinger]] (born 1947) has also addressed the issue of differences in current editions of the King James Bible in some detail.<ref>{{cite web | first = Gail A | last = Riplinger | title = Settings of the King James Bible | publisher = Our KJV | author-link = G. A. Riplinger |url= http://www.ourkjv.com/KJB.pdf }}</ref> A lengthy critical review of her book ''New Age Bible Versions'', originally published in ''[[Cornerstone (magazine)|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".<ref>{{Citation | url = http://answers.org/bookreviews/newagevers.html | title = New age vers. | date = 9 August 2020 | publisher = Answers | type = book review | access-date = 12 July 2014 | archive-date = 20 December 2015 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20151220070652/http://www.answers.org/bookreviews/newagevers.html | url-status = dead }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Logic Must Prove the King James Bible - The Jack Hyles Home Page |url=https://www.jackhyles.com/logic.htm |access-date=2024-09-29 |website=www.jackhyles.com}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Hyles |first=Jack |title=Enemies of Soul Winning |quote=}}</ref> Another Independent Baptist, [[Jack Chick]] (1924–2016), who was best known for his [[Chick tract|comic tracts]], advocated a King James Only position.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.chick.com/information/bibleversions/ |title=FAQ's Concerning Bible Versions |publisher=Chick.com |access-date=2 December 2013}}</ref> 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.<ref>"A Critique of the King James Only Movement", [[James R. White]], chapter in {{cite book | title = Translation that openeth the window: reflections on the history and legacy of the King James Bible | publisher = Society of Biblical Literature | location = Atlanta | year = 2009 | isbn = 978-1-58983-356-2 |pages=200–201}}</ref>

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. {{Sfn|White|1995}}<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=Cloud |first=David |title=What About Peter Ruckman? |url=https://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html |access-date=2025-07-30 |website=Way of Life Literature |language=en}}</ref> This position began to be named "Ruckmanism", due to the association with his teaching.{{Sfn|White|1995}} However, in stark contrast, [[John R. Rice (pastor)|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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Teis |first=Josh |date=2019-11-25 |title=The History of KJV Onlyism |url=https://joshuateis.com/2019/11/25/the-history-of-kjv-onlyism/ |access-date=2024-09-29 |website=Josh Teis |language=en-US}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":4" />

=== Modern advocates ===
A preference for the King James Version and the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} is today most common among [[Independent Baptist]] congregations.<ref name="Teis">{{Cite web |last=Teis |first=Josh |date=2019-11-25 |title=The History of KJV Onlyism |url=https://joshuateis.com/2019/11/25/the-history-of-kjv-onlyism/ |access-date=2025-07-30 |website=Josh Teis |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=White |first=James R. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q7H_2eQC91kC&dq=King+James+Only+independent+Baptist&pg=PA139 |title=The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? |date=June 2009 |publisher=Baker Books |isbn=978-0-7642-0605-4 |language=en}}</ref> However, it is also taught by [[Primitive Baptists]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Primitive Baptist Library: Why We Use the Authorized King James Version of the Bible |url=http://pblib.org/Bible.html |access-date=2024-05-04 |website=pblib.org}}</ref> alongside by some within conservative forms of [[Laestadianism]],<ref>{{Cite book |last=Suominen |first=Edwin A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=uI1FY2xOL-QC&dq=KJV+Lestadian&pg=PA19 |title=An Examination of the Pearl |date=2012-01-26 |publisher=Ed Suominen |isbn=978-0-9851362-1-5 |language=en}}</ref> [[Anabaptism]],<ref name="DBC2021" /> [[Methodism]],<ref name="KurianDay2017" /> [[Pentecostalism]].<ref name="Lindsey2024" /> Such views are also held by a few groups often regarded unorthodox such as the [[New Independent Fundamental Baptist Movement|New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement]], started by [[Steven Anderson (pastor)|Steven Anderson]]<ref>{{Cite web |date=24 October 2019 |title=What it Means to be King James Only - Pastor Steven Anderson |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkbI651WHl8 |work=Strong Hold Baptist Church |via=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Steven Anderson {{!}} Monergism |url=https://www.monergism.com/steven-anderson |access-date=2025-07-30 |website=www.monergism.com}}</ref> and the [[Alamo Christian Foundation]].<ref name="LewisEncyc2nd">{{cite book |title=The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions |publisher=[[Prometheus Books]] |year=2001 |isbn=978-1-57392-888-5 |editor-last=Lewis |editor-first=James R. |editor-link=James R. Lewis (scholar) |edition=2nd |location=[[Amherst, New York]] |pages=42–43}}</ref> Alongside this, among some [[Presbyterianism|Presbyterians]] and [[Reformed Baptists]], a form of {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} onlyism is taught by advocates of "confessional bibliology". However, this view places more emphasis on the {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} tradition than the King James Version itself.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ward |first=Mark |date=2020 |title=Which "Textus Receptus"? A Critique Of Confessional Bibliology |url=https://www.galaxie.com/article/dbsj25-1-03?highlight=union%20with%20christ |journal=Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal |volume=25 |issue=1}}</ref>

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."<ref name="DBC2021">{{cite book |title=Dunkard Brethren Church Polity |date=1 November 2021 |publisher=[[Dunkard Brethren Church]] |page=7}}</ref> The [[Apostolic Christian Church]], a Conservative Anabaptist denomination, uses the King James Version of the Bible.<ref>{{cite web |title=Statement of Faith |url=https://www.apostolicchristian.org/statement-of-faith |publisher=Apostolic Christian Church |access-date=12 August 2024 |language=en}}</ref>

The [[Southern Methodist Church]] holds the King James Version of the Bible to be a "trustworthy standard to preach from the pulpit."<ref name="KurianDay2017">{{cite book |last1=Kurian |first1=George Thomas |last2=Day |first2=Sarah Claudine |title=The Essential Handbook of Denominations and Ministries |date=14 March 2017 |publisher=Baker Books |isbn=978-1-4934-0640-1 |language=en |quote=...and the KJV as a trustworthy standard to preach from the pulpit.}}</ref> 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."<ref name="BMC2015">{{cite book |title=Manual of the Bible Missionary Church, Inc. |date=2015 |publisher=[[Bible Missionary Church]] |page=138 |language=en}}</ref> The [[Immanuel Missionary Church]] likewise enjoins use of the King James Version of the Bible.<ref name="IMC1986">{{cite book|title=Discipline of the Immanuel Missionary Church|date=1986|publisher=Immanuel Missionary Church|location=[[Shoals, Indiana|Shoals]]|page=17}}</ref><ref name="Handel2024">{{cite journal |last1=Handel |first1=Paul S. |title=Can Anger Be Justified in a Sanctified Experience? |journal=The Immanuel Missionary |date=2024 |volume=85 |issue=2 |page=3}}</ref> The King James Version of the Bible is used exclusively by the [[Apostolic Faith Church]], a [[Holiness Pentecostal]] denomination.<ref name="Lindsey2024">{{cite web |last1=Lindsey |first1=Joshua |title=Holiness Pentecostal Denominations Compared |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDInb69ky6g |publisher=Ready to Harvest |access-date=12 August 2024 |date=11 August 2024}}</ref> 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.<ref name="agape">{{Cite news|url=https://www.thedailybeast.com/agape-school-ex-students-reveal-abuse-at-christian-torture-compound-in-missouri|title=Ex-Students Reveal Abuse at 'Christian Torture Compound'|first=Kate|last=Briquelet|newspaper=The Daily Beast |date=4 July 2022|via=www.thedailybeast.com}}</ref>

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|Free Grace theology]]),<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lazar |first=Shawn |date=10 July 2012 |title=The Restart of Florida Bible College Update – Grace Evangelical Society |url=https://faithalone.org/blog/the-restart-of-florida-bible-college-update-posted-by-scl/ |access-date=2023-04-16 |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Gospel Driven Man – Grace Evangelical Society |url=https://faithalone.org/journal-articles/book-reviews/the-gospel-driven-man/ |access-date=2023-04-24 |language=en-US}}</ref> 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 {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}}, is the best translation. Therefore, the Authorized King James Bible shall be the Bible used by Florida Bible College of Tampa."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Florida Bible College of Tampa, Inc. |url=https://www.floridabiblecollege.us/what-we-believe.html |access-date=2024-09-29 |website=www.floridabiblecollege.us}}</ref>

The {{lang|la|Textus Receptus}} primacist view has been majorly defended by the [[Trinitarian Bible Society]] which was formed in the 1800s.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Our History - Trinitarian Bible Society |url=https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/OurHistory |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250404034747/https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/OurHistory |archive-date=4 April 2025 |access-date=2025-08-01 |website=www.tbsbibles.org |language=en |url-status=live }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Articles - Trinitarian Bible Society |url=https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/articles |access-date= |website=www.tbsbibles.org}}</ref> 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."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_reports/66-1.pdf |title=''Quarterly Record'' no. 578, p. 8. |access-date=11 August 2016 |archive-date=11 August 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160811201316/http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_reports/66-1.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Beliefs ==

=== Doctrine of preservation ===
Those who advocate for the exclusive use of the {{lang|la|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 {{lang|la|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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Andrews |first=Edward D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i2LFEAAAQBAJ&dq=John+Calvin+textus+receptus&pg=PA47 |title=THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS: The "Received Text" of the New Testament |date=2023-06-15 |publisher=Christian Publishing House |isbn=979-8-3984-5852-7 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":3">{{Cite book |last=Wettlaufer |first=Ryan Donald |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZmaOrfp0vBoC&dq=textus+receptus+preservation+bible+passages&pg=PA47 |title=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 |date=2013-03-01 |publisher=BRILL |isbn=978-90-04-23533-5 |language=en}}</ref>
[[File:CarlMcIntire.JPG|thumb|197x197px|The doctrine of the verbal plenary preservation of scripture was advocated by [[Carl McIntire]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=PREMARITAL COUNSEL FROM THE BIBLE {{!}} THE GOOD OLD DOCTRINE OF PERFECT BIBLE PRESERVATION {{!}} DR CARL MCINTIRE ON THE BIBLE |url=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/ |access-date=2025-07-31 |website=Worship & Study God's Word at True Life Bible-Presbyterian Church |language=en}}</ref>]]
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 {{lang|la|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.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Statement of Doctrine of Holy Scripture |url=https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/DoctrineofScripture}}</ref><ref name=":2">{{Cite web |title=What is the Preservation of Scripture? |url=https://theaquilareport.com/what-is-the-preservation-of-scripture/ |access-date=2024-07-01 |website=theaquilareport.com}}</ref>

These interpretations of these multiple verses, however, has been challenged by critics of the {{lang|la|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.<ref name=":5">{{Cite book |last=Andrews |first=Edward D. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=i2LFEAAAQBAJ&dq=Textus+Receptus+preservation&pg=PA56 |title=THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS: The "Received Text" of the New Testament |date=2023-06-15 |publisher=Christian Publishing House |isbn=979-8-3984-5852-7 |language=en}}</ref><ref name=":2" /><ref name=":3" />

=== Byzantine text-type ===
The advocates of the {{lang|la|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.<ref name=":5" /> However, this approach differs from that of [[Byzantine priority theory|Byzantine priorists]] like [[Zane C. Hodges|Zane Hodges]], who supported the broader use of the Byzantine text-type more broadly than the {{lang|la|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 {{lang|la|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 manuscript of the New Testament|Latin manuscripts]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Moorman |first=J. A. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZJ8YYgEACAAJ |title=When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text |date=October 2010 |publisher=Old Paths Publications, Incorporated |isbn=978-1-56848-098-5 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Why the Modern Majority Text Should Not be Preferred |url=https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/ModernMajorityText}}</ref> Thus, {{lang|la|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 [[Nontrinitarianism|antitrinitarian]] copyists.<ref name=":6" />

==Criticism==
{{blockquote|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.{{sfn|White|1995}}|[[Gleason Archer Jr.|Gleason Archer]]}}

{{blockquote|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.{{sfn|White|1995}}|[[Craig Blomberg]]}}

{{blockquote|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.<ref name="Wax 2007">{{cite web | last=Wax | first=Trevin | title=The King James Only Controversy | website=The Gospel Coalition | date=7 August 2007 | url=https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/the-king-james-only-controversy/ | access-date=30 November 2022}}</ref>|Trevin Wax}}

== Notable individuals associated with the different types of King James Onlyism ==
In the modern day, multiple individuals have advocated for the primary or exclusive use of the King James version, these include the following:

{{div col|colwidth=25em}}
* [[M. R. DeHaan]]<ref>{{Cite book |last=Adair |first=James |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=N8GWCgAAQBAJ&dq=Bible+Versions+and+Perversions+DeHaan&pg=PT156 |title=M. R. DeHaan: The Life Behind the Voice |date=2015-05-11 |publisher=Our Daily Bread Publishing |isbn=978-1-57293-886-1 |language=en}}</ref>
* [[Ian Paisley]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Testimonies of Kjv Defenders - Ian Paisley|url=https://www.wayoflife.org/database/paisley.html}}</ref>
* [[Carl McIntire]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=new bible why christians should not accept it – Remembering the Ministry of The Reverend Dr. Carl McIntire |url=https://carlmcintire.net/new-bible-why-christians-should-not-accept-it/ |access-date=2025-07-31 |language=en}}</ref>
* [[Kent Hovind]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QCB7BXKDTM |title=Kent Hovind - Why KJV ONLY ??? Why not other versions? |work=Jeff The Watchman |date=25 March 2011 |via=YouTube}}</ref>
* [[Dave Hunt (Christian apologist)]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.thebereancall.org/content/september-1992-q-and-a-3 |title=QUESTION: YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO USE THE KJV BIBLE. WHY NOT USE THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS THAT ARE SO MUCH ... |website=The Berean Call}}</ref>
* [[Jack Hyles]]<ref>''Enemies of Soulwinning'' by Jack Hyles, pp. 46–47.</ref>
* [[Texe Marrs]]<ref>{{Cite book|title= Unholy Bible Versions of the New Age}}{{full citation needed|date=May 2022}}</ref>
* [[Michael Pearl]]<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ1mAFHpRkg |title=Why King James Bible Only? Bible Questions with Michael Pearl - Episode 027 |website=No Greater Joy Ministries |date=22 February 2010 |via=YouTube}}</ref>
* [[Peter Ruckman]]<ref name="Handbook">{{
Cite book
| first=Peter
| last=Ruckman
| publication-place=Pensacola
| publisher=Pensacola Bible Press
| title=The Christian's Handbook of Manuscript Evidence
| url={{Google Books URL|G9zznQEACAAJ}}
| year=1990
}}</ref>
* [[Shelton Smith]]<ref name="sotl">Sword of the Lord, issue from Dec 27, 2019</ref>
* [[Brother Stair]]
* [[Jimmy Swaggart]]
* [[Steven Anderson (pastor)|Steven Anderson]]
* [[Lester Roloff]]<ref>{{Cite web |title=Was King James Onlyism Invented by a Cultist? |url=https://www.wayoflife.org/reports/was_king_james_onlyism_invented_by_cultist.php |access-date=2025-01-08 |website=www.wayoflife.org}}</ref>
* [[Gerardus D. Bouw]]<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://brill.com/edcollbook/title/17821 |title=Nature and Scripture in the Abrahamic Religions: 1700-Present |date=2009-01-31 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-474-2524-3 |editor-last=Mandelbrote |editor-first=Scott |pages=449–450 |language=en |editor-last2=Meer |editor-first2=Jitse van der}}</ref>
* [[Paul Chappell]]
* [[R. L. Hymers Jr.]]
* [[Jack Chick]]<ref name="Teis"/>
* [[Gail Riplinger]]
* [[Douglas Wilson (theologian)|Douglas Wilson]]
* [[Clarence Sexton]]{{div col end}}

==See also==
{{Portal|Bible|Christianity}}
* [[Bible translations]]
* [[Bible version debate]]
* [[Biblical canon]]
* [[Biblical criticism]]
* [[Biblical infallibility]]
* [[Biblical inerrancy]]
* [[Biblical literalism]]
* [[Douay-Rheims Bible#Douay-Rheims Only movement|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==
{{Reflist|32em}}

==Bibliography==
* {{Citation | first1 = Gary | last1 = Hudson | last2 = Kutilek | first2 = Doug |date=Summer 1990 | title = The Great 'Which Bible?' Fraud | journal = Baptist Biblical Heritage | volume = I | number = 2 | url = http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_great_which_bible.htm |pages = 1, 3–6| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180104041338/http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_great_which_bible.htm | archive-date = 4 January 2018 }}.
* {{Citation | last1 = White | first1 = James | year = 1995 | author1-link = James White (theologian) | title = The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? | publisher = Bethany House | location = Minneapolis | page = [https://archive.org/details/kingjamesonlycon00whit/page/248 248] | isbn = 1-55661-575-2 | oclc = 32051411 | url-access = registration | url = https://archive.org/details/kingjamesonlycon00whit/page/248 }}.

==Further reading==
* {{Cite book | last = Anderson |first=Robert |title= The Bible and Modern Criticism |year= 1903}}
* {{Cite book | last1 = Ankerberg |first1 =John |author1-link= John Ankerberg | first2 = John | last2 = Weldon | title = The Facts on the King James Only Debate |year=2003 |isbn=0-7369-1111-1 |publisher= Harvest House | location = Eugene, OR }}
* {{Cite book | last1 = Beacham |first1 =Roy E. | first2 =Kevin T | last2 = Bauder |title=One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible |year=2001 |isbn= 0-8254-2048-2 |publisher= Kregel Publications |location= Grand Rapids, MI }}
* {{Cite book | last = Carson |first=D.A. |author-link= D. A. Carson |title= The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism |year= 1978 |isbn= 0-8010-2427-7 |publisher= Baker Book House |location= Grand Rapids, MI }}
* {{Cite book | last = Comfort |first=Phillip W. |title=Essential Guide to Bible Versions |year=2000 |isbn = 0-8423-3484-X |publisher=Tyndale House Publishers |location=Wheaton, IL }}
* {{Cite book | last = Dewey |first=David |title=A User's Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions |year=2005 |isbn=0-8308-3273-4 |publisher= InterVarsity Press |location= Downers Grove, IL }}
* Hillis, Edward F. (1973). ''The King James Version Defended''. Des Moines, IA: Christian Research Press.
* {{Cite book | last = Macgregor | first= Alan J | title = Three Modern Versions: A Critical Assessment of the NIV, ESV and NKJV |year=2004 |isbn=0-904435-87-3 |publisher=Bible League |location= Salisbury, Wiltshire, [[England|ENG]], UK }}
* {{Cite book | last = Mauro | first = Philip | title = Which version?: Authorized or revised? | year = 1924 | publisher = Hamilton Brothers | location = Boston | url = http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1924_mauro_which-version.html | access-date = 23 July 2008 | archive-date = 17 September 2008 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080917121023/http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1924_mauro_which-version.html | url-status = dead }}
* {{Cite book | last = Paisley |first= Ian RK |author-link= Ian Paisley | title= My Plea for the Old Sword | publisher = Emerald House Group |year=1997 |url=http://www.ianpaisley.org/plea.asp |isbn= 1-84030-015-9 }}
* {{Cite book | last = Riplinger |first=G. A. |title=New Age Bible Versions |year=1993 |isbn=0963584502 |publisher=AV Publications |location=Ararat, VA}}
* {{Cite book | last = Ryken |first=Leland |title=The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation |year=2002 |isbn=1-58134-464-3 |publisher=Crossway Books |location=Wheaton, IL }}

==External links==
* ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=SF1CAQAAMAAJ 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.

{{King James Version}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:King James Only Movement}}
[[Category:King James Only movement| ]]
[[Category:Bible-related controversies]]
[[Category:Christian terminology]]