King-James-Only Movement

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

The King-James-Only Movement is a position, usually of Fundamentalist Protestant Christians of English-speaking countries, which rejects all modern versions of the Bible, accepting only the King James Version (KJV), also known as the Authorized Version (AV), as the only accurate and reliable translation.

The origin of the nickname "King-James-Only" is unclear, though as early as 1987 it was being used to refer to claims of exclusivity for the King James Version and the "controversy" which had been brewing over them for almost a decade. American church historian and apologist James R. White brought the phrase to wider public attention in 1995 when he published The King James Only Controversy. White himself addresses the question as to whether using the phrase "KJV Only" or "KJV Onlyism" may be "insulting" and "inaccurate" (p. 248). White concludes that using the phrase "KJV Only" or "KJV Onlyism" is neither insulting nor inaccurate. However, KJV proponent D.A. Waite has recently posted a long (220 minutes), two-part radio broadcast alleging the term is a "smear word".

Some have contested the claim that such advocacy of the KJV constitutes a "movement." There is no movement in the sense of a central organization or spokesperson which organizes and controls the advocacy, but an assortment of several small and independent groups which advocate many of the same points. The issue is typically a grass-roots effort among local (often independent) churches and individual Christians. These turn to parachurch organizations (such as the Dean Burgon Society and the Trinitarian Bible Society) for materials on the issue. Though it is important to note that the Trinitarian Bible Society does not hold to a KJV Only position and have expressly stated that, ‘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’.

Some, such as Jack Chick, claim that the Roman Catholic Church, including the Jesuits, has been part of a continuing conspiracy, creating new versions which support their doctrines (see section Catholic doctrine below).

Background

American fundamentalism is divided on the issue of Bible translations, with some groups advocating KJO, others advocating modern translations and others advocating neither in particular. Proponents of the KJO movement include D. A. Waite, Gail Riplinger, Samuel Gipp, Jack Chick and others. Advocacy of the KJV text, however, ranges from those who simply prefer the King James Version text all the way to proponents of conspiracy theories.

The position of all KJO advocates is that the KJV is superior to all other Bible versions. Some base this on a claim it is the most aesthetically pleasing, some add the claim that the texts underlying the KJV are the best, others add to this the further claim that God intended the KJV to be the one true Bible for English-speaking churches, others go even further and add the claim that the KJV has been miraculously preserved free from error and constitutes God's promise to preserve his words for all generations. This theme of the supremacy of the KJV over other translations drives all other opinions within the movement.

Some proponents of the KJO view believe that conspiracies are responsible for modern Bible translations, either through translators who were untrustworthy or were seeking to intentionally subvert the Bible, or through the use of corrupted source texts which were produced by such people. Included in the groups that hold this view are the Underground Christian Network (they have a presentation on SermonAudio.com which promotes the view that all modern Bible versions are the result of a New Age conspiracy) and Gail Anne Riplinger (whose book New Age Bible Versions presents the same basic view).

Some critics feel that the KJO position ignores the problems that modern English speakers have reading and comprehending the Jacobean language of the King James Bible. In particular that some archaic words appear in the text and that the meaning and common usage of many others has changed over four centuries' time. Critics further maintain that modern Bible translations are driven by a need found in the modern reading public for an up-to-date Bible, not to corrupt the text.

Critics claim that KJO arguments typically involve logical fallacies, including begging the question (proving their assumption about KJV superiority), selection bias, selective thinking and guilt by association. In particular they disapprove of the grouping together of all modern English Bible translations, regardless of their source texts or methods of translation.

Modern Bible scholars and translators have produced a number of responses to the King James Only movement. Notably D. A. Carson and Phillip Comfort (see bibliography below) have produced books for the non-specialist about the issue.

The older generation of the modern King James Only movement is passing away. D. A. Waite, Ian Paisley, Peter Ruckman, Albert Pendarvis (the Old Trailblazer and a strident KJO advocate), and others are now over 70 years of age. Many of these men grew up with the KJV and saw the introduction of most modern Bible translations. Another generation has grown up during a time when the acceptance of modern Bible translations was still an open question. The current generation, those born after 1970, have grown up knowing nothing but a world in which modern Bible translations were available. Out of this group, very few accept the KJO view or the reasoning of KJO advocates. Since the introduction of modern versions, many simply see the KJV as one of many Bibles available. Despite this, the King James Version is the best-selling book of all time and continues to be in the top ten best-selling of all Bible translations in the United States on a yearly basis.

Advocacy

The principal arguments for KJV only are:

Uses the Textus Receptus and Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text for translation, which the majority of KJV proponents believe to be the preserved original text.
Modern translations have theological differences, for example:

# Some proponents of KJO claim that the deity of Jesus Christ is denied or weakened by controversion or omission in various places in the modern versions (see Gen 22:8, Mic 5:2, 1Tim 3:16, Heb 1:8, John 9:35, 1 Cor 15:47, Matt 19:17, Eph 3:9, and Acts 3:13,26). A representative passage is 1Jn 4:2, where modern texts omit the condition of confessing that Jesus is "the Christ" (though the condition is retained in v. 3). Some KJV advocates see the omission in verse 2 as an attack on the deity of Jesus.

# Some proponents of KJO claim that the work of eternal salvation by God's sovereign grace and will alone is attacked in various places in modern versions by translating "faith in", rather than "faith of", Jesus Christ (see Gal 2:16,20, Rom 3:22, Phil 3:9, etc). Other modern translations use "faithfulness of" (NET, HCSB margin).

# Some proponents of KJV allege the sovereign act of God in calling a man to eternal life, which is not conditioned upon a man's confession of faith, is changed by modern versions. For example, the New International Version (NIV) translates 1Ti 6:12 as "eternal life to which you WERE called WHEN you made your good confession", where the KJV has "eternal life, whereunto thou art also called, and hast professed a good profession".

# The Trinity is also viewed by many KJV supporters as a target of attack through what they view as an unfounded alteration of 1Jn 5:7 and v6 or v8 (see Comma Johanneum).

# Similarly, many proponents claim that the virgin birth is attacked in some new versions, through the translation of almah in Isa 7:14 as "maiden" or "young woman" rather than "virgin."

# KJV proponents also claim that new translations attempt to disparage the view of Hell as a literal, fiery place of torment, citing such instances as the NIV, which omits one of two instances of the phrase "Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched." in Mark 9:44-48.

# The divine promise for the preservation of scripture is, according to KJV supporters, also attacked by rendering the pronouns in Psa 12:7 as referring to the "poor" of v. 5 rather than the "words" of v. 6. (This understanding is possible from the KJV rendering as well, though it is ambiguous.)

# The salvation of the repentant thief is also thought to be attacked by the omission of the word Lord from Luke 23:42, allegedly indicating the the thief was not truly converted because he did not "confess Jesus as Lord" (Rom. 10:9).

# The first Gentile salvation recorded in scripture, the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-39), is another target of attack according to some KJV proponents, in that some modern versions omit Acts 8:37 and the Ethiopian's testimony. Apparently the argument is new versions promote the idea that the eunuch could be baptized (v. 38) without profession of belief if the text doesn't explicitly mention the profession and records only the baptism.

# KJV supporters likewise view the salvation of St. Paul as being attacked in new versions, through the omission in Acts 9:6 of clauses 1 and 1a ("And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord [said] unto him,...").

# Many claim Easter to be a mistranslation in Acts 12:4 noting that Easter is a pagan festival and also that Pascha should be translated as Passover, but some KJO advocates claim that it simply is a shortened form of the German word for resurrection

# The blood atonement of Jesus Christ is also allegedly attacked in several places, such as the omission of the phrase through his blood from Col 1:14.

# Salvation as a one time, permanently settled event in the life of a believer is allegedly attacked through the rendering of the present passive participle in 1Cor 1:18 as "being saved" rather than as a simple present ("are saved").

# The ascension of Jesus Christ is allegedly attacked by the omission of and carried up into heaven from Luke 24:51, in a few modern translations.

# Salvation as a prerequisite for being in heaven is thought to be attacked by omitting the phrase of them which are saved from Rev 21:24, (Rev 22:18-19), in some new versions.

KJO proponents argue that a dynamic translation distorts the message of the original. They see the KJV as a very literal translation and hence the most faithful to the original documents. (Many other modern translations follow a literal translation philosophy as well, but these, KJV proponents allege, fall to the previous criticisms listed above).
From a literary point of view, some consider the KJV to be the best of all English Bibles in its use of poetic devices (alliteration, rhyme, syllabic rhythm, etc.) to enhance meaning, making memorization and understanding easier. Similarly, some say the KJV is the most pleasant to hear read aloud.
The “archaic” pronouns of the Elizabethan English used in the KJV, often seen as confusing to modern readers, actually clarify the meaning, according to some KJO propnents, primarily due to retaining distinct number (singular "thou" vs. plural "you") and case (nominative "thou" vs. objective "thee") variations for the Second Person personal pronoun. The argument is that the resulting confusion that can result from rendering all such pronouns as the modern “you” can actually change important doctrine, including those that KJO proponents see as the most basic requirements for salvation itself.

Criticism

Arguments against the KJV only position include:

Jesus and his Disciples would have likely spoken Aramaic. The early Christians and New Testament writers used Greek. The Torah that Jesus held sacred was written in Hebrew.
Since the original publication of the KJV, many new source documents, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, have been discovered, and other archaeological research has been done in the last 400 years.
The Greek text on which the King James Version is based is the Greek New Testament published by Robert Estienne (or 'Stephanus') in 1550. Stephanus's New Testament was based on a small collection of Byzantine manuscripts, none predating the year A.D. 1200. Some scholars argue that the older a manuscript is the more reliable it is, but this is debated.
According to the translation theory of Eugene Nida, literal translations (like the KJV) in effect are more inaccurate with respect to the meaning of the original text than those translations which sacrifice formal features of the source text to achieve greater accuracy in meaning (see Dynamic and formal equivalence). Additionally, it could be argued that the language of the 1611 edition was already becoming outdated even at the time it was printed. Changes in language and usage leading to obscured meaning is a continuous problem, creating a strong argument against one fixed translation for all time for the "common people" to read.
With respect to theological bias, supporters of modern versions point to the fact that these translations are often done by committees of Christians from various denominations, while the KJV translation committee was strictly Anglican.
The KJV is said to be a theologically sound translation which maintains pure doctrine, where modern translations are corrupt in this respect. The KJV Only advocates are split between Independent Baptists and Reformed Protestants (Calvinists) who do not agree between themselves on their theological positions.
The "KJV Only" position assumes that there is one definitive KJV, when in fact there were many editions and revisions. What most Christians call the "KJV" today is not the KJV of 1611. The "KJV" today is from the 1769 version, the last year it was revised. The removal of the Apocrypha, which was in earlier editions, is just one of many changes that have occurred over the years.
The suggestion that modern translators are somehow adding to scripture or changing scripture as the Bible expressly forbids is not necessarily true. A modern translator ideally believes whole-heartedly that the original scriptures (the source documents) must not be added to or changed, but that the translator has a duty to try and translate those documents in the best way possible. The modern-day translator is seeking to bring the Bible message to people "in words they can understand." Also, they point out several passages (John 1.18, Romans 9.5, Titus 2.13, II Peter 1.1) where the divinity of Jesus in modern translations is more explicit than in the KJV.
The pleasantness of the KJV is a matter of opinion, and not a fact.
It has been asserted by some modern groups that since the KJV translators worked on behest of King James of England and Scotland, they did not edit it for everyone's benefit, as much as for his benefit, thus producing a biased wording.
The KJV refer to the Holy Spirit as "it" and not "He" in several passages. Almost all Protestant denominations hold that the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost is a personal figure - God the Holy Spirit (see Trinitarianism)- and not a thing or energy. These passages are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16,26, and 1 Peter 1:11.

Origins

The origins of the King-James-Only Movement can be traced back to the publication of the Revised Version (RV) in 1881. The original commission of the RV intended it as an update to the archaic language of the KJV. The updaters surpassed that goal, eventually re-translating thousands of words and passages. In the New Testament, they often followed an eclectic Greek text collated by men such as Brooke Foss Westcott, Fenton John Anthony Hort, Constantin von Tischendorf and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles. Public outcry against the RV was not few and far between at the time, with opponents preaching fidelity to the KJV. A prominent critic, churchman John William Burgon wrote several books and articles criticising the RV; his books (notably The Revision Revised) are still being reprinted and his arguments often cited by KJV supporters. (Most of this material is published by D.A. Waite's ministry, Bible for Today. See his entry for more details about this ministry and its goals.) Because the popularity of the RV and its American counterpart, the American Standard Version, did not last long, the movement lost its momentum until the mid-20th century.

At that time, publication of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible in 1952, issued by the American National Council of Churches (NCC), reignited the same debate. Many American fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals believed that the NCC was a hotbed of liberal theology or modernism and were suspicious of the new translation. Accusations of Communist and Vatican (by anti-Catholic Protestants) influence within the NCC were brought up. Textually, one significant criticism of the RSV centered on the decision made by the translators to translate a number of Old Testament prophecies, which some scholars believed referred to the coming of Christ, in a manner which de-emphasized their allusions to Christ. Critics charged that the NCC, in issuing the RSV, deliberately intended to discredit doctrines such as the virgin birth of Jesus, as in Isaiah 7.14. As a result, American fundamentalists and conservative Christians largely rejected the RSV; nevertheless, for three decades it became the most widely used Bible translation within the American mainline and liberal Protestant denominations. In the USA, one of the most adamant proponents of the King James Only Movement was famed theologian and founder of the Children's Bible Hour radio program Dr David Otis Fuller, founding president of the Grand Rapids Baptist Bible Institute and Seminary (now known as Cornerstone University and Grand Rapids Theological Seminary).

Modern translations

At the same time, many American conservative and evangelical Christian groups began producing their own modern Bible translations, including the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. Most American evangelicals who were wary of the RSV readily accepted these other new translations, but some fundamentalists did not.

Those who rejected the modern translations began to advocate the ideas held by the King James Only Movement, such as the belief that the Received Text is superior to the text which they believe to be based primarily on Alexandrian Family manuscripts, and that Codex Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus reflect corruption by Gnostics.

New King James Version

In the USA the King-James-Only Movement became one of the core beliefs within the growing Independent Fundamental branch of Baptists. Even the use of only the texts available in the early 1600s for the main body of the work fails to satisfy the supporters of the King-James-Only Movement, who see the New King James Version (1982) as something less than a true successor to the 1611 version. Although the NKJV is based upon the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, its Old Testament basis strays from the KJV model, relying upon the ben Asher BHS text instead of that of ben Chayyim. Additionally, supporters argue that, because the New King James Version allegedly makes scores of changes to the meaning of the 1611 translators, it is not a simple "updating" but actually constitutes a new version; at the same time, the inclusion of verses found solely in the Textus Receptus (such as 1 John 5:7) in the NKJV may make this attempt at revision less appealing to advocates of modern versions.

Within broader evangelical circles, the King James Only belief is controversial and is widely rejected. Most evangelical scholars believe that the Textus Receptus manuscripts from which the KJV was translated contain a number of errors, and that the modern translations are translated from the earliest, and more accurate manuscripts. Most scholars who support Biblical inerrancy believe that it applies only to the original manuscripts (in the USA cf. the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy). However, there is substantial agreement between most of the Majority Text of the Greek New Testament and the Textus Receptus, and the NKJV preface testifies that there are reputable scholars who feel that the Majority Text is defensible, even if they do not support the particular form it has taken in the Textus Receptus. Aurther L. Farstad, executive editor of the NKJV, and collator of a modern edition of the Majority Text, was one who held such a view without supporting the claims of exclusivity associated with the KJO movement.

Original sources

The King-James-Only position is most prevalent within the fundamentalist and Independent Baptist branch of the Baptist denomination in Christianity within the USA, and within the Plymouth Brethren and Strict Baptists within the UK. The rejection of modern translations is based in part on the different original-language texts which were used as source material for the different translations of the Bible.

Greek texts

With regard to the New Testament, most modern translations are mainly translated from an eclectic text which draws primarily from the Alexandrian manuscripts (exemplified in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus P66 and P75), as well as early translations into other languages (Old Latin, Syriac, etc), lectionaries and other patristic sources. The King James Version originates from the Textus Receptus, otherwise known as the Received Text, which for the most part exemplifies the Byzantine text-type (but not identical with the "Majority Text" as that term is currently used). See also Novum Testamentum Graece.

Hebrew texts

To a lesser, but also significant, extent, there is also a corresponding division in regard to the texts used to translate the Old Testament, between the traditional ben Chayyim text, represented by the KJV, and the ben Asher text (Biblia Hebraica (BHK) & Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS)), represented by most modern translations. The footnotes in the BHK/BHS suggests over 20,000 changes as compared to the traditional ben Chayyim text; however, it is suggested that differences between these Hebrew texts rarely affect the meaning. Most modern Christian (though not Jewish) translations often deviate from the Hebrew, giving a meaning based on other sources such as the Vulgate, Septuagint, or Dead Sea Scrolls—or sometimes just scholarly conjecture; very often, they base these deviations on the footnotes to BHS. Modern translations do not deviate from the ben Chayyim text anywhere near as often as 20,000 times, and most of the differences that occur in the Old Testament between modern versions and the KJV are a result of differing translations of the same text (Psa. 12:7, for example) rather than a result of translating different texts.

The New King James Version has a mixed approach; it follows the Textus Receptus in the New Testament but BHS in the Old Testament.

Translation theory

The King James Only movement has two separate contentions with modern versions. One is the textual issue mentioned above. Another is the rejection of certain (if not all) modern translations on account of the translation theory used, in particular dynamic equivalence and paraphrase. (This criticism is not unique to KJO; see Leland Ryken's book listed below.) Thus dynamic equivalence translations (NIV, NLT, TNIV, etc.) as well as paraphrases (The Message, The Living Bible, etc.) are rejected because they interpret as well as translate the original texts, regardless of which original texts they translate (either the Received Text or the modern Critical Text). These translations are considered inaccurate. (Again, not only by the KJO movement.)

This line of criticism is not valid against "essentially literal" translations such as the NKJV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, etc. Criticism against these falls into two categories. Translations like the NRSV are considered liberal (Isa 7:14 is a key verse which indicates if a translation is conservative or liberal; conservative translations retain the traditional "virgin"). Conservative, evangelical translations like the NASB and ESV are unacceptable because they do not use the Received Text, even if the translation style is otherwise acceptable.

The NKJV is a special case. The NKJV New Testament is translated from the same new testament text as the KJV, but the Old Testament has been translated from texts that are viewed as corrupt and perverted.

Because, to-date, most modern translations except for the NKJV are based on the Critical Text, and the NKJV has proven to be unacceptable to the KJO movement, it is unlikely that there will be a modern translation acceptable to the KJO movement unless there is a change in scholarly opinion on the Received Text, or the KJO movement produces its own translation.

Jehovah

The ben Chayyim Hebrew text, the underlying Hebrew text of the Old Testament of the KJV as noted above, includes the Tetragrammaton in the form "" (i.e. Hebrew word # 3068 in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible) 6519 times. The consonants of this divine name are ancient, but diacritics indicating the pronunciation of Hebrew vowel sounds were not invented until much later, in medieval times. Most modern scholars hold the view that the vowel points of the spelling "" (which would seem to indicate a pronunciation "Yehowah", English "Jehovah", if taken literally) are not the correct vowel points of God's name — and that they were actually never intended to be such, but were instead a masoretic Q're perpetuum, or implicit textual note to indicate that the letters YHWH should be pronounced out loud as "Adonai" when reading the text (something later misunderstood by early Christian Hebraists). And in fact, many Hebrew Biblical manuscripts (and the BHS) have "" (without the diacritic for the "o" vowel), and in certain cases the consonantal letters YHWH are given different vowel points to indicate that they should then be pronounced out loud as "Elohim." Therefore most scholars do not consider that the name of Israel's God can be correctly transcribed as "Jehovah."

While some King James Only Movement Christians believe that "Jehovah" is God’s actual name, they do not necessarily all defend the underlying Hebrew of "Jehovah".

Note that "Jehovah" actually occurs only seven times in the KJV translation, and three of these occurrences are in placenames.

Catholic doctrine

Some Christians in the King-James-Only Movement even claim that modern Bible versions support unsound and unbiblical Catholic doctrine. For example, they claim modern versions support the belief that Peter was the "Rock" on which the Church was built by omitting the phrase in Bible (King James)/John#Chapter 1, that says "which is by interpretation, a stone". They also claim that they support Catholic tradition by omitting the phrase "from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers" in Bible (King James)/1 Peter#Chapter 1. They also claim that they support indulgences by omitting Bible (King James)/Matthew#Chapter 23 and infant baptism by omitting Bible (King James)/Acts#Chapter 8.

Apocrypha

One misconception about the King-James-Only surrounds the Apocrypha. The King James Bible was translated by the Church of England for the Church of England. Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which is the church's doctrinal statement enacted in 1563, says this about the books of the Apocrypha:

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such as are the following:
The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

Thus the books were translated by the KJV translators and included as a separate section between the Old and New Testament. Anglican editions still require this section, as the lectionary still appoints it for certain days (e.g. the first reading on All Saints Day in the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer). It is still included in the copy given to the King or Queen of the United Kingdom during the coronation ceremony.

However with the rise of the Bible societies beginning in the 1820s and an inter-denominational outlook of the societies, KJV Bibles without the Apocrypha became common in America. Probably, few Americans have seen a copy of the KJV which includes it, although it is readily obtainable from several Bible publishers: for example, New Cambridge Paragraph Bible or as a separate volume.

Variations

There are variations within the King-James-Only Movement. American evangelist John R. Rice (1895-1980), who published The Sword of the Lord, believed that only the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts should be considered inspired Scripture. He taught that translations from those texts, when done in good faith, are useful as Scripture, but he expressed a preference toward the King James Version for artistic reasons. On the other extreme can be found the teachings of the controversial Baptist preacher Peter Ruckman, who believes that the King James translation constitutes an "advanced revelation" from God and is superior to the original-language Greek and Hebrew texts. Most King-James-Only advocates hold to a position somewhere between those two extremes; White himself distinguished between five divisions in his book:

"I Like the KJV Best." This division is represented by individuals who simply prefer the KJV over other translations. These are people who like the version because their church uses it, they have always used it, or because they like its style;
"The Textual Argument." Individuals here believe the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual basis are the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV is based on better manuscripts than modern versions being the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Textus Receptus. Many in this group may accept a modern version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. They believe that the translation itself is simply the most accurate version in the English language and not that it is without any fault or error;
"Received Text Only." Here, the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are believed to be supernaturally-preserved. The KJV is believed to be a translation exemplar, but it is also believed that other translations based on these texts have the potential to be equally good;
"The Inspired KJV Group." Individuals in this group believe that the KJV itself was supernaturally inspired. They see the translation to be preserved supernaturally by God and as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Sometimes this group will even exclude foreign versions based on the same manuscripts claiming the KJV to be the only Bible;
"The KJV As New Revelation" This group of individuals would believe that the KJV is a "new revelation" from God, and can and should be the standard from which all other translations originate. Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often called "Ruckmanism" after Peter Ruckman, a staunch KJO supporter.

There are even those that claim, according to White (p. 6):

"that the KJV was written in eternity, and that Abraham and Moses and the prophets all read the 1611 KJV, including the New Testament. These individuals believe that Hebrew is actually English... Such groups are, for obvious reasons, very small."

Critics of White have challenged this particular claim, which appears without documentation in his book. Dr Thomas Holland cites this passage to illustrate his contention that "White's speculations are not scholarly, but merely ridicule and hearsay." This has not prevented other authors, such as the William Tyndale authority, Dr David Daniell, from reproducing White's statement verbatim in his own book The Bible in English (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 765. The remark is included in an endnote and qualified by the anecdotal introduction "We have even heard of...", and is not part of his main presentation or a point of criticism of KJO proponents.

Denominations

Besides Independent Baptists, there are a number of other denominations in the USA which hold, in varying degrees, to a King James Only position. These include the Church of God of the Mountain Assembly, the United Pentecostal Church, the Protestant Reformed Church, (and other very conservative Reformed bodies), First Congregational Methodist Church, the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ (C.O.O.L.J.C), and some (but not all) of the more conservative denominations from the Anglican tradition which collectively refer to themselves as the Continuing Anglican movement.

Despite saying that these churches hold to a "King-James-Only position", not every church that uses only the King James Version believes the King James itself to be inspired. For example, the Protestant Reformed Churches of America believe the KJV to be the most accurate version of the Bible, but do not believe it is infallible and will even acknowledge that other versions can be correct and helpful on certain passages. The Christian Science Church has no mandate, but currently their church services use the KJV exclusively.

Some conservative Seventh-day Adventists use only the King James Version, though that is not the denomination's stance. A scholar named Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote the book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated which provided much of the foundation for the movement later incorporated into the independent Baptist tradition.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints also holds to one of the King-James-Only positions, namely that it is the preferred text for public English discourse, but not the sole Bible that can be read. The Church publishes a version of the KJV (LDS-KJV), which, in addition to the text of the KJV, contains numerous footnotes and study aids, including excerpts of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

In Britain many Plymouth Brethren, Strict Baptists and the Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland also hold a King James Only position.

The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster also holds this position; its moderator Ian Paisley has written a book outlining his position, My Plea For The Old Sword

The Upper Cumberland Presbyterian Church left the Cumberland Presbyterian partially due to the issue of the Revised Standard Version being used, which was seen as a liberalism. One of the first acts of this young, small denomination was to adopt the King James Version of the Bible as its standard for Scripture.

Meade Ministries is a King James onlyism ministry.

Some groups formerly used the KJV exclusively, but are departing from it. With the death of Word of Faith pastor Kenneth E. Hagin his ministry has begun using modern Bible translations (the NIV in particular) in its publications, although Kenneth E. Hagin himself used other translations in his publications. Bob Jones University has attracted criticism from KJO advocate D.A. Waite for what he perceives as a weakening of the school's position on the King James Bible.

Non-English movements

In some non-English speaking countries, there are groups claiming that the Textus Receptus is the only reliable Greek text, from which the Bible should be translated to contemporary languages. These might not believe that the KJV per se, or any other modern translation, is totally perfect. In Sweden there are groups that prefer the old Swedish Bible of 1703 ("The Charles XII Bible"). This Bible was replaced by a new translation, authorized by the Church of Sweden, in 1917. That translation was in turn replaced in 2000 by a new one which had been made in consultation with other Christian groups, as well as with Jewish scholars. Similarly, in Finland, certain revivalist movements (especially Laestadianism and rukoilevaiset) of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland use the 1776 version of the Finnish translation, while others prefer the version of years 1933 and 1938, in contrast to the presently authorized, dynamically equivalent version of 1992.

There are also factions that hold to a stricter KJV-only-position. In Norway, there has recently been published a direct translation of the KJV to Norwegian. (Not to be confused with "Bibelen Guds Ord, Den norske King James utgaven" (BGO) that have a license for the King James trademark and are based on the same Greek and Hebrew texts, but is not a translation from KJV)