In response to a piece that I posted on social media in support of the KJV-only view, I was asked about my sources. Here is my revision of that post, expanded to include sources. Most of them come directly from Scripture itself, and rightfully so as that is the final authority on all things.

Over the past couple of years much has changed with regard to my perspective on what it means to be a Christian, but one thing remains: God’s Word. I still believe the Bible is true in every word, I still believe that God has preserved His Word as He promised, and I still believe that for English-speaking people He has done that miraculous work of preserving His Word in the King James Bible.

At this point in my life, I am on the other side of 30 years of research and study on this issue. My faith in these conclusions on the KJV is as strong as my faith in the clear and indisputable doctrines within her pages. I refuse to argue the subject any further with those who would attempt to convert or convince me, but I also refuse to push my position on anyone.

That being said, the root of my position is found in the well-established history of the Bible. Specifically the New Testament, which originated from two distinct lines of manuscripts, one from Antioch, Syria and the other from Alexandria, Egypt. The KJV New Testament was translated from those Greek texts that came from Antioch, while nearly ALL other modern English translations are from the Alexandrian line. There’s an excellent chart in PDF form available, which details the history of the two lines. It’s from a site called Reasons for Hope Jesus and the chart can be found in PDF form here.

At the heart of the King James only argument is the contention that the manuscripts from Alexandria (including the Septuagint) were corrupt. Conversely, Bible scholars on the other side of this argument claim the exact opposite, that the Alexandrian texts are more reliable because they are the oldest. Those who, like me, have researched and concluded that the Alexandrian texts are corrupt will emphatically proclaim that older in this case does not necessarily mean better. On the contrary, the fact that they are older is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence against them, as it indicates that they are still in existence because they were known to be unreliable, and hence were not used!

A good source for this claim can be found in a detailed article by Luke Mounsey at Preserved Word Ministries. You can find that article here. This source also includes additional sources.

The second piece of the KJV-only argument follows the first, as the corruption of the Alexandrian line of manuscripts is evidenced by the omissions and contradictions that are found among the various English translations that have been derived from that family of texts. Suffice it to say that among all of the English translations there are simply too many significant differences to ignore, differences that create doctrinal confusion for any honest student of the Bible.

Over the course of the last 37 years, I have always been Baptistic in my belief and understanding of Scripture, but my thinking has evolved from what many would consider very liberal evangelical to the more conservative Fundamental Baptist. Then, in the past couple of years as I have grown in my faith and my family has gone through the trauma of removing ourselves from a hyper-dispensational cult, I believe the Lord has brought me back to a more moderate, and hopefully more biblical place. However, the one piece of “fundamentalist” thinking in which I have remained firmly planted, is that piece which I am explaining here. And the most significant root of that for me was what is known as the Johannine Comma. It’s the Bible scholar’s term for 1 John 5:7 as it appears only in the KJV and a scant few of the other English translations that were derived from the line of texts out of Antioch. “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7 – KJV). In Dr. Thomas Holland’s words, “the verse is a wonderful testimony to the Heavenly Trinity and should be maintained in our English versions, not only because of its doctrinal significance but because of the external and internal evidence that testify to its authenticity.” This is a quote from Holland’s book, Crowned with Glory, which I found in an excerpt here. The entire book is another excellent resource in support of the KJV. While Holland’s wording may seem to carry the  connotation that his doctrinal reasoning is secondary, it seems to me that doctrine is everything when it comes to our understanding of Scripture as it was intended.

While I find the Johannine Comma to be the most egregious of omissions in the Alexandrian texts, there are so many others that remain deeply concerning to me. There are not only omissions of crucial gospel-related concepts such as the Blood and repentance, but also verbiage that confuses the difference between Christ and Satan and that blatantly deny the deity of Christ! There’s a chart that contains some of these instances here, but it’s certainly not exhaustive by far.

I could write an entire book if I was inclined to lay out every piece of evidence, and many authors have. However, all the evidence notwithstanding, the basic question of which line to trust can be answered simply by the undisputable fact that there is no other English translation that has stood the test of time that the King James has. In light of all of this, the Bible believer who is not KJV only is forced to tread the dangerous road of embracing the uncertainty of textual criticism. This route leaves the interpretation of doctrinal truth open to the interpretation of the individual. I cannot accept that God would preserve His Word in such a haphazard way!

Here’s the bottom line: I believe by faith that God inspired the words of the original authors. I also believe by faith that God performed a similar miracle when He guided the hearts and minds of the flawed men who decided which books to include in the canon of Scripture. And finally, I believe by faith that God miraculously guided the pens of the flawed, sinful men who translated the Bible into English in 1611 as well as those who revised it in 1769 by correcting what amounted to print errors.

For all the reasons noted herein, I could not in good conscience make a long-term commitment to a church where the King James is not the standard for preachers and teachers. That being said, I love my brethren who may not agree, gladly and graciously fellowship with them and have often found great encouragement and spiritual edification from doing so.