Unicorns and KJV-Onlyism an introductory fact sheet By Jack Kettler
The writer of this fact sheet has written 15 books on theology and uses the KJV. Nevertheless, this writer does not subscribe to KJV-Onlysim. Just because someone prefers the KJV does not make them a KJV-Onlyist.
What is KJV-Onlyism?
King James Onlyism refers to a dogma that demands that all Christians must use the King James Version of the Bible solely. Some adherents go so far as to say that the KJV translators were divinely inspired. For those, it is asked how they know this. Did they pray about it and get an answer like the Mormons?
After interacting with some onlyists, there is confusion about where the authority lies. Is it in the Greek (Textus Receptus) and Hebrew (Masoretic) manuscripts or in the KJV? This writer had one onlyist say the KJV was better than the Textus Receptus end of the debate.
Without using the pejorative “conspiracy theorist.” nevertheless, KJV-Onlyism tends to operate in terms of a sinister plot of wicked people that are evil people changing the Bible. In addition, these same unnamed individuals intentionally mistranslate the Bible in order to insert false teachings into the sacred text.
It is readily admitted that there are many horrendous translations, but it does not follow that because some are bad, and all are bad. To believe this is to believe a non-sequitur.
Questions that arise:
If KJV-Onlyism is true, why did God wait for 1600 hundred years to reveal this translation? In striking similarity with the Mormon claim that God could not find anyone to restore the church for 1800 years.
What about all of the non-English speaking people around the world? One onlyist said they could use the Internet to solve this problem. But, unfortunately, for many, this would not have helped in light of the short time the Internet has existed. Also, what about the Indians living in the jungles of South America with no electricity?
A textual issue:
Is one manuscript text better than many manuscripts? At first, one manuscript a person may think that one is better. However, this is not the case. For Islam and Mormons, the true copy of their ex-biblical revelations, the Koran, and the Book of Mormon are in heaven, conveniently where these alleged texts cannot be analyzed. In Islam, there is only one approved text of the Koran; all other versions were destroyed.
Why multiple manuscript sources are better than one:
“If one has few manuscripts of a work from antiquity, textual variations can be a real problem. But the more manuscripts you have from a wide range of locations and from early on in the text’s transmission, the better off you are. And all scholars agree that of all ancient documents, without doubt the single earliest, best, and most widely attested document is the New Testament.” Comparison of the New Testament to other documents of that age does not even seem fair. While the average work of antiquity has no witnesses until five hundred years after its production, the New Testament boasts numerous witnesses within the first hundred years, and many more within two hundred more years, from a wide geographical area. As noted, we have entire copies of the complete New Testament from as early as the start of the fourth century, and papyri fragments of individual books have been dated to the earliest years of the second century, an unheard-of treasure trove, historically speaking. As these earlier and earlier manuscripts have been found, they have shown that the text popular in the medieval period is not radically altered but is the very same primitive text of the New Testament.[ 183] No evidence exists of major alterations seeking to remove doctrines, insert beliefs, and the like.[ 184] Any fair analysis of the text’s transmission reveals that its scribes sought to the very best of their ability to transmit it accurately.[ 185] - White, James R. What Every Christian Needs to Know About the Qur'an (p. 231). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.
Assuming what needs to be proved:
In the more extreme varieties of KJV-Onlyism, one encounters circular reasoning when the topic of other translations comes up. For example, if another translation reads differently than the KJV, the promoters will say the newer translation is in error. The fallacy of this is assuming what they need to prove. This is otherwise known as the fallacy of begging the question, which occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion instead of supporting or proving it.
Were the KJV translators KJV-Onlyists?
The original KJV translators in 1611 did not hold their translation as inerrant or inspired. For example, the Preface of the original KJV- entitled The Translators to the Reader – explains:
“As Saint Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” Documents of the English Reformation, Edited by Gerald Bray p. 434.
Some onlyists think the KJV translators were inspired to do a perfect translation, which would be “God’s preserved word for the English-speaking people.” There is no hint that the KJV translators thought they were the only inspired group of translators. Instead, they saw themselves as imperfect human translators trying to do their best. They said:
“Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators…neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered.” Excerpted from an article by Dr. Robert Joyner titled “Is the King James Version the Only Divinely Inspired Version?”
The KJV translators certainly were not “King James Onlyists.” For example, they wrote:
“Variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…” “Using other versions is one of the best ways to study the Bible because different translations reveal the different shades of meaning found in the original texts.” Excerpted from an article by Dr. Robert Joyner titled “Is the King James Version the Only Divinely Inspired Version?”
If there is one error in the translation of the KJV, how can this be explained by the onlyists?
“His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17 KJV)
“His glory is like a firstborn bull, And his horns like the horns of the wild ox; Together with them He shall push the peoples To the ends of the earth; They are the ten thousands of Ephraim, And they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17 NKJV)
The word unicorn is a poor translation. Unicorns do not exist! What would an onlyist say to this?
Strong's Concordance gets it correct, and the NKJV uses the better translation of רְאֵם (reem), a wild ox:
“reem: a wild ox
Original word: רְאֵם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: reem
Phonetic Spelling: (reh-ame')
Definition: a wild ox.”
Many more examples like this can be shown. Putting two translations side by side, highlighting a difference, does not prove anything. All this shows that the translation of certain words is different. Exegetical work must be done.
Most people have heard of the Wycliffe Bible translators. It may come as a shock to the onlyists, but today the Wycliffe translators, as a rule, use the Westcott-Hort or United Bible Societies Greek text. In the past, many of the Wycliffe translators favored the Majority Text.
In conclusion:
This writer is not accusing the onlyists of being a cult. However, when interacting with some onlyists, they certainly appear to have cult like traits by not seriously interacting with non-onlyists. Furthermore, in light of the fact that for most of church history, the KJV Bible did not exist, to now maintain a KJV-Onlyist position is preposterous.
It is freely admitted that there are bad translations. Nevertheless, the Bible does not command the use of any specific translation or prohibit the production of other translations. The existence of multiple manuscripts has always been considered an apologetic strength. Consulting a variety of translations in Bible study seems prudent. Trying to box fellow Christians into using one translation that is 400 years old is misguided and exhibits the spirit of sectarianism. Onlyism must be lonely, or as Roy Orbison sang, “only the lonely.”
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
An attempted response:
Some of the readers may have followed a recent thread where several individuals engaged an individual who is promoting a highly sectarian and divisive theory about the only translation that is supposedly approved by God for believers, namely, KJV-Onlyism. Upon reflection, this individual’s approach can be described as non or subpar scholarship coupled with an unending series of logical fallacies. The most common was the fallacy of begging the question. This occurred repeatedly when the individual’s argument's premises assumed the truth of the conclusion, instead of proving it.
Other fallacies that occurred in this thread were hasty generalizations, or an appeal to authority, the individual claimed an authority figure’s expertise to support a claim despite this expertise being irrelevant or overstated. Circular arguments were used and is one that uses the same statement as both the premise and the conclusions, in which no new information or justification is introduced. Non-sequiturs were used repeatedly.
Tragically, the individual had no idea how to exegete a word appearing in the Biblical Hebrew or Greek text. For example:
“His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them, he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17 KJV)
“His glory is like a firstborn bull, And his horns like the horns of the wild ox; Together with them He shall push the peoples To the ends of the earth; They are the ten thousands of Ephraim, And they are the thousands of Manasseh.” (Deuteronomy 33:17 NKJV)
The word unicorn is a poor translation.
Strong's Concordance gets it correct, and the NKJV uses the better translation of רְאֵם (reem), a wild ox:
“reem: a wild ox
Original word: רְאֵם
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: reem
Phonetic Spelling: (reh-ame')
Definition: a wild ox.”
The individual said that there are creatures that exist with only one horn. This response did not show exegetically how the Hebrew reem: a wild ox is better-translated unicorn.
And finally, this individual’s arguments did not show how those that use the NKJV or the ESV, or the NASB would put one who believes the gospel into danger of hellfire and thus can be dismissed as a schismatic practice and those advocating it should be avoided.
Mr. Kettler has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of books defending the Reformed Faith. Books can be ordered online at: https://www.amazon.com/Books-Jack-Kettler/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AJack+Kettler