For centuries, the Bible was inaccessible to most English-speaking Christians for a
variety of reasons, not the least of which was that all but the educated classes were
totally illiterate.
Even those who could read would still have a hard time getting their hands on one, though.
Prior to the invention of the printing press, they were painstakingly copied by hand and
would have been rare and invaluable.
And then there was the fact that the Bible was written in languages that you'd have to
study for years to understand.
It wasn't actually translated into English until the 1300s.
"Romanes eunt domus?
People call Romans go the house?"
"It says 'Romans go home.'"
"No it doesn't."
In 1611, the Big Daddy of English translations of the Bible came into being: the King James
Bible, translated from various texts into English on orders of King James I.
To this day, four centuries after its initial publication, not only is it still printed,
but the text still permeates the English lexicon.
This is the text from which iconic phrases such as "Do unto others" and "Thou shalt not
kill" first appear.
These days, there are dozens of Bible translations available to English-speaking Christians.
But for a small subset of Christians, the King James Version is the only way to go.
Indeed, some Christians lean so heavily into the KJV that they believe that any other English
translation of the text is flawed to the point of being heretical.
So what's the reasoning behind this belief?
"Vocative plural of 'Romanus' is?"
"Anni?"
"Romani..."
To understand the "King James Only" controversy, you've first got to understand the history
of the Bible itself.
To make an extremely long story short, the original pages on which the original authors
wrote their words are long gone.
The copies of copies of those manuscripts form the basis for the current Bible.
The King James Version was translated from one set of manuscripts, while other English
translations come from a different set of manuscripts.
On his blog The Gospel Coalition, the columnist and author Trevin Wax writes:
"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 [...] agenda."
However, KJV-only adherent Ken Matto, writing in Scion of Zion, explains why he doesn't
see things that way.
He points to several specific Bible verses — and the differences in translation therein
— as evidence that modern translations completely mess up the meaning of the text.
In fact, he believes these botched translations promote a heretical doctrine.
Matto writes:
"The serious challenges the church faces today is due to the influx of counterfeit Bible
versions."
"'Go home?'
This is motion towards, isn't it boy?"
"Dative, sir!"
"Aaargh!
Not the dative, not the dative!"
The debate stems from the different ways that some versions of the Bible are translated.
Some take an approach called "meaning-to-meaning."
These versions are close to the original text, but use more modern language.
A contrasting kind of translation of the Bible is largely done by paraphrasing, using freer
or looser translations.
There are other arguments that King James Version-only adherents might make, most of
which involve other arcane textual issues.
However, beneath all these obscure complexities, one simple fact is that many Christians choose
the KJV for no other reason than that they like it.
Writing for his blog Head, Heart and Hand, theology professor David Murray notes that
many Christians grew up in congregations that used the KJV in teaching and preaching, and
they feel there's no need to buck tradition.
To them, familiarity is comfortable.
Murray writes:
"The language is part of their spiritual vocabulary and reminds them of many sermons they heard
throughout the years."
Similarly, in the minds of some believers there may exist an "us versus them" mentality.
Notably, some Christians brought up in the KJV tradition believe that churches that use
more modern English translations are rejecting old doctrine.
As well as that, more modern translations are filled with footnotes that point readers
to textual variances, contextual clues, and other similar details.
These footnotes distract and confuse some readers and push them toward the KJV.
Between that and the familiarity of a tried and tested translation, it's no surprise that
the King James Version of the Bible continues to stand the test of time.
Check out one of our newest videos right here!
Plus, even more Grunge videos about religious history are coming soon.
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don't miss a single one.