I'm In Again, Out Again of the King James Only Movement
I can't deny that the alma mater I went to was not a King James Only Baptist school. I was saved and I started using the New International Version (NIV). The pastor who preached to me the message of salvation usually used the NIV though he also used the King James Version (KJV). Then I remembered an Anabaptist pastor who preached on TV and I used to tune in to him until he got banned on air. That Anabaptist pastor though used to be a Bible Baptist then became an extreme KJV Only. I even heard that some moderate KJV Only pastors don't like his approach with fighting pastors who didn't use the KJV. Moderate KJV Onlyists said, "If you want our brethren to use the KJV - educate, don't fight!" I've met moderate fundamental Baptists who still embrace non-KJV Only as brothers and sisters in Christ. However, they are still convinced that the KJV is the most accurate translation and wish their brethren to stop using other versions.
For one, I could say that KJV Only is more on manuscript or Textus Receptus history. The other Bibles use several other manuscripts such as the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Note that the Vaticanus manuscripts were only named after the Vatican. Maybe, it's better to call the Vaticanus manuscripts as the Erasmus manuscripts. The codex was named after a copy of it was in the Vatican Library. From what I heard, Eusebius was among the writers. I can't be too certain about the history since there's also the Masoretic text and the Textus Receptus. What's amazing is that the New Testament in both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus didn't have verses present in Textus Receptus. Until now, I'm still wondering about that and I think those missing verses should either appear in bracket or footnote. I still think Acts 8:37 is a very important verse.
One problem with KJV Only is the question, "Where was the Word of God before 1611?" Unfortunately, Gene Kim doesn't give a very good answer. Usually, I appeal to manuscript and translation history that the KJV is the only Bible that had the most diligent translators. I started having doubts about the New KJV or NKJV because it's alleged that the translators were supposedly Vatican stooges. The comic book "Sabotage" by Jack T. Chick as well as the book "Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible" by David W. Daniels is said to be full of half-truths. Right now, I'm even wondering if the Alexandrian Cult is as real as the Jesuit Order. There was even the allegation that a homosexual translator was in the board of the NIV.
I decided to really go on the moderate side of the KJV Only moment. I still embraced brothers and sisters who didn't go for it. I didn't want to make it an issue. Unfortunately, the KJV Only movement has been tainted by association with conspiracy fundamentalist loonies like Chick Publications and Jesus-is-Savior. Need I mention some cults are also KJV Only? The late Tony Alamo was also KJV Only but he and his cult taught a lot of heretical teachings. Both Alamo and Jack Hyles were also sexual reprobates who were KJV Only. Hyles taught easy-believism. Meanwhile, David W. Cloud is a moderate KJV Only. Personally, I think he rejects some superficial or extreme KJV Only beliefs such as he believes that a person can still be saved in what he considers to be "corrupt" modern translations. I still use Cloud's site as a reference even I'm now having Calvinistic or Reformed leanings unlike him who is more or less a moderate fundamentalist. Cloud still embraces Calvinists and non-KJV Only Christians while still feeling the need to give them brotherly rebuke.
I switched reading the NIV to the KJV because of the preachings of an Anabaptist preacher on-air. I was soon convicted about receiving Jesus as my Lord and Savior because I finally realized I can't work my way to Heaven. The Anabaptist preacher was extreme KJV Only. He did show some differences between this and that such as the NIV. The pastor who shared to me the Gospel was a Baptist but he considered KJV Only to be a rather extreme movement. That same Baptist pastor said that while he loves the KJV - he thinks that the NIV and English Standard Version (ESV) can serve as secondary references to help deal with archaic language. KJV is harder to understand unless you have a glossary. I did go from NIV to KJV and had to really try and look at the glossary of my first KJV. I preferred the KJV thinking it easier to understand. However, so many archaic words can be confusing. I got into the KJV Only movement for some time except I wasn't on the extreme side. I still embraced non-KJV Only while trying to convince them why the KJV is the only Bible you should use.
I switched reading the NIV to the KJV because of the preachings of an Anabaptist preacher on-air. I was soon convicted about receiving Jesus as my Lord and Savior because I finally realized I can't work my way to Heaven. The Anabaptist preacher was extreme KJV Only. He did show some differences between this and that such as the NIV. The pastor who shared to me the Gospel was a Baptist but he considered KJV Only to be a rather extreme movement. That same Baptist pastor said that while he loves the KJV - he thinks that the NIV and English Standard Version (ESV) can serve as secondary references to help deal with archaic language. KJV is harder to understand unless you have a glossary. I did go from NIV to KJV and had to really try and look at the glossary of my first KJV. I preferred the KJV thinking it easier to understand. However, so many archaic words can be confusing. I got into the KJV Only movement for some time except I wasn't on the extreme side. I still embraced non-KJV Only while trying to convince them why the KJV is the only Bible you should use.
What should be shocking to learn is that Charles H. Spurgeon wasn't KJV Only. Spurgeon seldom had readings from the Revised Version which today is the basis for the ESV. Both KJV and ESV are Calvinist translations. Spurgeon did love the KJV the most but he wasn't really much of KJV only. I wonder how much the English language evolved at that time. What should be noteworthy is that Brook Foss Westcott and John Anthony Hort were already around in the 1800s. Spurgeon was using the KJV the most yet he used the RV which contained the critical Greek text. I even heard the translators of the KJV were not restrictively KJV Only too. Although I still believe Easter was not a mistranslation of the KJV. Easter was used by William Tyndale in his translations although Passover would be more accurate as used in other versions. I wonder what Baptists would have to say that Spurgeon wasn't KJV Only? Some moderate KJV Only will say that he was wrong in that regard and that other brethren are wrong in that regard. It's like how moderate KJV Onlyists will still endorse John F. MacArthur, Ray Comfort, or Robert C. Sproul Sr. who aren't KJV Only. Vernon McGee himself wasn't KJV Only too. Extreme KJV Onlyists would probably deny that Spurgeon didn't subscribe to their extremism.
I do have some middle ground on the KJV Only vs. Non-KJV Only. If I choose to be KJV Only then I would follow the example set by the moderate KJV Only crowd. Maybe, it's better to call the moderate as KJV by preference. In my case, I prefer to use the KJV as my default Bible reading while reading the ESV or the NIV if some things are too hardly stated. However, I still have my doubts if the missing verses aren't really missing. I mean, I still prefer to have Acts 8:34 or Matthew 23:14 in my Bible. I still think that 1 John 5:7 is incomplete without "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost - these three are one." I still think modern translations should either put the alleged "added" verses in brackets or parenthesis or at least put them in the footnotes. I still think those verses were probably not copied over or were probably ancient footnotes. My problem these days isn't the preference of the KJV but rather the extreme KJV Onlyists who have gone beyond professionalism, how some of the KJV Onlyists have subscribed to Hyles' easy believism movement (though thankfully, Cloud didn't), or how it's now tainted by association with conspiracy theorists such as Chick and Stewart.
I still find myself in a shaky position about the KJV Only movement. Other than that, I still find it comforting that there are non-extreme or moderate KJV Onlyists out there. I'm glad that there are still non-KJV Only pastors who still use the KJV and think it's an excellent translation.
See also: