I Can Remain as a Moderate KJV Only But I'm Against Extreme KJV Onlyism
Make no mistake that I love the King James Version and it's what I use for my daily readings and citing of verses. I still feel that the 17 verses not found in later translations are still important verses. I think that modern translations should either put them on footnotes or at least bracket them if they are in doubt.
I was thinking about how David W. Cloud of Way of Life is still someone I'd endorse even if he's got some things wrong. In Cloud's article "King James Only" - he has what he doesn't mean by KJV Only:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense and heresy, as it would mean the pure and preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not important to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a proper understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of original language study tools, because many of them were influenced by the unsound theories of modern textual criticism.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel.
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy and unchangeable or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”
It has me thinking that I'm probably still as stubborn as ever when it comes to KJV Only. Sure, I can accept that Charles H. Spurgeon wasn't KJV Only - I still think that the Revised Version or that maybe the copy of the Codex Sinaiticus is not as reliable as Erasmus' Textus Receptus. I'll admit that I'm still open to a KJV Bible with updated language without the thou and thees. Cloud himself has been open to updating the languages from 1611 because language evolves over time. Cloud also has his doubts that the KJV will ever be replaced while he's still open to updating it for a modern audience. I still embrace non-KJV only brothers and sisters in Christ without accepting their modern versions. I still think that the English Standard Version (ESV) and the New International Version (NIV) aren't as good as the KJV. However, I do want to stay clear from Jack T. Chick's conspiracies behind them because they will only drive me crazy reading them.
I was thinking about the forms of KJV extremism which he has cited. Remember the KJV was edited seven times because the translators couldn't afford to mistranslate what they believe is the inspired Word of God. Also, to say that we don't need a Study Bible or any study tools (something that David W. Daniels seems to suggest) is just faulty. True, we need to have the Bible as our first authority but wouldn't it be helpful to have a commentary? Spurgeon has a commentary and even recommend "Matthew Henry's Complete Commentary on the Entire Bible" to be read carefully at least once. Learning Hebrew and the Greek is necessary because remember that the English Bibles before the KJV such as the Martin Luther Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Wycliffe Bible were translated from Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. In the case of Luther, he was translating from the Latin Vulgate - something I consider as an inferior manuscript. I think the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text are still more reliable than the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. Note that the Vaticanus was named only after it was discovered by the Vatican - not a Vatican manuscript. I still believe that the 17 missing verses in modern translations should be there or should at least be put in brackets if the translators are in doubt.
I think the idea of preachers who don't preach from the KJV isn't saved is ridiculous. Just think did the KJV exist before 1611? Even after 1611 - the KJV underwent revisions and editing. I believe the KJV I have in my hands today has been updated after 1611. Also, it had copyright as to avoid anyone from tampering it or to protect its contents. Cloud still considers modern versions corrupt due to them being translated in an apostate age. However, you do you have to realize that some people got saved and are living saved lives even if they aren't going to KJV Only churches. I find some of the best churches today aren't KJV Only. Well, the pulpit of the late Jack Hyles was KJV Only but guess what - the churches under that same organization were well-riddled in sex scandals. The scandals of Hyles are well-documented - something that should call as to why Hyles should not be considered a hero of the faith. The late charlatan Alberto R. Rivera and the late Tony Alamo were KJV Only but these guys were sexually immoral perverts as Hyles.
Not to mention, an Anabaptist pastor whose message convinced me that I needed to get saved (though I just heard it via broadcast) is someone I no longer endorse. Sadly, while he has brought many people to Christ but he has also shamed the Body of Christ by quarreling with pastors who refuse to use the KJV. In my case, I still feel I'm that moderate KJV Only guy who embraces non-KJV people as long as they show signs of truly being converted. However, I'm still convinced that the KJV is the best English translation there is and that modern versions today need to be taken with a grain of salt. Sure, I tend to use the English Standard Version (ESV) or New International Version (NIV) to help cut through archaic KJV language - the KJV for me is still the best translation I can have today. But that doesn't mean I have the right or authority to insult or threaten other assemblies that aren't KJV Only. I still listen to non-KJV Only preachers even if I stand by the position that the KJV is the best English translation around today. However, I don't see any reason why I shouldn't be thankful for the Geneva Bible (though King James called the marginal notes treasonous which I don't think it is) or the Wycliff Bible as other references to defend why the KJV is the best translation for me.
This also means that while I'm still using KJV as default - I still think Chick Publications and Jesus-is-Savior have been manufacturing half-truths. One book I can no longer recommend is "Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible" by Daniels. Daniels has been showing signs of telling half-truths. Not to mention, Chick Publications never recanted of publishing the fraudulent story of Rivera. Chick died believing that Rivera's story was real and the same comic book is damaging missions to Roman Catholics. Roy Livesey in his book "The Alberto Rivera Story" even consulted two real former Jesuit priests on Rivera. Victor Affonso who was a Jesuit priest in Spain, during the reign of the dictator Francisco Franco revealed that Rivera wasn't a former Jesuit priest but also that the claim of a madhouse for priests was a blatant lie. Every priest and nun interviewed on the video "Catholicism: Crisis of Faith" denied Rivera was ever a former priest. I could still be a KJV Onlyist without supporting those two controversial fundamentalist conspiracists. Those tho extreme KJV Only sites are more focused on conspiracy theories than the truth. I believe it's possible to defend the KJV as the best translation without resolving to conspiracy theories such as falsely accusing the New KJV translators to be secretly Jesuit spies.
So, I really would say that the KJV is still the best translation. However, I just want to really be wary of conspiracy theorists who provide half-truths when defending why the KJV is the best translation there is.