Where did King James only originate?

Which KJV Bible is the "uncorrupted" one? The KJV hasn't remained static itself. So if other versions have changes, or corruptions, it stands to reason the KJV has corruptions as well. How do we know which version is the perfect one without corruptions?

I found this video and this guy does a superb job of explaining clearly how we from point A to point B; where KJV onlyism started and where it stands today. You don't find out till the end that he's actually a KJV onlyist; however, his position is the KJV only narrative needs to be revised and updated based on new evidence, not superstition.

KJV onlyism started way before Westcott & Hort or the Revised version or any modern Bibles. He quotes part of a constitution of a Baptist association that was formed in 1838. Article II-D says: "We believe the scriptures of the Old and New Testament as translated by King James to be the word of God and the only rule of faith and practice." Back then everyone saw the KJV as the inerrant word of God because the KJV was the only one available! Of course it was the inerrant word of God.

Fast forward to the RSV. People didn't like it. They loved their KJV and didn't want something new coming along and replacing it. It was shortly after this that books defending the KJV started appearing. He gives the first one as Which Version by Philip Morrow. Wilkinson's came next in 1930.

It appears KJV onlyism started as a reaction to the fear that the beloved KJV would be replaced. It used as its argument that the KJV and it only is the inerrant word of God. That may have made sense in 1838, but today it just sound ridiculous.

The Geneva Bible was still the most popular English version in the world when the pilgrims came to America. It was the Bible of the reformation and the quakers and such.
The kjv had all the power of the British empire tho to print zillions of copies and push other versions out of the market.

True. The KJV "translators" used many readings from the Geneva in the KJV.

They also used many readings from the Catholic Rheims Bible of 1582.

They basically cherry picked from many different sources which were already available.

NOTE: Philip "Morrow" should be Mauro.

So what do you say about the guy when he talked about the "old conception"? as in post #82? What about the Orthodox Baptist Confession in 1679?

I have no idea what you're talking about. You'll have to educate me.

You have attached a video you may don't know. Perhaps you missed it. Rather I, he will or the post #82 which is a cut and paste of mine by Herb Evans written in 2004.

I believe I will be able to provide support if not a proof text; as has always been the case in my dealings with you.

I believe that the kjv is superior to other translations because I can prove that Jesus is satan using the NIV or the NASB...however, in the kjv it cannot thus be proven.

2Pe 2:1, But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2, And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

In the NASB or the NIV, a comparison of Isaiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:16 bears out that Jesus is satan.

This is why I unequivocally reject those versions; if they have blundered on such an important issue, what other issues have they blundered on?

This is a pretty cool post, JBF. Very, very interesting.

The bottom line, which even the guy in the videos promotes, is that even though we don't have the original autographs, the KJV has preserved God's inspired words which were in the autographs. But there's no way at all to verify this; it's just someone's opinion that can't be refuted. If that doesn't qualify as a superstition I don't know what does.

I could just as easily say God's inspired words have been preserved in the works of Jack London. It's ridiculous, but no one can refute or disprove it since we don't have God's originals.

One might think, Is there corruption made in the KJB? I would say, yes, as it all started in the Revised version of 1881 and that is according to the revisers' committee. So that from 1611 until 1881, there's none. If you are talking about spelling changes and other standardization, it was no longer the fault of the translators. The 1679 Orthodox Confession made by General Baptist in Article 27 believes "...as they are now translated into our English Mother-Tongue, of which there hath never been any doubt of their Verity, and Authority, in the Protestant Churches of Christ to this Day. " but this was on 1679. The then "now translated into our English -Mother Tongue" would only be in reference to the KJB at their time. Even the American Bible Society in 1858 appointed committees to be sure to avoid any textual corruption from the KJB. If you may could you also please educate me if there were true "corruptions" in the KJB until 1881? Thanks

Um, no.

Firstly, the term "satan" doesn't appear in either passage in any of the translations, so your point is completely without foundation.

Secondly, the term, "Lucifer" in the KJV is not correct. It is a transliteration from the Latin Vulgate, not a translation from the Hebrew.

Thirdly, the term, "morning star" appearing in both passages in the NIV and NASB is nowhere near enough to "prove" anything.

Maybe you should do your homework instead of mindlessly parroting information from some other source.

I would agree that Jesus and satan are not the same "morning star".

Satan, in the kjv, is not a "morning star" but is given the name Lucifer; which, btw, is a more correct translations than in the NASB and the NIV which gives satan a foothold to really harass and stumble believers with what is called "morning star doctrine".

I struggled with this problem for years. The only thing that sustained me was Proverbs 3:5-6; until I came across enough passages in my reading that substantiated the goodness of the Lord; so that I was able to see clearly that Jesus, in holy scripture, is NOT satan.

But you can bet that the NASB and the NIV's rendering in Isaiah 14:12 was a stumbling block to me for quite some time. One of the things that kept me in the faith was an adherence to the kjv and a rejection fo the NASB and the NIV as concerning this rendering.

I have found that those who desire to defend the NIV and NASB in this will argue it even to the point where they will be arguing that Jesus really is satan. Someone named Beloved Daughter at CARM did this with me; and it spun me for a loop. i don't think that she knew what she was really saying.

Truly, what is written in 2 Peter 2:1-2 is true of some of these NASB and NIV proponents. They will argue for their position even to the point where they will deny the Lord who bought them.

Lucifer is not the correct translations. An incorrect translation cannot possibly be "more correct" than something that is a correct translation! There are two problems with "Lucifer": it's a Latin word, not an English word; and it's not a proper name.

A faithful translation will give the accurate translation of the original word, even it if makes readers uncomfortable. The problem is not with the translation itself, but with the reader's inability to process the text. You would say the same thing about other passages (and have done), but you violate your own standard to throw shade on other translations.


There are people who do foolish things with the KJV too. The problem is not limited to those who use other translations.

The question is, Are you going to be one of those who decidedly argues for the concept that Jesus is satan?

Because it seems to me, that if you are arguing for the translation of "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12, that you are in fact promoting a stumbling block to the faithful.

Because Isaiah 14:8-20 is clearly a passage about satan in holy scripture.

It has been traditionally interpreted as such and the context also bears it out.

It has also been well-known in Christian circles for centuries that "Lucifer" is the name that the devil had before he was cast out of heaven.

An entire anti-Christian religion (Wicca) has also been formulated around the person of Lucifer.

Any more insipid speculations you'd like to post, while you're at it?

I'm promoting faithfulness to the text, even where it makes the reader uncomfortable. The Bible is not intended to soothe you in your ignorance.

Do you know what "satan" means? It's not a proper name.

It's been well-known for centuries that "Lucifer" is the Latin word that Jerome used in the Vulgate. It has nothing to do with the actual name of the devil. Do your homework!

@Dino246,

You consistently fight against sound doctrine on these boards; claiming that if we do not have a proof text for what we are saying (that is sound doctrine), that it is therefore not sound doctrine.

Nevertheless this is what the scripture says.

Tit 1:7, For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
Tit 1:8, But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
Tit 1:9, Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Therefore, sound doctrine is my answer to every argument.

And, if we do not have a proof text for sound doctrine because it only flies in the kjv and not in some of the modern translations, it remains that it is sound doctrine that is being proclaimed; and that the kjv is correct to contain the scriptures that substantiate it even while some modern translations might omit the words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and even entire passages that substantiate the sound doctrine that is being attacked by the devil in any given situation where sound doctrine is the response to an assertion.

It is written in two places in holy scripture (Romans 1:29, 2 Corinthians 12:20-21) that being in debate mode is a sinful mode to be in.

Therefore, when we say such things as this: that our opponent is not using the proper logic and that his logic is faulty and that therefore he doesn't have any ground to stand on, are we not in debate mode?

But the reality is that your opponent does have ground to stand on....the solid ground of believing in sound doctrine.

Whether he has the skills to talk about how the sound doctrine in question is substantiated by this or that scripture, or not; if he is speaking forth sound doctrine, he is speaking forth the truth.

And therefore his lack of ability to show forth the scriptural substantiation for what he is saying may be irrelevant.

What matters is that it is sound doctrine that is being set forth. Of course it always helps to show how the Bible substantiates it; for without something in the Bible supporting a doctrine, it very likely isn't sound.

And yet it may in fact be sound if there is supporting evidence but no proof texts.

For I have even seen it happen when proof texts have been given and the people hearing the proof texts have even rejected the testimony that was given. Therefore I think that sometimes God sets in His word sound doctrine that is supported not by proof texts, but by evidentiary texts. Because if He laid it out in a proof text, He would have to punish them with a greater punishment when they reject what has been spoken; for they would be accountable for rejecting something that is irrefutable. At least when there is only evidence for a claim, the people who reject what is spoken are not held as accountable for their rejection of what the scripture says; and God in his mercy has ordained it to be so, in order that He might be merciful to those who reject Him and still be just.

Nevertheless, sound doctrine, when it only has supporting evidence apart from actual proof texts, will be testified to by the Holy Spirit that it is indeed sound doctrine; the Holy Spirit will take a person the rest of the way into understanding doctrine that is sound if they are willing to listen to Him when He begins to woo them by showing them mere evidence for a claim that He is wanting to make to them.

"satan" is indeed a proper name; and "Lucifer" is indeed the name that was given to the devil before he fell from heaven.