Purpose of This Page
The goal of this page is to critically examine both the KJV-Only and KJV-Preferred positions from a textual and historical perspective. Rather than favoring a single translation, it focuses on analyzing manuscript evidence, textual traditions, and translation accuracy based on their claims and arguments, without theological bias. By addressing common misconceptions and evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of each view, this page encourages a more informed and objective understanding of how the Bible has been preserved and transmitted throughout history, I am not creating this section as a Bible scholar or an expert in the field, but I believe it is my responsibility to investigate claims brought to my attention, examine the evidence, and provide thoughtful analysis and discussion.
We plan to add more articles to this section of the website, to open each article click on the titles of each subject.
Note: The inclusion of names and references in this article is for research and discussion purposes only and does not constitute an endorsement of any individual, organisation, or theological position.
Click Button to open
About the article from the link abouve: John William Burgon’s defense of the Byzantine text and his rejection of early Alexandrian manuscripts. Burgon argued for the providential preservation of the “Traditional Text,” a view that influenced KJV-Only and KJV-Preferred positions. However, his reliance on theological assumptions over textual evidence has been widely challenged.
Daniel B. Wallace’s critique of The Majority Text Theory provides a scholarly counterpoint, questioning the assumption that the most copied text is the most accurate. He highlights the importance of early manuscripts, demonstrating that the Byzantine text reflects later developments rather than the original wording. This review encourages a balanced approach, prioritizing manuscript evidence over theological tradition.
Click Button to open
About the article from the link abouve: John William Burgon was not a Calvinist but was influenced by Calvinistic theology, particularly in his views on divine preservation and biblical authority. His theological framework aligned with key Reformed doctrines, such as God’s sovereignty and the belief that Scripture was providentially preserved through the Textus Receptus. Burgon was exposed to Calvinist thought through prominent 19th-century Reformed scholars and theologians, including those in the Anglican and Presbyterian traditions. Figures like Charles Haddon Spurgeon and F.H.A. Scrivener, who were involved in textual and biblical scholarship, represented the Calvinist influence of his time. While Burgon strongly defended the integrity of the traditional text, his opposition to modern textual criticism was shaped more by theological conservatism and his commitment to the historical church’s textual tradition rather than strict adherence to Calvinist dogma. His work reflects the broader influence of Reformed theology in debates over biblical preservation and transmission.
whilst you delve into the article in the link above you can see the following references that discribes above.
Books by Burgon Himself
- John William Burgon, The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels Vindicated and Established (1896) – This book outlines Burgon’s defense of the Textus Receptus and his theological rationale, which aligns with Reformed views on biblical preservation.
- John William Burgon, The Revision Revised (1883) – In this critique of the Revised Version and Westcott & Hort’s Greek text, Burgon’s theological presuppositions, including influences from Calvinistic views on Scripture, are evident.
Books on Burgon and Textual Criticism
- Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (1956) – Hills, a Reformed scholar, discusses Burgon’s influence on the defense of the Textus Receptus and how Reformed theology played a role in textual preservation arguments.
- David Beale, A Pictorial History of Our English Bible (1993) – This book explores the Reformation’s impact on Bible translation and textual criticism, providing insight into how Burgon’s views were shaped by the Protestant tradition.
- D.A. Waite, Burgon’s Warnings on Revision of the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible (1993) – A study of Burgon’s defense of the traditional text and his opposition to modern textual criticism, often citing his theological foundations.
Books on Calvinism and the English Bible
C.H. Spurgeon, The Down-Grade Controversy (1887) – Though not directly about Burgon, this work by Spurgeon highlights the theological debates of the time, including discussions on biblical authority and preservation, which Burgon was also engaged in.
Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics: The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy (2003) – Examines the influence of Calvinist theology on doctrines such as biblical preservation.
Ian Hamilton, The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy: Seceders and Subscription in Scottish Presbyterianism 1660-1800 (2010) – Discusses Calvinist beliefs about the authority and preservation of Scripture, which influenced later defenders of the Textus Receptus.
Click Button to open
My attempt is to critically examines Cloud’s assertions regarding the exclusivity of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. The author argues that the KJV was commissioned by King James I to reinforce the authority of the monarchy and the Church of England, contrasting it with earlier translations like William Tyndale’s Bible and the Geneva Bible, which promoted individual interpretation and resistance to tyranny. The article highlights that the KJV’s translation choices and lack of marginal notes were deliberate efforts to align Scripture with monarchical and Anglican interests. In contrast, the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles are presented as translations driven by a desire for scriptural accuracy and accessibility, free from institutional control. The author concludes by advocating for the preservation and preference of these earlier translations over the KJV, emphasizing their independence from political and religious agendas.
Click Button to Open
The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, completed in 1611, stands as one of the most enduring and influential English translations in history. Its majestic language has resonated deeply within Christian culture, establishing a profound connection between the English-speaking world and the Scriptures. However, the KJV owes much of its linguistic structure and phrasing to earlier translations, particularly those by William Tyndale. Without Tyndale’s revolutionary work, the KJV would not have been possible. In fact, much of the KJV is a reworking, if not outright copying, of Tyndale’s translations. This raises the issue of plagiarism, highlighting the extent to which the KJV relied on Tyndale’s work rather than creating an entirely new translation from the original texts.
Click Button to Open
Exert we ask how accurate are these claims of Dr. Frank Logsdon who was a project member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.
Click Button below to Open.
In his book Look What’s Missing, David W. Daniels of Chick Publications argues that modern Bible translations have systematically removed or altered significant portions of Scripture, leading believers away from foundational Christian doctrines. This critique primarily targets translations that differ from the King James Version (KJV), suggesting a deliberate agenda to corrupt biblical texts. However, a thorough examination of textual history, translation methodologies, and scholarly perspectives reveals that such claims are often based on misinformation and a misunderstanding of the complexities involved in biblical translation.
You must be logged in to post a comment.