Talk:King James Only movement

message: James White's book "The King James Only Controversy" was first published in 1995 (and an annotated copy is cited on the page many times from Archive.org of all places). An updated an expanded ("revised") edition was released on in 2009 and is the standard edition now. I have not compared to the editions to see what has changed in the arguments/evidence. White of course is not a textual scholar, but he is currently in a PhD program from an accredited university for new testament studies I believe.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:5205:A800:C8A9:DED4:A9FF:4042 (talk) 18:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: James R. White's Book

message: Are there any reliable estimates as to the number of KJVO believers, either in the United States or elsewhere? I'd be interested to know how popular the movement actually is within Christianity, and I'm sure that would be of interest to readers too. 147.147.20.80 (talk) 04:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: How Many?

message: I added the original research tag to the article because there are way too many statements without sources. It is not good enough to just list a bunch of books at the end of the article under "Further reading" and then synthesize from all of them throughout the article. Each statement needs to be sourced individually. From a practical standpoint, i think the article could be pared to 1/3 of its current length and it would still need 3 times as many sources. See Wikipedia:No original research for more information about Wikipedia's policy on and definition of original research.   — Chris Capoccia  T⁄C 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Should there be a section pointing out specific errors in the King James Bible.  For example, I want to add a section on how the KJV mistranslates the 6th commandment.  It says "Thou shalt not kill.", but the original Hebrew is more correctly translated to "Thou shalt not murder."  From a legal standpoint, there is a difference between the two words.  Kill means to take a life (plant, animal, human, bacteria, etc.) regardless of outside circumstances, and murder means to intentionally kill an innocent human, usually with malice, which leaves exceptions for a time of war, self-defense, and capital punishment.  Emperor001 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep in mind that this article is not about the KJV as such, but about a movement in the church advocating its use. So your list of errors would be better placed in Authorized King James Version. But even there, you would have to take care to avoid original research. In your case above, you will have to show cited sources which support your claim that "kill" is an erroneous translation. All in all, I guess such a list would be a great way to start a new edit war - one guy's translation error is another guy's doctrine, so I would probably avoid doing this. Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Sure, the KJV has some mistranslated words, but they are known and not many.  This article is about KJV-Onlyism and its extremes, not about the KJV. Mdoc7 (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: It is also noteworthy that some fundamentalists like Jack Chick go as far as to claim that it is the only God-approved Bible, even over other languages so that it cannot be translated unto other languages because it would lose its status. I'll try to get a quote for that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Chick

message: Dr. James White according to the web site http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php would definely have the King James onlyism divided up to 5 points , especially when he was a critical consultant to NASB Update.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.38.138 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, reminds me of 5 point Calvinism... Mdoc7 (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. James White Critical consultants to NASB Update 

message: This site http://textus-receptus.com/w/mediawiki-1.13.2/index.php/Main_Page is a wiki supporting the King James Version. Should there be a links section at the bottom of this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.91.212 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: TR Wiki site

message: I started to make an edit to this page on the basis that "Ruckmanism" is definately a </br> negative bash on the KJVO croud. It was stated that "this belief is often refered to </br> as ruckmanism..." Well, thats true, but its also quite obvious that the term is only </br> "user friendly". To quote from Dr. Ruckman, "Theres a screw loose </br> in the corkscrew of the screwball who's trying to ball things up".lol </br>
I suggest a change be made to the terminology in the article.
--GodSpeed and God Bless!  Devon Jones (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ruckmanism" 

message: First of all I would like to commend the editor(s) of this article.  I think you have achieved a fair level of neutrality within this article.  I would like to cite a view that is slightly distinct from any of what is classified under "Variations" section.  What I mean by this, is the "Received Text Only" position attributed to D.A. Waite is very close to what I and others would call "Perfect Preservation" view.  This would be attributed to Pastor Kent Brandenburg (and many others), whose book is the fourth one listed in the "Further Reading" section.  I haven't finalized my research on this topic, but I would like to know, if this would be worth attaching to this article, or should I go ahead and forge another or rather new article on this topic?  What say you? Bhardecker (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as a "neutral view" of a subject, because the truth will always part the lies.  The "Received Text only" position is the same stance as the "KJV only" stance.  And God never promised a divinely "perfect preservation" of the scriptures, despite what Brandenburg says, erroneously.Mdoc7 (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Perfect Preservation View

message: :The debate in favour of belief in Divine Preservation entered a new domain in modern times with the work of Gavin McGrath of Australia.   The first neo-Byzantine textual analyst in over 300 years, he writes in the tradition of e.g., Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir.   He is presently working on Received Text textual commentaries upholding the Received Text and King James Version e.g., Volume 1 (Matthew 1-14, 2008, revised 2010) or Volume 2 (Matthew 15-20).   These are available on-line at www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/.   (They may also be found via Yahoo or Google at "Gavin McGrath Books".)
This reads like advertising and makes no assertion of its notability, so I removed it. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising 

message: Shouldn't there be a criticism section in this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.18.42 (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism? 

message: I've heard many churchgoers claim that Jesus himself used the King James Version of the Bible, often claiming that "the version with the red letters is the only acceptable one; those are Jesus' own words". Is this a common thing within the King James Only community, or is it simply regional? --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: More likely just local.  A region would not be that naive about the KJV existing 2000 years ago.  (I hope)  However, red-lettered excerpts in the gospels and elsewhere in the NT are indeed what Jesus said, but in another language.  Mdoc7 (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Often attributed to Ma Ferguson... AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Jesus' Bible" 

message: "The Tragedy of Greedy Bible Publishing Companies" by Daniel Townsend (http://www.examiner.com/presbyterian-in-jackson/the-tragedy-of-greedy-bible-publishing-companies) explores the dearth of free English translations that are substantially more readable than the Early Modern English of the KJV. He's gone World English Bible-only because there aren't any other free translations of the Bible into contemporary English. Might legal threats be part of what inspires KJV-only movements? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't apply to the UK, where the KJV is under "crown copyright".  Anyway, in practice a number of translations seem to be available on the Internet for non-commercial use... AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright-based arguments for KJV preference 

message: I think a helpful addition to this article would be a section on the reasons behind KJV-onlyism (specifically the "Received text only" and "Inspired KJV group"). Without using circular reasoning or personal insults, show what basis there is or believing that the Textus Receptus is superior to the older manuscripts. Show what evidence there is that other manuscripts have been somehow corrupted along the way and are therefore unreliable. I have searched long and hard, but have been unable to come up with any solid foundation behind the beliefs of this movement and it would seem that their only argument is to have you compare your version of choice to the KJV and since it's different than the KJV, it's "corrupt".
Mike (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure that any serious textual/philological scholar of modern times holds that position.  You can try to rescue selective material from the last article version before drastic surgery... -- AnonMoos (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons behind KJV-onlyism 

message: Of dubious character is this book, because the author had ulterior motives in removing information from the book in order to hide certain facts regarding Wilkinson.
Source: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_great_which_bible.htm
(Despite the name in the URL, Doug Kutilek is not a KJVO advocate.)
Mdoc7 (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Which Bible is a Fraud

message: I have The Revision Revised (Centennial Edition, 1883-1983) book. The pages referenced in the footnote for the respective quotes are not found in the book at the pages indicated (pages 9 and 48).
Mdoc7 (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: --found the Revision Revised pages for both quoted excerpts, retained the paragraph of one of the citations but deleted the other one.  This other one I may restore, but needs re-wording. Mdoc7 (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Page references to The Revision Revised

message: Gail Riplinger, author of New Age Bible Versions, an attempted defense of KJVOnlyism, does not appear to be mentioned. Has she been discredited even within the KJVOnly movement? 108.246.205.134 (talk) 06:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gail Riplinger 

message: The article states, "[The] Movement adherents typically use the 1769 revision rather than the original 1611 version, which contains apocryphal books as well as a much more difficult language." But that is the only reference to the books. What is the KJV-Only view on the books? Do they accept them? Or, if they don't, what is their explanation for why they were in the 1611 KJV? Any extra info would be great Anthony 'Timoteo' Fisher 18:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Deuterocanon/Aporcypha 

message: What does this mean? An atheist by definition is someone who rejects the belief in God in the most strictest sense. How does one practice a rejection of a belief?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.175.30 (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "a practicing atheist" 

message: I agree that the article on Gail Riplinger should be merged into this article.  Taxee (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with Gail Riplinger 

message: A section can be shortened.  http://www.bible-researcher.com/kutilek1.html says: "In a very real sense, the very question of which is superior, Westcott and Hort, or the textus receptus, is passe, since neither is recognized by experts in the field as the standard text."172.249.8.109 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The King James Bible was first published in 1611, as a standard English Bible to be used in the services of the Church of England according to the Book of Common Prayer.  It gradually supplanted all other English Bible versions, to become by the 19th century, the standard Bible text for English-speaking Protestants whether inside or outside the Anglican tradition....Simbagraphix (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete issue? 

message: The addition of some garbled text to the lead probably makes it no longer reflect the source although readers would think it did. And is Gail Riplinger the best representative of the movement to use as a source for the lead? Doug Weller talk 14:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the 1st para of the lead still reflect the source? comment on source also 

message: I'm not seeing why "only" should be capitalized any more than "movement". "King James only" is a descriptive title, rather than an official one. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because otherwise it would look as though the article was referring to King James sole movement, ie the only movement by the King James Bible? Doug Weller talk 08:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, technically it should be "King James-only movement", although I don't see the potential for that problem without an apostrophe in the title. Joefromrandb (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

text: "King James only!" is a slogan.  In the term "King James Only movement", the word "only" is being mentioned, not used (see Use-mention distinction) and the capitalization makes that clear... AnonMoos (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it doesn't (at least not to me). Nouns are either common or proper. Usemention distinction doesn't affect capitalization conventions. "King James-only" is not the name of an organization. It's a philosophy which is the common denominator amongst various organizations and individuals. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether "King James Only movement" or "King James only movement" makes more sense, capitalizing the Only is the way it's usually done. And as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I think that's what really matters. Alephb (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was basically what I was wondering - what are external sources using? If it's "Only", then we should obviously do the same, as much as I would personally disagree with it. Joefromrandb (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So far I've only ever seen it with the capital Only. Alephb (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'd be willing to change it if the majority of sources used 'only', but it doesn't seem that they do. Possibly for the reason I gave, maybe because it's a slogan. Doug Weller talk 11:05, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

text: Joefromrandb -- in "King James Only movement", the capitalization makes it clear that the word "only" is part of the name of the movement, while lack of capitalization would obscure this. "King James-only movement" might have some advantages, but that punctuation makes it seem like the word "only" modifies the single word "James", and it doesn't appear to be used as often... AnonMoos (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I concur Jikybebna (talk) 05:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only/only 

message: Having reached this article for the first time today, I am struck by the structure of the last section "Translations based on Westcott and Hort's Greek Text or its variants" compared to the rest of the article. Specifically it reads like a summary written from the POV of a KJVO advocate. I feel it adds very little to the article as a whole, is insufficiently neutral in tone, consists largely of lists, and has poor citation support. (Full disclosure, I do not support the KJVO view, nor am I a subject matter expert, so I'll leave this to others to consider) Rob Burbidge (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Rob Burbidge, I pulled out the stuff in that section that didn't meet WP:V, and I think what's left won't concern you as much. Alephb (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV of section "Translations based on Westcott and Hort's Greek Text or its variants" 

message: The apparent IP-hopper who has been adding poorly-sourced pro-Byzantine material to this page has been doing the same thing over at Byzantine text-type. I've posted edit war warnings on all the various IPs. Should this continue, I'll try and figure out whatever is supposed to be done next. Alephb (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The recent additions of poorly sourced material 

message: The lead paragraph currently states "[…] all other English translations produced after the KJV are corrupt." In my experience, (at least some) adherents will even defend the KJV over older bible translations, such as Geneva Bible. The phrasing here is not sourced. Is there material explicitly stating that later translations are inferior or that all other translations are, or is this one of those things that falls on the spectrum of KJO-ism? Should the intro be reworded? ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  intro 

message: I've read in Talk above that the article need not necessarily list counterviews/criticisms. However, KJO rebuttals of these criticisms—or the fact that there is no rebuttal to a criticism—would be an informative addition to the article. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have a reliable, verifiable source which would be an informative addition to the article, please dont hesitate to add it. Be bold. PrimalBlueWolf (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  counterviews 

message: The second picture has this caption: "Church sign indicating that the congregation claims to use the Authorized King James Version of 1611."  I don't see how the sign indicates that.  Also how about saying they use it, not they claim to use it?  Does anyone doubt they use it?  I actually like the photo since it makes the article more fun.  But if we want to be reasonable in light of policy here, how about we take it out? PopSci (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in white text on the top right corner of the blue part. Jikybebna (talk) 05:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Church sign 

message: It's such a core argument in many KJV-proponents' view. Please don't remove it.Jikybebna (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, feel like we're reaching a good compromise now. Jikybebna (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textus receptus vs other sources does belong here 

message: The article is KJO-propaganda. No criticism allowed. The reader is offered no inkling that it is a WP:FRINGE movement. tgeorgescu (talk)  05:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: The list of denominations containing KJO adherents includes "High Church Anglicans" - yet I've been unable to locate a single one on record. Can this either have a citation added, or be deleted? 131.111.5.129 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the reference as I could not find anything either.  Thanks for highlighting this. Darlig 🎸 Talk to me 15:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  High Church Anglicans