KJV Only?

First, I would be remiss if I did not share this resource with you, since it is better than anything I could say on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/The-King-James-Only-Controversy/dp/0764206052

Second, on the occasion that you find yourself discussing translations of the Bible with a KJV onlyist, here are a couple of simple things you can point out:

1. The translators of the KJV were not KJV onlyists:

"REASONS MOVING US TO SET DIVERSITY OF SENSES IN THE MARGIN,
WHERE THERE IS GREAT PROBABILITY FOR EACH

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point. For though, "whatsoever things are necessary are manifest," as S. Chrysostom saith, [S. Chrysost. in II. Thess. cap. 2.] and as S. Augustine, "In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity." [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christ. cap. 9.] Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their everywhere plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain." There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, [Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.] (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, [Plat. in Paulo secundo.] and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace."

Notice a couple of things pointed out here by the scholars who brought us the KJV. First, they agree with Augustine that having many translations is profitable. Second, notice that they are saying that the original KJV had marginal notes offering alternate translations. These men did not think that their work was perfect or infallible. Why on earth should we?

2. How should the Bible be translated into languages that are not English?

If I am a modern scholar who wants to translate the Word of God into a new language so that the people of that tribe or nation can read the Word for themselves, should I translate from the Greek and Hebrew or should I translate from the King James Version? If I translate from the King James Version, is my translation 'equal' to the KJV?

If it is not equal, are we saying that the KJV is the only approved transmission of the Word of God in the world? This notion reminds me of the Islamic sects who insist that the Qu'ran must be read in Arabic to be a valid transmission. No, thank you.

3. But, how can we say that the Bible is inerrant if there can be many translations that do not agree perfectly?

This is a complaint I encounter quite often from KJV onlyists. They say that you can only really believe in inerrancy if you actually have a translation that is perfect. There is a fallacy at play, here, and it is one of equivocation. The KJVO use of the term inerrant reminds me of the great movie quote: "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means." When we say that the Bible is inerrant, we are not talking about translations at all. Here is a great historical church document that addresses the notion of inerrancy in depth: http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm


The document linked above is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, from that Statement we have the following section:

"E. Transmission and Translation


Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15)."


Based on this concept of inerrancy the KJVO poses no challenge or dilemma to the Christian who wishes to affirm inerrancy while simultaneously rejecting KJVO.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the conclusions of KJV Onlyism are not only problematic, but also unnecessary. The position creates more problems than it attempts to solve, and should be rejected in favor of a more reasoned, robust notion of Biblical inerrancy such as that found in the Chicago Statement.