Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,
Pen here weighing in.
Very interesting article.
I’ve always been a bit puzzled about the King James Bible Only position, even before being confirmed as an Anglican.
The irony of the KJV only stance is that the very fundamentalists who cling to this version may also claim that Anglicanism is “straight from the pits of Hell” as stated on a Fundamentalist website. I won’t link it, because it is also anti-Catholic. However, you can find the site if you search The Episcopal Church Exposed, or The Catholic Religion Exposed, or Lutheranism Exposed, or Church of Christ Exposed, etc.
So, if they believe Anglicanism is “straight from the pits of hell”; why would they want a King James Bible that was authorized by the Anglican Church? This doesn’t make sense.
Also, most King James Bibles, in the hands of Christians today, are not the original 1611 Version.
I think the KJVO proponents might be offended by the Introduction in the 1611 Version which begins: “To the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. . . .”
There is an interesting commentary on betterbibles.com regarding the King James Bible. These are some of the errors noted in the early editions:
John 5.14 said, “sin on more” rather than “sin no more.”
Luke 22.34 said Philip denied the Lord three times instead of*** Peter***.
Mark 7.27 said, “Let the children first be killed” rather than “Let the children first be filled.”
1807 Oxford edition:
Heb 9.14 said, “Purge your conscience from good works” rather than “Purge your conscience from dead works."
1 Cor 6.9 said, “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
(my personal favorite )
Rendered the 7th of 10 Commandment as “Thou shalt commit adultery.”
Also, the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books for nearly 300 years.
How long does it take God to get an “inerrant” version right?