It’s important to make a solid and balanced defence of King James Bible only, Creationism, Protestant Fundamentalism, Classical Pentecostalism and Word of Faith/Prosperity doctrine by rejecting the loaded term of “Biblicism”.
Biblicism properly is the Protestant approach of having the Bible as a primary and sole authority, but still understands there is a historical context, history, creeds, confessions and commentaries. Tradition is not equal to Scripture but it helps give good input. Tradition can be good or bad, so it also needs to be judged by the standard of Scripture itself.
Those who take a strident anti-Biblicist approach are probably doing so to attack some aspect of Biblical doctrines to allow their particular bias through. The question on whether a doctrine is Biblical is vital, and it should not be resolved by those who have an anti-Biblicist stance. Often, these days, the anti-Biblicist stance is one laced with the leaven of Infidelity.
Let’s take the example of the perfection of the King James Bible. This is asserted on Biblical doctrinal grounds, yet such a view is much vilified and attacked. This leads to the King James Bible only view being misrepresented to the broad spectrum of Protestant Christianity.
A proper acceptance of the specific correctness of the King James Bible is on the firm commitment to Scripture as the primary authority in matters of faith and practice, which of course is the hallmark of classical Protestantism. Yet, despite the long history of the acceptance and elevation of the King James Bible, it has come under increasing attack.
One only has to go online to find critics painting those who hold to the KJB and Scripture-alone authority as irrational, extremist and even cult-like. Such critiques deliberately ignore or misrepresent the reasoned doctrinal and Biblical foundations to these convictions. Moreover, these attacks frequently stem from those driven by certain emotional motives, social media prestige grubbery, the parasiting of Enlightenment scepticism, the power games of the theological academic mafia and the modern publishing industry’s vested economic interests.
Of course they are going to say these things. Who are they? They are a divergent group of people who are unnaturally motivated to emphasise their views of the imperfection of the King James Bible.
So, then, on a Biblical basis, we should be able to show good Scriptural as well as other reasons why the King James Bible is right. At the risk of the pejorative use of the label of “Biblicist”, we should go through four key dimensions of the consistent King James Bible perfectionist position.
The first area that is brought up is the underlying text of the King James Bible.
Before we do anything, we must turn to Scripture itself, to its promises. Rather than start with the alleged natural objective phenomena of science, we must start from God who speaks to us today by His Word. This is a presupposition that is vital. Without this presupposition, we would just be having a scientific and even misleading discussion on matters where there is no final authority, because sadly even objective phenomena and mere data is misinterpreted, misused and made to be subject to the whims of every magician/scholar.
So, the Scripture’s promises, statements, prophecies, nature, doctrines and so on are all vital, as based on a sound, believing interpretation of Scripture itself.
We are now seeing that presupposition and interpretation are key mediators to even looking at the question of the Biblical text or textual criticism, and unless with have a “Biblicist” (i.e. Bible is authority in line with the Holy Ghost’s guidance and the secondary plethora of other believing, factual and reliable sources).
So already, today’s evangelical is debilitated, they don’t expect that there is anything said in the Scripture about its text or textual preservation or implications about criticism. They already have bias-glasses on because of the creeping poison of Infidelity that has entered into so much of Protestant theological presuppositions, frameworks and theological methodology and culture. We are talking about Christians here, ones who believe creation, who use the ESV, LSV or whatever, who bend reformed, who like the bumbling John Piper, etc. These people, who are brethren to the true believers I mentioned in the opening paragraph of this article, yet seem to make themselves implacable enemies.
TEXTUAL: THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS VS. MODERN CRITICAL TEXT
So after having begun with our Scriptural-based approach, we now actually enter into the most well known conflict in KJB defence, which is the question: Which Greek New Testament text is the most accurate and reliable?
The KJB is based primarily on the Textus Receptus (TR), a Greek text compiled and preserved through the Byzantine manuscript tradition, with strong ties also to the Latin. Advocates argue that this text represents the providentially preserved Word of God, used faithfully by the church for centuries. The TR is tied directly to the text types historically read, memorised, and preached in Christian communities.
By contrast, modern critical texts, such as Nestle-Aland or the United Bible Societies editions, rely heavily on recently discovered corrupt manuscripts which sometimes contradict the historical church tradition and lead to changes in well-known verses.
Reasoned arguments in favour of the TR include:
- Historical Continuity: The TR reflects the text historically received and used by the church, not a reconstructed scholarly attempt based on fragmentary and sometimes corrupted manuscripts.
- Providential Preservation: Classical Protestant confessions affirm that God has preserved His Word not only in original autographs but also in the copies used by His people.
- Textual Stability vs. Instability: The modern critical text undergoes continual revision, undermining confidence in its reliability.
Critics of the KJB often dismiss the TR without engagement, appealing instead to modern critical scholarship influenced by the secular assumptions of Infidelity.
TRANSLATIONAL: THE KJB’S METHOD AND LEXICONS
We must likewise deal with translation from a Biblical viewpoint. What does the Scripture say about it? What does it promise about the Scripture going to and speaking to the nations, and about the nations’ responses? This far outweighs the allegedly “neutral” considerations of those who practice the so-called science of this field in trying to determine the meaning of original language words and how to render them in English.
Only then do we look at translation methodology and the translators employ.
The KJB translators were most learned scholars, who utilised:
- A leaning toward formal equivalence (“word-for-word”) translation principles, aiming to retain the original languages’ grammar and vocabulary faithfully, and putting into an exact comparative form in English.
- Classical lexicons and grammatical texts, consistent with the historical and theological understanding of Scripture.
- A balanced approach that respected the sacred nature of Scripture, avoiding the contemporisation common in modern translations.
In contrast, many modern translations wrongly prioritise transient readability or faddish idiomatic English at the cost of literal accuracy, which naturally introduces interpretive bias, conceptual change and theological shifts.
The classical lexicons used by the KJB translators, though centuries old, remain remarkably sound and consistent with biblical theology. Modern lexicons often incorporate findings from secular linguistics, including non-biblical sources, or reflect theological presuppositions that depart from sound Protestantism.
EDITORIAL: THE PURE CAMBRIDGE EDITION AND PRINTING ACCURACY
Again, like every area, we must do science with our first and primary guide as the Scripture itself, its prophecies and promises, and what it indicates into the question of what it says or indicates about the editing of one particular English Bible.
The Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) represents the standardised editorial form of the KJB, meticulously presented to avoid printer errors and unauthorised editorial changes that have crept into earlier or alternative editions.
Why is this important?
- Precision in the English editorial text reflects a reverence for Scripture’s divine inspiration and preservation.
- Minor differences between editions (e.g., “Spirit” vs. “spirit,” “son” vs. “Son”) may seem trivial but are conceptually different, even to the nuance of a hair’s breath, and therefore carry theological weight and affect interpretation.
- A stable, standardised text is crucial for teaching, preaching and doctrinal consistency. It is consistent with the unity of the faith that the Church must achieve before the return of Jesus Christ.
Opponents to the King James Bible do recognise the need for consistency, a standard and indeed the qualifications of the Cambridge printing and editorial traditions, but can dismiss the weight that is placed on correct copyediting or even the emphasis on exactitude as legalistic or pedantic. Yet, maintaining textual fidelity is a natural and necessary outgrowth of a high view of Scripture.
INTERPRETATIVE: THE KJB AS THE PRIMARY RELIABLE ENGLISH BIBLE
We finally enter into the field of interpretation itself, that is, the sole and primarily reliance on the English of the King James Bible as the basis for interpretation.
The doctrine of whether right interpretation of the Scripture is even possible must be decided by the Bible itself. Let alone whether the KJB should be used for interpretation.
In the evangelical churches we hear about their hermeneutics, their grammatical-historical approach and their sound exegesis techniques, but is that really so? If we begin from Scripture itself in interpreting, would that not be very different from the Enlightenment-based influences we see in the modern approach to interpreting?
To tell the truth, deism is overwhelming the entire field we are discussing. Many Christian teachers are presenting the history of the Bible’s transmission as one where God inspired and then let natural forces bring about the state of affairs we find today. They are deistic in their views, and see the King James Bible as just a natural phenomenon.
The evil of deism has far spread, making it a false presupposion to the anti-King James Bible view that is promoted today. We don’t hear pro-Latin people rejecting the King James Bible because it is not approved by the Curia but we do hear people who are affected by deistic assumptions say that the King James Bible’s text is recent, that the Greek is better than the English, that it’s stuck in 17th century English with a “18th century makeover” (i.e. 1769) and that it’s essentially reckless and irresponsible to rely on it as perfect for interpretation. These are people that believe that perfection is impossible, that God cannot get through and that we are stuck on the other side of a wide gulf of time and context to when the Bible was written, and therefore are most hopelessly unable to know exactly what the Bible really means.
Like the Westminster Confession and other sources allow, that the very fact that the Bible was translated into English was for the purpose that the Scripture in English was used for doctrine, teaching and Christian living.
This does not mean that the KJB itself was made by inspiration in 1611, but it does mean that God has supplied His word to the world which is speaking English more and more.
The ultimate point here is that God wants us to know His truth, He wants His truth established to all mankind and He most certainly is moving and acting by His Spirit in this endeavour.
We must then point to some of the motivations of why there is a special attack being made on the King James Bible. It is, not surprisingly, the work of the devil to do so.
Modern biblical scholarship is largely influenced by Enlightenment principles emphasising human reason, scepticism toward supernatural revelation, and naturalistic assumptions. This worldview tends to deny the supernatural, and leads to a distrust of any position that affirms Scripture’s perfection in English.
Modern Bible versions are a major concern of powerful publishing houses and organisations (e.g. Bible societies, etc.) with significant economic interests. These entities profit from releasing new versions and study aids, encouraging a market for their brand name translation rather than allegiance truth itself.
KJB advocates resist this perpetual novelty, challenging the financial incentives behind promoting new versions, often to the annoyance of these powerful interests.
Defenders of tradition and established churches and organisations would see the idea of KJB-only as threatening the status quo of institutional authority. The rejection of ecclesiastical tradition and creeds as primary authorities undermines hierarchical control and liturgical uniformity. Thus, attacks on the KJB can be really about the priestcraft of the modern scholar maintaining control.
The most vicious opposition arises from personal animosities and emotional motivations of former King James Bible advocates. Often those people were in a poor form of such beliefs, and have spiteful vengeance as their former beliefs were not consistent. In other words, not having a genuine and thoughtful position means that they are then deceived to fight the KJB.
Often these people lump those who support the KJB with fringe groups as a guilt-by-association propaganda tactic to unfairly belittle the soundness of the KJB and the position recognising its perfection.
The King James Bible and its associated Protestant “Biblicist” theological framework remain a serious, thoughtful and historically grounded position. The attack on the proper Protestant “Biblicism” is really a sneaky means to attack a whole gamut of correct views by Christians who are often one degree away from right views in a range of areas. These can be good Christians, but it’s like there’s a fly in the ointment with these kinds.
Our proper approach calls Christians back to Scripture with fearfulness, zeal and doctrinal soundness. The Word of God is available in English and it is our supreme authority in a shifting and confused world.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8).