The Inspired-King-James-Version View: A Critical Examination

J. Neil Daniels

Introduction: The Legacy of the King James Version

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, published in 1611, stands as one of the most influential English translations of Scripture. Commissioned by King James I of England, this translation emerged during the golden age of English literary expression, reflecting the majestic cadence and stylistic elegance of Jacobean prose. For centuries within the English-speaking world—particularly among conservative Protestant communities—the KJV has served as the standard biblical text, profoundly shaping theological discourse, devotional language, and ecclesiastical culture. Its historical significance and literary beauty remain undisputed.

However, within certain circles, this admiration has evolved into an absolutist position: that the KJV represents not merely a faithful translation but the divinely inspired and inerrant Word of God uniquely preserved in English. This essay critically examines this claim from historical, textual, and theological perspectives.

The Claim of the Inspired King James Version

The Inspired-KJV position, championed by figures such as Peter Ruckman and Gail Riplinger, asserts that the 1611 KJV represents a divinely re-inspired and inerrant text. Ruckman boldly contends that the KJV corrects the Greek manuscripts, claiming that "mistakes in the A.V. 1611 are advanced revelation." This conviction effectively elevates the KJV above the original language texts of Scripture, viewing it as the final, authoritative edition of divine revelation. Riplinger further sensationalizes this claim by characterizing alternative translations as products of New Age conspiracy and spiritual corruption. In this paradigm, modern English translations are rejected not simply as inferior but as deliberately corrupted texts designed to undermine Christian orthodoxy.

The Translators' Own Testimony

What is particularly striking is that the KJV translators themselves would have firmly rejected such claims about their work. In "The Translators to the Reader," the preface to the original 1611 edition, they explicitly acknowledge their work as human and fallible:

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea, is necessary, as we are perswaded."

The translators openly recognized the value of multiple translations and acknowledged that their renderings were not always definitive. They further noted:

"Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgement not to be so sound in this point."

Far from claiming divine perfection for their work, the KJV translators explicitly included marginal notes indicating alternative renderings and acknowledging uncertainties in their translation choices.

The Original KJV's Textual Notes and Manuscript Variants

Significantly, the original 1611 KJV contained approximately 8,422 marginal notes—a fact often overlooked by those who claim its divine perfection. These notes served several critical functions:

1. Indicating alternative translations: When Hebrew or Greek words could be rendered in multiple ways, the translators often placed alternative readings in the margin, preceded by "Or" (e.g., Genesis 1:16 has a margin note "Heb. for the rule of" as an alternative to "to rule").

2. Acknowledging textual variants: The translators used notes beginning with phrases like "Some copies read..." or "Many ancient copies have..." to indicate differences among source manuscripts.

3. Providing literal renderings: Notes marked "Heb." or "Gr." gave literal translations where the main text used more idiomatic English.

4. Cross-referencing parallel passages: The margins contained numerous references to related biblical texts.

These extensive annotations, which can be viewed online here, directly contradict the Inspired-KJV position. If the translators believed they were producing an infallible, divinely re-inspired text, they would have had no reason to suggest alternative renderings or acknowledge manuscript variants. Their thorough scholarly apparatus demonstrates that they viewed their work as a faithful but human translation, subject to the limitations and uncertainties inherent in rendering ancient texts into another language.

Earlier English Translations

The KJV translators also openly acknowledged their debt to earlier English translations. They did not view their work as a revolutionary new revelation but as building upon a foundation laid by predecessors:

"Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one...but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one."

The KJV stands in a rich tradition of English Bible translation that includes:

1. Wycliffe's Bible (1380s) - The first complete English Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate

2. Tyndale's New Testament (1526) - The first English New Testament translated from Greek

3. Coverdale's Bible (1535) - The first complete printed Bible in English

4. Matthew's Bible (1537) - Compiled by John Rogers using Tyndale's and Coverdale's work

5. The Great Bible (1539) - The first authorized English Bible

6. The Geneva Bible (1560) - Popular among Puritans and the Bible of Shakespeare

7. The Bishops' Bible (1568) - The immediate predecessor of the KJV

The KJV translators drew heavily from these works, particularly Tyndale's translation, which scholars estimate accounts for up to 80% of the KJV New Testament's wording. This historical continuity undermines the claim that the KJV represents a unique divine revelation in English.

The Evolution of the King James Version

Another critical issue is that today's readers do not use the original 1611 KJV. The text has undergone several significant revisions:

1. The 1629 Cambridge edition - Corrected numerous printing errors

2. The 1638 Cambridge edition - Further corrections and standardizations

3. The 1762 Cambridge edition by Dr. Thomas Paris - Modernized spelling and punctuation

4. The 1769 Oxford edition by Dr. Benjamin Blayney - The standardized text most commonly used today as the "KJV"

These revisions corrected thousands of typographical, grammatical, and translational inconsistencies. The 1611 edition contained notable errors, such as Ruth 3:15 stating "he went into the city" instead of "she went," creating the so-called "He and She Bibles." Furthermore, the original 1611 KJV included the Apocryphal books, which were generally not removed until the 19th century—a fact that creates a theological dilemma for those who maintain the divine perfection of the original edition while rejecting portions of its original contents.

Linguistic Obsolescence and Miscommunication

The English language has evolved significantly since 1611, rendering numerous KJV terms archaic or misleading. Examples include:

- In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, "letteth" once meant "hinders" but now means "permits"—a complete reversal

- In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, "prevent" meant "precede" but now means "stop"

- In Acts 21:15, "carriages" referred to items being carried (luggage), not vehicles

- In Philippians 3:20, "conversation" meant "citizenship" rather than dialogue

- In Matthew 19:14, "suffer" in "suffer the little children" meant "permit" or "allow"

These linguistic shifts create barriers to understanding rather than facilitating it. The KJV's "thee/thou" pronouns, though once common, now create an artificial formality that distances modern readers from the text. Ironically, the KJV translators' goal was vernacular accessibility—the very opposite of preserving archaic language for tradition's sake.

Theological Implications and Doctrinal Risks

The theological danger of the Inspired-KJV view lies in its implicit shift of authority from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts to a single English rendering. This undermines the historical Christian doctrine of inspiration, which affirms that God's breath (θεόπνευστος in 2 Timothy 3:16) applies to the original writings of Scripture, not to any subsequent translations.

To treat the KJV as the standard by which all other translations—including the Hebrew and Greek texts themselves—must be judged is to commit a fundamental category error: confusing translation with revelation. Furthermore, such a position fosters unnecessary division within Christianity, leading to accusations of heresy against faithful believers who utilize sound modern translations based on robust textual scholarship.

Conclusion: Esteem without Idolization

The King James Version rightfully holds a place of honor in the history of biblical translation and English literature. Its influence on language, culture, and faith is immeasurable, and many continue to benefit from its dignified prose. However, reverence must not become idolization. To elevate any translation to the status of divinely re-inspired Scripture contradicts sound textual scholarship, historical awareness, and orthodox theology.

The KJV translators themselves would likely be dismayed to see their work—which they presented with scholarly humility—elevated above the original language texts they sought faithfully to render. As they wrote in their preface: "Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel." The KJV was meant to be a window to Scripture's light, not the light itself.

To faithfully uphold biblical authority is to recognize that God's Word was given in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—and that it can be faithfully translated into every language without canonizing any single version. The essence of biblical authority lies not in preserving particular English phrasings from the 17th century but in accurately conveying the meaning of the divinely inspired original texts to each generation in language they can clearly understand.

Select Sources

Beacham, Roy E., and Kevin T. Bauder. One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2001.

Carson, D. A. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.

Geisler, Norman L., and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1986.

Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible from KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation. Grand Rapids: Baker,  1981.

Ruckman, Peter. The Christian’s Handbook of Manuscript Evidence. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1970.

Riplinger, Gail. New Age Bible Versions. Munroe Falls, OH: A.V. Publications, 1993.

Ryken, Leland. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002.

Scrivener, F. H. A. The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1884.

White, James R. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2009.