Bill Combs and KJVO

The links below are to posts written by W. W. “Bill” Combs. Combs is currently an Associate Pastor at Community Bible Church in Trenton, Michigan. Formerly he served at the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary. There is a series on his theory of the KJVO movement and its origins, and then some other related posts. I don’t agreed with Combs on any number of things, but think the series is interesting enough to recommend. Unlike some of his counterparts in the anti-KJVO movement, Combs places the origin of the KJVO as a movement in 1881. He also puts Dean John William Burgon is a more prominent place in its origins – as do KJV-Only proponents and as KJV-Only detractors do not.

• Beginning of KJV-Only Movement -- “...if I had to pick a specific date for the beginning of the KJV-only movement, it would be May 17, 1881.”
• Dean Burgon: Father of the KJV-Only Movement -- “The committee of scholars who produced the revision was given a number of guiding principles, the first of which was, “To introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness.”
• Dean Burgon and the Revised Version -- “The King James-only movement believes that only the KJV is the Word of God. All other English versions are corrupt.”
• The KJV-Only Movement Comes to America -- “Here we see the common assumption of all KJV-only proponents: the KJV possesses some sacrosanct authority whose text is immutable....although Mauro’s book demonstrates the presence of KJV-only sympathies in the USA in the early part of the 20th century, the dominance of the KJV meant there was not much for the KJV-only advocates to be concerned about.”
• The Modern KJV-Only Movement -- “...it is the publication of new English versions based on those Greek New Testaments, rather than the TR, that accounts for the continued existence and growth of the KJV-only movement.”
• The Embarrassing Preface to the King James Version -- “It is an embarrassment (or should be) to King James-only advocates because it contains statements from the translators that are in direct opposition to the KJV-only position.”
• The Preface and Opposition to New Translations -- “They anticipate that critics will ask why a new translation is needed if previous translations are accurate presentations of the Word of God?”
• Is Only the King James Version the Word of God? -- “The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?”
• Is the King James Version the Final Authority? -- “KJV-only advocates commonly speak of the King James Version as the final authority in English Bibles, as though the KJV text was fixed in 1611.”
• Marginal Notes in the King James Version -- “Most KJV-only advocates contend that the printed Greek text from which the KJV was translated, commonly called the Textus Receptus (TR), is inspired and inerrant...”
• Is the Preface to the King James Version Really an Embarrassment to the KJV-Only Movement? -- “Some who have commented on my posts have argued that I should not use the word because I can’t point to any KJV-only advocate who admits being embarrassed by the Preface.”
• Should Churches Abandon the King James Version? -- “I believe there are two main reasons why moving to a modern version is beneficial.”
• Churches Should Adopt a Modern Version of the Bible -- “The biggest problem by far with the KJV is the archaic language.”