King James Only-ism – invented by Seventh Day Adventist?

One of the usual attacks on King James only proponents is that it was invented by a Seventh Day Adventist.

There is an implication in that statement that Seventh Day Adventism is wrong – and yet most modern translation proponents have absolutely no problem calling the SDA Christians, when they should be dismissing them as a cult! To point out all the constant hypocrisy of the modern version proponents would require a full time job!

Yes, Benjamin Wilkerson did write a book advocating the King James Bible in 1930. So, let’s look at a quick timeline of KJV defenders, and see if it was really started by Wilkerson!

1819 John Henry Todd published A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible.

1829 – John Jebb defends the KJV

1843 John Dowling published a defense of the KJV in “The Burning of the Bibles, Defence of the Protestant Version of the Scriptures Against the Attacks of Popish Apologists for the Champlain Bible Burners (Philadelphia: Nathan Moore, 1843)

1850 John Dowling published The Old-Fashioned Bible, or Ten Reasons against the Proposed Baptist Version of the New Testament (New York: Edward H. Fletcher, 1850)

1883 Dean John Burgon publishes The Revision Revised

1904 The Trinitarian Bible Society begins publishing articles protesting the Critical Greek Text of Wescott Hort.

1924-25 William Aberhard publishes The Latest of Modern Movements: Or What about the Revised Version of the Bible

1924 Philip Mauro publishes Which Version? Authorized or Revised?

1930 – Benjamin Wilkerson publishes his book


So, apparently Wilkerson was just following in several others’ footsteps!

so much for that slander.


Author: philipdean2013

Seminary graduate with a Ba. in Theology/Pastoral Studies, Happily married, Independent Baptist. I can't keep silent about what I see going on in Christianity any longer! Apostasy reigns around us, churches are sliding into worldiness, a whitewashed Gospel is preached everywhere... "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV) So, I'm speaking out. ...Why aren't you???

9 thoughts on “King James Only-ism – invented by Seventh Day Adventist?”

  1. So are you okay with the NKJV? I myself have difficulty with some of the other versions. I also find that reading in my second language of Portuguese gives an added depth and perspective to the New Testament .


    1. I’m sorry, I can’t support the NKJV. I’ve written several articles on it… There are quite a few verses that have questionable translations. The editors claim it is just an updated King James, but they’re using the Nestle-Aland manuscript for parts of it, which is just Nestle and Aland’s version of Wescott Hort. The differences between Nestle Aland and WEscott and Hort are just enough that they could copyright it. That’s about it. See 1 Tim. 6:10 compared between the translations, 2 Cor. 10:5, and quite a few others.
      I plan on writing a great deal on the NKJV in the next year.
      You might want to try the Defined King James. The Dean Burgon society recommends the Portuguese: Almeida Corrigida Fiel 1995 Trinitarian Bible Society Brazil for Portuguese readers.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Dear Philip Thank you for your insights. Though I am not a student of Classic Greek or Aramaic I do work regularly as a translator and so have some experience in rendering a message between quite different structures. We face a difficult task balancing between a word for word version versus giving the sense of a phrase. I will not go into detail in this note but my questions for you are three. Do you question the ability and methods of certain translations, do you question the motivations of the editorial board, or do you question the manuscripts from which the translators are working? I am not asking to set up a debate just truly curious. Thanks so much for taking time. Blessings


      2. Al three. Mostly the manuscripts – there’s no reason for using a flawed manuscript edited by Gnostics and for choosing a blatant 19th century forgery (whose author admitted doing it) for translating all modern Bible versions.
        Textual Criticism, if you do a study on it, will sicken you, and cause you to swear off using all modern Bibles.
        Motives of the translators… David Cloud has written some free books on this (like “unholy hands on God’s holy Book”) with actual quotes from some of these translators that too will cause you to avoid modern Bibles.
        You absolutely do not need to study Classic Greek, but rather, Koine Greek is not that difficult to learn. And if you’re pastoring, you do owe it to your congregation to learn it to ensure you’re preaching correctly. When I joined Seminary, Greek and Hebrew were mandatory classes. Now they are not, and I greatly disagree with that.
        Stick with a translation that comes from the Textus Receptus Greek manuscripts, and from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew texts.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. I have even heard a number of profession Christians state that Peter Ruckman started the “King James Only” movement. Anyway, I refer to myself as a Bible-believing Christian! But, it seems the new version perverts label us as “King James only.” Looking forward to seeing more from you brother! 🙂


    Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.