Featured The Problem with KJV ONLY Advocates

A fundamental fallacy in the KJV-only view is the assumption that a lower, lesser, dependent, or secondary authority (a translation) can act as the final authority over a higher or greater primary authority (God's preserved Word in the original languages). The backwards reasoning of the KJV-only view denies the greater authority of the antecedent sources while it tries to assert the authority of the consequent translation.

The extent of authority claimed for the KJV usurps for it a superior or greater appointment and designation than for its underlying original language texts. The KJV-only view reverses the proper order of authority when it implies that a translation printed in 1611 is greater in authority than its underlying, antecedent original languages texts. This reversal is clearly evident in the fact that no meaning is permitted to be understood from the preserved words in the original languages that is not in effect sanctioned by the interpretation of the actual secondary authority [the KJV].

If KJV-only advocates actually begin with the preserved Scriptures in the original languages as the proper and greater authority before 1611 and before coming to its translation into various languages, the KJV-only view’s claim that a translation (the KJV) should now be considered the final authority is denied in the very process.

The Bible does not teach that the Scriptures that God gave in the original languages by inspiration to the prophets and apostles will be nullified and replaced by a subsequent translation in 1611. It is God who chose and determined in which languages He would give the Scriptures by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. Thus, it was God who established the source of authority from which translations were to be made. It is the greater authority of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages that grants, substantiates, or establishes the proper derived authority of a translation. God never ordained the irrational, incoherent, ludicrous, or contradictory idea of a supposed absolute infallible translation that does not need to conform to the sources from which it was translated. According to the law of non-contradiction, would a translation need to be compared to and evaluated by its underlying texts from which it was translated and from which it derives its authority or would a translation need to be made irrationally into an independent and final authority?


If a translation is made to have greater authority than its underlying texts, the translators in effect become the final authority. McGrath observed: "Whoever interprets the Word of God in effect has authority over it--whether that interpreter be the pope or a city council" (Reformation Thought, p. 213). Does the Bible teach that God made a group of Church of England scholars the exclusive, perfect textual critics/interpreters who determine infallibly both the text and the translating of His Word? Does the logical ramifications of the KJV-only view elevate the KJV translators above all believers including the prophets and apostles? If the supreme and final judgment to determine the text and translating of the Scriptures belongs to the KJV translators, then it follows that the KJV translators are greater than the Scriptures in the original languages given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. To attempt to make a translation the final authority implies or infers that the authority of the translation comes from the authority of its translators. Translators do not determine the authority of their renderings. If one translation can be defended based solely on the independent and unverified evidence from its own contents as made by its translators with human effort, study, wisdom, skill, and scholarship without any comparison to its underlying texts, the same principle must apply to other translations.

 

So you think all people who are KJVO believe that the KJV is superior to the originals?

I do not believe that.
The KJV is an accurate and faithful translation of the preserved originals.

Modern translations may be accurate and faithful translations but they are not translated from the preserved words but are translated from corrupted texts.

 

Jordan, he appears to have just bolded this insane statement (probably from his own book):

This is what he is accusing you of believing.

He is going to quote you and I both, or anyone who doesn't acquiesce to his view as accepting this premise he quotes from what is most probably his own book.

He is going to debate you as though you believe those deranged premises.

 

So it's a matter of faith,not cold hard facts that gets you to believe that the TR is a pure stream with no pollutants whatsoever? There were absolutely no scribal errors,no evidence of harmonization,no corrections etc.?

 

Theres more than faith but faith is definately a part of it.

 

That is not what I stated nor what I think.

Some KJV-only advocates do fail to consider the logical implications and conclusions that would result from a consistent application of their own various KJV-only claims and assumptions.

There are KJV-only advocates who suggest that they do not consider the KJV to be superior to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages while claiming that the KJV is perfect or that the KJV is the final authority in English.

 

That is a bogus, false accusation.

 

R. B. Ouellette asserted: “What is the practical difference between a ‘divinely inspired Word of God’ and a “divinely preserved Word of God’? None. If God both inspired and preserved His Word, then we can have the confidence that the preserved Word is equal to the inspired Word for all practical purposes today--they are one in the same” (More Sure Word, p. 156). Concerning “preservation and inspiration,“ D. A. Waite wrote: “There is no problem with asserting these things on an equal footing” (Critical Answer to Michael, p. 29). Wendell Runion asserted: “The truth of the matter is, inspiration and preservation are like Siamese twins who are conjoined at birth, with one heart between them” (Northwest News, Summer, 2009, p. 7).

Do many of the holders of a KJV-only view adequately distinguish between preservation and inspiration?

Do they adequately distinguish between preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages and the translation of them into other languages?

Do they separate or distinguish between preservation and inspiration in the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible? If they [or the KJV translators] could in effect distinguish between them before 1611 in the pre-1611 English Bibles, why can the same thing not be done after 1611 or 1769?

If some holders of a KJV-only view make the word “preserved” mean the same thing as “inspired,” they practically or in effect would seem to hold the same view as Peter Ruckman.


Consider these statements by one moderate KJV defender that were all made in the same book. D. A. Waite wrote: “To have any kind of genuine Bible preservation, you must have the verbal plenary preservation of God’s Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words, not through ‘translations’” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 98). Waite claimed: “Bible ‘preservation’ that is not ‘perfect’ is not ‘preservation’” (p. 117). Waite also stated: “I believe that in the King James Bible we have God’s Words preserved in English” (p. 110). He also wrote: “I do not use the phrase ’perfectly preserved Word of God when I am talking about the King James Bible” (p. 113).

Are these statements about preservation consistent and clear? Were the words relating to preservation used in the exact same sense in all of these statements? Do these statements adequately distinguish between the preservation of the Scriptures in the original languages and “God’s Words preserved in English?” Would other holders of a KJV-only view accept all four of Waite’s statements?

 

preservation

Baptist pastor Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV and a critic of modern translations, observed: “Let it be understood that the only foundation which has ever been professed for this [KJV-only] system is the supposed Bible doctrine of the preservation of the true text of Scripture, and it is precisely this doctrine of preservation which has often been given up in order to accommodate the facts concerning the Textus Receptus and the King James Version” (Olde Paths, Jan., 1997, p. 12).

Conjurske asked: “How can they seriously maintain their doctrine of the preservation in perfection of the true text of Scripture, while they designate as the true text a text which never existed in the world before 1881--a text which was constructed in 1881 [by Scrivener]?“ (pp. 13-14). Conjurske added: “To adopt this text as the true Textus Receptus is in fact to give up their foundation. Whatever this may be, it certainly is not ’preservation.’ It is absolutely inconsistent with the very idea of preservation” (p. 14).

Conjurske asserted: “These men have filled the church of God with disputes about ‘preservation,‘ without ever understanding their own doctrine” (p. 14). Conjurske pointed out that KJV-only people have told believers that “it must be a public and open preservation, of a text which is in common use in the hands of the people of God” (p. 15). Conjurske asserted that “it must be a still greater fairy tale that the true Greek text never existed on the earth at all--not in any manuscript or printed edition whatsoever--until Scrivener constructed it in 1881” (p. 16). Conjurske also wrote: “The fact is, the agreement is not perfect, either between the manuscripts and the printed Textus Receptus, or between the manuscripts themselves, nor between the various printed editions of the Textus Receptus, nor between the King James Version and the manuscripts, nor between the King James Version and any edition of the Textus Receptus” (Feb., 1994, pp. 42-43).

 

Thank you for showing that there really is little difference between something Inspired and the preservation of something inspired.

I really don't get the point your trying to make.

 

You confirm my point that the KJV-only claim for preservation for the KJV is little different from a claim for inspiration for the KJV.

Some KJV-only advocates will jump to this unproven conclusion that the KJV is supposedly preserved Scripture and thus inspired without showing that the Scriptures teach it.

 

Logos just go back you your little world where you believe in a fallible bible that is in non existent autographs.

You're a bible agnostic and I'm tired of dealing with you.

You still never answered my honest questions..

I'm done nothing will ever change you people who believe in a constantly changing and evolving bible.

 

http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm

 

False accusations are evidently the typical KJV-only response to those who believe the Scriptures but disagree with non-scriptural KJV-only opinions of men. KJV-only advocates avoid the KJV-only burden of proof as they attempt to smear and attack personally any believer that dares to disagree with their KJV-only theory.

My view of Bible translation is the same basic view as that held by the early English translators including the makers of the KJV. Is it being suggested that the makers of the KJV were "bible agnostics"?

If my scripturally based arguments were only directed to the view of Peter Ruckman as was claimed and if the KJV-only posters responding to them also suggest that they reject Ruckman's extreme KJV-only views, why were those posters attacking and distorting my arguments when they would be expected to agree with them?

Nothing I stated suggested that I supposedly believe in a "constantly changing and evolving bible." You disobey the Scriptures as you bear false witness against my belief in the Scriptures and acceptance of what the Scriptures actually state and teach.

I accept, love, and read the KJV for what it is, a good overall translation of the Scriptures in the same sense or in the same way that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense or in the same way that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are. The KJV also can be properly said to be the word of God in English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and in the same sense that later English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

 

I attempted to link on that web site, but it would not come up.

I have read many of Will Kinney's [brandplucked] unproven KJV-only claims and incorect accusations, and he is not a reliable source of information.

 

Do you acknowledge that the KJV has errors that are the fault of printers or do you acknowledge that there are also translators' errors in the KJV?

The same original language texts on which the KJV is based have already been re-translated and updated in the NKJV, the Modern KJV by Jay Green, the KJ2000, and Green's Literal Translation. Do you accept them?

The English text of the KJV has been somewhat modernized in the 1833 Webster's Bible, the 1994 21st Century KJV, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible. Do you accept them?

Are you suggesting that you agree with my point that in at least some places another English translation has better, clearer, or more accurate renderings than the KJV when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

There are some places where one of the pre-1611 English Bibles, especially the Geneva Bible, is clearer, better, or more accurate than the 1611 KJV.

 

Thank you Jordan for providing this link. I've read the article and listened to Will Kinney speak his argument. I'll soon be starting a new topic about some of the things that Mr. Kinney asserts at this link.

 

You don't wanna explain it, of course, cuz it's the SAME. Like all KJVOs, you don't wanna admit it.

Back to the OP...One of the "troubles" with you KJVOs is that, when faces with the insurmountable, irrefutable evidence against the KJVO myth, such as its total lacka Scriptural support, its totally-MAN-MADE origin, and the falsehood of its salient points, you keep trying to make up new excuses to try to justify it to yourselves, if no one else, rather than simply accepting the fact that it's not true and moving on.

At times, you KJVOs remind me of someone afflicted with a fatal illness who goes from doctor to doctor, hoping to find one who'll give him a different diagnosis, in your constant quest to invent new excuses for KJVO. FACT is, the KJVO myth is MAN-MADE AND FALSE, and no matter how many feathers you glue onto the KJVO hippopotamus, IT AINT GONNA FLY!

Merry Christmas To All.(I mean it.)