Mickey Carter wrote: "Best authorities in our viewpoint are the King James Version translators" (Things That Are Different Are Not the Same, p. 154). Donald Clarke noted: "The 'best authorities' become the final authority; the Bible must submit its message and authority to their critical scrutiny" (Bible Version Manual, p. 56). Bob Steward stated: "Final authorities are not to be questioned" (Biography of Erasmus, p. 4). Are the opinions and interpretations of the KJV translators not to be questioned? Does this high praise for the Church of England translators of the KJV which practically makes them into a committee of infallible cardinals or popes prove this claim that the KJV translators should be our final authority? The KJV-only view seems to grant to the KJV translators an absolute, perfect, infallible knowledge which is in reality attainable only by divine revelation. KJV-only advocates seem to have cloaked the KJV translators with such robes of superiority and infallibility that even a pope could only envy. Has the sufficiency of God's Word been replaced with a "unique priesthood" of the KJV translators? If God's Word was "wholly revealed" to the KJV translators, they become the ultimate standard for truth, beyond which there is no other. When the product of the KJV translators is made the final authority, it would make these men who produced it the final authority. This claim of superiority suggests that the authority of a translation depends on the authority of its translators. Should we accept a gnostic idea that a certain group, such as the KJV translators, were possessed of a special or secret knowledge (gnosis), totally beyond the understanding of other believers? Can any man or group of men including the KJV translators be trusted with the unlimited power of being infallible interpreters and authoritative translators? Do the combined scholarship and opinions of several men produce perfection? Charles Spurgeon observed: "For if you mass together a number of men, each one of whom is fallible, it is clear that you are no nearer infallibility" (The Infallible Word, p. 32). Do KJV-only advocates bind themselves to the opinions and interpretations of the finite and fallible KJV translators as their ultimate voice of authority? This dependence on the authority of the fallible KJV translators indicates a serious weakness with the KJV-only view. The KJV-only view depends on the inappropriate authority of fallible, uninspired men. The KJV-only view seems to abandon the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers as it implies the exclusive priesthood of only a group of Church of England scholars in 1611. Is the KJV-only view in effect a return to a form of sacerdotalism? If the KJV-only view did not depend on the authority of men (the KJV translators), there would have been no need to stress so much the scholarship of these men. Where does God's Word teach that any committee of a state church is superior to other believers in translating God's Word regardless of their scholarship? Where does the Bible teach that the KJV translators should be exalted to a role of being in effect mediators between the English-speaking believer and the Word of God? Were the KJV translators superior to the manuscripts and copies of God's Word in the original languages which they used? Did the KJV translators have the miraculous credentials of the prophets and apostles? KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman stated: "Within the New Testament Church there has never been any body of men to whom God has given any special authority to make decisions concerning the New Testament canon or the New Testament text" (Forever Settled, p. 46). Timothy Morton wrote: "God never intended for a 'priest class' of elite scholars to have a lock on the words of life" (Which Translation Should You Trust, p. 68). Wayne Williams claimed: "God placed no scholastic lords over His heritage" (Does God Have a Controversy, p. 66). R. B. Ouellette wrote: “It is wrong to commit--to any individual or exclusive group--the determination of truth for every person in matters relating to faith” (More Sure Word, p. 51). Ouellette wrote: “God did not appoint scholars to be the final authorities for the interpretation of Scripture” (p. 27). Moorman, Morton, and Williams fail to apply their statements to the KJV translators. However, it is obvious that God's Word does not teach that God gave the KJV translators special, superior, or ultimate authority to make decisions concerning the text or translation of His Word. No one man or group of men can have an exclusive and sole access to the truth or reach sinless perfection which makes them the ultimate translators/interpreters, beyond which there can be no other. Thomas Smyth’s statement about the doctrine of apostolic succession would seem to apply also to the KJV-only doctrine. Smyth disagreed with this doctrine‘s “teaching that prelates are the authoritative interpreters of scriptures, so that it must mean what they are pleased to say it does mean” (Prelatical Doctrine, p. 97). Does the KJV-only view result in the tyranny of the experts as it seems to give rule over all English-speaking churches and believers to a small group of scholars who are alone claimed or implied to be competent, authoritative, and trustworthy in understanding, interpreting, and translating the preserved Scriptures in the original languages? In fact, such KJV-only claims and reasoning seem to reveal a disregard for the Scriptural doctrine of the priesthood of the believer that KJV-only advocates say that they accept. Lloyd Streeter, a KJV-only author, wrote: “The doctrine of preservation of Scripture is wrapped up in the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers, a Baptist distinctive” (Seventy-five Problems, p. 145). David Cloud cited where Jack Moorman also maintained that “preservation is brought to pass through the priesthood of believers” (Things Hard, p. 297). Is the KJV-only view in practice consistent with the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers? Does a claim of superiority for the KJV translators conflict with the doctrine of the priesthood of believers? Is it Scriptural to suggest or imply that a small group of men in 1611 had a special, exclusive priesthood that made them exempt from error or mistake in translating which no other believers can have? Were the KJV translators superior in rank, position, or authority to other believers? Are certain men such as the KJV translators more important and superior to others in the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:18-24)? No amount of education and scholarship could prevent the KJV translators from making any errors in translation. If we say that the KJV translators have not sinned or made any mistakes in translating without being supernaturally inspired, we make God a liar (1 John 1:10). Are some fundamentalist KJV-only advocates implying that education and scholarship can produce perfection and inerrancy in the translating of God's Word? Was the scholarship of the KJV translators so exhaustive and comprehensive that they could not possibly make a mistake in translating? Does the KJV-only view promote a form of environmental determinism that in effect argues that the KJV translators were so uniquely shaped by their environment and education that they alone could make a perfect translation? These questions were suggested by the claims and logical implications of the KJV-only view. Even if it could be demonstrated that the KJV translators were better or superior in translating than most, superiority does not mean or produce perfection and infallibility. Surely, KJV-only defenders are not claiming that the KJV translators' scholarship made them into the final and exclusive authority over God's Word. According to the consistent teachings of God's Word, the KJV translators are not to be regarded with blind devotion as though they possessed superhuman attributes or infallible scholarship with an exclusive exemption from any possibility of error or mistake. The knowledge and scholarship of all mankind including that of the KJV translators is partial, incomplete, and thus imperfect (1 Cor. 13:12). Noah Webster, who learned twenty-six languages, wisely noted in his 1828 dictionary: "No man is infallible; to be infallible is the prerogative of God only." Waite wrote: "Printers as well as translators are imperfect and subject to the same depravity as the rest of the world" (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 117). No uninspired human being is above possible correction. Does their claimed superior scholarship mean that all other believers including Baptists should accept their Church of England doctrines? How is it consistent to think that the KJV translators believed incorrect doctrines and yet claim that they are the only men who may rightly interpret and translate God's Word? Do the KJV translators' acceptance of some false doctrines such as baptismal regeneration cancel the claims concerning their scholarship? If the Church of England translators of the KJV could be wrong in their doctrines, they could also be wrong in their interpreting and translating of God's Word. Considering the preconceptions and assumptions of the KJV translators in following their Church of England doctrines, it is illogical to suggest that they were unbiased. If these supposedly spiritually mature, intellectually "superior," and Spirit-guided men believed and taught some false doctrines, it is inconsistent and even unscriptural to suggest that they were somehow 100% perfect in translating.