Featured How is the KJV a Bible translation in any different sense than the NKJV is?

Would a clear definition and understanding of what constitutes a Bible translation be a problem for KJV-only reasoning?

Would using the term Bible translation univocally (with one meaning) for most Bible translations while attempting to use it equivocally (with a different meaning) concerning the KJV cause misunderstanding and lead to error in concept?

The KJV is a Bible translation in the same sense as each of the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision is a Bible translation.

The KJV is a Bible translation is the same sense that the NKJV is a Bible translation.

The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same way that the 1560 Geneva Bible is the word of God translated into English and in the same way that the 1982 NKJV is the word of God translated into English.

 

Where does the Holy Spirit state that He directed or guided nearly a third of American believers to read the KJV?

Does your question in effect attempt to put words in the mouth of the Holy Spirit that are not stated in the Scriptures?

Those American believers may read the KJV because it was the translation read by their parents and read in the church they attended. Thus, the reason that they read the KJV may be tradition whether family tradition or church tradition or both.

 

KJV-only advocates do appeal to John 16:13, but they do not show that their use of the verse to support their human KJV-only reasoning is correct. Do they interpret the verse soundly in the light of its context and in the context of the overall teachings of Scripture?

Do the Scriptures actually teach that the Holy Spirit will guide all believers to be omniscient or all-knowing in all truth about all subjects so that every believer can claim to be an infallible "pope" under the guiding of the Spirit?

 

Some KJV-only advocates appeal to John 16:13 in their seeming attempt to suggest that the guiding of the Holy Spirit into all truth would have to make the Church of England makers of the KJV in effect perfect, infallible, or omniscient in all their textual criticism decisions and translation decisions in the KJV.

The Holy Spirit of truth can and will guide believers, but the Scriptures do not reach that that guiding makes believers infallible popes whose understanding, interpretation, or translating of the Scriptures cannot be incorrect. The guiding of the Holy Spirit would not be only for one exclusive group of Church of England scholars in 1611.

 

A clear definition and understanding of what constitutes a Bible translation could support the view of the KJV translators that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages remain the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations.

 

The very word translation by definition, when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language, would require its need of a source or sources from which to be translated and on which it is therefore dependent. By reason of its proper, exact definition concerning what constitutes its being a translation, it is unequivocally or univocally termed a “translation.“ Of what is it a translation? A translation is univocally a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from an original language source into a different language. What is more essential to the being, state, or constitution of a translation than having source or sources from which it was translated and derived? A Bible translation cannot be something other than what it is.

By definition and by the laws of causality and of non-contradiction, a Bible translation would be in a different state, classification, category, or order of thing or being than untranslated original language texts of Scripture. A proper definition of a term would include the whole category or class of things which it seeks to define and would exclude what does not properly come under that term or name. Edward Carnell asserted: “For it is impossible to relate two different orders of being by the same terms with exactly the same meaning to each” (Introduction to Christian Apologetics, p. 145). It should be clear that a Bible translation does not belong in the same category or classification as untranslated original language texts of Scriptures. A correct analytic statement would be true by virtue of the accurate meanings of its terms alone.

A translation remains what it actually or truly is. Whatever is essential to its constitution as a translation is essential to it. By definition, a translation would not be the translation of nothing. By definition, a Bible translation is not the source or cause of itself. A translation cannot create itself. There could not be a translation without a source or sources from which it is translated, to which it is related, and to which it may be compared and evaluated for accuracy. A translation without any underlying texts or sources to which it is related by being translated from them would not by definition be a translation. Likewise, a translation cannot be an exact or identical duplicate of its source or sources; otherwise, by definition it would not be a translation but would instead be an identical copy or duplicate.

A translation is not free from all causes and independent of all sources and authorities. By definition, a translation is of necessity translated from and based on something in another language or languages. Translation would be a relative term since it is connected with another object. The source of a translation would be one of its essential causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation into another language could be made from it. Therefore, the correct use and true sense of the term translation indicate that a translation is an effect or consequence that presupposes a cause or causes on which it is dependent.

Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources or causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Reasoning that would attempt to reverse cause and effect would be erroneous. Can the antecedent be denied and the consequent affirmed? According to the laws of causality, of good and necessary consequence, and of non-contradiction, the original language texts of Scripture cannot be and not be the authority, cause, source, and foundation for a translation at the same time and in the same respect. In his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon observed: “There is no possibility of the effect being higher and better than the cause” (p. 44). Reformer Francis Turretin asserted: “That which has a fallible foundation cannot be infallible because the effect cannot be greater in every respect than its cause” (Institutes, I, p. 39). According to the law of causality, a translation that has a beginning has a cause. A cause would need to be first in time, order, and authority over its effect. The necessity of a translation being dependent or being an effect or consequence indicates that it derives or acquires its authority from a greater authority than itself [its textual sources]. A translation that is not direct revelation from God or is not directly given by inspiration of God is not independent and underived since that translation depends on the greater authority of its antecedent underlying texts for its derived or secondary authority.