KJVO

The main difference being to them that the end product was inspired to same extent as the originals ones were by God!

 

he is right though, as many of the most ardent supporters do see that God made sure that the Kjv was perfect translation, as he inspired their team to produce that product!

 

Perhaps, but I'm interested to know who on this board believes in the 'double inspiration' of the KJV.
So come on, all you double inspirationists! Out of the closet with you! Admit to your guilty secret.

Or perhaps there actually isn't anybody and it is a straw man after all.

 

OK. Any Ruckmanites on the BB? No? Thought not. In fact every KJV poster on this thread has been at pains to distance himself from Ruckman and Riplinger (see the O.P.), but others (not just you) keep bringing them up. Why not start a new thread about those two people instead of introducing them in a post where the original poster has specifically denied being a supporter of them?

 

I think there needs to be a distinction here. Most KJVOs that I know do not believe that the translators of the AV were inspired as were the original authors. That would equal double inspiration. We do, however, believe that the end product, when accurately translated, are as inspired as the words originally written down. They are the same words - why would they lose their inspiration?

 

May I ask you to clarify, please? Are you suggesting that the KJV translation is without error? That seems to be the implication of your post. If so, then it appears I owe @JonC an apology as that would seem to be double inspiration in effect.

 

I would not mind at all to clarify. First, would you mind explaining what is your idea of "double inspiration"? It would help to know that I am not trying to defend a misconception.

 

That same theory should hold for modern versions than, as their Greek text also has "inspiration" upon them! The problem is that ONLY the originals were inspired, not the Tr/Mt/Ct!

 

His take on the Kjv perfectly reflects the inspired greek text into English, so it too must also be inspired cannot account for though that NO Greek text sourced used today has inspiration, as only the originals had that, and that the Kjv is not a perfect word for word translation of the TR, as there is no translation 100 % Greek word to English word

 

Some KJVO would though indeed hold that the Kjv team had same inspiration on them to translate into English as the Apostles did, while others hold to the Kjv being perfect word for word of inspired texts, thus also inspired.
Both viewpoints would be incorrect!

 

May I start by stressing that I am most decidedly not KJV only, or even KJV preferred I am, however, sympathetic to the Byzantine Text which is a lot nearer to the KJV and NKJV than it is most other modern versions. My version of choice is the NKJV.

There are two organizations that promote the KJV ( or A.V.) in Britain, the Bible League Trust Bible League Trust | Promoting Scripture and the Trinitarian Bible Society Trinitarian Bible Society I know personally some of the people involved in these two organizations, and they are fine Christians, powerful preachers and sound expositors of the Bible. They do, however, have a bee in their collective bonnets about the KJV. The position of the TBS on the KJV may be seen here: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles.../The-Excellence-of-the-Authorised-Version.pdf

The Bible League published a book a few years back called Three Modern Versions by a Baptist pastor called Alan Macgregor. It is a critical assessment of the NIV (1984), the ESV and the NKJV. Needless to say, he finds all three versions wanting and inferior to the KJV. However, in his final chapter, he writes:

'Now the question on many lips might be, "Are you suggesting that the A.V. is perfect and needs no alterations?" The answer is no. Neither I, nor the council of the Bible League hold to the view that the A.V. needs no emendation. The A.V. translators themselves recognized the danger of such thinking.........
The Bible League recognizes the occasional need for what the 1611 translators called, "the opening and clearing of the Word of God," by way of minimal revision. That is to say, a revision that does not essentialy alter the original texts which the A.V. translates, nor destroy anything of the A.V.'s essential character. However, the idea that the A.V. must never be emended has no sound basis. The simple facts of history do not support it.
there were initially some careless printing errors. The 1611 edition...had 'then cometh Judas' in Matthew 26:36, which should have been 'Then cometh Jesus.' The second edition, by 'dittography' repeated twenty words of Exodus 14:10. Later printings, while correcting errors, also introduced others. For example the 1611 edition correctly translated Matt. 23:24 as "strain out a gnat:" a later printing changed this to "strain at a gnat" and this error has continued uncorrected................
I repeat, I am not against a mild and sympathetic revision, such as was carried out by Blayney. There are words, for example, like "publick," "heretick" and musick" where the spelling could easily be updated.. There are also certain words such as "bishoprick" which could be changed......................
Even as the A.V. now stands, we believe it is by far the safest and most accurate translation of the Scriptures available to us.'

This, I think, is KJVO#1 on the scale of KJV onlyism. May I ask if it is in line with the views of the KJV onlyists on the BB?

 

The biggest problem with the KJVO position is that there is NO textual criticism other than theirs that allows for that position, as at best one could be is a certain greel text preferred and English translation, but not only position!

 

My understanding would be that if a translation is deemed to be "without fault," then it must have been inspired by God and therefore double inspiration is in play.
I am not asking whether you believe the KJV is the word of God. I agree with the translators that " the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession....containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (though the translators had yet to encounter 'Gender neutral versions!). I am asking if you believe it is somehow beyond improvement.

 

Does one or more translations restrict or constrict the effectual work of the Holy Spirit convicting lost sinners of their need to repent and accept Jesus Christ as their savior more than another? If so, identify the one/s that inhibit God's purpose and fight against it/those. If any translations are identified as such, other board members will take issue and quibble.

 

I believe that many translations are the English word of God to us for today, but not due to any of them being perfect translation off a perfect source text!

 

"Without fault" compared to what document and by whom? I have no reason to think that the translators of the original KJV had any motive but to provide the most truthful translation/interpretation they possibly could. If factual evidence exists proving otherwise, please provide it.