It is undeniably true that God's preserved Word in the original languages must govern the translation since the translation cannot govern what it was translated from. The very word "translation" by definition when used to refer to something that is translated from one language into another language indicates its need of a source or sources from which to be translated. By reason of this definition concerning what constitutes it, it is unequivocally termed a “translation.“ Of what is it a translation? A translation is a translation as a necessary consequence of its being translated from another language source. What is more essential to the being or constitution of a translation than the source or sources from which it was translated? A correct analytic statement is true by virtue of the meanings of its terms alone. It is logically and Scripturally impossible for a translation by men that were not directly inspired by God to be the ultimate authority beyond which there is no other. A translation cannot be an exact duplicate of the originals; otherwise, by definition it is not a translation. By definition, a translation cannot be the translation of nothing. A translation without any underlying texts or sources from which to be translated would not by definition be a translation. 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. The source of a translation would be one of its causes since it would be necessary for the source to exist before a translation 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. Since a translation is an effect, it cannot be the rule or authority greater than its sources and causes. Can an effect surpass the authority of its cause? Can the antecedent be denied and the consequent affirmed? The original language texts cannot be and not be the authority, cause, and foundation for a translation at the same time. In his commentary on Matthew, Charles Spurgeon observed: “There is no possibility of the effect being higher and better than the cause” (p. 44). 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). 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. A translation that is not direct revelation from God is not independent and underived since that translation depends on its antecedent underlying texts for its authority.
By definition, the final or ultimate authority is independent of and above all other authorities. By definition, the final authority is the first and foremost authority, before and above all others and beyond which there is no other. The final authority has primacy, pre-eminence, predominance, and power over all other authorities. The final authority existed before 1611. The final authority is not dependent on anything else for its text and authority. The true ramifications of a proper definition of final authority and of a translation conflict with the KJV-only claim that a translation in 1611 can be the final authority. The translation cannot give power, authority, credence, or inspiration to its underlying sources or texts. The inherent nature and qualities of a translation after A. D. 100 cannot be greater than the inherent nature of the texts from which it was translated or the earlier translations of which it was a revision. If an inherent quality is supposedly absent from the underlying original language texts, how can it be present in a translation of those texts? The underlying texts or sources must have greater authority than the translation since that translation is derived from those texts and acquires its authority from them. A translation must be built on its foundation [the texts from which it was translated] and should not be separated from it. A translation rests on the foundation of its underlying texts, and not the foundation on the translation. The words of a translation built on and made from the preserved Scriptures in the original languages is not more fixed and solid than their underlying foundation. A translation may be and should be representative of its underlying texts, but it cannot have greater authority than them or be superior to them. By virtue of its origin as a translation by men that were not directly inspired of God and that did not receive direct revelation or Scriptures by direct inspiration, it is clear that such a translation cannot be correctly regarded to be the final authority beyond which there is no other. By the proper standard of the greater authority of the original language words, the derived authority of a translation will be justified. From the rules or laws of good and necessary consequence and of non-contradiction and from the correct and true sense of the terms “translation” and “final authority,“ it can be correctly deduced that a translation is not the final authority beyond which there is no other. Translations of something must all alike be compared to that something.
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 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 was 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?
